Year: 2010

ISTANBUL – Anatolia News Agency

Two recent exhibitions on Istanbul’s Armenian and Greek architects have caused a debate among experts on Ottoman architecture. While some say there is an attempt to show that Istanbul’s recent architectural heritage belongs to Armenians and Greeks only, others think that such a prejudiced approach goes against academic objectivity

Selman Can has studied Ottoman architecture extensively.

Turkish architects have been ignored in architectural exhibits opened as part of the 2010 European Capital of Culture, and curators have tried to show that Istanbul’s architectural heritage solely belongs to Armenians and Greeks, according to an art historian.

“There are attempts to show Istanbul’s architectural heritage is merely the preserve of Armenians and Greeks. There are already many events on the same issue,” said Atatürk University Fine Arts Faculty member Associate Professor Selman Can, who researches Ottoman architecture and art and is due to soon publish a book on the issue. “Isn’t there any structure built by Turks in the city? I want the supporters of these exhibition projects to ask themselves this question.”

Can made the comments in response to two exhibitions about Istanbul’s Greek and Armenian architects that recently opened as part of the Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture events.

Speaking to the Anatolia news agency, Can said he had spent years sifting through the thousands of archive documents regarding Ottoman architecture. He said because few Turkish art historians can speak or read Ottoman Turkish, very few of the documents have been evaluated.

He said one of the exhibitions recently opened as part of the Istanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture events, titled “Armenian Architects of Istanbul in the Era of Westernization” that features 100 photos of buildings reportedly built by 40 Armenian architects, who lived in Istanbul at the end of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.

Can said the archive documents showed that the real architects of the structures, most of which are claimed to belong to the Balyan family, were different.

“A similar exhibition titled ‘Greek Architects of Istanbul in the Era of Westernization’ was opened for Greeks,” Can said. “Why is the third step of these projects not Istanbul’s Turkish architects?”

Arguing that the exhibitions did not show the truth, Can said the most radical change in the 19th century in Ottoman architecture was that construction projects were put up for tender.

“In this period, Armenians and Greeks won a big part of these tenders because they had financial power. Particularly, the Balyan family carried out a contracting business for three generations. The Balyans owned the first official construction company in the era worth more than 1 million Ottoman gold coins.”

Can said the Balyans were the biggest contractor family at the end of 19th century and most of their projects were built in collaboration with different architects.

Touching on the Armenians, Can said: “By exaggerating their works, they succeeded in promoting their community very well. They had international support and architecture was used as a tool to form an identity and a nation.”

Imperial architecture

Art Historian Süleyman Faruk Göncüoğlu said the structures built at the turn of the last century were in the empire’s style of architecture at the time.

Ottoman architecture was a reflection of the civilization, he said, adding that the last civilization in the world was the Ottomans and that all those following it were merely cultural hegemonies.

He said Istanbul architecture included many structures built under the coordination of Seyyit İsmail Zühtü Altunizade.

“Most of the buildings claimed to be built by Armenian architects were built under the coordination of Altunizade. When we look at 19th century Ottoman structures, the Düyunu-i Umumiye [Istanbul Men’s School], Haydarpaşa Hospital, Şişli Etfal Hospital, Cibali Tekel Building [currently Kadir Has University] are all from the Sultan Abdülhamit II period,” Göncüoğlu said.

“I agree with [Can] because he expresses his ideas about archival documents,” he said.

He said such exhibitions showed the richness of Turkish architecture but should not be limited to a certain community. “This is to deny the architectural understanding of the Ottoman civilization and will cause unnecessary debates,” Göncüoğlu said.

Archive documents should be primary source

Marmara University Faculty of Literature member Professor Selçuk Mülayim said some members of the Balyan family were contractors and others were master builders.

“Some did not have an architectural education. Archive documents should be based on this issue. The architectural style of a structure is not important; they all reflect Ottoman identity. But art historians search for the architecture of a building. As a result, all of the 19th century buildings show us the Ottoman identity,” he said.

Speaking about the debates, Mimar Sinan University Architectural Restoration Department member Professor Suphi Saatçi said regardless of their identity, Balyans or others, all of those architects served the same empire.

“The Balyans were not the architects; they were contractors. Regardless, they served on this land as Ottoman citizens,” Saatçi said, adding that such debates were not dangerous. “Discussing whether the Balyans were real architects or not is not a problem. A scientific debate is always useful.”

A prejudiced approach

Bosphorus University History Department member Associate Professor Ahmet Ersoy said it would be prejudiced to attempt to exclude Ottoman Greeks and Armenians from the heritage of Ottoman architecture and culture. He said such an approach would go against academic objectivity.

“No one can deny that Greeks and Armenians had a central role in the Ottoman construction sector. The Balyans were the most effective and productive family as contractors and investors in this field. The main problem is how the archives are used. Raw information in an archive can be manipulated by prejudiced researchers,” he said.

Real architects according to archives

A number of buildings that have been attributed to the Armenian Balyan family actually belong to others, according to Atatürk University Fine Arts Faculty member Associate Professor Selman Can, who studies the issue.

– The Sultan Mahmut II Tomb does not belong to Garabed Balyan, but to engineer Abdülhalim Efendi.

– The Bayezit Fire Tower, Rami Barracks and Ortaköy Mosque do not belong to Senekerim Balyan, Kirkor Balyan and Nikoğos Balyan, but to Seyyit Abdülhalim Efendi.

– The Mecidiye Barracks (Taşkışla) and Harbiye Military Museum do not belong to Serkis Balyan, but to British architect William James Smith.

– The Yıldız Hamidiye Mosque does not belong to Serkis Balyan, but to the Greek Nikolaki Kalfa.

– The Sarayburnu storehouses do not belong to Simon Balyan, but to German August Jasmund.

– The Baltalimanı Palace (Büyük Reşit Paşa Palace) does not belong to Sarkis Balyan, but to Italian Gaspare Fossati.