PoliticalExcavationsoftheAnatolianPast
NationalismandArchaeologyinTurkey1
InMay2004,whenthemovieTroymadeitsdebutinTurkishtheaters,peopleflockedtosee
thismuch‐hypedAmericanblockbusterdepictingeventsthattookplaceintheircountrythousands
ofyearsago.OnMay16th,shortlyafterthedebut,aneditorialpublishedinoneofthenationally
distributednewspapers,Radikal2,attractedpublicattentionwithitsprovocativetitle,“Werethe
TrojansTurks?”
Theauthorofthecolumn,HalukŞahin3,hadbeenwritingonTroyforquitesometime,but
thisparticulareditorialandthesimilarothershewrotethroughoutMayandJune2004generated
muchinterestandcrownedanongoingdebateamongsomeintellectualsandcolumnistsaboutthe
meaningoftheTrojanWarandthesignificanceoftheancientcityinmodernTurkishhistoryand
identity.Intheweeksthatfollowed,expandedversionsofŞahin’sarticlesonTroyandTurkish
historyappearedinMilliyet4,oneofthemostwidelyreadnewspapersinTurkey,intheformofa
whole‐pageeditorialseries.UtilizingtheissuesofthediscussiongeneratedbyŞahin’scolumn,a
televiseddebatequicklyfollowedsuitonTV8aboutthemovieTroyanditspossiblereadingsfrom
1IthankFatmaMügeGöçek,GottfriedHagen,andAslıIğsızfortheirinsightfulcommentsontheearlier
versionsofthisarticle.
2Radikalisahighbrownewspaperestablishedin1996,targetingliberal,educated,andurbanreaders(Bali
2002:216‐218).Asthenamesuggests,thenewspaperhasaclaimforandapublicimageofbeing‘different’
fromthemainstreamTurkishmedia,yetitisthepropertyofthesameconglomerate,DoğanGroup—
analogoustoMurdoch’sMediaEmpireonanationalscale—thatownsmanynewspapers,TVstations,anda
majormediadistributioncompanyinTurkey.Radikalhasoneofthehighestonlinecirculationrate,yetitsells
ontheaverage45.000hardcopieseveryday.ThebestsellingnewspaperinTurkey,Zaman,sells
approximately750.000copiesdaily[Source:DPP(DoğanDağıtım)andMDP(MerkezDağıtım),2008].
3HalukŞahinisacolumnistandprofessorofcommunicationsandjournalismattheDepartmentof
Communication,BilgiUniversity.
4 “Truvalılar Türk müydü?” 1‐4, Milliyet, 30 May – 2 June 2004. Milliyet is a long‐established mainstream
newspaper,withacirculationof250.000‐300.000copiesdaily[Source:DPPandMDP2008].Itisownedby
theDoğanConglomerate,too.
1
theperspectiveofTurkishnationalidentity,politics,andculture.5Manyreaderscommentedon
Şahin’scolumnsonRadikal’sandMilliyet’sWebsites,andsomeofŞahin’scolleaguesengagedina
dialoguewithhimregardinghisprovocativequestion.Inamatterofthreeweeksalmostallmajor
newspapersdevotedcolumnstosomeaspectoftheissueorcoveredeventsrevolvingaroundthe
reactionstothemovie.Eventually,ŞahinturnedallofhisrecenteditorialsonTroyalongwithhis
previouswritingsonAegeanarchaeology,history,andcultureintoabooktitled“WeretheTrojans
Turks?ThePast,Present,andFutureofaMythos”(2004)6.
TheprovocativequestionofwhetherthereisaconnectionbetweenTurksandTrojansis
hardlyanewone.ItwasfirstsparkedinmedievalEuropebythediscussionsonthefateofthe
TrojanswhoweresparedtheAchaeanswordandtowhomRomanCatholicstracedtheirancestry.
RelyingonargumentsdevelopedbyhistoriansandarthistorianssuchasJeanPoucet(2003),
StefanosYerasimos(2003),andJamesHarper(2002)7,Şahinemphasizesinhisbookthatthe
significanceofthisquestionliesinthefactthatitwasposedtomarkthepoliticalandsymbolic
boundariesofEuropeeithertoallyitwithortoisolateitfromtherealmoftheTurks.AsHarper
(2005)demonstratesforexample,themedievalfoundationalmythspriortothefifteenthcentury
contendedthattheleaderofabandofTrojans,Turkus/Torquatus,wastheancestoroftheTurks.It
5Theprogram,presentedbyHalukŞahinhimself,wascalled“DeepNews”anditwasbroadcastedonMay26,
2004.TheguestswereCevatÇapan,thepoet,translator,andProfessorofEnglishLanguageandLiteratureat
YeditepeUniversity,andFahriIşık,ProfessorofArchaeologyatAkdenizUniversity.
6Şahin’squestionsandideasonthesiteTroy’ssignificanceintermsofTurkishidentityfoundreverberations
inothernewspapersonewayoranotherandstartedapublicdialogue,particularlyafterheopenedthename
ofthesiteinTurkishtodebatewithhiseditorial“TruvamiTroyami?”(TruvaorTroya?)inRadikal,onMarch
7,2004.SomeexamplesthatwerepartofthisdialoguewerearticlesbyTuncayYılmazerinZaman,13June
2004,MehtapYılmazGürinZaman,6June2004,NevvalSevindiinZaman,1June2004,HıncalUluçSabah,28
May 2004 and 4 June 2004. Even before Şahin’s serial on Troy was published, some columnists started to
question the place of Troy and the myths surrounding it in relation to Turkish history. See for example
MustafaArmağan,“TruvaAtınaHâlâInanıyormusunuz?”(DoYouStillBelieveintheTrojanHorse?)Zaman,4
April2004.
7OneofŞahin’smajorreferences,JamesHarper’sarticle,“RomeversusIstanbul:CompetingClaimsandthe
MoralValueofTrojanHeritage”wasapaperpresentedattheTroyintheRenaissanceImaginationConference
organizedbyTheCentreforReformationandRenaissanceStudies,UniversityofToronto,4‐5October2002.
SinceHarper’sarticlewasnotpublishedaspartofthevolumethatcameoutoftheconferenceproceedings
(Powell and Shepard 2004), I presume Şahin had access to the conference paper. Harper’s paper was later
published as a chapter in another edited volume (Kabir and Williams 2005). My subsequent references to
Harper’sargumentsarebasedonthebookversion.
2
wasbelievedthatheledhispeopletosafetyintheAnatolianheartland,wherehisdescendants
livedformanycenturies.InmedievalEurope,thismythservedasadiscursiverepertoire,awayof
talkingaboutthePapalpositionvis‐à‐vistheTurks.Thisway,theOttomanexpansiontowardthe
Westwasmadetobefitintoapre‐establishedorder,inwhichthedescendantsoftheTrojanswere
comingbacktoreclaimtheirrightfulheritage.TheCatholicsdrewuponthisrepertoiretosignifya
solidaristicattitudetowardtheTurkswhiletheywereatwarwiththeByzantines,“thedecadent
Greeks”(Harper2005:156‐57).However,whentheTurkishthreatsfinallyreachedfartherinto
Europe,theincreasinghostilityandpoliticalstrifebetweenRomeandConstantinopleresultedina
deepdiscursivemoveofidentitydifferentiation.Fromthatmomenton,Renaissancepopesand
scholarsdevotedmuchenergytodisassociateTurksfromtheTrojansanddivorcethestoryof
TurkishdominanceinByzantinelandsfromthestoryofAeneas’sflightfromtheburningTroyand
hissubsequentfoundationofRome.Thus,bythesixteenthcentury,cametheendofthenarratives
thatfindacommonoriginandancestryforCatholicEuropeansandMuslimTurks(Harper
2005:173).
StefanosYerasimostracestheassociationsofTrojanswithTurksbothinthemedieval
EuropeanrepresentationsandintheOttomanhistoricalnarratives(2003).AftermentioningSultan
MehmettheConqueror’sinterestinHomer’sworks,Yerasimosreferstothefifteenth‐century
palacehistorian,Kritovulos,whoquotedthesultansaying“IhaveavengedHector!”uponhis
conquestofConstantinople8.Relyingonthesesources,ŞahinrevivesSultanMehmet’sapocryphal
wordsandconnectsthemwithanotherapocryphalquotationattributedtoMustafaKemal,the
founderoftheRepublic,whoalsofoughtinGallipoliagainsttheAllies.TheTurks’victoryagainst
theFrenchandBritishfleetinDardanelles,accordingtothisassociation,was‘yetanother’instance
ofthe‘Asians’avengingtheTrojanWaranddefendingtheselandsagainsttheoffensive
8ForanEnglishtranslationofKritovulos’work,seeCharlesT.Riggs’translation(1962).Thefamousquoteis
onpage181‐182.
3
‘Westerners.’9Whilegrantingthatbothofthesequotesareapocryphal,Şahindoesnothesitateto
suggestthatthehistoricalfigureslikeMustafaKemalandMehmetIImightjustaswellhavesaid
thembecausethestatementsfitthecontextoftheirutterancesperfectly.InGallipoliforexample,
Şahinremindsus,oneoftheinvadingBritishbattleshipswascalledAgamemnonandthefactthat
Turkishforcesmanagedtosinkthisstate‐of‐the‐artbattleshipwasoneoftheturningpointsinthe
battle.
AttheWebsitesofthenewspapers,readerspostedmanycommentsonŞahin’seditorials
andreactedtoeachother’sresponses.Şahinmentionsintheepiloguetohisbookthatinadditionto
theseresponseshereceivedmanylettersfromhisreaders.ThroughananalysisoftheWebsite
postingsandthereaderresponsesŞahinmentionsinhisepilogue,wecanidentifyfourdiscernible
publicnarrativesthatreadershavedrawnuponconnectingAnatolianpastwithnationalidentity.
Thesepublicnarratives,someofwhichwillbedelineatedandexploredfurtherinthisarticle,
informthewayreadersinterpretedŞahin’sstatements,themovieaswellasthearchaeologicalsite
Troy,andthearchaeologicalpracticesinTurkeyingeneral.
OnegroupofreadersreadŞahin’snarrativeasapieceof“actualproof”forTurksbeingof
Trojansdescent.ThesereadersbelieveaTurkicracialcontinuityinAsiaMinorthroughouttheages
iswhatŞahinsetouttoprove.AnothergroupjoinsthefirstinreadingŞahin’sargumentasaclaim
forethniccontinuity,howevervehementlyopposetothisassociationandblameŞahinfor
resurrectingtheracisthistoricalnarrativesoftheearlytwentiethcentury10.Anothergroup
9Şahin’ssourceisSabahattinEyüboğlu,awell‐knownwriter,translatorofclassics,artcritic,andoneofthe
firstarchaeologicaldocumentaryfilmproducersofTurkey.Eyüboğluwasamongtheardentadherentsofthe
BlueAnatoliamovement,towhichwewillturninthelaterpartofthisarticle.Eyüboğlu,inhisbookMavive
Kara,relatesthememoriesofacolonelwhoservedwithMustafaKemalintheindependencewar.Thecolonel
claimedthatafterabattleagainstGreeksandtheWesternallies,thefounderoftheRepublicsaid“We
avengedTrojans!”(Eyüboğlu2002:188).
10ŞahinmentionstwoTurkishcitizensofGreekdecentwhoalsoreadhisclaimsasanargumentforaTurkish
ethniccontinuityinAnatolia.TheycriticizedhimseverelyfortryingtoTurkifyHomer,whose‘Greekness’,in
theiropinioncannotbequestioned.Althoughtheircriticalstanceresemblesthatofthesecondgroup,their
interpretationsrelyonanessentialistapproachtoGreekethnicidentity,whichcomprisestheotherextreme
endofthedichotomousGreek‐Turkishnationalisthistorywriting.Inthatsensetheirinterpretationsalso
resembleswiththoseofthefirstgroupwithethnicessentialistviews.
4
applaudsthequalityofresearchbehindtheeditorialandembrace“theforgottenchapter”oftheir
history,whichtheydeemtobeidenticaltothehistoryoftheirland.Dominantassertioninthistype
ofreadingisthattheland,notethnicorracialorigins,constitutesthebasisofhistoricalheritageofa
nation.Finally,accordingtoŞahin’sepilogue,Islamists11havenotshownmuchinterestinthe
debate,sincemostofthemdeemthepre‐IslamichistoryofAsiaMinorassimplyirrelevantto
Turkishhistory.
ThearticlesandtheensuingpublicdebatesdivertedtheeyesofthepeopleinTurkeytothe
archaeologicalsiteTroyforthesummerof2004.12TheMPsoftheJusticeandDevelopmentParty,
theconservativegovernmentcurrentlyinpowerinTurkey,visitedthesiteaspartoftheirparty’s
recreationalprogram;childrenboughtdaytripsfortheirfathersasFather’sDaypresents;schools
hadon‐sitehistorylessons.13InterviewswiththearchaeologistManfredKorfmann,whohadbeen
excavatingthesiteformanyyears,werepublished.14Meetingswereheld,andthestate’sneglectof
thisaspectoftheAnatolianhistorywascriticized.Thefactthatthesectiondisplayingartifactsfrom
TroyattheIstanbulArchaeologyMuseumhadbeenclosedduetolackofresourceswasbroughtto
publicattentionandwasdenounced;callsforamuseumatthesiteweremade.15TheMinistryof
TourismandCulturewasapplaudedforitspromotional,tourism‐advocatingadvertisement
11Şahin’sterm“İslamcıkesimler”canbetranslatedas“Islamistgroups”.Therearemanyconnotationsand
definitionsforthehighlypoliticizedtermslike“Islamist”or“secularist”inTurkeytoday.Theseelusiveterms
arerarelydefinedbytheirusersasthisdichotomyisthoughttobe‘commonsense’particularlyamongpeople
whoshareasimilarhabitus.Theymaysignifyvariousperceptionsrangingfromdeepideologicaldivergences
andrelatedpoliticalcampstoregistersofdifferentlifestyles,tastes,anddailypractices.Iwillbeusingthe
category“Islamist”asanameforthefamilyofresemblancesamongthewritersandreaderswhoexpressan
Islam‐orientedunderstandingofhistoryorformahistoricalnarrativeregardingtheidentitiesofthepeoples
livinginTurkeytodaybyforegroundingtheIslamicelementsandthesupremacyofIslamicculturesandstate
formations.
12BesidesMilliyetandRadikal,othernewspaperswithdifferentideologicalorientationsalsocloselyfollowed
thecontroversies,events,andnewssurroundingthemovie,registeringtheincreasedattentiontothe
archaeologicalsite.SeeSabah,16April2003,25May2004,30May2004,11December2003;Zaman,16April
2004,16May2004,19May2004,29May2004,21June2004;Vakit,17May2004.
13Zaman,30May2004,21June2004;Sabah,10May2004.
14Milliyet,14May2004;Zaman,31March2004,15August2004.
15Radikal,14May2004,19May2004;Sabah,13May2004,14May2004,15May2004.
5
campaigninEuropeanmovietheaterswhereTroywasshown,butitwasalsoheavilycriticizedfor
itslackofstrategytoattractforeignfilmcrewstodocumentthegloriouspastofAnatolia.16
BooksaboutGreekmythology,ancientAnatolianhistory,andarchaeologystartedto
dominatebookstorewindowsduringthiswave.17Oneofthesebooks,CevdetSaraçer’sOsmancık:
TarihselDokuİçindeUnutulanKent(Osmancık:TheCityForgottenintheHistoricalLandscape),
evenstartedaconflictbetweenthemayorsofthetwocities,ÇorumandÇanakkale,abouttheplace
ofAchilles’grave.AccordingtoSaraçer,contrarytocommonbelief,thegravewasnotin
Dardanelles(Çanakkale)butinthetownofOsmancıkwithinthemoderncitybordersofÇorum,at
theheartofcentralAnatolia.Eachcity,declaringthat“theheroisburiedin[its]bosom,”claimed
Achillesasoneoftheirown.WhenÇorumfinallydeclaredBradPitt(Achillesinthemovie)asits
honorarycitizen,Çanakkale’smayorthreatenedtosuethetown.MeanwhileMilliyetreportedon
thedisputewiththeheadline“TheSecondTrojanWar.”18
AtfirstglanceitishardtoseewhatreallyisatstakeinthissecondTrojanwar.Whatkindof
symboliccapitaldothesetwocitiesandthepeoplewhoclaimTroyaspartoftheirnationalidentity
andheritagehopetoaccumulate?Whatkindofsharedrepertoiresofhistoricalnarrativesdosuch
publicdiscoursesmobilizewhenTrojansaredeclaredtobeTurksorwhenMehmetII’sconquestof
IstanbulandthebattlesofGallipoliarealliedwithTrojans’heroisminHomer’sepic?Howdoesthe
contemporarypoliticalcontextinteractwiththereadingsofthemovieinTurkeysothatsuch
readingsfirmlyentangleTroywithTurkeyandTrojanswiththecurrentcitizensofthecountry?
16Zaman25May2004;Radikal18May2004,Sabah9June2004,YükselAytuğinSabah16May2004,Şelale
KadakinSabah21May2004.
17AmongthesebookstheonesleadinginsaleswereHomer’sIliadandOdyssey,EskiYunanTarihi(Ancient
GreekHistory)byOğuzTekin,MitolojiSözlüğü(DictionaryofMythology)byAzraErhat,thetranslationof
LindsayClarke’sbookTheWaratTroy,andthetranslationofClemenceMclaren’sbookInsidetheWallsof
Troy.Besidesthebooksandthemovie,theTroywavemadeitswayevenintotheculinarycirclesthrough
recipesincludedwitharticlesonwhatTrojansusedtoeat.AliEsadGöksel,Sabah,19June2004.
18Afterthecontroversy,when1600copiesofthefirsteditionweresoldout,thesecondeditionofSaraçer’s
book came out (Milliyet 5 June 2004). For further details of the Achilles’ grave controversy see Milliyet 20
Mayand7June2004.Radikalalsoreportedontheincidenton6Juneand7June2004.Forsomecolumnists
who commented on these events, see Hasan Pulur, Milliyet 9 June 2004; Hakan Köksal and Utku Gürtunca,
Sabah10June2004.
6
Understandingthekindofassumptionsbehindthesocialimaginaryfromwhichsuch
narrativeidentificationsbetweenthepastandpresentofTurkeyareestablishedrequiresplacing
the“WeretheTrojansTurks”debateor“theSecondTrojanWar”intoalargerhistoricaland
discursivecontextandexaminingthewaysinwhicharchaeologicalpractices,politicsof
historiography,andthestate’sculturalpolicieshavebeenarticulatedinTurkeysincethelate
nineteenthcentury,alegacythatcontinuestoshapepublicconversationtoday.
Şahin’scolumn,thereactionsitelicitedfromthepublicandtheotherparticipationsinthe
debates are indicative of the larger historical discursive repertoires in circulation in the
contemporaryTurkishnationalpublicsphere.Wheneverarchaeologicalartifactsorsitesfindtheir
way into media or into the lives of Turkish citizens, these discursive repertoires serve like a
cognitive heritage box, from which various phrases, imageries, ideas, arguments, and rhetorical
devices are selectively summoned to make sense out of them. Through this very act of “making
sense” and placing current representations into a larger historical narrative, Turkish citizens
reinterprettheexcavatedpastoftheircountryandrefractitthroughtheprismofthemajorpolitical
issuesonthecurrentagenda.Turkey’sbidfortheEuropeanUnionmembershipisonesuchpolitical
issue:TheEuropeanstipulationsforascensionnecessitateadiscursiveshiftintheself‐definitionof
thenation.Theprocessflamesacollectiveexistentialangstasitputstheextantofficialdiscourse,
upon which the national unity stood for more than a century, to a stress test. Particularly, the
stipulations challenge the mainstream formulations of Turkish identity and the hegemonic
nationalistaccountsofhistoryintwoaspects:theplacerelegatedtotheminoritiesinhistoryand
theincreasinguntenabilityofanethnocentricallydefinedunityinatransnationalworld.Oneofthe
prevalent public responses such issues and tensions generate is the increased currency of the
historical discourses that can offer an alternative to the strained hegemonic narrative. Anatolian
Civilizations Discourse is such a discourse and this chapter aims to document its historical
7
development,meaningagainstthecontemporaryTurkishpoliticalcontext,andcurrentcirculation
mechanisms.
ThePublicEmbodimentsoftheAnatolianCivilizationsDiscourse
InTurkeypracticesofrepresentationthatnationalisticallyterritorializeancientcivilizations
byevokingimagesofarchaeologicalartifactsandsitesemergeinasmanydifferentvisualand
narrativeformsasdanceshows,TVseries,documentaries19,crackercommercials,museum
exhibitions,cityannals,touragencies’brochures,governmentandcommercialWebsites’
organizationallogic.Theseareusuallyidentified,composed,andnarratedunderthecommontitle
of“AnatolianCivilizations”.Theserepresentationalpractices,whichcirculateintheofficial,
commercial,andlocalmediaandinvariousaspectsofeverydaylife,sharecertainassumptions
abouttherelationshipbetweengeography,peoplelivinginTurkey,andtheexcavatedmaterial
cultureofancientcivilizations.Assuchtheycompriseaparticulardiscourseonthewaysinwhich
Turkishnationalidentity,thelandscapeofthecountry,andnationalisthistoricalwritingare
intertwined.AprimordialandterritoriallyakinpeopleofAnatoliaanditscollectiveidentitybrewed
acrossages,whichissupposedtohavereacheditsmostamalgamatedandperfectedconsistencyin
contemporaryTurkishnationiscirculatesinthepublicimagination.Adoptingthewell‐knowntitle,
albeitwithanemphasisonitsdiscursivenature,Icallthisformationofhistoricalnarratives,
rhetoricalgestures,andimageriesthatgenerateandsustaintheterritorializationofthenational
identitytheAnatolianCivilizationsDiscourse(ACD).
19TheanalysisofTVdramasanddocumentariesfalloutsidetheperimetersofthisprojectforthepurposesof
manageability and brevity. However, one can find a preliminary list of the relevant documentaries in Can
Candan’spaperpresentedatthefirstworkshopoftheSocialArchaeologyPlatform(ErdurandDuru2003:
115‐120).ForabriefanalysisofTVdepictionsofarchaeologistsandarchaeologicalsitesinTurkeyseeÇiler
ÇilingiroğluandNecmiKarul’spaperinthesamevolume(93‐96).
8
BeforedescribingmainelementsofACD,however,theubiquitousandpolysemicuseofthe
analytic term discourse in the social sciences and humanities calls for the clarification of its
meaning. Here, discourse is used as public conversations comprised of narratives regarding a
particular set of spaces, issues, groups, and events, which are circulating through various public
media channels and institutions. In and through this process of public dissemination and debate,
theseissues,spaces,groups,andeventsareconstruedas‘subjects’andthebasicassumptionsabout
these subjects get institutionalized and normalized and become a part of what is considered
‘everyday’,‘takenforgranted’and‘commonsense’.Inthisarticle,suchnarrativesandassumptions
pertainingto‘Anatolia’,‘homeland’,and‘Turkishness’areexaminedtoelucidatethewaysinwhich
relationships between the present and the past of ‘Anatolia’, among ‘its’ histories, peoples, and
culturesareconstructedandcirculatethroughpublicnarratives20.Assuch,theintentionistoturn
theanalyticlensnotonlyontheagencyofthereadersandthetellersofthesepublicnarrativesand
their acts of representations regarding archaeology, but also on the capillary nature of the
circulating discourse. Discourse as such is generated and transformed through those very acts of
representation, although its distributive, decentralized, historical, and impersonal nature exerts
poweruponcollectiveconsciousnessand‘commonsense’beyondthepoweroftheindividualsand
thegroupsthathelpgenerateandcirculateit.
TheACDistheproductofthecommunicativenetworksintheTurkishpublicsphere
throughwhichacertainpoliticsofculturegetscrystallized.Throughthediscursiveproductionof
mediarepresentationsacommunityacrossagesthatsharesacommonidentityof“Anatolian‐ness,”
anessenceprimordiallyengravedinthehomeland,isimagined.Theunderlyingassumptionofthe
publicnarrativescomprisingACDisthatcommonexposuretothesamenatureandlandscape
producesessentiallysimilarcultures,allofwhichshareauniqueessencethatunitesthesecultures
20ForamoredetaileddefinitionoftheconceptseeMichelFoucault(1972,PartII:21‐78)andonthe
relationshipbetweendiscourseandcommunicativeactioninthepublicsphereCraigCalhoun(1992:8‐9and
26‐29).Calhoun’stheorizationofthewaysinwhichdiscursivepracticesareconstitutiveofnationscanbe
foundinCriticalSocialTheory(1995:233‐240and249‐253).
9
onalinear,chronological,andcontinuouspathofdevelopment.ThecurrentTurkishstateandthe
nationareconstructedastheinheritorsofthesedimentedwisdomoftheAnatolianCivilizations
thatevolvedfromoneanother.ImaginingacontinuousculturalthreadthattiescitizensofTurkey
tothepeoplewholivedintheirhomelandinthepast,totheir“ancestors,”isanexpressionof
collectiveaffiliationandaffectionwhichIcall“territorialkinship.”21Throughnarrativesof
territorialkinship,thecentralorganizingsignifierofthediscourse‐‐‐Anatolia‐‐‐ceases
representingmerelyageographicalregion,andismergedwiththemostcentralsignifierofmany
nationalistdiscourses:homeland.Throughdiscursivepracticespropagatinganddisseminating
theseassumptions,Anatolia’smeaningisintensified:itcomestosignifysimultaneouslyapolitical
territoryofthesovereignnation‐state,thehomelandofthecitizensofTurkey,andthe
homogeneousnationalculturedefinedbyasharedprimordialessence.Thenameofthelandnot
onlymapsallofthesedimensionsontooneanother,butalsounifiesthemincollectiveimagination,
renderingtheirentanglementunimaginable.
Onewayoflookingatthenation‐stateformandnationalismistoapproachthesesocial
phenomenaas“systemsofrepresentation”andtothinkpredominantlyoftheircommunicative
aspect.22Fromthispointofview,thepublicsphereisseenasaspaceinwhichthemembersofthe
nationalpoliticalcommunitytalktoeachotherbyprovidingthemselvesroutinelywithimagesof
theveryconstitutionoftheirgroupasabodypolitic,the“nation,”whichisadiscursively
constitutedsubject(Calhoun1995:251).Iftheproductionofcitizens’discourseaboutthemselvesis
crucialtonations’existence,inouragesuchself‐talkisapreeminentlymass‐mediateddiscourse.
Thus,discursiveproductionofthenationisnotjustanidealprocesswhereeverymemberofthe
communityhasequalaccessandequivalentpowertosetthetone,thetheme,andtheperspective;
instead,themarkingoutofthenationalculturalterraininapublicdomainismaterially
21Forfurtherinformationontheterritorialkinshipconceptandhowarchaeologicalmuseumvisitorsimagine
themselvesasterritorialkinofthepeoplesoftheAnatoliancivilizations,seeGür(2007).
22StuartHallverysuccinctlydelineatesthisperspectivebasedonapproachingsocialphenomenaas
discursiveformationsandrepresentationalpractices(HallandGieben1992:291‐‐295).
10
underpinnedbyarangeofinstitutions,political,economic,andcommunicative.Theirnarrativesof
historyandidentityarecrucialtothewaysinwhichcertainassumptionsabouthistoricalcontinuity
andculturalhomogeneityseepintopublicdiscourse.
ThechronologicalevolutionismaswellasthemeltingpotnarrativesoftheACD
underscoresavarietyofpublicexpressionsoftheAnatolianpast.Forexample,almostalltheofficial
WebsitesoftheTurkishRepublic(theWebsiteofTurkishForeignAffairs,theMinistryofTourism
andCultureinparticular)organizetheirhistoricalnarrativesaccordingtothisevolutionarylogicof
TurkishhistoryrootedinAsiaMinor23.Theseofficialrepresentationsofnationalidentitythrough
theinterpretationofarchaeologicalsitesarealsoreplicatedintheconstructionoflocalidentities
andhistories.ThelocalgovernmentsofmanycitiesincentralTurkeypublishannalsthatgive
currentinformationaboutthecityanditsenvironment.Theseannalsarepublishedalmostevery
year,financespermitting;andmanyofthemtellthe“10,000‐year‐oldhistory”oftheirowncity.The
formatremainsidenticalregardlessofthelocation.24ThehistorystartswiththePaleolithic,
followedbytheNeolithic,withspecialemphasisonthearchaeologicalsiteswithinthejurisdiction
ofthemunicipality.Thus,acurrentgeopoliticalcategory‐‐‐municipality‐‐‐isconstruedasa10,000‐
year‐oldlocalentity.Forexample,onecentralAnatoliantown,Aksaray,presentsitselfasonesuch
23Asitisoftenthecaseingeographicalsignifyingpractices,‘AsiaMinor’isnotaneutralterm.Itisapolitical
andculturalcategorythatisconstructedthroughoutagesfromaEurocentricpointofview.Howeversinceits
historicalandpoliticalconnotationsarenotrootedjustinonenationalistnarrativeandforthelackofabetter
term,itisdeployedhereastheextantnameofthegeographyuponwhichvariousnationalistnarrativesofthe
19thand20thcenturyarewritten.AdifferentprojectfocusingonthegenealogyofthetermAsiaMinorwould
havetopreferanalternativenametomarkthedifference.
24Inthelasttenyears,Websitesandshortonlinemovieshavebeenreplacingtheseannals.Someexamples
fortheincorporationofpre‐historicalpastintotoday’slocalnarrativesareÇumra’smunicipalwebsitewhere
thetownpresentsitselfas“ThetownofÇatalhöyük”andAğlasun’smunicipalwebsitewhereSagalassos
occupiesaspecialplace.Moreresearchisneededonthemediaconstructionsoflocalidentitiesby
municipalities,governoratesandprovincialuniversitiesemployingnarrativesthatincorporatearchaeological
practices,howsuchincorporationschangeovertime,andinwhatwayssuchrepresentationalchanges
correlatewiththepoliticsofculturepropagatedbythepartiesinpowerinTurkey.Foroneofsuchrare
ethnographiesonhowlocalidentityconstructionbysuchgovernmentalactorsisinfluencedbythepractices
ofanearbyarchaeologicalsite,seeBartu(2007).Thepagesontheinteractionofthevillagersandthemayors
withthesite(77‐84)areparticularlyrelevanttomydiscussionhere.Recentlysimilarobservationshavebeen
madebyparticipantsintheexcavationsinAttoudaandSagalassosregardingtherelationshipbetweenthe
villagersofSarayköyandAğlasunwiththeexcavationsitesneartheirtowns(ErdurandDuru2003:43and
82).
11
ancientAnatoliancity.Afterasalvageexcavationin1989hadrekindledtheattentionpaidtoAşıklı
Höyük,theoldestsettlementnearAksaray,Aşıklıtookitsplaceintheproudchronologicalnarrative
ofthecityannalsastheoriginalAksaraythefollowingyear;andthedenizenswereinvitedto
cherishtheheritageoftheirhöyük.
There are many ways in which Anatolian Civilizations Discourse is crystallized in public
images and narratives. Even in a cracker commercial for example, tenets of ACD, particularly
territorialkinship,constitutethebackboneoftheapproachtohistory.Inthecrackercommercialby
Eti, a big and long standing food production company, a group of primary school students are
visiting the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. The teacher is telling them about the history of
AnatolianCivilizationsingeneral,Lydiansinparticular.Sheemphasizesthatmany‘firsts’ofhuman
history took place in Anatolia, in ‘our land’, and spread to the world from there. She specifically
mentionstheLydiansandtheirinventionofthecoins.Inthemeantime,camerafocusesononeof
her students looking around, examining the statues. He is carrying an Eti cracker on the outer
pocketofhisbackpack.Heisoblivioustothefactthatstatuesinthehallcomealiveashepassesby
them and are following him with their eyes. They are interested in the cracker he is carrying,
looking at it desirously.As the teacher goes on and on, theirimpatience grows. Finally, not being
able to bear it any longer, one of the Lydian statues becomes fully animated, smoothly pulls the
cracker out of the students backpack, and gently leaves a Lydian coin in the boy’s pocket. The
commercial ends with a slogan introducing the latest seductive addition to the “Eti Flavor
Civilization”.
By suggesting that its products are yet another contribution in the long chain of the
discoveries and innovations Anatolian Civilizations introduced to the world, the company, Eti,
presentsitselfaspartofanationalandcivilizationalsaga.Itisnocoincidencethatthecompany,Eti
is relying on such a discursive repertoire. It was one of the institutions of the Turkish Republic
named after the Hittites. The company still sports, as its emblem, the Hattian ceremonial object
12
popularlyknownasthe‘sun‐disc’25.Eti,aTurkishnounfor‘theHittite’,wasapopularnameforthe
burgeoningnewcompaniesoftheRepublic,theproudsymbolsofnationalproduction.Thepublic
imageofthecompanycontinuestodrawuponthisheritage,contributingtotheculturalrepertoire
ofACD.
Another example of a public representation, into which the historical assumption of
territorialkinshipandothermotifs,images,andnarrativesfromACDareincorporatedandputinto
publiccirculation,isadanceshowcalledtheSultansofDancethatdebutedin2001.Thefirstshow
the company staged with the same title gained tremendous and unprecedented popularity in
Turkey in the summer of 2001, attracting thousands of people. The entire summer program was
soldoutinamatterofweeks,andeversincetheshowsofthecompany,eachoneavariationofthe
initial show’s theme, generated commercial success.26 The show in essence is a modern
interpretationofTurkishfolkdancesfromvariousregionsofthecountrycollagedintoanarrative
of Anatolian‐ness throughout the ages. The choreography is comprised of classical ballet and
contemporary dance movements mixed with various regional folk dance repertoires. The
background is a giant screen on which the images of the archaeological sites and artifacts are
projectedandblendedwiththecomputergeneratedaudiovisualeffects.Althoughtheshowfailedto
receivetheesteemoftheartcriticsandmostoftenwascalled“kitsch,”theoverallmediaresponse
wasmostlyfavorable,describingtheshowasa“nationalsuccess,”aperfect“synthesisofEastand
West,”“ofmodernandtraditional.”
SultansofDanceprojectsanimageofAnatoliansynthesis.Thedisparatetimes,events,and
spaceswithintheterritoriesofTurkeyareunitedbyemployingvariousarchaeologicalsitesand
artifactstosymbolizeaculturalbricolage,abricolageinterpretedasasynthesisthatresolvesthe
25ForthevariouscontextsinwhichthebronzeceremonialobjectexcavatedinAlacahöyükcometosignify
popularculturalimageries,itspolitizationandthemisconceptionssurroundingit,seeWendyKuralShaw
(2003:33‐41).
26In2005theshowtouredtheworldundertheauspicesoftheMinistryofCultureinordertointroduceand
popularizeTurkishculture.
13
contradictionsoftoday’sTurkishsocietyexpressedthroughbinariessuchasWest‐East,traditional‐
modern,Islamic‐secular,urban‐rural,Kurdish‐Turkish.Thenarrationsoftheshowinthebooklets
appealedtoasharedAnatolian‐nessandtheancientAnatoliancivilizationsasthesourceofthis
harmonyandculturalsynthesis.SultansofDanceisoneofthemostsensationalembodimentsofthe
ACD‐‐‐thenarrativeofa“Turkifiedmeltingpot”.Theemotionaloutburstitevokedandthepublic
attentionandapprovalitcontinuestoreceivefromaudiencesattesttothepervasivenessofthe
historiographicaloperationtakingplaceinthepublicimaginarythatassociatesAnatolian
civilizationswithTurkishnationalunityandreproducesaunifiedculturalessenceoutofthe
diversehistoricalpathsandculturalformationsinAsiaMinor.
AlthoughtheACDisaculturaldiscourseandassuchcanbethoughttobelessessentializing
thanracializedversionsofnationalidentityconstructions,itstillpreservesthenotionofan
“essence”‐‐‐thenotionofanimmutableyettransferableuniqueness.Itrendersthenationtimeless
throughterritorialkinshipandterritorializestheculture,confiningittothenation‐state’s
geopoliticalborders.ArchaeologicalfindingsthatarefrequentlyincorporatedintotheTurkish
mediaandeverydaylifeinTurkeyareverymuchcoloredbynationalisticinterpretations.Itishard
foraTurkishcitizeninthestreettothinkortalkabouttheserepresentationswithoutresortingto
thenationalistunderpinningsoftheconceptualrepertoireoftheACD.Thereforedelineatingthe
historicaldevelopmentofthecollectiveassumptionsandnarrativescomprisingACDiskeytothe
cognitivemapofthenationalmediaandtheconceptuallandscapeofthenationalpublicsphere,the
twomajorforcesmediatinghowcitizensread,envision,andtalkaboutarchaeology,archaeologists,
thesitesandtheexcavatedartifactsinTurkeytoday.
TheMutuallyTransformativeInfluenceofArchaeologicalPracticesandNationalism
Archaeologicalexcavationsandexhibitionsofarchaeologicalartifactsarekeypracticesinthe
spatiotemporalconstructionandrepresentationofthenation.Whatdistinguishesanationfrom
14
otherformsofcommunityisthatitimaginesitsidentityastiedtoaterritoryandhomogeneous
withinnationalborders.Consequently,thehistoricizingofthetiesimaginedbetweentheterritory
andthehumancollectivelivingonitconstitutesthecoreofnation‐buildingprojectsandacrucial
aspectofthenation‐state’sculturalpolitics.Archaeology,becauseofitsintegralrelationtoboth
landandculture,playsaspecialroleinbridgingthenationalterritoryandtheimaginedpastofthe
nation.
Scholarsofarchaeologyandnationalismhavedemonstratedthatpostcolonialnationalist
practicesofarchaeologyemergesimultaneouslyasareactiontocolonialpowersandasa
celebrationofanation’snewlyachievedrighttowriteitsownhistories.AfterWorldWarI,
decolonizedcommunitieshadtocompeteforsovereigntyandindependenceoveragiventerritory.
Legitimizationoftheirclaimsdependedlargelyonaskillfulmobilizationofscientificknowledgeon
thepoliticalandsymbolicfieldstheboundariesofwhichweresetbytheWilsonianprinciples(the
righttoself‐determination)andpositivism.Insuchacontextitishardlysurprisingthatletters,like
historywriting,folklore,anthropology,andarchaeology,becameoneofthemostvigorousfieldsof
nationalidentityconstruction.
AftertheTurkishRepublicwasfoundedin1923,asitwasthecaseintheLateOttoman
Empire,archaeologicalpracticesandmuseumscontinuedtobeseenasthesuccessbarometersof
theWesternizationproject(Cezar1971;Bartu1997;Shaw2003).Thenewregulationsandlaws
pertainingtoarchaeologicalexcavationsandfindingsbecameimportantissueswherethestate,on
behalfofthenation,claimedresponsibilityandexercisedthenation’srighttoprotectitsown
culturalheritage.27TocreateacorecadreofTurkisharchaeologists,theTurkishMinistryof
EducationsentagroupofstudentstoGermanyandFranceandopenedarchaeologydepartmentsat
27FormoreinformationontheinstitutionalizationandregulationofarchaeologyinTurkey,seeAkın(1992),
Özdoğan(1992,1998),Özdemir(2003)andPulhan(2003).Theinterviewswiththeleadingarchaeologists
andhistoriansonthepastandfutureofthedisciplineinthevolumeeditedbyErdurandDuru(2003)andin
thespecialissuesofthetwojournals,CogitoandSanatDünyamız,editedbyPulhan(2000,2001)shed
anecdotallightonthehistoryandprospectsofarchaeologyinTurkey.
15
thepublicuniversities.28Many“national”excavationswerestarted,particularlyatHittitesitesin
centralAnatolia.29Subsequently,museumificationofthefindingsandtheirpublicdisplaybecame
pressingconcerns.UponthenationalleaderMustafaKemal’sorders,theMinistryofEducationand
theTurkishHistoryFoundationengagedinplanningaHittitemuseuminAnkarathatwouldlater
benamedtheAnatolianCivilizationsMuseum.30
Theearlyexcavationsandmuseumificationprojectswerepartsofthelargerprojectof
rewritingTurkishhistory.31Themajorinstitutionalformofthislargerproject,theTurkishHistory
Foundation,startedmanystudiesonhistoryandcultureoftheTurksspecificallyforthepurposeof
definingahomogeneous“Turkishculture.”Atthattime,theKemalisthistorianstracedtheorigins
ofTurkishidentitytotheHittites.ThisofficialhistoricalnarrativewasknownastheTurkish
HistoryThesisanditwaspurportedtoshowaTurkishethniccontinuityinAnatoliasincethe
prehistorictimes.32Accordingtothethesis,HittiteswerepartoftheTurkictribesthatmigrated
fromCentralAsiatoAnatolia.Thisnarrativeshapedmostoftheanthropological,folkloric,and
archaeologicalprojectsofthe1930s.Thedriveunderlyingthisoverarchingargumentwastomake
acaseforaprimordialTurkishexistenceinAnatoliaandhencetonaturalizetheclaimthatthe
Turkishnation‐stateisthe“heir”ofAnatoliaintheinternationalarena33.SymbolicTurkificationof
28DuringthisperiodthefacultyofthesedepartmentswascomposedmostlyofGermanprofessors,someof
whomhadfledtoTurkeyduringtheThirdReich.Fordetails,seeCanpolat(2001)inthecatalogofthe
exhibitionHittitologyandtheDiscoveryofHittiteWorldfromKaratepetoBoğazköy.
29HittitologistsestimatethattheHittitesmigratedtoAnatoliaaround2000BC.However,itisstilldebated
exactlywhentheyfirstmigratedandwheretheycamefrom.Hittitesestablishedtheearliestknown
centralizedauthorityincentralAnatolia.Thus,theyoccupyanimportantplaceintheearlynationalisthistory
writings.ForfurtherinformationontheHittitesandtheirart,seeGurney(1990),McQueen(1996),Darga
(1992),Akurgal(1997),andYener,Hoffnerandetal(2002).
30TheAnatolianCivilizationsMuseuminAnkaraistheepitomeoftheinstitutionalembodimentofACD.Fora
detailedanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenthemuseumexhibitionandtheconsolidationofACD,seeGür
(2007).
31ForthehistoricaldevelopmentofthelargerofficialhistorywritingprojectsintheearlyRepublicanperiod,
seeBerktay(1983aand1983b),Copeaux(1997)andErsanlı(2003).
32ThebestprimarysourceofinformationfortheTurkishHistoryThesisisthetranscriptionsofthelectures
byAfetİnaninthevariousCongressesoftheTurkishHistoryFoundation,forexampleseeİnan(1933)and
İğdemir(1973).ThedetailedaccountofthearchaeologicalpracticesoftheTurkishHistoryFoundationinthe
firstdecadeoftheRepublicconductedfromtheperspectiveofthethesiscanbefoundinİnan(1938,1949).
33Turkistnationalistsandstateofficialsarebynomeansexceptionsintheirambitionsandideological
orientationsgiventheirhistoricalcontext.Withintheliteratureonhowarchaeologicalpracticeshavebeen
16
pre‐IslamicAnatoliawasanationalist,anti‐imperialist,andcounter‐Orientalistmove.TheTurkish
nationalistarchaeologicaldiscoursesreinterpretedthechainofhistoricalcontinuityconstructed
amongEuropean,Greek,andMesopotamiancivilizationsbyinsertingTurkishcultureinthechain.
Thisprovidedarichdiscursiverepertoirefornationalisteliteseagertoconstructanational
narrativethatcoulddrawhistoricalconnectionswithEuropeanculture(Ersanlı2003:227).The
investigationsthattheTurkishHistoryFoundationundertookwereamongthefirstringsinthe
chainofthenationalistarchaeologicalprojectsofthepostcolonialworld.
Duringthe1920sand1930sTurkeywitnessedheateddebatesamongdifferentnationalist
ideologiescompetingforhegemonicstatus,eachhavingadifferentperspectiveonthespecificways
inwhichpeopleslivingwithinthenationalbordersweretobedefinedasa“nation”andthe
geopoliticalunitasa“homeland.”Theseideologicaldebatesamongthedifferentbrandsof
Turkisms34hadasignificanteffectontheTurkishHistoryFoundation’sarchaeologicalpracticesand
museumificationprojectsandthenationalisminstitutionalizedbytheKemalistregime.Besidesthe
better‐knownandmuch‐studiedPan‐TuranistversionsofTurkismthatextendedethnocentric
nationalimagerybeyondthenationalbordersasfarastoCentralAsia,agroupofuniversity
professorsandstudentscultivatedanalternativesocialimageryinthejournalstheypublishedin
1924‐25(Tachau1963:167‐‐170).Oneofthemajorcontributorstothisintellectualmovement,
HilmiZiyaÜlken,calledthissocialimagerymemleketçilik(homelandism)(2001(1966):477‐‐
487).35Homelandiststudentsandprofessorsfromdifferentgenerationsanddisciplinescame
interpretedfortheideologicalpurposesofcolonial,nationalandpostcolonialhistorywritingaroundthe
world,thevolumesbySilberman(1989),KohlandFawcett(1995),Jones(1997)andMeskell(1998)aremost
usefulandinsightful.
34FormoreinformationonthevariousideologicalfractionswithinTurkishnationalistsandtheirinfluenceon
theformationofKemalistnationalism,seeTachau(1963),Berktay(1983a,1983b),Parla(1985),Landau
(1995),Üstel(1997),Őzdoğan(2001),andErsanlı(2003).
35Themovement,fractionedwithinitself,assumeddifferentnamesduringthisperiod:“Türkiyecilik”
(Turkeyism),“memleketçilik”(homelandism)andAnadoluculuk(Anatolianism).Howeverallofthem
concentratedoncreatingaterritorialkinshipbasednationalidentitybasedon‘Anatolia’.TheAnatolia‐centric
ethnicismhasalongergenealogythatgoesbacktothenineteenthcentury.AlthoughÜlkendoesnotmention
theseearlierwritingsassourcesofinspirationforthehomelandistmovement,aprototypicalversionofthe
notionthatAnatolianculturescanbetracedbacktoTurksfirstgerminatedinthewritingsofEnver
17
togetherandwroteonvarioussubjects,rangingfromfolklore,medievalhistoryofAsiaminor,
nationalisticpoetry,andarchaeologicalexcavations.Thejournalsenablingthesenetworkswere
Anadolu(Anatolia),editedbyMükriminHalilYinanç,professorofhistoryatIstanbulUniversity,
andHilmiZiyaÜlken,philosopherandprofessorofsociologyatIstanbulUniversity,andMillet
(Nation),editedbyRemziArık,aSorbonnealumnusarchaeologist.36Thehomelandistsinsistedthat
commonculturecreatedbyethnicandreligiousidentificationwouldnotsufficetoformthebasisof
aunitednation.Theyarguedthatidentificationwiththefatherlandwasindispensabletonational
identityformation,thehistoryoftheTurkishRepublicneededtoberewrittenasthehistoryof
Anatolia,andthatthehistoricalsubjectofthenarrativeshouldbetheAnatolianpeasant37.While
mostofthehomelandistswereeducatedinEuropeanphilosophicalandacademicinstitutionsand
drewuponEuropeanscholarlyliteratureintheirworks,theywerecriticalofborrowingfromthe
Westwithoutsynthesizingitwiththe‘genuine’,‘local’valuesandtraditionsthatare
‘quintessentiallyAnatolian.’
Thehomelandists’relationshipwiththeTurkistswasrathercomplicated.Attimesthese
twodifferentstrainsofdiscourseconvergedandatothertimesdiverged,likeadoublehelix.For
example,thehomelandistsemphasizedtheeconomicandculturalriftbetweentheeliteandthe
peasantssinceOttomantimesandpleadedforarediscoveryofthe“true”peasantcultureatthe
heartofAnatolia.Inthisrespecttheysharedtheethnocentricnationalists’mottoof“towardthe
Volk”(Őzdoğan2001:257).However,thetwogroupshaddifferentnotionsofwhothisvolkis.
Homelandists,ratherthanthemigrationthesisandtheethniccontinuitybetweenCentralAsiaand
Anatolia,focusedmoreonhomelandasthecommondenominatorofthatethnicizedcultural
CelaleddinPasha(Őzdoğan2001:85)andofhisfather,MustafaCelaleddinPasha.MustafaCelaleddinPasha’s
bookLesTurcsAnciensetModerneswaspublishedin1869(Berktay1983b:2457).
36BothM.HalilYinançandRemziArıkwereamongthefoundingmembersoftheTurkishHistoryFoundation.
37AccordingtoÜlken,suchearlyhomelandistwritingsweremostlywrittenagainstIslamism,Ottomanism,
andTuranism(2001(1966):480).HoweverRemziArıkandtheothercontributorstothejournalMilletalso
contributedtothenationalistjournalsoftheTuranistbrand.
18
continuityasitisembodiedinthepersonaofAnatolianpeasant.38Assuch,althoughtheywere
moreinclusionistincertainaspectsandforeshadowedthedeparturefromsomePan‐Turkist
formulationsofthe1930sand1940s,theyremainedwithintheethnonationalistparadigmand
organizedtheirthoughtsaroundanotionofTurkifiedAnatolia.
Althoughhomelandismhadnoknownlargersocialeffectsatthetimeandthereadershipof
thejournals,AnadoluandMillet,wasratherlimited(Tachau1963:169),theirimpactonsomekey
figuresinthedevelopmentofarchaeologyandmuseumificationinTurkeyinthe1930sis
significant.Inparticular,RemziArıkandZübeyirKoşay,bothinfluencedbyhomelandistthought,
cametooccupykeypositionsintheformationanddirectionoftheTurkishHistoryFoundationand
itsinitialarchaeologicalprojects,suchastheestablishmentoftheAnatolianCivilizationsMuseum
andtheexcavationsinAlacahöyük(thefirstexcavationentirelyconductedbynationalfundsand
archaeologists).Furthermore,Arık’snumerousarticlesandbooksontherelationshipbetween
geographyandhistory,writtenforeducationalandintroductorypurposesandtargetinga
nonacademicaudience,werepublishedbythestate’sofficialpublishinghousesanddistributedto
theschoolsandthePeople’sHousesreachingeventheremotestcornersoftheland(Arık1936,
1947,1956,1975).Hence,homelandistswithintheTurkishHistoryFoundationcadresandin
chargeofnationalarchaeologyprojectslefttheirindeliblemarkontheearlyofficialpoliciesand
institutionsoftheRepublic.
Although studies of nationalist movements in Turkey examine homelandism, they often do
notmentionthesignificanceofthepracticeofarchaeologyinshapingthisculturalperspective.The
leading figures writing in Millet or Anadolu such as Koşay and Arık are mentioned; however, the
38IncorporationofBalkanimmigrants,whoeithercameduringtheBalkanWarsorwiththeTurkish‐Greek
populationexchange,intothediscoursesconstructingan‘Anatolianpeasant’identityhasbeenapoignant
issueinTurkishnationalpoliticssinceitsfirstinception.Tachaumentionsthathomelandistswerealsotorn
aboutthisissue,sincethemigrantpeasantswereMuslimandconsideredtobeTurkish,yetwerenot‘of
Anatolia’(1963:168).Foradeeperanalysisofthewaysinwhichnationalbodypoliticswascomplicatedwith
theincomingimmigrantsasaresultofpopulationexchangeseeAktar(2000,2003);Iğsız(2007),andthe
volumeeditedbyHirschon(2003).
19
crucial role of their identity as the first generation of Turkish archaeologists and their active
engagementwiththearchaeologicalpracticegolargelyunnoticed.Nexttotheattentionpaidtothe
impact of political ideologies on archaeology, we have little on the impact of the educational and
visceralexperiencesofarchaeologistsontheirideologicalorientationsandonthemovementsthey
subscribed to. Local archaeologists like Arık provided new evidentiary resources for nationalist
historicalwritingprojectssuchasthefindingsfromHittitesitesandtheirparticularinterpretation,
andtookethnicessentialismastepfurthertotheextentofidentifyingHittitesasTurks.However,
homelandists’searchfortheancestorsofTurksinAnatoliaandreinterpretingthemigrationthesis
in light of the archaeological excavations also had the consequence of developing an alternative
imageryofaTurkifiedAnatolianculturethatisrelatedto,yetdistinctfromtheculturesofTurkic
CentralAsia.Thus,onecanarguethathomelandiststrimmedthepoliticalandculturalaspirations
of Pan‐Turkist versions of ethnic nationalism that could not be contained within the national
bordersandwerethusunfitforthepost‐‐WorldWarIworldorder.
Inthe1950sand1960sanothergroupofliterati,quitedifferentfromthehomelandistsin
theirsocialbackgroundsandpoliticalorientations39,wouldadoptthenotionofahomeland‐based
culturalismasthebasisofnationalidentityandtransformitbyrefractingtheseideasthroughthe
prismofhumanistphilosophyandEuropeanclassicalliterarycannon.Theycalledthemselves
“Anatolianists”andtheirmovement“BlueAnatolia”.Anatolianists’markonthewaysinwhich
archaeologicalsitesareinterpretedandonthehistoricalnarrativesbasedontheancientpastof
WesternAnatoliawouldhaveasignificantlongevityandsocialimpactforgenerationstocomeand
wouldappearinsuchdisparateformsofrepresentationsastheTroydebate,theSultansofDance
performances,crackeradvertisements,governmentWebsites,touristbrochures,andscholarly
interpretationsoftheexcavatedartifacts.
39IncontrasttothemoreprovincialbackgroundsoftheearlierAnatolianists,mostoftheBlueAnatolia
intellectualswerefromelitefamilies.Theirpoliticswasprogressiveand“leftist”.
20
TheBlueAnatoliaMovement:CulturalEssentialismwithaHumanistTwist
Inthevariousnarrativesoftheoriginsofnationalhistoryandheritage,differentAnatolian
civilizationsareattributedvaryingdegreesofcontributiontotheformationofthepresentTurkish
nationalidentity.Thedifferentideologicalconstructionsoftheterritorialkinshipchartsand
hierarchicallyimaginingwhichgroupsareincludedintheTurkishfamilycircleorconsideredmore
distantkin:theseremainpoliticallychargedissuesandconstituteaterrainonwhichideological
battlesarefought.Suchculturewarsinfluencewhichcivilizationsarecoveredinpubliceducation
textbooks,howtheyarenarrated,whichexcavationsreceivemoreattentionfromthestate,and
whichculturalgroupsgainmorelegitimacyinthenationalpublicspherebysuccessfully
establishingthemselvesasthe‘realAnatolian’orfailtodosoandfallintothecategoryofan
internal‘other.’40
AgainstthebackgroundoftheextantEuropeandiscoursesontheHellenicoriginsof
WesterncivilizationandtheoppositionbetweenthenationalistideologiesofTurkismand
Hellenism,theinterpretationofthearchaeologicalsitesinwesterncoastalTurkeyandtheir
incorporationintothenationalistdiscoursesrequiredamorecomplexhistoriographicaloperation
thanthatoftheotherancientAnatoliansites,suchastheprehistorichöyüksorHittitesettlements.
Similartomanyothernationbuildingprojects,TurkishandGreeknationalisthistoricalnarratives
anchortheirnationalidentitiesinaprimordialpastrootedinageographicallocation41.Thehistory
40Insomecases,suchasinthecaseofUrartiancivilization,towhichbothArmenianandKurdishnationalists
trace their ancestry deploying essentialist and ethnocentrist historical discourses, the interpretations and
narrativesofthearchaeologicalfindingsblendwiththedebatesontheminorityrightsinTurkeyandbecome
even more politically charged. They may also attain a status of a taboo in public sphere as they present
challenges to the hegemonic, official, and institutionalized argument that Turkified Anatolianness is an
overarchingenoughidentitytorepresentthesynthesisofallculturesunderitsaegis,pastandpresent.
41ThereisavastliteratureonthehistoricalconstructionsofGreeknationalidentity,inwhichbooksby
Jusdanis(1991),Leontis(1995)Herzfeld(1997),andPeckham(2001)areparticularlyuseful.Foratreatment
oftherelationshipbetweenGreekandTurkishnationalismseeBirtekandDragonas(2005).Forthevarious
spheresinwhicharchaeologicalsitesandartifactsareusedtocreatenationalistimagesandnarrativesof
Greece,YannisHamilakis’works(1996,1999)andtheeditedvolumebyBrownandHamilakis(2003)are
excellentsources.
21
ofthelandsuponwhichthescriptsofancientGreecearewrittenincludessomeofcontemporary
Turkey’swesternprovinces.Sincetheinternationalsystembasedonthenationformadvocates
formulationofdiscreteandmutuallyexclusiveethnicidentitiesthatthenation‐statescometostand
forandpoliticallyrepresent,thefactthatGreekandTurkishnationalistscriptsdiscursively
primordializetheirrespectivenationalidentitiesbyanchoringthepresentoftheircitizensinthe
pastofoverlappinggeographicalareashasturnedthehistoryoftheancientcivilizationsinthese
landsintoasubjectofvigorouscontention.
In the Wilsonian world of 1920s, where a shared ancestry was understood to be
fundamentally challenging for the sovereignty claims of discrete nation forms, Turkish and Greek
nationalist movements were competing for the same territories through warfare. In consequence
onbothsidesoftheAegean,ruthlessprojectsoferasureandrewritingofthesharedpastfollowed.
The Turkish‐Greek population exchange (1923) was the epitome of these acts of mutual erasure
attempting to efface the Greek imprints in Anatolia and Ottoman imprints in the Peloponnesian
PeninsulaandtheAegeanIslands42.Againstthisbackground,althoughclassicswasrecognizedasan
important academic field of study in the Turkish Republic’s modernization project, connections
between anything Hellenic and Anatolian was unpalatable to the nationalist cultural map of
Anatolia redrawn.
43
Thus, in the early national archaeological and museumification projects
endorsed by the Turkish Historical Foundation, the Greco‐Roman sites were relegated to the
discursive background, as shadows of ‘Anatolian Civilizations’. Reşit Galip, one of the leading
historians of the time, captured the new official stance in 1932 in the Turkish Historical
Foundation’sAnnualMeetingwiththefollowinginterpretationoftheAegeancivilizationsandtheir
placeintheofficialhistoricalnarrative:
42FordetailedinformationaboutthepoliticalandeconomicblueprintsandconsequencesofTurkish‐Greek
PopulationExchangein1923‐24,seeAktar(2000:17‐66)andIğsız(2007).
43FormoreonthisissuealsoseeCopeaux(1997)and(1998:83,90‐91).
22
ItisanincreasinglyacceptedargumentthatthereisnouniqueGreekcivilizationand
the civilization carrying this name is nothing but an emergence of the Anatolian and
ancient Aegean civilization around a new center. (Akyıldız and Karacasu 1999: 30
ftn:3).
TheBlueAnatoliamovementemergedinthewakeofthishistoricalcontextandbroughtthe
materialcultureofancientGreekcivilizationanditsconnectionswithAnatoliabackintothepublic
discourse.AgroupofTurkishintellectuals,artists,andwriters‐‐‐BedriRahmi,ErenandSabahattin
Eyüboğlu,MinaUrgan,CevatŞakirKabaağaçlı,andAzraErhat44‐‐‐startedtopublishthetravelogues
oftheir“bluevoyages”alongtheAegeancoast45.TheartworksthattheirvisitstoAnatolianvillages
inspired,aswellasthebooksandarticlestheywroteontheancienthistoryoftheregion
popularizedthemythologyandAegeanarchaeologyandinsertedthemintothenonacademic
culturalrepertoire.
CevatŞakirKabaağaçlı,theleadingfigureoftheBlueAnatoliamovement,hadmajoredin
historyatOxfordandwasajournalist.HearrivedatHalikarnassus(Bodrum)forthefirsttimeasan
exilein1924.Afterservinghisthree‐yearsentence,hesettledinthevillageforgoodandassumed
thename(notjustasanomdeplume)‘theFishermanofHalikarnassus.’Manyofhisfriends,who
44AllofthesefiguresarecultfiguresinTurkishliteraryhistoryandtheirworksarecanonized.Theywere
alsoimportantpersonalitiesintheartworldofthecountryatthetime.BothBedriRahmiEyüboğluandhis
wife,ErenEyüboğluleftmanypaintings,sculpturesandpoemsintheirwake.SabahattinEyüboğluwasa
popularessayist,andaverywellknowntranslatorofseveralimportantclassicsintoTurkish.MinaUrganwas
anauthor,translatorandprofessorofEnglishliteratureandAzraErhatwasaliterarycriticandthe
authoritativetranslatorofIliadandOdysseyintoTurkish.Allofthemembersofthemovementweredeeply
involvedinliteratureandtheprojectoftranslatingclassicaltextsofWesternEuropeanliteratureinto
Turkish.Amongthem,onlySabahattinEyüboğluhadconnectionswiththebureaucraticcadresoftheirtime.
Heactivelyparticipatedintherealizationofthetime’sMinisterofEducation(alsoapoetandauthor),Hasan
AliYücel’sdreamthateveryvillagelibraryinAnatoliawouldonedaybeequippedwiththecopiesofallthe
canonicalworksoftheWesternliterature.CevatŞakir,astheleaderandthemostpopularfigureofthe
movementhadaspecialplace,towhichwewillcomebacklaterinthechapter.Itisalsoworthnotingthat
eminentarchaeologistHaletÇambel,afounderoftheprehistoricarchaeologydepartmentatIstanbul
Universitywasalsoapartofthegroupandfrequentlyparticipatedinthebluevoyages.
45Today,oneofthemostpopularformoftouristtravelinAegeanTurkeyandasignificantsourceofincome
forlocalboatmen,‘bluevoyages’aredaily,weeklyorbiweeklyboattripswherevarioussmallcovesofthe
Aegeancoastarevisitedoneafteranotherincorporatinglandscapenotaccessiblefromlandintothetourist
routes.
23
weretheleadingartistsandintellectualsofthetime,visitedhiminhisnewhome,whichputthis
then‐tinyfishingvillageontheintellectualmapofTurkey.
Asahumanistmovement,theBlueAnatolianistswroteextensivelyabouttheimportanceof
classicaleducationfortheintellectuallandscapeofthenation.Theirideaswereamixtureofthe
didacticuniversalismofEnlightenmentandthenaturalismofromanticnationalism.Blue
Anatolianists’writingsdefinedworldhistoryasacommonhumanheritagebasedon“European
civilization”forwhichancientGreekculturewasindispensable.Althoughtheyputalotofemphasis
onthesignificanceofancientGreeceinthedevelopmentofthiscivilization,theirhumanismand
universalismwerealsoimbuedwithaculturalistnationalismbywhichtheytracedtheoriginsof
thoseelementsofancientGreekcultureswhichthenineteenthcenturyEuropeanintellectuals,
poets,andphilosophersvalorized,highlighted,andselectivelyappropriated,backtotheancient
civilizationsofAnatoliaandMesopotamia,particularlytotheAegeancoastofTurkey.They
vigorouslysupportedtheincorporationofancientGreekandLatintextsinthepubliceducation,but
theyalsodiscursivelyproducedanAnatolianculturalessencewhichinspiredthesetexts.
TheBlueAnatoliamovementishighlysignificantforthedevelopmentoftheAnatolian
CivilizationsDiscourse,sincetheactivities,art,andwritingsofthegroupmembersandtheir
personalpopularitybroughtsiteslikeTroy,Halikarnassus,andothercoastalcitiesofancient
AnatoliatotheattentionofthepublicandreclaimedthetiestotheothersideoftheAegeanfromits
anti‐Turkishconnotations.Indoingso,theyalteredthecourseofthepublicperceptionofpre‐
IslamicAnatoliaprofoundlyandirreversibly.StudyingandreinterpretingGreekmythology,the
groupmovedawayfromthedominantideologyofTurkisminamuchmorepronouncedwaythan
thehomelandistsand“turnedtowardtheessenceofAnatolia.”Thisdiscursivegestureof
homecoming,theauthorialgazelockedtotheculturethattheAnatolianlandsnourished
throughouttheages,resembledthatofthehomelandists.Theiremphasisonaterritorialized
kinshipamongpeoplesofAnatolia,forexample,wasreminiscentofArık’sconceptualizationof
24
Anatoliaanditspeoples.However,theirinterpretationofarchaeologicalsitesandAnatolianhistory
inlightofarchaeologicalandtextualevidencewaslessethnocentricandmorereceptivetocultural
diversitythantheseformerexamples.Theyweremoreinterestedinuniversalizingthehistorical
narrativeoftheAnatolianpastthancontributingtoanethnocentricallydefinedparticularism.
BlueAnatolianistsfocusedonthestoriesofAsiaMinorintheancientGreektexts,andtheir
narrativeslocatedtherootsoftheGreekmythsandartinAnatolia,claimingthecreditshareofthe
Anatolian peasants in the formation of the Hellenic history, and the European civilization. For
example,inthelate1960s,KabaağaçlıhadaweeklyradiotalkshowonRadioİzmir.Intheseshows
hegaveinformaltalksaboutthehistoryofAnatoliathroughouttheages.Inoneoftheepisodeshe
narratesAnatolia’ssignificanceintermsoftheoriginsofthewesterncivilization:
CivilizationwenttotheWestfromAnatolia....WhiletheGaulwasstillinbarbarismeven
by50BC,thefatherofthepoemintheworld,Homer,waswritingandreadingIliadin
900BCinIzmir[Smyrna].Thefatherofhistory,Herodot[Herodotus],borninBodrum
[Halikarnassus],wrotethefirsthistoricalnarrativeoftheworldin500BC.Thefatherof
Europeanscience,Thales,wasbornandwroteinMilet[Miletos].Thefatherofmedicine,
Hipokrat[Hippokrates],wasalsoanAnatolianandstartedmedicineinAnatolia.Wecan
enumerateotherfoundingfathersofcivilizationthatcamefromAnatolia,butitwould
takeaconferenceoftwotothreehours.Inshort,theseedsofcultureandcivilization
wereplantedinandspreadfromAnatolia[2002:58].
AsKabaağaçlı’snarrativeillustrates,oneofthedefiningcharacteristicsofBlueAnatolian
agencywastheirambivalencebetween,ontheonehand,embracingWesternscienceandculture
and,ontheotherhand,rejectingitforitsimperialistandself‐centerednarratives.AsPartha
Chatterjee(1993)andotherpostcolonialtheoristsillustrated,twentiethcenturynationbuilding
25
projectsoperatewithinthistightdiscursivespaceofin‐betweennessandambivalenceinorderto
stakeaclaimtoaheritageoftheirownshapedinrelationtotheEurocentricworldhistories.The
culturalandpoliticalin‐betweennessandambivalenceneitheroftheTurkishRepublic’s
bureaucraticelitesnoroftheBlueAnatolianists,norofthemodernIslamistsareexceptions.As
such,theBlueAnatolianreinterpretationoftheEurocentrichistoricalnarrativesattemptsto
decenterandrecenterthesenarrativesbymobilizingavailablerepertoiressuchasarchaeological
practices,romanticnationalism,andtheclassics,ofwhichtheywerescholarsandtranslators.
ThoughlesswellknownandwithlessclamorthantheBlackAthenacontroversy,theBlue
AnatolianistssimilarlyattemptedtowriteanalternativehistoryofEuropeancivilizationand
emphasizedtheroleofthepeoplesofAsiaMinorinthisnarrative.
ScholarsofTurkishliteratureandhistoryhavelongdebatedovertheculturalandhistorical
significanceoftheBlueAnatolianism.46AlthoughthereisaconsensusthatBlueAnatolianistswere
elitistdespitetheirpopulism,theirplaceinthedevelopmentofAnatolianismasanalternativebasis
fornationalidentityisundisputed.BlueAnatolianists’humanistpatriotism,basedonterritorial
kinshipassumptions,continuetoresonateparticularlyamongthesecular,left‐leaningintellectuals
andscholarstoday.Theiroeuvreandstatementscompriseanimportantresourceforthe
perpetuationofACD.Tothisdaytheirbooksremainamongthesuccessfulsellers.47Şahin,for
example,drawsuponBlueAnatoliaessayswhenhefindparallelsbetweenGallipoliandtheTrojan
War,referringtoSabahattinEyüboğlu’sbookMaviveKara(2006).Inasimilarvein,wecome
acrossreferencestoHectorasanAnatolianboyinKabaağaçlı’swritings(2002:28).Claimingnot
46SeeBelge(1994),AkyıldızandKaracasu(1999),Açık(2003),andKahraman(2002).
47 According to Bilgi publishing house that owns the copyrights for Kabaağaçlı’s major books since 1980s,
each of his books sell 1000‐2000 copies each year. Over the years his books have sold more than 20.000
copieseach(PersonalcorrespondenceoftheauthorwiththedirectoroftheBilgiYayınevi,BilgiKüflü.Unlike
Mr. Küflü, the directors ofthe Remzi Publishing House, another holder ofcopyrightsfor Şakir’s works, was
not cooperative and did not respond to my inquiries). These numbers do not include the sales of street
vendors whosell pirate copies. Pirate books are a major problemfor the publishers today in Turkey, since
illegalpublicationsareestimatedtoapproach50%ofthewholebooksmarket.Thesenumbersaresignificant
foracountrywith38millionadultreaders,butthebestsellersaredefinedbysalesof10000‐15000,andan
average print run is 1000‐2000. Furthermore Kabaağaçlı’s works are considered to be classics in Turkish
literatureandarepartofthePublicEducationMinistry’ssuggestedbookslistforschools.
26
onlytheTrojansbutallthefallenheroesoftheTrojanWarasAnatolianisafrequentleitmotifin
ACD.SowhenthemunicipalitiesofÇorumandÇanakkalefightoverAchilles’graveandmobilizea
discourseofterritorialkinship,theyactuallycompeteoverasymboliccapitalthatenablesthemto
simultaneouslyclaimparticipationintheworldcivilizationandtakeprideintheirlocalidentity.
TheagentswhoengagewiththeconceptualframeworkofACDmaynotbecognizantofthe
intellectuallineageofsuchassociationstheyaremaking;yetthesecirculatefrequentlyenoughin
theTurkishpublicspherethattheirfreeadoptionandinterpretationgivethediscoursealifeofits
own,independentofthemovementsthathelpedtocreateandconsolidateit.
ThediscursiveinfluenceofACDàlaBlueAnatoliacanalsobeobservedonthepublic
representationsofApolloasanAnatoliandeityandthisinfluencecanbetracedbacktoErhat’sand
theKabaağaçlı’swritings.AccordingtotheDictionaryofMythology,writtenbyclassicalphilologist
AzraErhat,theentriesonApolloandDionysusposesthequestionoftheoriginsofthetwodeities
asapressingissue:
ThemythcriesoutthatDionysoscamefromtheEast,emergedfromAnatolia,
managingtoenterGreecewithdifficulty.Thisdeityhadtojumpthroughmanyhoops
tillhecouldgranttragedy[tohumans],whichNietzscheclaimedtobethemost
surprisingandessentialpartoftheGreekheritage.IncontrasttoDionysos,Apollo,
withhisrationalityandhisMusesinspiringartforms,wasconsideredtobeessentially
Greek.Nietzscheprobablyneverdoubtedthat.Withhiscentersofprophecy,myths,
andtemplesApollohadalwaysbeenthoughttobeGreekandoriginatedinGreece.
Scien[tists]madethismistake,astheydidnotreadancienttextscarefully,startingwith
Homer.Whenthecontributionsofarcheologyareconsidered,wehopethatthereality
willseedaylight.Oursisjustanexperiment[Erhat1984:48].39
27
TostrengthenherargumentthatApolloisAnatolian,ErhatpointsoutthatthewordApollo
isnotaGreekwordandthatitmighthavederivedfromthenamesofvariousHittitegodsor
words48.QuotingfromIliad,shespeculatesinalengthyessaythatApolloisanAnatoliandeity,and
hisconnectionstoCybele,Anatoliangoddessoffertilitybyvirtueofhissisterandmotherare
strongerthanhisconnectionstoHelios,theGreekgodofthesun.Thesamethesispertainingtothe
originsofApolloandtheideasandvalueshecametorepresentisextensivelypresentedin
Kabaağaçlı’sbookAnadolu’nunSesi:TarihveHellenizm(Anatolia’sVoice:HistoryandHellenism)
(1971),too.QuotingtheLatinpoetHoratiusandthehistorianPausanias,Kabaağaçlıarguesthatthe
biggestfourtemplesofApolloandhismostsacredcitieswereGrinium,Klaros,Didyma,andPatara,
allofwhichwereinAnatolia.HeinterpretstheIonianApollocentricbeliefsystemtobethe
evidencefortheIonians’devotiontotheirhomeland,Anatolia,mappingtheTrojanWarontothe
nationalistrivalnarrativesofGreekversusTurkishnationalisms.AspartofTurkishcanonical
literature,bothErhat’sandKabaağaçlı’sworkscontinuetoshapecontemporaryinterpretationsof
archaeologicalsites,providingthevocabularyandthegrammarforthejournalisticdebatesand
theirreverberationsinpopculture.
AcurrentexampleofthisenduringimpactontherelationshipbetweenAnatolianist
nationalismandarchaeologicalpracticesisthepublicrepresentationsofthesitePatara(78kmto
Fethiye,Antalya).InordertobringtheimportanceofPataraintopublicattention,thesiteis
frequentlyrepresentedas“thebirthplace”ofApollo.Althoughaverylimitedportionofthesite
couldbeexcavatedandevaluatedsofar,theteammembersareconvincedthatPatarawasoneof
themajorcentersofprophecythatcanpotentiallyovershadowDelphi49.Besidestheancientmyths,
The recent excavations in Troy provide further supportive evidence for similar connections. Forthenewfindings
regardingtherelationshipbetweenHittitesandtheTrojansbuildinguptotheHomerictimes,seeStarke
(1997)andLatacz(2001).
48
49ProfessorFahriIşık(AkdenizUniversity),theheadofthearchaeologicalteaminPatarauntil2008,isan
influentialacademicnotonlyinexcavations,butalsointheeducationoftheTurkishtourguides.Hiswritings
andlecturesshapethewaythetourguidesreadtheLyciasitesandpresentthemtothetourists.FahriIşık
lecturesfrequentlyinannualcompulsoryseminarsoftheMinistryofTourismforthetourguidesandtheCDs
28
acolossalheadofApollostatuefoundonthesitestrengthenedthehypothesisthatanequally
colossaltempleofApolloexistedinPatara.Also,atemplededicatedtoLeto,motherofApolloand
Artemis,wasexcavatednearby.SinceArtemisandLetowerereveredgodsinmanysettlementsat
theAegeancoast,theyarepresentedas‘Anatoliandeities’andthekinshiptiesareevokedtoargue
thatsowasApollo50.Naturalizationofdeitiesinthismanner,asitmakesiteasierforpublicto
relateto,isarhetoricaldevicefrequentlyemployedbyarchaeologiststopopularizetheir
excavations.However,itisimportanttobecognizantofthediscoursesthatshapethereadingsof
thenonacademicaudienceandtheframeworksthatpopularmediaisreadytoapplytothe
interviewswitharchaeologists.Theuseofevidentiarylanguagewhenblendedwithrhetorical
devicesthatprojectcontemporaryidentitycategoriesontotheinterpretationsof‘continuity’,
‘origins’,orthehistorical‘rivalry’betweenthetwosidesoftheAegean,apatrioticmoraltone
overtakesthetenoroftheargumentscommunicatedinthepopularmedia.Thenthenarrativeofthe
excavationturnsintoanindignantmissiontorevealandclaimwhathasbeenwrongfullydeniedto
Anatolians:theirduecreditintheformationofEuropeancivilization.
ThedebatesregardingApollocultorthecontinuitiesandrelationshipsbetweenTrojans
andotherculturesofAsiaMinorareworthinvestigatingandcontinuetoshapethearchaeological
efforts.Howeversuchdebateswhentheyarecarriedtothepopularmediaaresubjecttothe
vocabularyandassumptionsofthehegemonicdiscourses.Inthislight,theApollodebate’s
significanceandthewayitlendsitselfeasilytonationalisticinterpretationssurpassesits
appearanceaspurelyamatterofarchaeologicalevidence.Itillustratesoneofthekeyaspectsthe
ofhisformerlecturesaresoldbyIstanbulTouristGuideAssociation.Besidespublishinghisfindingsin
scholarlyjournalsinTurkey,FahriIşıkalsogivesinterviewstopopularmagazinessuchasBilimveÜtopya.
ForanexampleseeDecember1999issue.
50Forexample,inthemagazineoftheInternationalAirportinIstanbul,the“Gate”(publishedanddistributed
forfreebyaprivateconglomerateknowntobeworkingmostlyinthegovernmentprojects),passengerscan
read these statements not as hypotheses subject to further investigation, but as facts. The article titled
“Apollo’s Cradle” has no question mark in the heading and the story circulates and gets accepted as fact
beyondtherealmofitscreation.Insuchpopularmediawhatitmeanstotalkabout‘origins’,or‘continuity’,
whenwetalkaboutancientculturesisneverquestioned.
29
processofnationalidentityformationinfluencethearchaeologicalsites’nationalizationthrough
internationalcompetition.
Turningthesesitesandculturesintopiecesofevidencefortherighteousnessofnational
exceptionalismandessentialismisrootedinadualanxietycharacteristicofnon‐European
nationalismsthattakeEuropeanexperiencesasparadigmaticintheirreadingsoftheirown
unfoldinghistories.Ontheonehand,theimaginedlagbetweenthe“developedWesternnations”
andtheirown“developingnations”createsonetypeofanxietycrystallizingaroundthenotionof
“catchingup,”whichrendersthesenationalistprojectscontinuouslyoutofbreath.Ontheother
hand,theanxietyofconstructinganationalselfimaginedasuniqueandseparatefromanyother
nationalcharacter,exclusiveonlytothecitizens,limitstheavailablediscoursesthatcanjointhese
nationalhistoriesandthoseofEurope.Theconstantoscillationbetweenthesetwoanxietiesis
resolvedintheTurkishnationalisthistoricaldiscoursebyinsertingAnatoliaintothenarrativesof
theEnlightenment,scientificprogress,andcivilizationalmaturityasthesitewhereitallbeganand
dispersedfrom.ThusclaimingApollo,creatorofcities,deityoflightandreason,andthemost
widelyreveredandinfluentialofalltheancientGreekgodsnotjustinancienthistorybutinthe
modernone,meansclaimingtheEnlightenmentfortheancientpeoplesofAnatoliaandfortheir
contemporaryheirs:Turkishcitizens.Thus,Anatolia,“CradleofCivilizations,”whileindexinga
Turkishculturaluniquenessandexceptionalism,atthesametimereunitesthehistoricalpathsof
TurksandEuropeansthatforkedintheMiddleAges.
Conclusion
In order to highlight that Anatolianism offers a politically more pragmatic imagery of a
homogeneousculturewhencomparedtothePan‐TurkistorPan‐Islamistutopias,theideologueof
homelandismHilmiZiyaÜlkenpointedoutin1966that“theidealoftheday”was“madeoutofthe
30
contemporary realities.” (1966:487). If we consider the new millennium’s ‘realities’—such as the
negotiations between Turkey and EU for accession with all the political, economic and cultural
ramifications of such an enterprise—we see that there is a similar political appeal in the fragile
balanceACDstrikesbetweeninclusionandexclusiontothenationalidentity,andthemalleabilityof
thisbalanceconducivetobefine‐tunedandsynchronizedwiththe‘contemporaryrealities’thatare
defined by different groups for different purposes. Such flexibility, which is an alternative to the
rigid, more exclusionary nationalist or religiously defined essentialist discourses prevalent in
Turkey, might be the reason why Anatolianism endured since its earliest incarnations in the 30s
andbecameanestablishedleitmotifinmanyaspectsofsociallifeinTurkeytoday.
ThenewidentitycrystallizingaroundthenarrativeofAnatoliancivilizationssupported
withvariousrepresentationsofarchaeologicalfindingsisnotjustanacademicexercize.Justlikein
alltheotherdevelopingcountriesoftheworldthatdependontourismtopaytheirdebtsandkeep
theirlocaleconomiesvibrant,theroleofarchaeologicalsitesinTurkishtourismandheritage
industryiscoffeehousetalk.Insuchavolatileindustry,thelivelihoodofmanyvillagerscandepend
onseeminglysmallrepresentationalpracticesasmuchasinstitutionalones.Thus,whetherTroy
becomesrevitalizedasatouristattractionorwhetherthelatestshipwrecklocatedofftheBodrum
shorescanbringafewmoreeurosbecomesaquestionofsustenance.Togivevoicetothese
economicneedsandthestakestheirfamilieshaveinsuchissues,peopledrawonnarrativesthat
circulateinthemedia,iftheyaresolicitedtotalkaboutthenearestexcavationsite,makeanappeal
foralocalmuseum,orcommentonthestateoftouristindustryinTurkey.TheACDcirculatingin
newspapercolumns,statepublications,TVprograms,danceshows,politicalspeeches,textbooks,
andmuseumrepresentationsisreadilyavailabletoutilizeandlegitimizetheseclaimsand
argumentsvoicedwhenpeopleareaskedtospeaktothemicrophones.Thisprocesstransformsthe
ACDintoanationwidepublicdiscourse,givesacoherentmeaningtotherelationshipsbetweenthe
pastandthefutureofthecountry,andprovidessupportfortheclaimsmadeintheglobalmarketof
31
tourism,inexplicablyintertwiningeconomicstakes,archaeology,culture,andpoliticsinthepublic
imaginary.
Bibliography
Newspapers
Hürriyet
Milliyet
Radikal
Sabah
Vakit
Zaman
Açık,Tansu.“Türkiye’deHümanizmTartışmalarınaBirBakış.”ToplumveBilim98(Fall2003):111‐
151.
Akın, N. "Osman Hamdi Bey, Âsâr‐ı Atika Nizamnamesi ve Dönemin Koruma Anlayışı Üzerine." In
Osman Hamdi Bey ve Dönemi: Sempozyum: 17‐18 Aralık 1992, Conference proceedings
preparedforpublicationbyZeynepRona,İstanbul:TarihVakfıYurtYayınları,1992.
Akurgal,Ekrem.AnadoluKültürTarihi,Ankara:TübitakPopülerBilimYayınları,1997.
Akyıldız,KayaandBarışKaracasu.“TürkHümanizmiveEdebiKanonunOluşumu.”ToplumveBilim
81(1999):26‐44.
Aktar, Ayhan. “Homogenizing the Nation, Turkifying the Economy,” In Crossing the Aegean: An
Appraisalofthe1923CompulsoryPopulationExchangebetweenGreeceandTurkey,editedby
ReneeHirshon,79‐95.NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2003.
______.VarlıkVergisiveTürkleştirmePolitikaları.İstanbul:İletişim,2000
Arık, Remzi Oğuz. Türkiye’de 1935 Yılındaki Arkeoloji İşleri Ankara Halkevi Neşriyati no: 7,
İstanbul:DevletBasımevi,1936.
_____. Halkevlerinde Müze, Tarih ve Folklör Çalışmaları Kılavuzu, Ankara: CHP Halkevleri Yayınları
KılavuzKitaplarıXXI,1947.
32
_____. Coğrafyadan Vatana. Ankara: Remzi Oğuz Arık’ın Eserlerini Yayma ve Anıtını Yaptırma
DerneğiYayımları,1956.
_____.TürkSanatı,İstanbul:DergahYayınları,1975.
Bali, Rıfat N. Tarz‐ı Hayattan Life Style’a:Yeni Seçkinler, Yeni Mekânlar, Yeni Yaşamlar, İstanbul:
İletişim,2002.
Bartu,Ayfer.ReadingthePast:ThePoliticsofCulturalHeritageinContemporaryIstanbul,Ph.D.
Thesis,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,1997.
_____. “Remembering a Nine‐Thousand‐Year‐Old Site: Presenting Çatalhöyük” In The Politics of
PublicMemoryinTurkey,editedbyEsraŐzyürek,70‐94.SyracuseUniversityPress,2007
Belge,Murat.”HalikarnasBalıkısıveMaviAnadolu.”InEdebiyatÜzerineYazılar:274‐279,İstanbul:
İletişim,1994.
_____.“MaviAnadoluHümanizmi.”InEdebiyatÜzerineYazılar:280‐287,İstanbul:İletişim,1994.
Berktay,Halil.CumhuriyetİdeolojisiveFuatKöprülü,İstanbul:KaynakYayınları,1983a.
_____.“TarihCalışmaları”InCumhuriyetDönemiTürkiyeAnsiklopedisi:2456‐2478,İstanbul:İletişim,
1983b.
Birtek,FarukandThaliaDragonas(eds.)CitizenshipandtheNation‐StateinGreeceandTurkey,New
York:Routledge,2005.
BrownKeithS.andYannisHamilakis(eds.)TheUsablePast:GreekMetahistories,Oxford:Lexington
Books,2003.
Calhoun,Craig,(ed.)HabermasandthePublicSphere.Cambridge:MITPress,1992.
_____.CriticalSocialTheory.Oxford:Blackwell,1995.
Candan,Can.“Türkiye’deArkeolojikBelgeseller”inArkeoloji:Niye,Nasıl,Neİçin?(Transcriptionsof
theFirstSocialArchaeologyPlatformWorkshopApril2‐3,2003)O.ErdurandGűneșDuru
(eds).İstanbul:EgeYayınları,2003.
33
Canpolat, Fatma, ed. Boğazköy’den Karatepe’ye Hititbilim ve Hitit Dünyasının Keşfi. İstanbul: Yapı
KrediYayınları,2001.
Cezar,Mustafa.SanattaBatı'yaAc̣ ılıṣ veOsmanHamdi,Istanbul:TürkiyeİṣBankası,1971
Chatterjee, Partha. Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress,1993.
Clarke,Lindsay.Truva,CihatTaşçıoğlu(trans.)BilgiYayınevi,2004.
Copeaux,Etienne.“BirHaritaninTarihiI.”and“GeçmişYabancıBirÜlkedir.”(withKayaŞahinand
SemihSökmen),Defter32,(Winter1998):82‐89and90‐108.
_____.EspacesetTempsdelaNationTurque:Analysed'uneHistoriographieNationaliste1931‐
1993Paris:CNRSéditions,1997.
Çilingiroğlu, Çiler and Necmi Karul. “Gecmis Reyting Yapar mi? Medyada Arkeoloji” in Arkeoloji:
Niye,Nasıl,Neİçin?(TranscriptionsoftheFirstSocialArchaeologyPlatformWorkshopApril
2‐3,2003)O.ErdurandGűneșDuru(eds).İstanbul:EgeYayınları,2003.
Darga,Muhibbe.HititSanati,İstanbul:AkbankYayınları,1992.
Erdur,OğuzandGűneșDuru(eds).Arkeoloji:Niye,Nasıl,Neİçin?(TranscriptionsoftheFirstSocial
ArchaeologyPlatformWorkshopApril2‐3,2003)İstanbul:EgeYayınları,2003
Erhat,Azra.MitolojiSözlüğü,İstanbul:RemziYayinevi,1984.
Ersanlı, Büşra. İktidar ve Tarih:Türkiye’de "Resmi Tarih" Tezinin Oluşumu 1929‐1937. İstanbul:
İletişim,2003.
Eyüboğlu,Sabahattin.MaviveKara.Istanbul:İşBankasıKültürYayınları,2006[1961].
Foucault,Michel.ArchaeologyofKnowledge,NY:Panteon,1972.
Gür,Aslı.“StoriesinThreeDimensions:NarrativesofNation&theAnatolianCivilizationsMuseum.”
In The Politics of Public Memory in Turkey, edited by Esra Őzyürek, 40‐69. Syracuse
UniversityPress,2007.
34
Gurney,O.R.TheHittites,2nded.,NY:Penguin,1990.
Hall,StuartandBramGieben,FormationsofModernity,Cambridge:Blackwell.1992.
Hamilakis,YannisandEleanaYalouri,“AntiquitiesasSymbolicCapitalinModernGreekSociety”,
Antiquity70(1996):117‐29
_____.“SacralisingthePast:TheCultsofAchaeologyinModernGreece”ArchaeologicalDialogues6,
no2(1999):115‐60.
Harper,James.“Romeversusİstanbul:CompetingClaimsandtheMoralValueofTrojanHeritage.”
Paper presented at the “Troy in the Renaissance Imagination” Conference, The Centre for
ReformationandRenaissanceStudies,UniversityofToronto,4‐5Oct2002.
_____. “Turks as Trojans, Trojans as Turks: Visual Imagery of the Trojan War and the Politics of
CulturalIdentityinFifteenth‐CenturyEurope.”InPostcolonialApproachestotheEuropean
MiddleAges:TranslatingCultures,editedbyAnanyaJahanaraKabirandDeanneWilliams,
151‐179.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005.
Herzfeld,Michael.CulturalIntimacy:SocialPoeticsintheNation‐State,London:Routledge,1997.
Hirshon,Renee.(ed.)CrossingtheAegean:AnAppraisalofthe1923CompulsoryPopulationExchange
betweenGreeceandTurkey,NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2003.
Iğsız, Aslı. “Repertoires of Rupture: Recollecting the 1923 Greek‐Turkish Compulsory Religious
MinorityExchange”Ph.D.Thesis,UniversityofMichigan,AnnArbor2006.
İğdemir,Uluğ.50.YılındaTürkTarihKurumu,Ankara:TürkTarihKurumuBasımevi,1973.
İnan,Afet."Atatürk'ünTarihTezi"Belleten3(1933).
_____"TürkTarihKurumu’nunArkeolojiFaaliyeti”Belletenv.II(1938),p:5‐6.
_____.Contributions to the Turkish History Through the Research Activities of the Archaeological
SectionoftheTurkishHistoricalSocietyBetween1943‐1948”,Belletenv.XIII(1949)p:51
Jones,Sian.TheArchaeologyofEthnicity:ConstructingIdentitiesinthePastandPresent,NewYork
:Routledge,1997.
35
Jusdanis,Gregory.BelatedModernityandAestheticCulture:InventingNationalLiterature,University
ofMinnesota,1991.
Kabaağaçlı, Cevat Şakir.(Halikarnas Balıkçısı). Anadolu’nun Sesi: Tarih ve Hellenizm, İstanbul:
YeditepeYayınları,1971.
_____.İmbatSerinligi,editedbyŞadanGökovalı,İstanbul:BilgiYayinevi,2002.
Kahraman,HasanBülent.“İçselleştirilmiş,AçıkveGizliOryantalizmveKemalizm”DoğuveBatı20‐I
(2002):159‐188
Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, trans. by Charles T. Riggs, Princeton,Princeton
UniversityPress,1954.[AnnArbor,Mich.,1962]
Kohl, Phillip L. and Clare Fawcett, eds. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.
Landau, M. Jacob. Pan‐Turkism :From Irredentism to Cooperation. 2d rev. and updated ed.
Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1995.
Latacz,Joachim.“YeniKazılarBilimDünyasınınTroia’yaBakışındaNeGibiDeğişikliklereNeden
Olmuştur?”inTroiaDüşveGerçek,SemaBulgurluGün(trans.),HomerKitabevi,2002.
Leontis, Artemis. Topographies of Hellenism: Mapping the Homeland, Ithaca: Cornell University
Press,1995.
Mclaren,Clemence.TroiaSurlarınınArdında.BaharTırnakcı(trans.),GünışığıKitaplığı,2004.
McQueen,J.G.,TheHittitesandtheirContemporariesinAsiaMinor,NewYork:ThamesandHudson.
1996.
Meskell, Lynn, ed. Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern
MediterranianandMiddleEast.NewYork:Routledge,1998.
Özdemir, Ayşe. “Hayali Geçmiş: Arkeoloji ve Milliyetçilik, 1923‐1945 Türkiye Deneyimi” in
Arkeoloji: Niye, Nasıl, Ne İçin? (Transcriptions of the First Social Archaeology Platform
WorkshopApril2‐3,2003)O.ErdurandGűneșDuru(eds).İstanbul:EgeYayınları,2003.
36
Őzdoğan, Günay Göksu. “Turan”dan “Bozkurt”a Tek Parti Döneminde Türkcülük. İstanbul: İletişim
Yayınları,2001.
Őzdoğan,Mehmet."ArkeolojideÇağdaşlaşmaveTürkArkeolojisiniBekleyenTehlikeler.”InOsman
HamdiBeyveDönemi:Sempozyum:17‐18Aralık1992,Conferenceproceedingspreparedfor
publicationbyZeynepRona.İstanbul:TarihVakfıYurtYayınları,1992.
____. "Ideology and Archaeology in Turkey." In Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and
HeritageintheEasternMediterraneanandMiddleEast,editedbyLynnMeskell.NewYork:
Routledge,1998.
Parla,Taha.TheSocialandPoliticalThoughtofZiyaGökalp,1876‐1924.Leiden:E.J.Brill,1985.
Peckham,RobertShannan.NationalHistories,NaturalStates:NationalismandthePoliticsofPlace
inGreece,Tauris,2001.
Poucet, Jean. “Le Myth de l’origine Troyenne au Moyen age et la Renaissance: un exemple
d’ideologie politigue” Folia Electronica Classica (Louvain‐la‐Neuve)Numéro 5‐Janvier‐
Juin2003.http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/fe/05/antenorter.html.
Powell,StephenDavid&AlanShepard.FantasiesofTroy:ClassicalTalesandtheSocialImaginary
in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, edited by Toronto : Centre for Reformation and
RenaissanceStudies,2004.
Pulhan,Gül.(ed.)Arkeoloji:DiptenGelenSanat,SanatDünyamız,no:80Summer2000.
____.InterviewswithMehmetÖzdogan,HalilInalcikandaroundtablediscussionwithGüven
Arsebük,ÖzgenAcar,AkselTibet,AliDinçol,Cogito,no:28,Summer2001.
____.“TürkiyeCumhuriyeti’ninArkeolojiSeferberliği”,SanatDünyamız,no(89):168‐177,Fall2003.
Saraçer,Cevdet.Osmancık:TarihselDokuİçindeUnutulanKent,DörtRenk,2000.
Şahin,Haluk.TroyalılarTürkmüydü?BirMitos’unDünü,BugünüveYarını.İstanbul:TroyaYayıncılık,2004.
Shaw,Wendy.“EtiGüneşiNeyiTemsilEdiyor?”inArkeoloji:Niye,Nasıl,Neİçin?(Transcriptionsof
theFirstSocialArchaeologyPlatformWorkshopApril2‐3,2003)O.ErdurandGűneșDuru
(eds).İstanbul:EgeYayınları,2003.
37
Silberman, Neil Asher, ed. Between Past and Present: Archeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the
ModernMiddleEast.NewYork:HenryHoltandCo.,1989.
Starke,Frank."TroiaimKontextdeshistorisch‐politischenundsprachlichenUmfeldesKleinasiens
im2.Jahrtausend".StudiaTroica7(1997)pp447‐87.
Tachau,Frank.“TheSearchforNationalIdentityamongtheTurks“DieWeltdesIslams,NewSer.,
vol.8Issue3(1963):165‐176.
Tekin,Oğuz.EskiYunanTarihi,Istanbul:Iletişim,1995
Ülken, Hilmi Ziya. Türkiye’de Çağdaş Düşünce Tarihi, 7th edition. İstanbul: Ülken Yayınları, 2001
(1966).
Üstel, Füsun. İmparatorluktan Ulus‐Devlete Türk Milliyetçiliği: Türk Ocakları 1912‐1931. İstanbul:
İletişim,1997.
Yener, K. A., H. Hoffner, and S. Dhesi. Recent Developments in Hittite Archaeology and History,
WinonaLake,Indiana:Eisenbrauns,2002.
Yerasimos,Stefanos.“RönesansAydınlarınınTürkler’eBakışı:TürklerRomalılar’ınMirasçısı
mıdır?”ToplumsalTarih116(August2003):68‐73.
_____.“AvrupalılarGözündeOsmanlılar:StefanosYerasimosileSöyleşi”ToplumsalTarih118
(October2003).
38