Tag: Trabzon

  • Mosque conversion raises alarm

    Mosque conversion raises alarm

    Christian art in Byzantine church-turned-museum is at risk after controversial court ruling

    By Andrew Finkel. Museums, Issue 245, April 2013

    Published online: 11 April 2013

    244-mu-jp-new-haglia-02

    A unique ensemble of 13th-century Christian paintings, sculpture and architecture

    One of the most important monuments of late Byzantium, the 13th-century Church of Hagia Sophia in the Black Sea city of Trabzon, which is now a museum, will be converted into a mosque, after a legal battle that has dramatic implications for other major historical sites in Turkey. Many in Turkey believe that the Church of Hagia Sophia is a stalking horse for the possible re-conversion of its more famous namesake in Istanbul, the Hagia Sophia Museum (Ayasofya Müzesi).

    For around 50 years, responsibility for the Church of Hagia Sophia in Trabzon has rested with Turkey’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The courts now accept the claim made by the General Directorate of Pious Foundations, the government body responsible for most of the country’s historical mosques, that this has been an “illegal occupation”. The court has ruled that Hagia Sophia is an inalienable part of the foundation of Sultan Mehmed II who first turned the church into a mosque after his conquest of the Empire of Trebizond in 1462.

    “A building covenanted as a mosque cannot be used for any other purpose,” says Mazhar Yildirimhan, the head of the directorate’s office in Trabzon. He declined to speculate on whether this would mean covering up nearly half the wall space taken up with figurative Christian art, including the dome depicting a dynamic Christ Pantocrator. “There are modern techniques for masking the walls,” he says.

    The church was rescued from dereliction (it had been used variously as an arsenal and a cholera hospital) between 1958 and 1962 by the University of Edinburgh under the direction of David Talbot Rice and David Winfield. This included restoring the original ground plan and removing a prayer niche constructed into an exterior porch. The church also has an exterior frieze depicting “the Fall of Man”.

    “It is the whole ensemble—architecture, sculpture and painting—that makes Hagia Sophia unique,” says Antony Eastmond of London’s Courtauld Institute of Art, who is an authority on the building. “This is the most complete surviving Byzantine structure; there is no 13th-century monument like it.”

    Concern for the building is prompted by the fate of Istanbul’s Arab Mosque—originally a 14th-century Dominican church—also administered by the directorate. An earthquake in 1999 shook loose plaster from the vaults revealing frescoes and mosaics. The conservation of these paintings was finished last year but they were immediately re-covered.

    Like its namesake in Trabzon, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was also turned into a mosque, after Mehmed II’s conquest of the city in 1453. It was famously made into a museum in 1935 by cabinet decree—unlike the informal arrangement in Trabzon. The re-conversion of Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia into a mosque has long been the “golden apple” sought by Turkey’s religious right.

    For such a thing to happen would have major implications for the country’s standing as a custodian of world heritage, according to one senior Western diplomat based in Istanbul.

    Yet already the current government has been working on a list of historical properties administered by the Hagia Sophia Museum. In January, Istanbul’s oldest surviving church, the fifth-century St John Stoudios, which became the Imrahor Mosque in the 15th century before fire and earthquake left it in ruins, was transferred from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism to the General Directorate, which plans to rebuild it as a mosque.

    Shrouded in secrecy

    Turkish scholars are also up in arms at the directorate’s decision to transform another ruin, the Kesik Minare in Antalya, into a mosque. The local chamber of architects has gone to court to prevent this happening. Originally a Roman temple, the Kesik Minare has a Byzantine, Seljuk and Crusader past. A plan had already been drawn up to turn the site into an open-air museum.

    Recent experience suggests that the directorate reconstructs mosques without regard for the millennia of history they contain. The restoration of the sixth-century Church of Sts Sergius and Bacchus (now the Small Ayasofya Mosque) was shrouded in secrecy and completed in 2006 without the academic community being allowed to conduct a proper survey.

    Similar complaints have been levelled against the repurposing of yet another Hagia Sophia—the fifth-century basilica in Iznik where the Second Council of Nicaea was held in AD787. It was a museum, but now it is a mosque. Contrary to accepted archaeological practice, the walls were capped with an attached rather than freestanding roof. “It has lost most of its original character,” says Engin Akyurek, an archaeology professor at Istanbul University. “There is a great difference between conserving a historical building and reconstructing it so it can be used as a mosque,” he says.

    via Mosque conversion raises alarm – The Art Newspaper.

  • Turkey Shows Interest in Armenian Demand for Access to Trabzon Port

    Turkey Shows Interest in Armenian Demand for Access to Trabzon Port

    Sassunian son resim

    In a recent column, I reported that Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had indicated an interest in meeting with “Diasporan leaders” to discuss Armenian demands emanating from the Genocide of 1915.

    In response, I suggested that before Armenians consider meeting Davutoglu, he must prove his sincerity by making eight preliminary concessions, one of which is providing the Republic of Armenia special commercial access to the Turkish port of Trabzon.

    Last week, the Turkish website Gunebakis and other media outlets reported the positive reaction of Muzaffer Ermish, General Manager of the Trabzon Port: “In a recent article, Harut Sassounian, editor-in-chief of the California Courier newspaper, pointed out that Turkish authorities were actively pursuing the start of a dialog with the Armenian Diaspora, and further contended that they were engaged in a series of meetings ahead of 2015, the 100th Anniversary of the Deportation. Sassounian, who advised the Diaspora not to make conflicting demands from Turkish authorities, listed the demands that a united Armenian delegation could make, including the demand that ‘Armenia be given special commercial access to the Port of Trabzon.’” Gunebakis confirmed that “Trabzon has given a green light to that request.”

    However, the General Manager observed: “should the Turkish government provide us with the necessary permission, we are ready. Armenia can easily import and export through this location. The $7.5 billion trade volume of Armenia would be an amazing event for Trabzon.” The Gunebakis article, headlined “Armenia’s Eyes are on the Port of Trabzon,” indicated that most of Armenia’s imports and exports currently pass through the Georgian Port of Poti.

    Port manager Ermish indicated the benefits of using Trabzon instead of Poti. He pointed out that the distance from Trabzon to Yerevan is 430 kilometers (270 miles). “While the Port of Poti provides the advantage of a railroad link, there is a significant delay in shipments. On the other hand, there is a convenient highway between Trabzon and Yerevan, which is available at all hours of the day. From the Port of Trabzon to Alican [Armenia’s Margara border crossing point] is 400 kilometers, and from there to Yerevan the distance is only 30 kilometers…. Any vehicle that departs from our location will be in Armenia within 6-7 hours, which is an unbelievable advantage for that country,” Ermish stated.

    The General Manager stressed that “Trabzon’s Port capacity is capable of accommodating new projects,” and that “we have increased the capacity of the Port from 3.9 to 10 million tons. We are only utilizing 25% of the Port’s capacity. We are prepared for any commercial opportunity that might present itself regarding Armenia.”

    One can draw several conclusions from Port Manager Ermish’s swift and positive reaction:

    — This deal is in the mutual interest of both Armenia and Turkey. Trabzon would utilize its port capacity more fully, while Armenia would save on cargo handling fees, pay lower freight rates, and gain an alternate land access to the outside world.
    — The General Manager would not have made a public announcement on the sensitive topic of cooperation with Armenia, unless he had advance clearance from Ankara. It is possible that the Turkish government is using Ermish’s positive statements as a trial balloon to gauge the degree of support or opposition to such a move. While there has been no negative reaction from anti-Armenian nationalist circles in Turkey and Azerbaijan, Armenian merchants have welcomed the Turkish gesture.
    — Since the Trabzon Port’s Manager has announced that Armenian cargo can directly cross the currently closed Armenian-Turkish border rather than being rerouted through Georgia, even a limited opening of the border for cargo shipments would eliminate the need for the highly controversial Armenian-Turkish Protocols, once and for all.

    Finally, a truly sincere gesture of reconciliation by Turkey would be acknowledging that Trabzon was a major center of extermination during the Armenian Genocide. A monument should be erected in Trabzon Port in memory of thousands of Armenian women and children who were placed in boats and cruelly dumped to drown in the Black Sea.

    It should be clear that neither giving Armenia special access to the Trabzon Port nor the erection of a monument could be considered restitution for the Genocide. These are simply steps Turkish officials must take to prove their good faith before Armenians can sit with them at the negotiating table.