1938

http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/courses/2015/HUM54/files/original/7ee09770edd1975e9aafd3c8d168f006.jpg

Photo portrait of Ataturk

http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/courses/2015/HUM54/files/original/121a92eb886b3229f9949f76187b836a.jpg

Painting of Turkish War of Independence

In the early morning of November 10, 1938, Ataturk, the first president of the Republic of Turkey, lay morbidly ill in his bedroom in the Dolmabahce Palace. At the behest of his doctors, the Ataturk, had been staying in Istanbul for its climate and altitude for some time, away from the new capital in Ankara. At 9:05 that morning, he was dead. [1]

Historian Christopher Wilson makes a convincing argument about the role of Ataturk’s death in Dolmabahce in shifting the memory of the site. The new Turkish state had been laboring to recast Ottoman sites in the image of a new cultural nationalism. The Dolmabahce Palace stood out as a large, glorious memorial to the power of the Ottoman Empire, exhibiting both its wealth and its ambition. The Turkish government had, in 1927, declared a law to make the Dolmabahce Palace the property of the people. However, in the face of the archive of memory of the Palace as the seat of Ottoman excess, the law could only go so far in shifting the public perception. Wilson argues that, more than anything, Ataturk’s death in Dolmabahce Palace did more to change the collective memory of the site than legal action ever could. In the collective consciousness, the Palace became site of Ataturk’s death more than the former Ottoman palace. This notion squares well to Nora’s understanding of the lieux de memoire. Nora has a sense that history, the formal, intellectualized record of the past, has less power in the public consciousness than memory, the informal, sociocultural tally of the past. Considering this contention, it makes sense that the death of the Ataturk in the Palace would have a greater influence on public perception than legal action. Perhaps these “natural” events that are connected to the legacy of oral history and cultural memory have a greater influence on perception than institutionally mandated history.

Today, the bedroom is kept as a memorial to Ataturk’s legacy. A Turkish flag stays draped over the bed and a clock in the room is kept at 9:05 a.m.



[1] Wilson, Christopher. “Representing National Identity and Memory in the Mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.” Journal of the Society of Arhitectural Historians. Vol. 68, No. 2. June 2009.