20th Century Excavations: a Will to Remember

http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/courses/2015/HUM54/files/original/fc0c9d81aa8309c0bb5ae0593476782a.jpg

Example of an excavated mosaic from the remains of the Great Palace

Following the construction of the Sultanahmed Mosque over the ruins of the Great Palace, there was little remembrance or will to memorialize the palace for many centuries. In fact, many historians even complained about the lack of attention and efforts to remember the palace. Paspatēs in book writes, “Those who make comparisons between Constanti
nople and Rome, forget that in the latter there 
is no restraint placed on the excavation of ancient buildings, and that every relic of the past is preserved with the greatest care. In Constantinople however, ancient buildings are pulled down, masterpieces of art are broken in pieces, and inscribed slabs chiselled smooth. Excavations have never been made to discover works of art or historical remains.” (1) This lack of interest continued until the 20th century, when excavations of the site began through the efforts of institutions like the University of St. Andrews (2). In the 1950s excavation projects, the archaeologists managed to unearth numerous mosaics that had belonged to the Great Palace (2). However, in addition to problems caused by increased commercialization in the area, there is extreme difficulty in excavating the palace because it sits below the Sultanahmed Square, Sultanahmed Mosque, and Sultanahmed Park in the eastern peninsula of Old Istanbul. 

AP Archive Video depicting the excavations of the Great Palace

As seen in the video to the right, these excavations present the site of the Great Palace in a way that emphasize the absence of a prior landmark and hallmark of society. There is clearly a “will to remember,” which is referred to by Nora as an essential aspect of a site being a lieux de mémoire (3). He writes, “To begin with, there must be a will to remember. If we were to abandon this criterion we would quickly drift into admitting virtually everything as worthy of remembrance.” (3) This will is clearly exemplified in the drastic efforts made to unearth the palace and also presents the Great Palace as a monument due to its “age value,” as explained by Alois Riegl in his work “The Modern Cult of Monuments.” (4) Due to its significance through such a long period of time, the Great Palace represents a momento because parts of it memorialize a victory of nature over history, and these excavations are being done to further reveal more of these “parts.” These factors collectively present the current-day site of the Great Palace along with efforts of its excavation as a lieux de mémoire that emphasizes its absence and ironically highlights the past presence and significance of the palace. As a lieux de memoire, it also underscores the transition of attitudes towards the palace through history from uttermost prominence toward indifference and now a contemporary shift back to prevalence.

Works Cited

1. Paspatēs, A. G., and W. M. Metcalfe. The Great Palace of Constantinople. Paisley: Alexander Gardner, 1893. Print.

2. Rice, Talbot. "Palace of the Emperors Excavation." British Institute at Ankara, 1954. Web.

3. Nora, Pierre. "Between Memory and History: Les Lieux De Mémoire." Representations 26 (1989): 7-24.

4. Riegl, Alois. The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT, 1903. Print.