The development of the field of Byzantine Studies in Turkey since the early 2000s is awe-inspiring. During my four years as a graduate student, I’ve had the fortune to see some of this development firsthand. I would like to contribute to the panel Byzantine Studies in Turkey through the Eyes of Early Career Byzantinists with my insight as a graduate student of Byzantine Studies in both Turkey and abroad (Austria and the UK) and to focus on issues which I think are potential areas of improvement that would benefit not only the Byzantinists of today, but also tomorrow.

I will focus on three issues which, as a PhD student, I consider to be important for our field in Turkey. Firstly, there is a general trend in the wider field of Byzantine Studies which promotes a new interdisciplinary approach to research, combining literary, archaeological, and art historical sources among others, taking full advantage of these individual fields. I want to underline that Turkey has a great potential for fostering this research not only because of prominent departments of History, Archaeology, and Art History, but also for housing the very tangible remains of the Byzantine Empire. Therefore, Turkey could be the vanguard in interdisciplinary methodologies for the benefit of the field’s development at an international level.

Secondly, I would like to emphasize the lack of a wide framework, institution, or body to organize, oversee, fund, promote, and circulate the events related to our field in Turkey. The Turkish National Committee for Byzantine Studies, “Bizans/Doğu Roma İncelemeleri Türkiye Milli Komitesi”, is not involved in training or funding and lacks a physical or online presence. Most intellectual events and network-building is limited to Istanbul, where many research centres, both university-based and foreign, hold regular events. An independent circular to update recipients of these events is also published in Istanbul. I would like to discuss alternative bodies that could take over the role to further proliferate the networks of scholars and students in an encompassing manner, to support all of the Byzantinists in Turkey with a wider geographic focus.

Lastly, I would like to raise the issue of undergraduate language training for the students aiming to focus on the Byzantine period. Most history departments offer courses on Ottoman and Latin languages for Medievalists, meanwhile Greek is very often under the monopoly of the Ancient Greek Language and Literature departments. I would like to consider ways of making Byzantine Greek, and therefore Byzantine Studies in general more accessible to those at the undergraduate level.

Nearly a decade after the birth of the Republic of Turkey, David Talbot Rice published a short essay titled “A New Province of Byzantine Art” in The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs. Although the paper focuses specifically on what its author defined, back then, as a hitherto unknown technique in Byzantine art, namely that of incrustation, it also offers valuable testimony about emerging trends in the broad field of Byzantine studies at the beginning of the 20^th century. Quite rightly, the first to the third quarters of the 1900s mark a period of major shifts in scholarly attention, from prestigious monuments and objects preserved in the urban centers and well-known collections of the West, to the modest examples of material culture, such as the less elaborate findings of the archaeological excavations or the wall paintings of rural churches in the new nation-states of the Balkans and Turkey—that is to say, countries on the former territories of successive Byzantine and Ottoman Empires.

Byzantine Cappadocia, henceforth in the geographic center of young Turkey, had already been attracting attention amid those “new lands for Byzantine art and architecture”. I believe it is no coincidence that both the aforementioned essay of D. T. Rice and the fundamental corpus of the painted churches of Cappadocia, published progressively from the mid-1920s by the French Jesuit and scholar Guillaume de Jerphanion, bear the identical title, “A New Province of Byzantine Art” / Une nouvelle province de l’art byzantine. Interest in Byzantine architecture, and especially in the monumental paintings of the rock-carved churches in Cappadocia, reached a peak between the 1920s and 1940s following the seminal work of Guillaume de Jerphanion. The influence of this colossal and authoritative study opened a path in the aftermath of World War II for vibrant scholarship, establishing a methodology to examine extremely rich and unexplored artistic evidence in the highlands of Anatolia. Furthermore, the different ways in which the considerable material evidence in Cappadocia has been approached over the years by international scholarship forged into foreign écoles and schisms within scientific communities. Nevertheless, ever since the days of the pioneering scholars, the “French monopoly” on Byzantine Cappadocia seems to never come to an end. In this paper, I draw on this abundant scholarship—particularly that of the “French School”—in an attempt to contextualize the past, present and future of Cappadocian studies in the larger field of Byzantine and medieval studies. The future, painted in broad strokes, comes as an epilogue examining the issues of scientific documentation, sustainability, economic exploitation and the conservation of Byzantine cultural heritage in Cappadocia.

The ruins in Amorium (Hisarköy), located in the Phrygia region in the Middle Ages, was identified by W. J. Hamilton, who visited the region in 1836 for the first time. Founded in 1892, the modern village of Hisarköy contains a small part of Amorium. Therefore, in contrast to many Byzantine cities, Amorium’s medieval archaeological data is well preserved at a depth of several meters. Archaeological studies on the site, which started in 1987 with the main purpose of the examination of Byzantine urbanism, continues to this day. The site works, conducted between the years 1987 and 2009, first under the direction of Prof. Dr. R. Martin Harrison and then Dr. Chris Lightfoot, provided insights into the evolution and survival of Amorium through extensive systematic excavations and regular publications. A well-defined stratigraphy of the evolution of the city, namely that of the Early Byzantine to the Byzantine Early Middle Ages and Middle Byzantine periods, was developed based on archaeological finds. With archaeological evidence from these studies, it has been possible to identify clear and definite consequences of significant historical events on the fate of the city. Since 2014, under the direction of Prof. Dr. Zeliha Demirel Gökalp, the archaeological excavations at Amorium have focused on the study of the settlement of the city during the Roman, Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman periods. One of the aspects of the studies is to clarify the changes and the continuations in the urban fabric of Amorium during the Byzantine period. Therefore, since 2014, archaeological investigations in the city continue in different excavation areas in order to answer the questions regarding the transformation, change, and development of the city.

The major change in the fate of the Amorium must have occurred at the end of the 5^th and the beginning of 6^th centuries when the city was greatly expanded and equipped with new public buildings. Until the 7^th century, Amorium does not seem to have been a very important imperial administrative center, but the walls of the Lower City, which have lost their splendor today, evidence the dominant role of the state. Public buildings and ateliers inside the Lower City walls, along with Lower City Church A, and the Great Space; show that the city was a typical early Byzantine city and a religious center at the end of the 6^th century. The city, maintaining itself via agricultural production relations, had turned into a large military center after the beginning of the Arab raids in the 7^th century. The excavations also aim to understand whether there was any change/transformation in the city structure in this process as Amorium was located at a very critical point and one of the most strategic cities of the Byzantine defense system due to being the capital of the Anatolic Theme, and if so, when these interventions took place. It is difficult to say anything about the speed and timing of this change in that city. The city walls and the dominant Lower City Church must have shaped the development of the city. We know that Byzantine cities were administrative units where imperial and religious control of the provinces could be exercised by the government. The emperors, especially in the 5^th-6^th centuries, saw urban reconstruction projects as one of their duties. Additionally, the diocese fulfilled the role of the imperial representative as well as the local leader in the provincial cities. Although the invasions of Persians and Arabs in the 7^th century accelerated the collapse of urban life, the economic revival seen in Byzantine cities from the 9^th century onwards must have been due to the imperial initiative and civil, religious administration and military presence encouraged the development of cities and towns. Considering that archaeological excavations continue in Amorium and therefore new discoveries may change our current understanding, these developments will be negotiated with archaeological evidence from the site.

Conservation practices employed for the Byzantine monuments in the Early Republican Period and later can be interpreted through different aspects such as the conceptual framework for conservation, main characters and institutions responsible for the works, or the legal framework in effect in that particular period of time. This study aims to present some interpretations of conservation practices, especially structural interventions, carried out on the basis of a selective number of case studies of Byzantine monuments mainly in Istanbul. The study covers the period of time starting from the foundation of the Republic up to 1973 when Law on Antiquities No. 1710 has been put into action. During this period, two important international documents; the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments (1931) and the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter, 1964) are used as a means to evaluate considering their contribution to the interventions at the building scale.

Within the historical and cultural chronology of Asia Minor, the Byzantine settlement layers find their place in later periods. In the medieval period, Turkish tribes expanding their territories in Asia Minor flourished in and around these settlements. Succeeding periods, meanwhile, are characterized by the well-known traces of pre-modern and modern eras, and thus fall beyond the sphere of archaeology. As for the Byzantine settlements, two distinct cases can be observed. The first thoroughly comprises Byzantine settlements that were founded and developed in the early- to late-Middle Ages, whereas the second case is composed of Byzantine-period use and the growth of existing Hellenistic and Roman urban layers.

Especially in the second case, the Byzantine layers had long been perceived as contaminating the Greco-Roman integrity of certain sites. As such, the initial operations of many early excavations involved the removal of “late [Byzantine] walls of poor quality.” Byzantine layers were often destined to disappear at the moment of their emergence during the excavation processes, while some churches were “lucky enough” to remain exempt from such procedures, albeit to a certain extent. “Byzantines” were reproached for being destructive, since they dismantled buildings to re-use their materials in new constructions and, in the periods of Iconoclasm, destroyed precious sculptures and reliefs. Buildings that had not been destroyed by the Byzantines were considered disorganized and unrecognizable due to the changes in their functions. It was mainly mosaics and coins which brought some delight to archaeologists when they were encountered within a Byzantine stratum.

Today, needless to say, academics and authorities whose work is not marred by ideology and biases consider Byzantine remains to be an essential part of the stratification of Asia Minor.

This paper focuses on the fieldwork conducted by specialists of Byzantine art and architecture who predominantly study Byzantine-period dynamics and those who handle Byzantine layers like an unwelcome guest. It aims to present a glimpse into two contrasting approaches to Byzantine archaeology in the context of “history of perception” based on the reports and writing styles of researchers.

How history is perceived often depends on political ideologies and its relevance to contemporary society. By and large, society can identify with cultural heritage more easily as it is closely associated with national history, and included in formal school education, whether politically propagated, or linked with a ‘shared’ religion. While a lack of understanding of those historical periods somehow perceived as less significant remains commonplace, the ‘values’ relating to those areas of the past may hold little meaning for the general public. This lack of knowledge and understanding frequently leads to the misinterpretations of history, and, consequently, the neglect of cultural heritage. This contribution argues that the concept of identity – an accepted connection with a place, tradition, or belief – is fundamental in shaping attitudes toward the past.

Several different approaches have influenced processes of heritage preservation in Turkey. Some regard such processes as ways and means of creating national identity, but the ideology of nationalism is selective and often fails to include the complete history of a nation. Safeguarding cultural and historical continuity has regularly been a prevailing concern in Turkey, although without the emergence of a clear-cut (and all-inclusive) policy at a national level. Limited financial resources allocated for heritage preservation, compounded with changing political ideologies of central and local authorities, have impeded attempts to provide a continuity of established conservation policies. That “heritage management has an ideological basis in establishing cultural identity, linked with its educational function, and it has an economic basis in tourism”, as Henry Cleere observed, explains the current situation in Turkey, both in theory and practice.

Research has identified the role of ethnic, socio-cultural, ideological, political, economic, or purely practical (e.g. current state of preservation, questions of authenticity and/or integrity, opportunities for adaptive reuse) factors as affecting heritage preservation processes and determining the ‘selection’ or ‘exclusion’ of specific areas of the past. Turkey’s Byzantine heritage, involving similar motivations or challenges, is more difficult to associate with everyday life and traditions than, for instance, Seljuk and Ottoman sites, monuments, or artifacts. Archaeological sites deserve further attention; Late Antique and Byzantine remains, which typically represent the latest stratigraphic layers at archaeological sites, often remain more vulnerable, with less visual impact than monumental buildings or those historical complexes associated with contemporary urban spaces and their functions.

The values recognized in heritage sites by different sections of society largely depend on the range of qualities and meanings they attribute to these places. People are more proactive and protective of places with some meaning and significance for them. Therefore, making the values and the potentials of a site, or a specific area of the past (in this case Byzantium), understood by wider audiences is fundamental to establishing a local sense of ownership. Accepting that no interpretation of the past can be purely neutral and free of value judgement, this paper explores the major issues and challenges concerning the conservation of Turkey’s Byzantine cultural heritage, which is somehow marginalized and/or used as a tool for ideological and political maneuvers.

This paper examines Fethiye and Vefa Kilise Camileri, two of Istanbul's outstanding Byzantine monuments, with particular attention to their recent repairs, re-discovered features, and urban surroundings. In the Süleymaniye Conservation Area, which is on the World Heritage List, Vefa Kilise Camii is a church from the Middle Byzantine Period with Late-Byzantine additions. It became a mosque in 1484, and continues to function as such today. After its first repair during the Republican Period in 1937, it was designated as a cultural asset. Records of later repairs can be found from 1955, 1964, 1970, 1980 in Vakıflar Archives, the most recent one between 2018-2021.

During the Republican Period, the social environment, as well as Süleymaniye's urban texture, experienced multiple changes. The substantial disruption of the urban fabric in 1943 by the inauguration of the Atatürk Boulevard, followed by poor planning decisions and the further expansion of the industry into Süleymaniye, resulted in a decline in the socioeconomic and cultural landscape. This situation was exacerbated when Süleymaniye was given 'Renewal Area' status in 2006.

The second monument, the Fethiye Camii, was converted from the two churches of the Pammakaristos Monastery. The northern church is from Middle Byzantine Period, while the southern church has annexes dating back to the Late-Byzantine Period. Following Istanbul's conquest, the monastery initially served as a convent before becoming the Patriarchate. In the late 1500s, the conversion, into a mosque named “Fethiye” took place, and it is still known under that name in the neighborhood of Çarşamba. Listed as a cultural asset in 1939 after its initial restoration by the Vakıflar in 1938, Fethiye had two consecutive repairs in 1955, and 1959. In 1963, its southern wing was transformed into a museum by the Byzantine Institute and remained as such since then. The Vakıflar conducted two more repairs in 1980 and 1993. The last one began in 2018 and was partially completed in 2021; the museum work is still ongoing.

Furthermore, a number of changes have also occurred in the socio-physical fabric of Çarşamba. A 16^th century engraving depicts the monastic complex with its artificial terrace in collective memory. The 1960s-70s constructions obscured this feature, which had been preserved until then, and changed perceptions of the monument from the Golden Horn. In addition, illegal interventions destroyed other monastic remains.

Lastly, researchers know that various international preservation charters offer suggestions for the protection of individual buildings and cityscapes. Among these are examinations with a team of specialists, investigating previous repairs, identifying its physical, structural properties, retaining its acquired components over time, making reversible alterations, and avoiding untested materials that might compromise its originality. In addition, the regulations comprise their cultural setting, the morphology of the urban fabric, how blocks are segmented into plots, street widths, and vistas. The diagnosis and implementation stages involve more than just utilizing restoration methods to solve issues related to complex historic structures. Based on the above charters, the paper examines the approach to monument conservation and the surroundings, while offering recommendations for the future.

For the last century, many people, institutions, and organizations have contributed to the history of Byzantine studies in Turkey. Among these, the establishment of Istanbul University, which emerged within a modern academy structure from the body of the Ottoman Darülfünun (The House of Sciences), and the establishment of Faculty of Language and History - Geography within the Ankara University, were especially important milestones. Although the initiation of Byzantine studies in Turkey can be dated back to the pre-Republican period, its real attraction to the academic community was developing toward its current phase in Turkey after the establishment of the aforementioned universities.

With the influence of modern Turkish historiography, which was on the rise since the 1930s, modern museological activities, archeology studies, as well as the excavations and the studies of foreign researchers in Istanbul and Anatolia, the Turkish academy started to become more interested in Byzantine studies. During these first years, when the intellectuals of the Republic tried to underline concepts such as civilization, culture, geography, nation and identity; Byzantine history as a part of Anatolian history and Byzantine architectural heritage, which continued to exist in the country in a natural environment, also attracted the attention of the Turkish intelligentsia. Through the contributions of historians, museum experts, archaeologists and academics who immigrated from Europe, Turkish universities began to have an international presence in Byzantine studies, albeit weakly, in the 1950s. The return of scientists to Turkey, specifically those who were sent by the Young Republic to Europe to receive an education before WWII, and the return of the scientists who fled from Europe during the WWII and were hosted by Turkish universities, also became milestones in the development of Byzantine studies. The development of classical philology and Ancient Greek and Roman studies in Turkish universities is another aspect that needs to be evaluated within the development of the Byzantine studies.

Byzantine studies survived from the 1950s to the 1990s in a few state universities, under the umbrella of Art History and History departments, thanks to the efforts of a small number of academics in their universities. In the 1960s, the establishment of the chair of Byzantine Art at Istanbul University and the individual efforts of Semavi Eyice were among the promising developments in the academy, and led to cultivating subsequent generations.

The development of Byzantine studies in Turkish universities during the Republican period made a big leap since the 1990s, and from the beginning of the 2000s it has shown to be a faster development than the previous 80 years. In addition to state universities, private foundation universities, other institutions and non-governmental organizations paved the way for academics. The return of many Turkish academics from overseas institutions, where they went for postgraduate education since the 2000s, can also be considered to be an important factor. Likewise, the last twenty years, in which archaeological excavations and Byzantine heritage have come to the fore as a tourism potential and cultural value, have been instrumental in attracting many young academics to this field. Within the scope of the paper, in which the current situation will also be evaluated, the presentation will aim to consider institutional developments, statistical data, education-science policies, problems in academia and a perspective on the future.

Byzantium, the heartland of which is embedded in modern Turkey, is a key link in any exploration of global history for at least five reasons:  its geographical extent, its economic links, its chronology, its cultural reach and its religious heritage.  Geographically, Byzantium at its greatest extent spanned from the edge of the Black Sea in the global north to the base of the Nile in the global south, and from Italy / Sicily in the west through to what is now known as the Middle East.  It had no links (so far as we know) to the Americas or Australia, but had economic links with the rest of the globe, from Scandinavia to Nubia in Africa and Sri Lanka via the Indian Ocean, and from China (via both land and sea) to Britain and the Iberian penisula.  Chronologically, the Byzantine Empire spanned the centuries now identified as late Roman, through the Medieval and into the Renaissance world, and its merchants and artisans were heavily involved in transcultural and transnational exchange throughout the nearly 1200 years of its existence.  Byzantium’s religious heritage remains throughout the Orthodox Christian world, and its cultural legacy is also world-wide, and not limited to monuments associated with Christianity, as the Blue Mosque attests.  Mehmet II’s policies after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453 underlined (in some respects) the global impact of the Byzantine Empire, and of course the modern use of the term ‘byzantine’ to express labyrinthine bureaucracy does too, if in a rather negative way.

But Byzantium was not a monolith, and it was made up of various populations and small communities that intersected with each other, to be sure, but usually regionally rather than globally.  These local interactions and networks overlapped, and could have a ripple effect far beyond their immediate neighbours, but its more obvious global reach is largely (though not exclusively) visible in in élite products, which are, by definition, rare.

If, however, we turn to the broader arena of cultural history, or perhaps better put, patterns of thought and issues of concern, global connections resurface, at various levels.  Gender relations are expressed – though not necessarily lived – in remarkably similar ways across the (for example) Catholic, Orthodox, Islamic, Buddhist, and Jewish medieval worlds of Eurasia, and in all of these cases are nuanced by hierarchies of status.  In the eighth and ninth centuries, the Latin-speaking, Greek-speaking, and Arabic-speaking élites of different parts of western Eurasia were all concerned with the legitimacy (or not) of representation, though the responses of each were quite different.  The Byzantine legacy of this period resonates in the sixteenth-century invention of the term iconoclasm to legitimise Reformation behaviour, and its modern appropriation (largely by the western media) today.

We are talking about different types of global relationships here, and one of the purposes of this paper will be to try to differentiate between them, to clarify what we mean by the term Global History, and what role Byzantium played.

The first underwater archaeological excavations of Byzantine shipwrecks in Turkish waters were conducted by George Bass at Yassıada, on the southwestern coast of Turkey, between 1961 and 1967. This project began one year after Bass’s excavation of a Bronze Age shipwreck at Cape Gelidonya with a team of international volunteers and Turkish sponge divers, widely considered to be the first underwater archaeological excavation of a shipwreck in the Mediterranean; moreover, they were among the first Byzantine shipwrecks to be studied archaeologically. The landmark Yassıada and Serçe Limanı (1977-1979) excavations played a formative role in the development of methods and research design in nautical archaeology (i.e., the archaeological study of ships) and maritime archaeology (the archaeological study of seafaring) and demonstrated the potential of underwater archaeological research as well as the essential value of shipwrecks as a source of information about the Byzantine economy and society. Research into Byzantine seafaring has also progressed in the last century with the study of port and harbor sites by terrestrial archaeologists and textual evidence on seafaring by historians. More recently, interdisciplinary approaches have been adopted for systematic coastal and underwater surveys, the study of maritime trade goods (and their containers), studies of the physical remains and built infrastructure of late antique and Byzantine ports, maritime networks and maritime landscapes, and research on material from rescue excavations, particularly those associated with the Marmaray Rail Project in Istanbul. This paper will focus on the archaeological study of Byzantine seafaring in Turkey from the mid-20^th century to today, highlighting some of the major contributions of individual projects and scholars, the development of research projects concerned with Byzantine-period maritime archaeology in Turkey, the growing trend among contemporary Turkish and international researchers towards more interdisciplinary approaches, and future directions for research on Byzantine seafaring in Turkey.

It was probably sometime in 1941 or early 1942 when İsmet İnönü was being driven around Istanbul and noticed a building he did not recognize. Inquiries were made and finally someone from his entourage answered it was probably a Byzantine-period building. Further questions by the second president of the Turkish Republic led to no additional details about the building: İnönü’s officials could not tell him anything more. The president was irritated by the fact that his entourage knew nothing - or near nothing - about Byzantium. Byzantium was “all part of the history of the city and of the country,” according to İnönü. James Cochran Stevenson Runciman was recommended as the potential recipient of an academic position at Istanbul University to teach Byzantine subjects. Within a day of his arrival in the city, on March 1st, 1942, Runciman signed his contract at Istanbul University’s Faculty of Letters to teach Byzantine history, archaeology, and art. Recent archival work by Zeynep Kuban and Verda Bingöl established that the first chair of Byzantine Art History in the history of the Turkish Republic was the one assigned to Steven Runciman at Istanbul University’s Faculty of Letters.

Runciman left with the end of World War II and without an appointed replacement. This situation of unclarity continued for some years, and it was not until 1950 and an international search that Philipp Schweinfurth was appointed as the chair of Byzantine art history at Istanbul University. His time at Istanbul University came to an abrupt end in 1954, when he suddenly died. By 1951, other universities in Turkey had developed academic interests in a variety of disciplines associated with Byzantium, with a keen eye on the emerging academic schools in Europe. This is the time in which Paolo Verzone, historian of Medieval architecture, architect and restorer was selected by Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture to teach architectural history and architectural conservation theories and practices. Verzone was the first Italian to receive a university chair at a Turkish university.

This presentation reflects on the agency of these first foreign Byzantinists at Turkish universities, on their teachings, their academic community building efforts and on their legacy. While all of them share the common trait of the “academic immigrant”, their differences resonate in their biographies and the historical circumstances that brought them to Turkey. The probability of a transient and non-permanent relationship with space and context will be assessed for each one of them. How did the geopolitical circumstances of the times resonate in their work and teaching? Undoubtedly, all of them carried their “national” conceptions of Byzantium. This presentation investigates how these conceptions permeated their teachings and, where possible, how their interpretation of Byzantium impacted students.

Considerations of if and how Runciman, Schweinfurth and Verzone reoriented their scholarship in light of their newly acquired academic positions in Turkey will be addressed, as well as how their relationship with Turkish students contributed to this reorientation. Finally, but not lastly, their academic and reciprocal exchange as teachers and promotors of Byzantine studies with students and the broader environment will be assessed.

In addition to being the first and the largest museum of Turkey, Istanbul Archaeological Museums was the first institution to conduct archaeological excavations. With over a million of artefacts in inventory and several urban excavations undertaken every year, Istanbul Archaeological Museums is still an important entity for archaeology and museology worldwide.

Istanbul is known to have a past of 8500 years, as the city served as capital to Byzantine Empire for a significant amount of time during this past, the remains and small finds of this period is being uncovered in various parts of the city, increasing the available data. Abundant movable and immovable cultural assets unearthed by the recent excavations in the Great Palace, Yenikapı Marmaray and Metro stations, Haydarpaşa, Damatrys Palace, Küçükyalı Satyros Monastery, Boukoleon Palace and Saint Polyeuktos are being introduced to both the academia and the public via numerous publications and conferences. These publications are not limited with the ones by the museum directors and experts, they include many studies by both Turkish and foreign scholars. Additionally, unpublished finds from past excavations or unpublished artefacts in museum collections which were obtained from various locations of Turkey are being presented to the benefit of the scholars.

The museum also houses important scientific activities such as the “International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium”. Even more crucially, Istanbul Archaeological Museums enables the related programs of the universities in the city to organize their lectures inside the museum, or if required, to hold practical lessons at the excavations of the museum. In this aspect, the recent protocol between Istanbul University and Ministry of Culture and Tourism has led to a very beneficial cooperation.

Istanbul Archaeological Museums continue to work in accordance with its historic mission, the cultural assets to be uncovered will be shared by the academia and the public with the same meticulousness.

The contributions and importance of the Byzantine Empire for the world's cultural heritage, considering tangible and intangible impacts on the material culture, beliefs, and rituals of many present civilizations and of those that once existed in the past, have been studied since the Renaissance period. Nevertheless, these studies gained a place in academia as a discipline in itself with the systematic research of Byzantine art and archaeology towards the end of the 19^th century. Istanbul, once the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, hosted the heritage and culture that it accommodated for centuries, and has a remarkable place in terms of Byzantine studies. Byzantine Art has been one of the three main branches of the Department of Art History of Istanbul University, which was founded by Ernst Diez in 1943. The tenth edition of the International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Congrès International des Études Byzantines), the first of which occurred in Bucharest in 1924, was held between September 15 and 21, 1955 and hosted by the Faculty of Letters of Istanbul University. The contribution of state institutions such as Istanbul University and the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, as well as private incentives and collections, in the development of Byzantine Studies in Turkey, cannot be denied. The dedication of Sevgi Gönül, who served as the chairperson of the executive board of the Sadberk Hanım Museum, the first private museum in Turkey, from 1980, when it was founded, until her death in 2003, should be considered as a separate case study. Gönül had taken the initiative to organize symposium-like academic events on Byzantine studies at regular intervals. In 1994, she made intensive efforts to implement these studies, yet, unfortunately, the conditions did not allow this congress to be implemented. However, the Vehbi Koç Foundation has been organizing the Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium every three years since 2007 in loving memory of the late Sevgi Gönül.  In addition to leading academic studies, during her tenure, she attached utmost importance to the development and diversification of the Byzantine collection of the Sadberk Hanım Museum and played an important role in the culture and art life of Turkey. While developing the collection, the relationship of the works with the material cultures of previous and later cultures was taken into consideration. In this respect, the Sadberk Hanım Museum Byzantine collection, which developed under Gönül's tenure, has gained a unique place in terms of its contribution to Byzantine studies. This study focuses on the contributions of private museums and collections in Turkey to Byzantine studies, with a focus on the collectorship of Sevgi Gönül and the Sadberk Hanım Museum collection. Byzantine works exhibited together with other Anatolian cultures underline unification, ownership, and coexistence rather than alienation or othering within a conscious and positive museological narrative and well-formed museum scenario. This hypothesis will be illustrated with the evaluation of the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine works in the collection of Sadberk Hanım Museum in terms of context, identity, representation, historical continuity, and cultural encounters. In this context, the importance of museums will be emphasized with respect to their undeniable role, not only in shaping society, but in explaining and reasserting the significance of cultural heritage with a holistic and factual message.

Organizing, managing, and accessing information is important for academics and researchers. Changes in information and communication technologies in the digital world have affected studies in cultural heritage and archaeology. Moreover, the changing expectations of cultural heritage professionals and archaeologists in the digital era are creating new demands concerning the creation, access, and use of information.

Cultural memory institutions, such as libraries, archives, and museums are responsible for storing, managing, and sharing information about cultural heritage. These institutions create digital collections and systems to make physical materials (e.g., books, journals, archival materials, collections) openly accessible. Digital records can be the result of converting existing analogue material into digital material or creating born-digital content. The increase in digitized and/or born-digital data in cultural heritage studies has prompted academic, public, and cultural memory institutions to undertake several projects to create online digital collections, infrastructures and digital repositories. These institutions also engage in education projects to increase awareness about accessibility and the use of digital information. They, in turn, cooperate to manage and share information in the field of digital cultural heritage.

This paper examines the importance of information and data management in archaeology and digital cultural heritage. It is crucial to make data Findable, openly Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, by adhering to the FAIR principles. The importance of information management in digital cultural heritage is discussed through various case studies. Several challenges are highlighted, such as lack of standards and controlled vocabularies for creating, organising and sharing data. The paper will examine the importance of using standards and controlled vocabularies and linking data for digital cultural heritage data management.

During a Byzantine Studies conference organized in 2017 in Istanbul, a French Byzantinist shared his astonishment about the scholarly and public interest, especially among youth, aroused by the conference. He added that one could see a similar dynamism only in Greece or in South-East European countries. The existence of such attraction to the field may seem all the more striking in a country in which most of the population does not perceive a linguistic, religious and cultural immediacy to Byzantine civilization. How could one measure this interest in Byzantine studies among youth in Turkey? What are they curious about? This paper aims to measure the growing interest among youth by looking at the graduate theses related with the Byzantine Studies in Turkey, which were completed between 1990 and 2022. It hopes to analyze them quantitatively and in terms of their content. The graduate theses completed between 1990 and 2022 in France, in which “Byzantium” became the term of art for the discipline in the 19th-century and the graduate theses during the same period completed in Greece, in which Byzantium is an integral part of the official state ideology will be discussed in order to provide a comparative perspective.

The major sources of this inquiry will be the Turkish Council of Education (YÖK) digital archives for the graduate theses, le système universitaire de documentation (SUDOC) in France and the National Archive of PhD Theses (Εθνικό Αρχείο Διδακτορικών Διατριβών) in Greece.

In 1943, Ord. Prof. Dr. Arif Müfid Mansel submitted a comprehensive report to Türk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish Historical Society), about his archaeological research on the ancient Pamphylia region. In 1946, Perge's excavations and one year later, Side’s excavations had begun following that report with the leadership of TTK and the execution of Mansel. These excavations issued successful results in a short period. In 1955, Antalya Region Archaeology Research Station (now Antalya Region Archaeological Research Center) was established with the supportive encouragement of Istanbul University Rector Prof. Dr. Fahir Yeşilçay.

The aims of the center are:

• Research archaeological wealth, by using surveys and excavations, in and around the Antalya region with the help of modern technological methods,
• To inform the scientific world with national and international publications,
• To produce conservation projects;
• To consciousness-raising of society about archaeology, ancient cultures, and cultural heritage.

Thus, since 1955, several types of research on ancient sites at Antalya could remain under the direction of Istanbul University’s academic staff and students.

The directors of the center are:1954-1974 Ord. Prof. Dr. Arif Müfid Mansel, 1974-1983 Prof. Dr. Jale İnan, 1983-2010 Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu, 2010-2014, Prof. Dr. İnci Delemen, 2014- Prof. Dr. Sedef Çokay-Kepçe.

Excavations and research conducted by the center are: Perge Excavations (1946-2011, 2020-ongoing), Side Excavations (1947-1967, 1974-1983), Kremna Rescue Excavations (1970-1972), Lyrbe Rescue Excavations (1972-1974).

This research provides quantitative and qualitative analyses of the development and evolution of academic and popular interest in Byzantium and Byzantine studies in Turkey. The study focuses on articles and translated books published between 1923 and 2023. The data gathered for this study consists of two parts: the first part focuses on translated books, and the second examines Byzantium-related articles in popular and academic periodicals. A comprehensive data set was established to achieve such an extensive project, offering information based on concise and encompassing categories, including numerical and factual entries and analyses of the content. The qualitative data presents the disciplines, auxiliary sciences in use, periods of Byzantine history, and geographical focuses in the translated books and articles. The statistical data on the ratio of Byzantium-related articles to the total number of articles in selected journals and their direct, partial, or secondary focus on Byzantium as a "thematic category" were collected. Regarding the books, information gathered on their authors and translation processes, such as source languages, author information, location, and year of publication, helps us make observations concerning the recent dominance of English-speaking scholarship on Byzantium and the still-unchallenged supremacy of Istanbul as the capital of publishing houses. Cover pages and prefaces by translators and editors (and authors, if the author provided a new foreword for the Turkish translation) are analyzed to see the motivation behind the translations. The examination of the themes of translated books and articles reveals continuities and changes in the interests of the Turkish public on Byzantine topics. A major aim of this paper is to test whether trends in certain themes respond to contemporary socio-political and economic events that influence the interest of the readers.

Archaeological excavations in Kadıkalesi, which houses a five-thousand-year-old cultural heritage like a jewel box on the southern coast of Kuşadası, have yielded surprising results. In the long history of Kadıkalesi from prehistory to the present, after the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Italo-Byzantine settlements, the last uses of the area were in the Ottoman and Turkish Republican history. During the First World War in 1914-1918s and the Cyprus Operation in the year of 1974, soldiers were stationed in Kadıkalesi for short periods. Since the mound is opposite the Samos Island on the Aegean coast and dominates the Dilek or Samos Strait, this place has not lost its strategic importance throughout its history. Towards the end of the 13^th century, due to the transportation facilities provided by its port and the commercial privileges given to the Latins in the last years of the Byzantine Empire, Anaia became an important center in the Mediterranean trade network.

According to the findings of the excavations that have been going on for more than twenty years, artifacts from the Byzantine period are more than any other culture in the area, and among them the religious ones are extremely remarkable. In particular, the large church inside the castle is in competition with Ephesus, the nearest pilgrimage center with its monumental architecture and other Christian finds; it even stands out in some details, such as its flamboyant ambo. So, when compared to the surrounding ancient cities, this small “castle settlement” has a huge cultural heritage that exceeds its dimensions.

At the beginning of the 13^th century, the Anaia diocese was surrounded by the walls and towers of Laskaris, while the port-related customs services were actually protected. Thus, the eastern façade of the monumental church, which was supposed to be ostentatious, was hidden behind the walls.

With the construction phases from the 5^th to the middle of the 13^th century, the church was reshaped over and over again according to the needs of the time. The early Christian basilica was eventually replaced by a Late Byzantine "hall church", but it never lost its episcopal liturgy.

One of the Early Christian heritages in the castle the church infrastructure, which we assumed to be "Hagiasma" with its original architecture, is extremely remarkable with the remains of an Old Testament scened mural and an inscription containing a passage from the Codex Theodosianus.

Another one, a baptistery, which we date to the 5^th century, draws attention with its rearranged opus sectile flooring. It might have been one of the pioneers of the 6^th century polygonal central baptisteries with its core space with a pool and its surrounding amblotorium. Also in many details provides important knowledge in terms of the rituals of those days.

In our paper, starting from the monumental church structure, a rich selection from the Byzantine period findings on the subjects such as architecture, architectural sculpture, wall painting and icon will be included in the light of archaeological data in the castle.

In this talk, I will draw from my experiences as a graduate student in Istanbul, Turkey in Boğaziçi University’s History Department and in the Greek section of Ghent University’s Literary Studies Department, as well as my windy wanderings in between. I will highlight the significant differences between academic culture and practices in Turkey, Europe, and the U.S. by stressing the positive and negative aspects of each, especially those that are crucial for the development of early career researchers. My speech will start by discussing “what it means to be a student” and the norms and expected behaviors in different academic settings. Then, I will comment on how the norms in Turkey affect the development of Byzantine Studies in Turkey and the futures of Turkish female and male graduate students differently. Secondly, I will focus on the importance of academic networking, public lectures, graduate workshops, and summer/spring/winter schools for the future of early career Byzantinists in Turkey. Thirdly, I will touch upon the use of novel, theory-driven, and critical approaches to primary texts and how they can influence Byzantine Studies in Turkey and open new avenues of research for new generations. Finally, I will open the floor for discussion as to whether there are “best practices” and academic models that we can implement in our field and in our country.

The ancient city of Olympos, an important port settlement, is located in a deep valley on the eastern shore of the Lycian region. Based on findings obtained in the excavations that have been carried out since 2000, the urban texture of the city can be traced as belonging to the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine eras.

It is known that Olympos was founded during the Hellenistic Era and was accepted as one of the six major cities of the Lycian League. The city was dismissed from the League at the end of the 2^nd century AD because the city was supporting Zeniketes, who is known as a pirate. During the Roman Imperial Era the city once again gained its important position. In the Notitiae Episcopatuum, from the 6^th to the 9^th centuries, Olympos is recorded as a bishopric dependent of the Metropolis of Myra.

Architectural elements composing the urban texture are spread out along both banks of a river that flows through a deep valley, opening to Mediterranean on the east side. The Hellenistic settlement was founded on the southern bank of the river. During the Roman era, the city expanded along both banks. In this era, researchers can evaluate that the city was designed around the port at the center and the southern part held the center of the daily life in and around its public buildings. Having cult areas and monumental tombs, the northern part of the river was used as a religious center.

The urban texture of Byzantine Olympos was mostly shaped in accordance with the Roman era street layout and topography. New buildings were constructed and other buildings in disuse were transformed and used in different functions. Following a population increase, both northern and southern slopes of the city were opened for settlement in the 5^th century AD. Nine churches were detected in the city, which adopted a Christian identity with Byzantine era urbanization. These churches were located and functioned in accordance with Roman era separation between religious and secular areas. This situation shows an important example for the urban transformation and development of the Late Antique Era when transition from paganism to monotheism took place.

Based on the archaeological findings, researchers understood that Olympos was prosperous in terms of population, trade and production in the 5^th and 6^th centuries AD. Natural disasters and epidemics in the middle of the 6^th century AD constitute an important turning point for the history of the city. In the 7^th century AD, the negativities that emerged as a result of the Arab raids in the Mediterranean also affected Olympos. Both the events observed in the historical process and the finds obtained from the archaeological excavations carried out until today fostered the idea that the city was completely abandoned in the 7^th century AD.

The findings, which emerged as a result of the excavations, do not only reveal the urban texture, but also important and unique evidence related to the social, economic and cultural aspects of Olympos.

Organized in Istanbul in 1955 by “the patronage” of the president Celal Bayar, the 10^th International Congress of Byzantine Studies marks a milestone for the evolution of Byzantine studies in Turkey. By hosting the event and producing the largest amount of delegates, Turkey presented itself as an important player in the field of Byzantine studies in the international arena. The congress had a troublesome start because of a few minor problems faced during the preparations period and the major problem of the Events of 6–7 September/Istanbul Pogrom. Nevertheless, the congress satisfied its participants both in terms of its operation and content.

As written by Buket Kitapçı Bayrı, the major sources for the 1955 congress are the publications of the congress including the proceedings book, minutes from TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey), the archives of Aziz Ogan and Cahide Tamer and the three reports produced by foreign participants. The documents of the organization committee in the archive of Istanbul University Faculty of Letters Antalya Region Archaeological Research Center (ABAAM) should be added to this list. The unpublished documents containing the correspondences and notes of the organizing committee and especially its chairperson, Arif Müfid Mansel who was the founder of the Department (kürsü) of Classical Archeology in Istanbul University, provides us with new information on the congress. The aim of this presentation is to investigate the schedule and operation of the congress, the cooperation between the committee and state institutions, in addition to the difficulties experienced by the organizers before and after the congress based on the documents from the aforementioned archive. A second aim is to provide a picture of Turkish Byzantinology in 1950’s through the analysis of the participants from Turkey.

This paper takes a chronological approach to examine the diversity of initiatives around exhibitions’ presentation of Byzantium in Istanbul. Under Atatürk after the transformation of Hagia Sophia into a museum (1935), the state’s cultural program rapidly moved into shaping a national perspective on the ancient roots of Turkish identity. The high point was the history exhibition organized by the Turkish Historical Foundation at Dolmabahçe Palace to accompany the Second History Congress (1937). For that show, mainly composed of maquettes, photographs, and documentary posters, the organizers entrusted the section on the Greek, Roman, and early Byzantine periods to Aziz Ogan, whose towering role as director of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums (from 1931 to his retirement in 1954) encouraged Turkish participation in international cultural networks and his museum taking part in international exhibitions. The much-awaited Tenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, held in Istanbul in September 1955, was shadowed by the tragic events of September 6–7. The preparation of the congress contributed to the re-shaping of the collections in the archaeological museums with Byzantine treasures put on display in combination to large-scale marbles.

International relations and politics–especially the promotion of cultural links with the European community–favored the development of temporary exhibitions in historic sites of the Old City, as in Hagia Eirene (1983). The inauguration of two major permanent sections at the Istanbul Archaeological Museums -Istanbul through the Ages (1996), followed two years later by Neighbouring Cultures of Istanbul; Thrace-Bithynia and Byzantium (1998)- enhanced the visibility of Byzantium within a chronological sequence going back to the Neolithic. The latter initiative marked the pioneering participation of private sponsorship, courtesy funding by Garanti Bankası, for exhibitions at public institutions.

The major Byzantine excavations in the city as those conducted by the Istanbul Archaeological Museums in the area of the garden of Old Sultanahmet Prison (1996–2007), and the more recent ones at the Theodosian Harbor of Yenikapı (2004–2015) were highlighted in temporary exhibitions at the Istanbul Archaeological Museums (2007, 2011, and 2013) held within the framework of scientific gatherings, such as the International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium.

The development of Byzantine studies at the international and local levels provided unprecedent impetus to temporary exhibitions in Istanbul. The plurality of actors, including local research centers equipped with exhibition spaces as the Istanbul Research Institute of the Suna and İnan Kıraç Foundation and Koç University’s Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations (ANAMED), encouraged the participation of local private collections and international lending institutions. Innovative approaches and the use of modern technologies, such as 3D modeling, animations, and virtual reality, broke new ground for research, allowing exhibitions and Byzantine studies to reciprocally nourish each other.

The early years of the Turkish Republic witnessed an increasing interest in the humanities, and especially in history and archaeology. This interest was initially tied up with the ideological needs of the nation-state, as expressed in the Turkish History Thesis. However, the discipline of archaeology also provided proof of the achievements and progress of the young republic and thus became, itself, a symbol of modernity. The establishment of the Faculty of Languages, History and Geography at Ankara University and the Turkish students sent abroad to be educated in history and archaeology were among the efforts of the new state to foster these disciplines, although these efforts were not extended to Byzantinology. Despite the support, or at least tacit approval, provided to foreign scholars as well as Turkish museologists such as Arif Müfid Mansel (1905–1975) and Aziz Ogan (1888–1956), to conduct archaeological research on Byzantine monuments, as well as the ambitious step to convert Hagia Sophia into a museum following the restoration of its mosaics by the Byzantine Institute, institutional efforts to establish Byzantine studies as an academic discipline were lacking in this period.

The attempt to disconnect the Byzantine past of its territories from the identity of the new nation-state might well explain the unwillingness to develop Byzantine studies as an academic discipline in Turkey in this period. Indeed, even today Byzantium occupies an ambiguous position in the Turkish historical consciousness. Nevertheless, during the tremulous years of World War II, Semavi Eyice (1922–2018) emerged through his own efforts as a leading Byzantinist despite the absence of an institutional setup. Eyice completed his art history education under the tutelage of foreign scholars abroad and at Istanbul University where he started to teach after his graduation and founded the chair of Byzantine art in 1963. Yet, only with the arrival of several other pioneering intellectual and organizational founding figures could Byzantine studies truly develop as an academic discipline in Turkey.

In this paper, the emergence and development of Byzantinology as an academic discipline in Turkey will be examined through the lens of neo-Kuhnian developmental models, which emphasize the wider social context of scientific knowledge production along with its immediate scientific context. Although the term “academic discipline” has become a technical term for the organization of learning and the systematic production of new knowledge, academic disciplines are, above all, multi-dimensional socio-communicative networks of knowledge production. My paper will focus on the pioneering Turkish scholars, who ventured into uncharted territory and carved out a place for Byzantine studies in Turkish academia with their intellectual and organizational leadership: Semavi Eyice, Ebru Parman (1947–), Yıldız Ötüken (1945–2020), Doğan Kuban (1926–2021), Metin Ahunbay (1935–2014), and Melek Delilbaşı (1947–2022). I will attempt to analyze the cognitive and social aspects of group formation and transformation among researchers throughout the developmental stages of the discipline and identify the pivotal roles these scholars played in the institutionalization of Byzantine studies in Turkey using personal testimonies and empirical data.

In this panel, which I will attend as a speaker, I will present my experiences to Byzantinists, who are at the beginning of their careers, by making comparisons on some disciplines and institutions. Since I completed my undergraduate degree at Istanbul University, a very traditional university in Turkey, and my master's degree at La Trobe University in Australia, unlike other speakers, I will present a number of institutional and mass comparisons of Byzantine studies in Australia and Turkey. These comparisons will be based on the structures of institutions established for Byzantine studies and the opportunities they offer to researchers. These comparisons will be followed by a discussion on the research opportunities that young Byzantinists aim for in Turkey and the accessibility of these opportunities. Contrary to Europe, Byzantine studies in Australia and Turkey do not have an intricate history. Therefore, it will be very interesting to compare the positive and negative experiences of researchers in these two countries, which have similar steps but different effects on Byzantine studies. Thus, I believe that Byzantinists in the early stages of their careers will also draw various lessons from this comparison.

Turkey’s cultural heritage is subject to serious destruction as several archaeological sites have been suffering from illicit digs and modern development in recent years. Regrettably, in most cases, it is not always possible to trace what was destroyed or lost due to a lack of proper documentation. Therefore, a national cultural heritage inventory is urgently needed.

TAY (The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey) Project has been creating such an inventory for about 29 years in Turkey through an investigation into all of the archaeological settlements previously revealed by the excavations and surveys in Anatolia and Thrace. The project, launched in 1993, is being conducted by a voluntary team of archaeologists and art historians. Archaeological settlements and monuments belonging to the period between the Palaeolithic to the end of the Byzantine Period are being documented. The project’s methodology is based on the gathering of all of the scattered data of the archaeological research in Turkey that began in the 1800s, in a systematically arranged open-access database. The data is also being published both as hard copies and digital sources in Turkish and English, and updated periodically in accordance with the latest results of excavations and surveys. 

One of the most important components of the project was the TAY Expedition (TAYEx). The regions of Turkey were surveyed systematically by a team of specialists. All previously known sites were documented with the Global Positioning System (GPS) and a computerized, specially equipped vehicle. Thereby the past archaeological data is controlled, the current situation of the sites is recorded and moreover, a visual archive of Turkey’s cultural heritage site was created. 

The TAY Project started studies on the Byzantine heritage of Turkey in 2001 and completed the Byzantine architectural inventory of the modern Marmara Region, including in Turkish Thrace, Istanbul and Bithynia, and the Central Anatolia region. The inventory of the Mediterranean region is being studied. This paper presents the building inventories of the Byzantine Period. In addition, the data obtained and the difficulties encountered during the expedition will be discussed. 

Our knowledge of Byzantine history is primarily based on historians. However, it is necessary to take into account that many late antique and early Byzantine sources are either completely lost or information about their contents is only partially obtainable from copies made in later centuries.

Source problems continue in unwritten sources as well. The remnants of the churches constitute the basis for Byzantine architectural history and art while the loss caused by the periods of high destruction interrupted our knowledge in these areas. Architectural development can be traced from the surviving monuments, from early Byzantine basilicas to churches with cruciform domes. The details of the architectural decorations of the interiors can be learned from written sources. The sacral structures of the capital and the provinces are also re-evaluated with scientific interpretations, in addition to the information conveyed in the written sources, which have been recovered by the works carried out in recent years. Small finds and documented inscriptions obtained in scientific excavations and research studies in the buildings and in the settlements provide information about both the function of the place where they are located and daily life there. The decorations, monograms, and inscriptions on the architectural elements, the stamps on the bricks, the stamps on the handles of the amphora, the graffiti, and dipinti on various vessels and items and votive, honorary, funerary inscriptions along with building inscriptions are all important sources for the historical processes of settlements and building histories.

Since the great imperial palace looks different from the plan of the period in which it was used due to changes and additions made over the centuries, new archaeological data was needed for its reconstruction. Information on how some parts of the palace were used in late antiquity and the early Byzantine periods can be obtained through scientific excavations and research carried out in this region.

By means of the scientific excavations carried out in recent years on the port during the Theodosius period and the other ports of the capital, the information conveyed by written sources can be improved, and thanks to studies and observations made in recent years, new information has been discovered concerning the land walls and sea walls of Theodosius II.

Late antique and early Byzantine historiography – as in the Roman imperial and later Byzantine eras – focused more on the emperor and the political history at the center of the empire. It is possible to learn about the administrative scheme, the prosopography of the bureaucracy, and the legal structure partly with the inscriptions on lead seals. The details of social and economic history can be understood with the help of the excavation and survey finds, especially on subjects which are not mentioned in the historiography or are only mentioned superficially.

The history of Byzantine studies in Turkey has lately received a lot of attention. As the discipline is finally flourishing in the 21^st century, its 19^th and 20^th century beginnings appear to have become ripe for historical research. The establishment of the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul has, by now, been well-researched and the subject of many publications, including the history of events that led to and followed the foundation of its branch office, the people who worked at and with the institution, and the Byzantine projects that they conducted. On this basis, it should now be possible to take the inquiry one step further, beyond the history of events, and to describe and analyze developments in terms of intellectual and cultural history or that of ideas and mentalities. In trying to do so, this contribution shall address three issues that appear to have been significant for, and that help to understand the development of Byzantine studies at the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul: secularism, professionalism, and coincidence.

In the last decades of the 19^th century, there was an increasing number of Russian scholars who studied Byzantine antiquities in Ottoman territories. This academic interest was facilitated by an institutional framework, as the Imperial Academy of Sciences, universities, and scholarly societies at home and abroad provided funds for research in disciplines such as history, archaeology and art history. In addition to benefitting from the framework of existing institutions, Russian scholars were also instrumental in the establishment of new ones, two of which were in the Ottoman Empire. These two Russian scholarly institutions in Ottoman territories were the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople and the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society in Jerusalem. The Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, which was under the protection of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was a strictly scholarly institution dedicated almost exclusively to the study of Byzantine and Slavic antiquities in the Ottoman Empire and in the newly independent Balkan states. Different from the Russian Archaeological Institute, the Palestine Society had both academic and non-academic functions, such as providing support to Russian pilgrims and organizing charity activities aimed at bridging the gap between Russia and local Orthodox Christians. The Palestine Society, which was under direct royal patronage, provided generous financial support to scholars and was especially noted for its robust publication activities. The official names of these two institutions may have no reference to Byzantinology, but both of them excelled in the study of Byzantine antiquities.

The institutionalization of Byzantine studies in Russia coincided with increasing Russian political and diplomatic involvement in the Ottoman Empire. However, beyond that complicated political context, both the Russian Archaeological Institute and the Palestine Society facilitated a steady flow of scholars and students between Russia and Ottoman territories during a politically turbulent time. Thanks to these government-sponsored institutions and the opportunities they offered, people from different walks of life could join imperial Russian academia and participate in knowledge production within the field of Byzantinology. It is this mobility that I will emphasize particularly in this presentation. This academic mobility had two aspects: on the one hand, it meant actual trans-imperial mobility in which scholars moved between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in search of Byzantine art and history. On the other hand, it meant upwards social mobility, as Byzantine studies was a state-sponsored and well-funded field in which successful scholars could rise up the social ladder as a result of their academic work. The political context and the institutionalization of Byzantinology in Russia were intricately linked, but the picture would be incomplete without reference to the actual people who were part of knowledge production. It is the aim of this presentation to bring these people to the forefront.

In the evolution of Byzantine studies in Turkey, an initial phase marked by individual scholars’ contributions to the field was followed by a gradual process of transition toward its institutionalization. In this process, three major developments during the first two decades of the 21st century stand out as the most significant stages of institutionalization, paving the way for further progress in the field of Byzantine studies, which had already gained momentum and started flourishing in Turkey from the 1990s onwards. The establishment of the Turkish National Committee for Byzantine Studies at the beginning of 2001, followed by its acceptance as a member of the Association Internationale des Études Byzantines at the 20th International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Paris during the same year, was a crucial step in both the institutionalization of the field in Turkey and its official representation in the international arena. A second important step was taken in 2007 with the inauguration of the International Sevgi Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium as a scholarly event to be held in Istanbul on a regular basis once every three years. Finally, in 2015, the opening of Turkey’s first two research centers directly devoted to Byzantine studies – one at Koç University and the other Boğaziçi University – gave further impetus to the advancement of the field within an institutional framework. Focusing on these three developments as key events marking the institutionalization of Byzantine studies in Turkey, this paper will first examine their background and then evaluate their impact on the current state of the field.

Founded in 2015, GABAM both supported and conducted several projects, digital projects among them taking the lead in terms of providing scientific online sources free of charge to both researchers and the general public for all to better engage with the Byzantine cultural heritage of Turkey.

The first digital GABAM project, Byzantine Monuments Photographs Archive, focuses on the historical city within the walls and can be accessed at Koç University’s Suna Kıraç Library Digital Collections. Currently, the photographs dating between the years of 1990-2020 are present in the archive, with more additions being made to reflect the most recent conditions of the monuments.

The Byzantine Musical Instruments Project, a joint study between GABAM and The Friends of Music Society in Athens, aimed to document representations of musical instruments in visual sources, and has been presented for it to be used by researchers at Koç University’s Suna Kıraç Library Digital Collections. The project has also created a small online exhibition titled “Echoes of an Empire” on the Europeana website, explaining the different categories of instruments, and has been supported by a small book (Sound of Byzantium: Byzantine Musical Instruments), including QR code access to the digital archive, exhibition and unique animated videos created for the project.

The Cahide Tamer Historic Buildings Restoration Projects Collection, another project housed at Koç University’s Suna Kıraç Library Digital Collections, classifies and presents the professional archive of one of the lead figures for the architectural restorations of Byzantine structures in Istanbul. Active between the years of 1943-1973, Cahide Tamer’s archive presents researchers with valuable information and visual data on pre-restoration conditions, restoration methods employed and the post-restoration views of many important Byzantine monuments in Istanbul.

One of the major digital initiatives at GABAM is the Istanbul City Walls Project, which aims to visualize the results of more than a century of scholarship on the Byzantine fortifications of the city. As traditional scholarship produced abundant material on the evaluation of the monument, the current digital tools presented an opportunity to map the data with more recent evaluations. Several layers of the information, such as the architecture, inscriptions, spolia and Ottoman repairs of the monument, have been integrated into a digital source, with the consideration of adding further data.

Combining the basic set of data from Cahide Tamer and Istanbul City Walls Project, GABAM’s online exhibition “Touching the Past: What do the Istanbul City Walls Photographs of Cahide Tamer Tell Us?” (once more among Koç University’s Suna Kıraç Library Digital Collections), engages the public in a general comparison regarding the condition of the city walls between mid-20^th century and early 21^st century.

Nordic Tales-Byzantine Paths, a collaboration between the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul and GABAM, provides a hub for documenting and tracing Nordic-Byzantine relations throughout the Middle Byzantine Period.

This presentation will share the processes behind data organization of the aforementioned digital projects of GABAM and discuss future possibilities for improvement.

Although ancient houses form essential sources for our understanding of private life in the past, they frequently have been approached with academic disinterest and have often yet to receive the attention they deserve as research topics. Houses can not only reveal valid architectural and infrastructural data but also give insights into the socio-economic, political, and cultural background of their inhabitants and visitors, and offer an understanding of the use of space. Despite this, preferring to focus on monumental and often better-preserved public structures, past researchers repeatedly overlooked the value of private houses and did not consider them to be worth much attention. Apart from a few examples (e.g., at Ephesos), within the framework of Late Antique and Byzantine studies in Western Anatolia, housing has only taken a more critical role in the last few decades. Nevertheless, the number of private houses investigated thus far remains relatively small, with most known houses exposed in urban contexts and belonging to the upper layers of society.

This paper gives an overview of the developments that Late Antique and Byzantine housing studies have undergone during the last century in Western Anatolia. It discusses how in the context of large-scale archaeological research in the region, houses have evolved from incidentally excavated and uninteresting side-products of public structures into fully-fledged research foci that offer crucial information on the Late Antique and Byzantine past. Through examples of houses known from Late Antique and Byzantine archaeological sites in Western Anatolia (including, among others, recent research at Hierapolis, Xanthos, and Aphrodisias, and our ongoing investigation at Sagalassos), this contribution sketches the changing approach towards housing and the facets of private living and the scholarly motivations of studying or neglecting private houses throughout the last hundred years. Furthermore, it places research traditions, strategies, and developments that characterize the archaeological research of Late Antique and Byzantine Western Anatolia within the context of evolving studies of housing in the broader Mediterranean region.

Myra, the metropolis of Lycia province in the Byzantine period, was one of the most prosperous cities of the East Mediterranean in the Late Antiquity. Archaeological and geological studies carried out in Myra proved that the city was completely buried under silt sometime in the 12^th or 13^th century. Yet, many questions about the timeframe in which this disaster occurred remained unanswered: When was the city of Myra completely buried under silt? Was it a sudden disaster or was the city buried as a result of a process that spread over a long period of time? Did the people do something to protect their buildings? Was the city evacuated in a planned fashion or in panic? Surprisingly, the surviving sources of the period report nothing about what happened to this important city of Byzantine Lycia. Excavations at a small medieval church 200 meters to the west of the Roman theatre provide answers to a significant part of these questions. In 2010, the church which was buried under silt up to its roof, which was excavated and unearthed in a very well-preserved condition with its in situ liturgical furnishing and fresco decoration. The presence of this Byzantine church in the Alakent neighborhood of modern Demre has been known to archaeologists and art historians for quite some time, as the north-eastern corner of the roof was visible, including several in situ tiles. However due to technical difficulties the site was not excavated until 2010. Unearthing the structure from under a six-meter deep alluvial fill was only possible as a result of the excavation work carried out in 2010 as part of the “Myra–Andriake Excavations.” As the first building brought into daylight from the “sunken” Byzantine city, the excavations provided an invaluable source of information about the Byzantine architecture of the period, and led to significant conclusions about the history of Byzantine-period Myra, showing how rich and well preserved the ancient city might be, deserving its title, “the Pompeii of Anatolia”.