Is it a potential female landmark? N. Hatzitryfon writes
Words: Nikos Hattzitryfon
Does society find it difficult to holistically manage the symbolism of certain monuments?
Yes, this follows from the reuses that many of them have: They are often thought of as a matter-form dipole, but not as single tripartite matter-form-symbolism (meditation / feeling) entities (tripole). Even when the dominant management declares the monument to be a tripole, it adds collateral factors as co-equal, such as its economic exploitation and the serving of objectives unrelated to the monument.
Law 3028/2002 “For the protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in general” protects the material and form: article 10 par. 1 “… alteration of its form”, but does not refer to their symbolism: article 1 par. 1f/ g: “highlighting and integrating it into modern social life” (?!), “citizens’ awareness of cultural heritage”. for the organization of events, the law defines compatibility”, which it does not specify qualitatively, quantitatively and with reference to its valuation methods: article 46 par. 1b “… compatible with their character as monuments, …”.
What are the “consistent” reuses of monuments according to the Law:
They are the ones that have been implemented and are being planned: cultural spaces, museums of various themes, offices, warehouses.
However, foreign regulations that in our country can be considered as “valid literature” (e.g. BayDSchG 1973/2018 Art.5) define:
(a) re-use (original-authentic use), however if this is not possible,
(b) re-use related to the original, however even if this is not possible, it is allowed
(c) other reuse that protects the material substance.
For example: the re-use of the Old Slaughterhouses of Thessaloniki as company offices, only in category (c) could be included, but also their re-use as a place for even worthwhile cultural events of various content, because it does not serve-highlight the three-fold entity of the monument, but not even these manifestations are optimally served-highlighted by the threefold entity of the monument and especially by its symbolism. On the contrary, a kindred reuse of the monument related to the original-authentic one, i.e. category (b), can be an optimal use: e.g. a place of philanthropy – well-being that in one part of the building will depict the massacre, while in another part it will host – support the work of the city’s philanthropic organizations, it will have a space for relevant discussions, experiential workshops, exhibitions and performing artists.
Should the monuments be used simultaneously for all their original uses?
“Authenticity” can be defined as the universally accepted informal influence, initially the theoretical-ideological hegemony in a subject, which directs-imposes, therefore dominates. For the new use of the monuments, the state (chooses-) approves. For example, the Rotunda in Thessaloniki which acquired accepted uses as a polytheistic temple or mausoleum, then as a Christian temple, then as an Islamic mosque, again as a temple, then as a museum and today as a museum and a temple at the same time. The same applies to the Ishak Pasha Mosque (Alaja Imaret) which was a charity mosque and then a cultural space. But also the original church of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul was then used as a mosque, then as a museum and recently as a museum and a mosque at the same time. The uses of the above monuments are considered to express authenticity.
It was different with the Hamza Bey Mosque which was originally a mosque and then used as a place of entertainment and commercial activities. Similarly, the mosque of Feride Khanum, wife of Hasan Fesmi Pasha, was used for eight years as a mosque and then, for 93 years, as a military service. For these two monuments, their subsequent use could not emerge in the consciousness of the state as authentic. Possibly this happened because their later uses did not express moral values – spirituality to guide thoughts and actions.
If it is desired to treat a monument holistically in terms of its history, the possibility of repurposing all of its symbolic authenticity should be considered. However, the perceptions of the appropriate use of some interviewed residents are divided: either they accept only the museum use, or they are positive for any use, or they defend the continuation of the current use, or they want a reuse that highlights their social-political-religious integration .
How to use inactive mosques?
Residents were asked and answered:
(▪) To become Culture Areas? Answer: Yes, we need spaces for exhibitions, music, etc. (▪) Panels, music, etc. do they harm the symbolism (religious meditation, feelings) of mosques? A: Yes, but such meditation is of no use. (▪) Allow spaces for Islamic prayer and interfaith dialogue in the monuments-mosques? Answer: No. There are not many Muslims, so they have a mosque of their cultural heritage. They will cultivate Islamic fanaticism. (▪) Convert inactive mosques into Christian cultural centers? Ans: Yes / No. (▪) How many Muslim residents are enough (and how many tourists) to be offered a defunct mosque of their cultural heritage for use? Answer: ; One is enough, and none should exist, to operate such a mosque. (questions and answers were given via social media).
The mosque of Faride Khanum in Stavroupoli, Thessaloniki
It was built in 1903. It is located in the former camp of Pavlos Melas (Metropolitan Park of Pavlos Melas). It is two stories. The ground floor is thought to have been the camp guard. Upstairs was the prayer room. It functioned as a mosque until 1912, then it was converted into a service area for the Greek army.
In the years 2012-2014, rescue operations were carried out by YTEKM/YPPO and a restoration study was prepared. Restoration and reuse of the monument is now required. The new use of the floor is proposed to respect the symbolism of the monument (not only its material-form) and to function as a place of prayer – meditation, and as a reading room. The ground floor will be an exhibition of images about the mosque and the camp and a space for interfaith dialogue, as well as highlighting the social role of women around 1900 in Thessaloniki. This proposal was calculated as the most preferable, according to the optimization method. As the only mosque dedicated to a woman, it is a potential female landmark for the city.
Faride Khanum nee Abdülhalim Galip pasha, wife of the vali of Thessaloniki Hasan Fehmi pasha
He supported a care camp for 40,000 Muslim refugees. He built a public fountain in Bursa. He built a mausoleum/türbe (perhaps of her father, Abdülhalim Galip paşa’nin türbeleri, who died and was buried in Üsküdar/Istanbul in 1876). She herself died in 1903 in Thessaloniki, before the co-rebellion of the Muslim women together with the revolutionary Young Turks (1908) who had stood in favor of the equality of the sexes, nations and religions. Her body was buried in a mausoleum in Constantinople, where in 1910 her husband was also buried (Valis of Thessaloniki, Minister of Justice in 1908, then President of the State Council of the Ottoman State).
epi-“myth”
International Council of Museums: “Museums contribute to democratization, they are inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the past and the future…”.
The Council of Europe’s Faro Convention: (1) Calls for the cultivation of a relationship between cultural heritage and inhabitants (local and non-local). (2) It refers to the enjoyment of the cultural heritage asset and the participation of the inhabitants in the implementation for its promotion. (3) It aims to strengthen social cohesion by strengthening the feeling of shared responsibility”.
Bernadette Lynch suggests substantial participation in decision-making bodies, for the optimal achievement of the above objectives.
Let us, as a society, dare.
* Nikos Hatzitrifon is Dr. civil engineer, honorary head of YNMYEAMTH/ YPPO.
**The text above is the presentation on 3.4.2024 at the event “Gender-monument-participation” at ENEKEN / Thessaloniki, organized by “Partnership for Gender”.
