See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/388238801
Selimiye as a commemorative monument in modern Turkey
Article in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies · January 2025
DOI: 10.1080/13530194.2024.2443917
CITATIONS READS
0 13
1 author:
Ahmet Sezgin
MEF University
15 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmet Sezgin on 28 January 2025.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2024.2443917
Selimiye as a commemorative monument in modern Turkey
Ahmet Sezgin
Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, MEF University, Istanbul, Turkey
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
Selimiye, an Ottoman dynastic mosque, became a contested site of Received 9 July 2024
memory in the 20th century. As the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, Accepted 11 December 2024
Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey all had ambitions and even temporary
control over Edirne during the first decades of the 20th century. Its
unique location at the crossroads of nation-states provides fertile
ground for investigating the role of architectural heritage in the
formation of a nation’s collective memory, with a consideration of
transnational influences. This article investigates the development
and reception of commemorations involving the monument
through close readings of newspaper reports from Greece, Turkey,
and Bulgaria, as well as international media. It reveals the transna-
tional dimension in forming a national frame of remembrance for
the liberation of Edirne.
A dynastic monument in the age of nationalism
Bulgarian troops took Edirne from the Ottomans during the First Balkan War (1912–1913)
and occupied it for five months. Just after the occupation, Sofiyski Novini reported the
Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand I’s visit to Edirne in March 1913, beginning with a reference to
the Bulgarian flag solemnly waving over Selimiye Mosque.1 Indeed, a documentary film by
Aleksandar Zhekov, shot in 1912 and 1913, showed the tricolour Bulgarian flag waving
between the minarets of Selimiye. In the video, a scene of Selimiye and the flag was
followed by the dancing ‘liberator’ Bulgarian soldiers and the ‘liberated’ people, and then
Ferdinand I’s visit to Selimiye2 (Figure 1).
For the Ottoman Muslims, this was the climax of the loss of Edirne and the territorial
setback in the Balkans. The occupation of Edirne, coupled with nationalist narratives
including the alleged transgression of sacred spaces, atrocities against Ottoman soldier
prisoners as well as the sight of the Bulgarian flag flying over Selimiye, crystallized the
symbols of trauma.3 This marked a milestone in the process of Selimiye becoming
a national monument, embodying collective trauma of the First Balkan War and stand-
ing at the centre of commemorative culture, intertwined with its centuries old history as
CONTACT Ahmet Sezgin [email protected] Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, MEF University,
Istanbul, Turkey
1
Дамяновъ, ‘Царя-Освободителъ въ Одринъ [The Tsar-Liberator in Edirne]’, Софийски Новини, March 22, 1913, 1.
2
Балканската война 1912–1913, documentary movie, (director) Александър Жеков, 1913.
3
Ahmet Sezgin and Beril Sarısakal, ‘Sanctuary of A Thousand Adventures: Selimiye in The Besieged, Occupied, And
Liberated Edirne’, The Muslim Journal 113, no. 3 (2023): 307–332; Eyal Ginio, The Ottoman Culture of Defeat: The Balkan
Wars and their Aftermath, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), ebook, 73–114.
© 2025 British Society for Middle Eastern Studies
2 A. SEZGIN
Figure 1. Stills from the documentary film titled The Balkan War 1912-1913, including scenes of Tsar
Ferdinand’s visit to Selimiye. Балканската война 1912–1913, documentary movie, (director)
Александър Жеков, 1913. Courtesy of the Bulgarian National Film Archive .
a dynastic mosque. Selimiye complex, consisting of the mosque, twin madrasas, a
covered market, and an elementary school was constructed between 1568 and 1574
in Edirne—one of the Ottoman capitals before Istanbul—at a time when the Ottoman
Empire was near the peak of two centuries of territorial expansion. It exemplifies the
sophistication of Ottoman architecture as a dynastic monument of a cosmopolitan
empire. Selim II (r. 1566 – 1574) commissioned it before the Cyprus campaign (1570–-
1571) and completed the building after the conquest of the island as 'a victory monu-
ment proclaiming the triumph of Islam over Christianity'.4 By its completion, Selimiye
became one of the quintessential symbols of Edirne as well as the Ottoman era of
conquest. During the rise of nationalism in the Balkans in the 19th century, several
traumatic losses and recaptures of Edirne to the arch-foes and the former subjects of the
Empire began to reshape the image of Selimiye, marking the contentious Turkish-Greek-
Bulgarian border. Selimiye’s unique location at the crossroads of nation-states provides
fertile ground for investigating the role of architectural heritage in formation of
a nation’s collective memory, with a consideration of transnational influences.
Maurice Halbwachs’ exploration of collective memory and Pierre Nora’s edited volume,
Realms of Memory, played pivotal roles in establishing the significance of memory in the
fields of social and political sciences. Halbwachs underlines that multiple frameworks,
such as family, nation, city, or religion, are at work in the continuous production of
collective memory.5 Nora recognizes the significance of memorials and monuments in
forming memory and political identity. Sites of memory prevail by forming new meanings
4
Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion, 2005), 65–66 and 239–246.
5
Maurice Halbwachs, On collective memory (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992).
BRITISH JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 3
and connections, while simultaneously reviving old ones.6 Benedict Anderson’s concept
of ‘imagined communities’ illuminates how historical sites and collective memory con-
tribute to the creation and perpetuation of a shared national identity.7 As Tatiana
Zhurzhenko notes, the ‘nationalization of memory’ is key during the consolidation of
a heterogeneous population, integration of minorities, and accommodation of changes in
state borders. Institutions, processes, and tools of the nation state reshape commemora-
tive landscapes, and constitute a strong framework for the ‘nationalization of memory’,
which crystallizes at sites of memory. As a result, ‘politics of memory’ becomes
a battlefield for competing accounts of the past, especially at the borders and border-
lands. Borderlands tend to be ‘victim intensive’ places, exposed to changing boundaries
and ensuing ethnic and religious conflicts, traumas, hostilities, and guilt.8 The aftermath of
border conflicts gives rise to enduring political and irredentist struggles in contested
cities. Within these urban landscapes, commemorations, architectural monuments, and
nationalist symbols converge, intertwining with a revisitation of historical narratives and
the lingering traumas they evoke.
Katherine Aaslestad’s study demonstrates that Hamburg’s commemoration of its 1813
liberation evolved over a century from church services for fallen soldiers to public ceremo-
nies focused on present-day memory, highlighting the reconciliation of past, present, local
and national identities.9 Monuments play a pivotal role in shaping commemorative culture,
assuming a central position in the collective memory of cities with contested histories.
Memory studies repeatedly show that, beyond being static repositories of history, monu-
ments create, reproduce, destroy, and displace selective versions of the past.10 Trauma and
pain from times of war solidified in monuments and are reflected by the commemorative
urban landscape. In her investigation of the loss of heritage in Sarajevo during the Bosnian
War in 1990s, Mirjana Ristic argues that monuments occupy public space and ‘legitimize the
nation through history’ while the city often works as ‘a stage for the urban choreography of
national rituals’. This ‘urban choreography’ involves ‘public display of national symbols
through public celebrations, commemorations, festivals and other public events’.11 As
commemoration evolves, monuments have the potential to amplify the selective reflection
of trauma, legitimize nationalist narratives, and embed them in the urban choreography.
Drawing on recent research about Selimiye concerning nationalist depictions of it in the
20th century, this article specifically focuses on the period from the 1920s to the 1940s. It
investigates the development and reception of commemorations involving Selimiye
through close readings of international newspaper reports and newspaper reports from
Greece, Turkey, and Bulgaria, as well as from international media. Conducting a comparative
analysis of Turkish awareness of and responses to Bulgarian and Greek claims over both
territory and the monument reveals the transnational dimension in forming a national
6
Pierre Nora, ed., Arthur Goldhammer, trans., Realms of memory: rethinking the French past, 3 vols. (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1996–1998).
7
Benedict Anderson, Imagined communities (London: Verso, 2006).
8
Tatiana Zhurzhenko, ‘Borders and Memory’, The Routledge Research Companion to Border Studies (Surrey: Ashgate, 2011),
ebook, 72–74.
9
Katherine Aaslestad, Place and Politics: Local Identity, Civic Culture, and German Nationalism in North Germany during the
Revolutionary Era (Leiden: Brill, 2005), ebook.
10
Ulrike Capdepón and Sarah Dornhof, ‘Introduction: Contested Memory in Urban Space’, in Contested Urban Spaces,
Monuments, Traces, and Decentered Memories, ed. Ulrike Capdepón and Sarah Dornhof (New York: Palgrave Macmillan:
2022), ebook, 8.
11
Mirjana Ristic, Architecture, Urban Space and War (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), ebook, 33.
4 A. SEZGIN
frame of remembrance for liberation of Edirne and Selimiye. In this context, several ques-
tions arise: how does Selimiye’s role change in this process, how the evolving representa-
tions of it are disseminated, and which symbols of the nation intertwine in the narrative?
Responding to these questions, the article positions Selimiye as a contested site of memory
in the supranational arena as well as within the commemorative landscape of the early
republican period.
Selimiye in the turmoil between the Balkan Wars and the birth of Turkey
After Bulgarian troops left Edirne in July 1913 during the Second Balkan War, the initial
chaotic atmosphere of the Ottoman take over involved some civilians pulling down
Bulgarian flags and then raising flags of surrender.12 Hakkı Soyyanmaz, a local historian
of Edirne, claims that the ‘tradition’ of what he calls ‘tearing the black flag’ began at
Selimiye on the day of liberation. Upon seeing Ottoman flags being hoisted on public
buildings, the inhabitants of Edirne gathered at Selimiye. An Ottoman flag covered with
a black cloth was hoisted between the minarets of Selimiye facing the direction of
Bulgaria. Amidst prayers, the black cloth was torn to reveal the Ottoman flag.13 This act
was apparently a response to Bulgaria’s highly symbolic act of waving a flag over Selimiye.
It marked the birth of a commemorative ritual that brought together the national flag, the
paramount Ottoman monument Selimiye, and the patriotic crowds saluting these
national symbols. Echoing this highly dramatic ritual, an Ottoman postcard after the
liberation of Edirne depicted an Ottoman soldier climbing the minaret of Selimiye with
an Ottoman flag (Figure 2).
Although the Ottoman Empire retained control of Edirne, the future division of Thrace
remained a significant issue, due to lingering irredentist claims. The Bulgarian state,
during its occupation of Western Thrace between 1913 and 1919, viewed the region as
‘borderland’ and sought to establish ‘a purely Bulgarian population’.14 Between 1914 and
1916, the Ottoman Empire deemed the citizens of Entente States ‘enemy subjects’ and
expelled them not only from Edirne but also from numerous other provinces throughout
the Ottoman Empire.15 Within this decade, commemorations of the anniversaries of
capturing Edirne have become occasions for both Bulgarian and Turkish nationalists to
reiterate their ethnic claims over the city. In 1914 in Bulgaria, commemorations of the
Bulgarian occupation of Edirne began as ‘memorial services’ for the fallen soldiers, held
annually on the anniversary of the occupation. For the first commemorative event in Sofia,
the newspaper Mir asked its readers to decorate their homes with national flags. A group
of veterans came together to organize a memorial prayer service for the fallen and the
Bulgarian nation at the Saint Nedelya Cathedral. In the afternoon, another mourning
event took place at the military salon.16
12
Benjamin C. Fortna, A Life of Eşref Bey, Late Ottoman Insurgent and Special Agent (New York: Oxford University Press,
2016), 97.
13
İ. Hakkı Soyyanmaz, Edirne’nin Fetih Günleri Bayramları’nın Çingene (Kakavağ) Şenlikleri’ne Dönüşümü (Edirne: 2003),
11–12.
14
Theodora Dragostinova, ‘Speaking National: Nationalizing the Greeks of Bulgaria, 1900–1939’, Slavic Review 67, no. 1
(2008): 155 and 164–165.
15
Nurten Çetin, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nin I. Dünya Savaşı’nda İtilaf Devletleri Vatandaşlarına Yönelik Uygulamalarından Biri:
Sürgün (Edirne Örneği)’, Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 3, no. 5 (2013): 81–84.
16
‘Одрин’, Мир, March 12, 1914, 2. The commemoration was eventually became known as Thrace Day. For example, see
Николай Иванов, ‘Превземането на Одрин’, Славянинъ, April 1, 1930, 2.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 5
Figure 2. Postcard depicting an Ottoman soldier with a flag climbing Selimiye’s minaret. ‘Edirne’nin
Sultan Selim Camii Şerifinden İlan-ı İstihlası, buradayız, burada kalacağız’, Krt_006739, Postcard, n.d.,
Postcard Collection, İ.B.B. Atatürk Library Digital Archives and e-Sources, Istanbul.
On the Turkish side, the foundation of the Thrace-Paşaeli Committee of Preserving
Rights (Trakya-Paşaeli Müdafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti, hereafter TPC) laid the groundwork for
commemorations similarly honoring martyrs and the cause of Thrace. After the Ottoman
Empire’s defeat in World War I and just a month following the discharge of the Ottoman
troops from Thrace in accordance with the Armistice of Mudros in October 1918, TPC was
established with the main objective to incorporate Thrace into Turkey and comprised of
prominent local names such and Edirne deputy and major of Edirne. In his memoir,
Mehmet Şeref Aykut, a deputy of Edirne in the Ottoman Empire and later in Turkey, refers
to Selimiye while recounting the committee’s foundation. During a meeting, in a moment
of sorrowful recollection of the past victories of the Ottoman army, and emotionally
moved by the ‘foreign flag above Selimiye’, he proposed the name of the committee.17
This elevated Selimiye to a historic inspiration for the struggle of the Turks in Thrace. In
March 1919, TPC organized a commemorative gathering, featuring students from
Galatasaray High School—one of the most prestigious high schools in the Ottoman
Empire. The event included solemn prayers for the martyrs and a speech recounting the
17
Mehmet Şeref Aykut, Trakya Milli Mücadele Tarihi Malta Hatıratı ve Malta’da Türkler (İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2010), 37–8.
6 A. SEZGIN
memoirs of an Ottoman war prisoner from that time.18 Strikingly, the commemoration of
March 26 in Edirne was similar in content to Bulgarian counterparts. These parallel
commemorative programmes fostered a competitive transnational dynamic.
TPC’s regional newspaper, Trakya Paşaili, served as the voice of Ottoman Turkish
claims over eastern Thrace, responded to Bulgarian claims, stirred patriotic senti-
ments, and advocated for the nascent Turkish nation on the international stage.
Trakya Paşaili’s articles proposed Turkish origins for the ancient Thracians. They
asserted that the first recorded tribe in Thrace were Turks19 and cited Scythians as
one of the early Turkish tribes to settle in Thrace.20 Another column argued that
present Turkish monuments and culture validated the Turkish claims over Thrace,
whereas Bulgarian claims were based on archaeological remains buried underground.
This represented a perceived conflict between Ottoman architectural heritage and the
archaeology of the pre-Ottoman periods, in which the major European powers held
a biased position unfavourable for the Ottoman Muslims.21 The quest for ancient roots
of civilization and history was crucial in nationalistic theory in Southeastern Europe,
reflecting the trends in the rest of the continent. Beginning with Greece, archaeology
in Southeastern Europe played a pivotal role in shaping national identity, alongside
religion, language, geography, and traditions.22 The Ottoman ruling elite were keenly
aware of the significance of archaeology in legitimizing Balkan nations’ independence
and claims over Ottoman territories. In a report in January 1919, Trakya Paşaili refuted
the claim that Selimiye was a Bulgarian monument and asserted that such claims
could not undo the centuries-old Turkish presence and boundaries.23 This marked
a significant transnational contestation over ownership of architectural heritage,
thereby positioning Selimiye as a focal point in the competition among nations
vying for control over Edirne.
As during and just after the Balkan Wars, Selimiye’s embodiment of national trauma
and jubilation persisted and was revisited in these years. İskeçeli Mehmed Sıdkı, a prolific
Ottoman author and columnist, published frequently in Trakya Paşaili in April 1919,
reflecting sorrowfully on the anxiety of the possible loss of the remaining Ottoman
Thrace. In one poem titled Sultan Selim Camii (Sultan Selim Mosque), Sıdkı’s lines of
grief concluded with hopeful promises that God’s and Selim’s voice would be heard at
the dome of Selimiye, like a crown for the prayers.24 These depictions leveraged the
monument’s religious identity and dynastic history to emphasize its role as a source of
patriotic inspiration, linking Selimiye with both its dynastic patron and the nation. The
poems were published around the time the Greek forces, backed by the Allies, occupied
Izmir on 15 May 1919. The Greek occupation of Izmir marked a pinnacle in the anxious and
patriotic atmosphere in the major centres of the Empire, triggering immediate demon-
strations in front of several major mosques following Friday prayers. The speeches at the
demonstrations frequently drew on architectural heritage, equating the loss of virtue of
18
‘Gözyaşları’, Trakya Paşaili, March 31, 1919, 2.
19
‘Türkler Kimlerdir?’, Trakya Paşaili, February 3, 1919, 1.
20
‘Hal ve Vaziyetimiz’, Trakya Paşaili, February 17, 1919, 2.
21
Ibid., 1.
22
Olga Katsiardi-Hering, ‘The Role of Archaeology in Forming Greek National Identity and its Embodiment in European
Identity’, European Review 28, no. 3 (2020): 453.
23
‘Vilayetimiz’, Trakya Paşaili, January 20, 1919, 1.
24
İskeçeli Mehmed Sıdkı, ‘Sultan Selim Camii’, Trakya Paşaili, May 7, 1919, 2.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES 7
the nation to their destruction.25 During the demonstration on 20 May 1919, in Üsküdar,
one of the speakers questioned how the men could abandon the tombs and mosques of
their ancestors, including those of Mehmed II, Süleiman I, and Selim II.26 Renowned author
and patriot Halide Edip Adıvar asked the crowd to take an oath ‘under the minarets, which
cry for their 700 years of history’.27
Similarly, the TPC organized several demonstrations at Selimiye in 1919 and 1920 to
protest the occupation of Istanbul and Izmir, as well as the anticipated Greek occupation of
Thrace. In the demonstration on 9 May 1919, the mayor of Edirne and the high ranking
military officials were among the participants. The orators spoke behind a makeshift pulpit,
which was adorned with a banner framed by the gate of the inner courtyard of Selimiye,
carrying the text ‘Thrace is Turkish homeland’ expressing the public sentiment as well as the
goal of the demonstration.28 (Figure 3) Again in May, following the occupation of İzmir by
Greek forces, a protest began with the Friday sermon by the former mufti of Edirne, referred
to by Trakya Paşaili as a ‘religious and national meeting’. At a ‘black pulpit’, several speakers
reiterated ‘Turkish rights’ and invoked ‘spirit of Sultan Selim’. One of the speakers foresaw
good prospects for Izmir ‘unless Sultan Selim [Mosque] is destroyed’.29 Within a week,
another demonstration took place at the square of Selimiye and with speeches from the
pulpit draped with black cloth and adorned with two flags. Trakya Paşaili offered
a depiction of the emotional crowd and the scene, describing it as ‘the venue of adventures
of the Ottoman dynasty and reflecting its most glorious memoirs’.30 Selimiye, as an
unmistakable symbol of Ottoman-Turkish architecture, served as a backdrop that enhanced
the unity between Thrace and the broader independence movement, alongside the pre-
sence of flags and banners that endorsed the patriotic narrative. Indeed in 1919, a national
struggle of Ottoman Muslims in Anatolia, bearing the Turkish banner, was also unfolding
under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. From the outset, Atatürk was pragmatic
about the territorial aims of the nationalist struggle in Thrace, viewing Eastern Thrace as ‘an
indispensable part of the Turkish homeland (vatan)’ and Western Thrace as 'an abandoned
part of the homeland', as it had been acquired by Bulgaria after the Balkan Wars.31 The
constantly changing boundaries and demographics along with the subsequent nationalist
movement, heightened the need for markers of Ottoman Muslims’ historical presence in
Thrace. During these tumultuous years, without the opportunity to design and erect
cenotaphs and memorials, Selimiye’s role as the focal point in the burgeoning commem-
orative culture began to solidify.
Greek and Turkish episodes of Edirne’s liberation
Despite all the protests, the Allies assigned Western Thrace to Greece due to ‘strategic
considerations’, despite the absence of an ‘absolute majority’ of any ethnicity in Thrace; rather,
25
Kemal Arıburnu, Milli Mücadelede İstanbul Mitingleri (Ankara: Yeni Desen Matbaası, 1975), 17.
26
Ibid., 66.
27
Zekeriya Türkmen, Milli Mücadele Yıllarında İstanbul Mitingleri (Ankara: Berikan, 2007), 109.
28
This demonstration and the conference were followed by Bulgaria, as revealed by the correspondence between the
prime minister of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Embassy in Paris. İbrahim Kamil, ‘Bulgaristan Diplomatik Belgelerine göre
Trakya’da Milli Mücadele’, Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi XVII, no. 35 (2017), 95.
29
‘Sultan Selimdeki İhtifal-i Hazin’, Trakya Paşaili, May 30, 1919, 1–2.
30
‘Sultan Selim Mitingi’, Trakya Paşaili, May 30, 1919, 2.
31
Behlül Özkan, From the Abode of Islam to the Turkish Vatan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 86.
View publication stats
