SOCIOPOLITICAL SYMBOLIZATION OF STARI MOST: CONSTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION

Öz

The long-lasting Ottoman domination towards the Balkans were based on various dynamics. Besides the Empire’s political and economic tools; the unique characteristic of Ottoman architecture was reflecting the Empire’s dominance over the territory. In this context, Stari Most (Bridge of Mostar) which is located in the borders of today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina should be considered as one of the greatest heritage of Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. Despite of the fact that in the very beginning, the bridge was constructed only for public’s transit; in the course of time, the bridge took symbolic meanings on itself. Besides its strategic importance during the Yugoslav Wars; the Bridge was symbolizing a “sociological and political hyperlink” between the Muslim and non-Muslim societies of the Mostar City. On the other hand, at the utmost level, the bridge was one of the symbol of Yugoslavia’s togetherness until its destruction. Yet, during the Yugoslav War, in 1993 Stari Most is destroyed by heavy artilleries. In other words, the 1993 shelling was not only aiming the bridge but also aiming the togetherness of Bosnian Muslims and the Catholic Croats. Likewise its destruction; the reconstruction of the Stari Most had also become very meaningful in the sense of the reappearance of international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This study aims to give the answer of the following question: How/Why a simple bridge can take on symbolic meanings in the course of time? The research question is elaborated by investigating the Ottoman period, Titoist Yugoslavia and aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Stari Most
• Ottoman Empire
• Yugoslavia
• International Community
• Symbolization

SOCIOPOLITICAL SYMBOLIZATION OF STARI MOST1 : CONSTRUCTION, DESTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION

Abstract

The long-lasting Ottoman domination towards the Balkans were based on various dynamics. Besides the Empire’s political and economic tools; the unique characteristic of Ottoman architecture was reflecting the Empire’s dominance over the territory. In this context, Stari Most (Bridge of Mostar) which is located in the borders of today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina should be considered as one of the greatest heritage of Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. Despite of the fact that in the very beginning, the bridge was constructed only for public’s transit; in the course of time, the bridge took symbolic meanings on itself. Besides its strategic importance during the Yugoslav Wars; the Bridge was symbolizing a “sociological and political hyperlink” between the Muslim and non-Muslim societies of the Mostar City. On the other hand, at the utmost level, the bridge was one of the symbol of Yugoslavia’s togetherness until its destruction. Yet, during the Yugoslav War, in 1993 Stari Most is destroyed by heavy artilleries. In other words, the 1993 shelling was not only aiming the bridge but also aiming the togetherness of Bosnian Muslims and the Catholic Croats. Likewise its destruction; the reconstruction of the Stari Most had also become very meaningful in the sense of the reappearance of international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This study aims to give the answer of the following question: How/Why a simple bridge can take on symbolic meanings in the course of time? The research question is elaborated by investigating the Ottoman period, Titoist Yugoslavia and aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars.

Keywords

• Stari Most
• Ottoman Empire
• Yugoslavia
• International Community
• Symbolization

Kaynakça

1. Akça, G. (2007). “Osmanlı Millet Sisteminin Dönüşümü,” Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları, (?):57-68.
2. Armaly, M., Blasi, C. and Hannah, L. (2004). “Stari Most: Rebuilding More Than A Historic Bridge in Mostar,” Museum International 224, 56(4): 6-17.
3. Ayverdi, E. H. (2006). “Yugoslavya’da Türk Abideleri ve Vakıfları”, Vakıflar Dergisi (3): 151-223.
4. Balcı, T. (2014). “Ottoman Balkan Heritage and the Construction of Turkish National Identity,” Journal of Ottoman Legacy Studies, 1(1): 60-70. Barkey, K. and Gavrilis, G. (2016). “The Ottoman Millet System: Non Territorial Autonomy and its Contemporary Legacy,” Ethnopolitics, (15):24-42.
5. Cerny, P. G. (1990). The Changing Architecture of Politics. London: Sage Publication
6. Cigar, N. (1993). “The Serbo-Croatian War, 1991: Political and Military Dimensions,” The Journal of Strategic Studies, 16(3): 297-338. Doğan, O. (2011). Bilinmeyen Yönleriyle Mostar Köprüsü. İstanbul: Çamlıca
7. Güneş, G. (2015). “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Gayrimüslimlere Bakışı ve Klasik Dönem Millet Sistemi,” Sosyal ve Kültürel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(2):1-30.
8. Güzelipek, Y. A. (2016). "Can the European Union Be Considered as a Compensator for Serbian Nationalism?," Journal of European Theoretical and Applied Studies, 4(2):59-69.

9. Hirst, W. and Manier, D. (2008). “Towards A Psychology Of Collective Memory”, Memory, 16(3):183-200. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon&Schuster
10. Karasu, M. A. (2008). “Bir Kentin Ölümü: Kentkırım (Bosna-Hersek Örneği),” Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 17(3):51-64.
11. Kiel, M. (2010). “The Companile Minarets of theSouthern Herzegovina: A Blend of Islamic and Christian Elements in the Architecture of an Outlying Border Area of the Balkans, Its Spread in the Past and Survival Until Our Time” (paper presented at the international conference meeting for the Centres and Peripheries in Ottoman Architecture: Rediscovering a Balkan Heritage, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
12. Kiel, M. (2018). 'A Question Regarding an Academic Essay,' Email
13. Lane, B. M. (1986). “Architects in Power: Politics and Ideology in the Work of Ernst May and Albert Speer,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, (17): 283-310.
14. Malcolm, N. (2002). Bosnia: A Short History. London: Pan Books
15. Mansel, P. (1995). Constantinople: City of theWorld’sDesire, 1453-1924. London: John Murray
16. Milne, D. (1981): “Architecture, Politics and the Public Realm”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 5(1-2): 131-146. Niebuhr, R. (2017): “Enlarging Yugoslavia: Tito’s Quest for Expansion, 1945-1948,” European History Quarterly, 47(2): 284-310.
17. Ofuafo, P. U. (2013). “Art Symbols As Means of Communicating Religous Concepts in Urhobo Traditionalist Society,” Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(27):392-397.
18. Öztürk, F. (2009). “The Ottoman Millet System,” Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, (16):71-86.
19. Palmberger, M. (2012). "Renaming of Public Space: A Policy of Exclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina," MMG Working Paper, 12(2):1-26. Sarı, E. (2016). Osmanlı’da Sanat. Antalya: Nokta E-Kitap
20. Shan, L. S. (2014). “Analysis of Tito’s Policies On Ethnic Conflict: The Case Of Kosovo”, The Journal of Living Together, (1):53-59.
21. Şenol, D. (2017). Sembolik Etkileşim. Ankara: Net Kitaplık
22. Turhan, F. S. (2005). “Bir Osmanlı Balkan Tarihçisi Machiel Kiel,” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3(6):589-599.
23. Ünal, Ö. (2015). "Reunification of Mostar: Is There A Hope?," Balkan Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2):137-157.
24. Zila, O. (2013). "Ethno-Demographic Development in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1971-1991 and Its Propensity for Ethnic Conflict," AUPO Geographica, 44(1):5-25. Nomination for Inscription on the World Heritage List, https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/946rev.pdf, access date 28.05.2018