An Archaeology of the Turkish War of Independence: Landscape and Time 2022052194, 2022052195, 9780367757120, 9780367757137, 9781003163664

Citation preview

Material Culture and Modern Conflict

AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE LANDSCAPE AND TIME Ömer Can Aksoy

An Archaeology of the Turkish War of Independence

This book is about the conflict which resolved the Greek–Turkish War of 1919–1922: the Great Offensive. On 26 August 1922, the army of the GNA executed the Great Offensive against the Greek defence line extending from the Bay of Gemlik to the Meander River. The Turkish Forces split the Greek Army into two large groups, annihilated one of the groups in the field at the Battle of Dumlupınar on 30 August and pursued the remaining forces of the Greek Army towards the Aegean and Marmara coasts until 18 September. Within these 24 days, the face of Western Anatolia changed unalterably: numerous towns, villages and cities of Western Anatolia were reduced to ashes. This conflict was a turning point in the histories of Turkey and Greece, as it played a significant role in shaping the present-day demographic and geopolitical landscapes of both nations. It resulted in a population exchange in 1923 that dramatically altered the lives of Muslims in Greece and Greek Orthodox people in Turkey and paved the way to the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. Despite the outcome of this war and the existence of a rich literature on its military and political history, the landscapes, memoryscapes and material culture have not been systematically investigated. This book bridges that gap via an archaeological, historical and oralhistorical study of the Great Offensive and its aftermath. With its wide chronological perspective, this book is not a pure analysis of a historical war, it is instead a journey into the foundation myth of the Turkish Republic and the ideological foundations of the Turkish state. Ömer Can Aksoy is an affiliated post-doctoral researcher at the University of Exeter’s Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies and co-founder of Teos Heritage Consultancy. His research interests include modern conflict archaeology in Turkey and the Iron Age of the Arabian Peninsula. Some of his recent publications include Aksoy, Ö.C. and Kahraman, G. (2022) ‘Monuments, narratives and commemoration at the Battlegrounds of Dumlupınar’, War and Society, 41, pp. 220–246; Aksoy, Ö.C. (2021) ‘Revisiting the Battle of Dumlupınar, an archaeological investigation of the Turkish Battle of Independence’, Post-Medieval Archaeology, 55, pp. 109–136; and Aksoy, Ö.C. and Bayar, Z. (2016) ‘Archaeological ethnography of the Battle of Aslıhanlar: A case of public archaeology, visual storytelling and interactive map design’, European Journal of Archaeology, 19(1), pp. 68–94.

Material Culture and Modern Conflict Series Editor: Nicholas J. Saunders

University of Bristol and Paul Cornish, Imperial War Museum, London

The Material Culture and Modern Conflict series adopts a genuinely interdisciplinary approach to re-appraise the material legacy of twentieth and twenty-first century conflict around the world. It offers a radical departure in the study of modern conflict, proving a truly interdisciplinary forum that draws upon archaeology, anthropology, military and cultural history, art history, cultural geography, and museum and heritage studies. Decoding a Royal Marine Commando The Militarized Body as Artefact Mark A. Burchell Rediscovering the Great War Archaeology and Enduring Legacies on the Soča and Eastern Fronts Edited by Uroš Košir, Matija Črešnar, and Dimitrij Mlekuž Material Cultures of Childhood in Second World War Britain Gabriel Moshenska Archaeologies of Hitler’s Arctic War Heritage of the Second World War German Military Presence in Finnish Lapland Oula Seitsonen The Anarchy of Nazi Memorabilia From Things of Tyranny to Troubled Treasure Michael Hughes An Archaeology of the Turkish War of Independence Landscape and Time Ömer Can Aksoy For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/Material-Culture-and-Modern-Conflict/book-series/MCMC

An Archaeology of the Turkish War of Independence Landscape and Time

Ömer Can Aksoy

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Ömer Can Aksoy The right of Ömer Can Aksoy to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Aksoy, Ömer Can, 1989- author. Title: An archaeology of the Turkish war of independence : landscape and time / Ömer Can Aksoy. Description: New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Material culture and modern conflict | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022052194 (print) | LCCN 2022052195 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367757120 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367757137 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003163664 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Dumlupınar, Battle of, Dumlupınar, Kütahya İli, Turkey, 1922. | Greco-Turkish War, 1921-1922--Campaigns. | Turkey--History--Autonomy and independence movements. | Military archaeology--Turkey. | Turkey--History, Military. | Turkey--History--Revolution, 1918-1923. | Turkey--Relations--Greece. | Greece--Relations--Turkey. Classification: LCC DR589 .A39 2023 (print) | LCC DR589 (ebook) | DDC 949.507/2--dc23/eng/20221129 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022052194 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022052195 ISBN: 978-0-367-75712-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-75713-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-16366-4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664 Typeset in Times New Roman by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgementvi 1 Introduction

1

2 Historical Background: From Defeat of the Ottoman Empire to Foundation of the Turkish Republic

11

3 Hector’s Vengeance: Historical Background of the Echoes of the Great Offensive

24

4 Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

34

5 Those Hard Days: Memoryscapes of the Greco-Turkish War

56

6 ‘Beware of the Buried’: The Locals, Landscape and Material Culture of the Great Offensive

66

7 Imaginings of the Great Offensive

80

8 The Day of the Turk: Commemoration of the Great Offensive

102

9 Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor

117

10 Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar132 11 Conclusion: Timelines, Spaces and Echoes of the Great Offensive144 References Appendix: List of Interviewees Index

154 166 168

Preface and Acknowledgement

This book is an outcome of 11 years of work on the Battle of Dumlupınar and the Greek-Turkish War (1919–1922). The Battle of Dumlupınar Survey formed the groundwork of the case studies. Along with myself, the survey was carried out with a team of volunteers consisting of an architect and two graphic designers. The outcome of this collaboration resulted in the award of a Barton Digs Grant in 2012 and the European Association for Archaeologists Student Prize in 2014. Chapter 4 is derived in part from my article published in the Journal of Post-Medieval Archaeology which is available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/ (Aksoy, 2021). Some themes of Chapters 5 and 7 are discussed in my publications with Gizem KahramanAksoy and Ziyacan Bayar in the War and Society and European Journal of Archaeology (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016; Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022) I have had the good fortune to meet and work with a large number of people while conducting the Battle of Dumlupınar Survey and writing this book. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Nicholas Saunders, Paul Cornish and Gabriel Moshenska for their invaluable support. Nicholas Saunders encouraged me to write this book in the first place. He toiled through drafts of my previous articles and this book. Paul Cornish had been extremely helpful in identifying cartridges that the survey team had recorded. If I had not taken Gabriel Moshenska’s Modern Conflict Archaeology Module at UCL in 2011, this book would not have been possible to realise. Gabriel Moshenska encouraged me to apply for funding and widen the scope of my work back in 2011. I would also like to express my acknowledgements to Robert Langham for considering my book proposal and his support in the editing and publication processes of the book. The Battle of Dumlupınar Survey was realised with permissions granted by the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Turkish Armed Forces General Staff, the Turkish National Parks Authority and the archive of the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation. I would like to thank team members Burhan Şohoğlu and Ziyacan Bayar for their invaluable support with the field investigations. They have been great teammates who have faced all challenges of the fieldwork including angry treasure hunters, furious shepherd dogs and muddy roads with great enthusiasm. I would also

Preface and Acknowledgement vii like to thank Metin Türktüzün, Arif Teke, Hasan Özpunar and Thomas Eley for their invaluable support. I am also grateful to Paula Grenfell and Kavitha Sathish for their support in proofreading and editing drafts of this monograph. The various aspects of the survey were funded by the Bravo Digs Barton Grant and University College London Qatar. I would also like to offer my thanks to local interviewees from Yüylük, Allıören, Çalköy, Yıldırımkemal, Dumlupınar, Saraycık and Selkisaray for their warm hospitality during our surveys. I am grateful to my wife Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy who suffered most from my irregular working hours. She designed most of the graphics and took the photos in this book. Lastly, I want to express my gratitude to my parents: Tülin Unganer and Süha Aksoy. They have always supported me since I made my decision to be an archaeologist at the age of eight, after a visit to Troy. İzmir-Seferihisar 2022

1

Introduction

On 15 May 1919, the Greek Forces crossed the Aegean Sea eastwards and were received by the cheering crowds of Izmir’s (then Smyrna) Greek population. A Greece of ‘two continents and five seas’ was rising over the Ottoman Empire. Greece’s dream of Anatolia soon turned out to be a dystopian one that became infused with violence, nationalism, resistance, disease and refugees. A Turkish Nationalist Movement under the aegis of the Grand National Assembly (GNA) rose from the heartlands of Anatolia, and the Greek Forces’ Asia Minor Campaign turned into a three-year-long costly war that wiped out the Greek occupation of Anatolia and Eastern Thrace and led to the Republic of Turkey being placed on today’s political world map. This book is about the conflict which resolved the Greek-Turkish War of 1919–1922: the Great Offensive. On 26 August 1922, the army of the GNA executed the Great Offensive against the Greek defence line extending from the Bay of Gemlik to the Meander River. The Turkish Forces split the Greek Army into two large groups: annihilated one of the groups in the field at the Battle of Dumlupınar on 30 August and pursued the remaining forces of the Greek Army towards the Aegean and Marmara coasts until 18 September. Within these 24 days, the face of Western Anatolia changed unalterably: numerous towns, villages and cities of Western Anatolia were reduced to ashes (Figure 1.1). This conflict was a turning point in the histories of Turkey and Greece, as it played a significant role in shaping the present-day demographic and geopolitical landscapes of both nations. It resulted in a population exchange in 1923 that dramatically altered the lives of Muslims in Greece and Greek Orthodox people in Turkey and paved the way to the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. Despite the outcome of this war and the existence of rich literature on its military and political history, the landscapes, memoryscapes and material culture have not been systematically investigated. This book bridges that gap via an archaeological, historical and oral-historical study of the Great Offensive and its aftermath. With its wide chronological perspective, this book is not a pure analysis of a historical war. It is instead a journey into the foundation myth of the Turkish Republic and the ideological foundations of the Turkish state. DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-1

2  Introduction

Figure 1.1  Timeline of the Great Offensive and the sites of conflict that are discussed in this chapter Source:  Openstreetmap 2021, edited by Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy.

Introduction 3

The Roots of This Book This book is the result of 11 years of research into the Great Offensive and its echoes. It all began with a day-long visit to the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar in the winter of 2011 to collect information for an essay I was writing for the modern conflict archaeology course of Gabriel Moshenska at London’s UCL Institute of Archaeology. My father, Süha Aksoy, accompanied me on my journey to visit the war monuments and cemeteries that lie along the Izmir-Afyon road that passes from the Aegean coast to the Anatolian hinterland. As there was no publication on the material remains of the Great Offensive, I was hoping to meet with locals that could help me spot such remains. This curiosity was not received well at the Museum of Dumlupınar, as upon asking about vestiges of the war, the museum’s custodian immediately called the manager without having any valid reason to do so. This was my first encounter with the hostile reactions that I would face over the course of my research. I noticed an intriguing tension whenever I made queries about the material remains of war on the sites. My father and I rushed out of the museum and headed to Çalköy. Here my luck took a turn for the better in a coffeehouse next to the mayor’s office. Arif Teke, the mayor of Çalköy, happened to be in the coffeehouse at the time and he aided my visit to one of the major sites of conflict, Kanlı Köprü (‘Bloody Bridge’), onboard a tractor. Upon seeing the fields and hills that lay in solitude, I was struck by the contrast between the controlled environments of the monuments on the roadside and the isolated muddy fields at the heart of the conflict zone. The reasons behind my surprise lie in my upbringing. The same as any other Turkish citizen, I studied the official history of the Turkish War of Independence and attended the commemoration ceremonies for years as part of the Turkish compulsory school curriculum. In our family environment, I grew up with the stories of my great-grandfather Yasin Haşimoğlu who was a member of the GNA during the war (Aydoğan, 2005). As a resident of Izmir, the history of the Great Offensive plays a part in my daily life: many of the city’s landmarks, streets and institutions are named after the events and key dates of the Offensive. Given the importance attached to the Turkish War of Independence by both the state and Turkish people in general, it was surprising for me to see that the very site of the battle that is claimed to be where the foundation of the Turkish Republic was laid has been overlooked for almost a century. Also, there was an ambiguity over who can and cannot access the sites of conflict. In other words, a crucial site of conflict for Turkey is itself a contested location. These observations were the impetus for me to undertake further fieldwork. I initiated the Battle of Dumlupınar Survey in 2012 with these motives in mind. The fog of uncertainty over possible accessibility to the site was partially dispersed during my survey application. It appeared that conducting a survey in the battlefields of Dumlupınar would be bureaucratically

4  Introduction challenging, as the site is under the jurisdiction of three different government bodies: the Ministry of Culture, the Turkish General Staff and the Ministry of Environment. The conflict zone is a national park as well as an archaeological site. In addition, most of the land within the survey area is privately owned and regularly ploughed. Yearly permissions were given only for field surveys covering a previously approved list of sites. Under these conditions, I conducted a non-intrusive survey of the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar with very limited resources and the help of volunteer researchers between 2012 and 2016.

The Battle of Dumlupınar Survey and Further Research I consider the area of the Great Offensive as ‘a trans-disciplinary or even a post-disciplinary and transcultural space for engagement, dialogue and critique, centred upon the material traces of various times and involving researchers as well as various other participants’ (Hamilakis and Anagnostopoulos, 2009). This challenge was largely met by deploying the interdisciplinary methods of modern conflict archaeology. The Battle of Dumlupınar Survey had a trans-disciplinary framework and incorporated a wide range of sources and methods. My initial survey plan was devised by a careful study of satellite imagery, textual sources, oral histories and photographic archives, as no field survey had ever been conducted in the conflict zone. The military equipment held in the Dumlupınar War of Independence Museum was the sole tangible evidence available at the start of the investigation. Instead of being carefully collected, these items had been largely gathered from locals living in the conflict area. Notes on various sorts of cartridges, machine guns, rifles and tin cans were made by the survey team in order to match them to available military equipment inventories (Niş, 1968; Niş and Söker, 1995). In addition, the evaluation of photographs from the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT S.A.) and the Albert Kahn Museum archives helped to identify and interpret the material culture of the conflict, as they offered valuable information about the arrangement of trenches, gun pits and machine-gun nests of the period (ERT, 2019; Albert Kahn, 2021). Military history publications of the Greek and Turkish military academies, memoirs, battle maps and military reports were reviewed in order to determine the key conflict locations and recorded timelines within these zones (Hellenic Army History Directorate, 1967; Niş, 1968; Çalışlar, 2009). The battle maps were of particular importance, as they linked the landscapes and timelines of the Great Offensive. They were usually drawn up according to the hourly battlefield reports of division commanders. They feature the movements of Turkish and Greek divisions in the morning, at noon and at night, and they depict changes in the zones of control. On the downside, these maps do not show the precise locations of each trench or artillery position; therefore, Google Earth satellite images of the survey

Introduction 5 areas needed to be examined. As the fields are constantly ploughed, and most of the hills are densely covered with pine trees, this was only effective in spotting material remains on barren hills and the possible locations of temporary command posts not indicated on the battle maps but mentioned in soldiers’ memoirs. LiDAR was not employed in the survey due to financial restraints and the difficulties of getting the required permits. During my and the survey team’s first field season in 2012, we noticed that the Battle of Dumlupınar had a strong presence in the village communities’ shared memories and daily lives. As a result, we conducted semi-structured and on-site interviews with 87 residents from the town of Dumlupınar and the villages of Yüylük, Yeşilyurt, Allıören, Selkisaray, Yıldırımkemal, Çalköy and Saraycık (Figure 1.2). We recorded local accounts of the Greek-Turkish War, which have been passed down through the years because no one alive today was present during the war. We also gathered a lot of information regarding current spiritual beliefs, war-related political issues and how locals interact with war-related artifacts (see chapters five and six). We also carried out interviews with 72 visitors at Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, the First Goal Monument as well as the Dumlupınar Victory and Martyr Flag Bearer monuments (see chapter nine). A list of questions asking about the military reports was devised for use during semi-structured interviews. However, identical questions were not always asked of all interviewees, nor the full list of questions. As some toponyms in military reports do not correspond to local knowledge of the area, interviews usually went in line with the course of the conversation and the survey of the conflict zone. Due to issues of voluntariness and the sensitivity of the subject, data was acquired through one-on-one and one-to-many interviews, and a convenience sampling method was used throughout the fieldwork. Participants were polled in different social contexts (e.g., at their homes or in coffeehouses) or interviewed at the point of introduction. In one-on-one interviews, interviewees were more eager to discuss sensitive topics like mass graves and collaborators. The names of the interlocutors within this book are all pseudonyms. The shared opinions of villagers came to the foreground in one-to-many interviews held at village coffeehouses. Their political views associated with the conflict, their beliefs and stories of resistance and the atrocities of the war and the tensions between different villages all came to light. These common viewpoints are linked to concerns of group identity and social exclusion, and they reflect memory groups that are fragmented and polarised. Through the review of battle maps, satellite images, historical sources and interviews with locals, the possible remains of war and key conflict locations were surveyed. This meant covering a zone of approximately 20 km 2 over five seasons, during which period daily field walks and observations were carried out. Our investigations roughly centred around the settlements of Çalköy, Saraycık, Yüylük and Allıören. Their location, size, number and form were recorded systematically with the help of hand-held global

6  Introduction

Figure 1.2  The area of the Battle of Dumlupınar Survey and the settlements at which oral historical surveys were carried out Source:  Openstreetmap 2021, edited by Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy.

Introduction 7 positioning system (GPS) and single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras. Alongside material remains, key terrains of conflict such as hills, bridges and mountain passages were recorded, as these places hold a significant place in both the written and oral narratives of the Great Offensive. Lastly, the landmarks, namely monuments, war cemeteries and the locals’ sites of remembrance, were covered as part of this survey. These sites resonate different engagements with the conflict and its enduring aftermath. There have been no comprehensive studies of the biographies of Turkish War of Independence landmarks and landscapes, particularly in terms of comprehending the motivations for their construction and the meanings ascribed to them by Turkish official, public and local agents. To my understanding, existing research on the Great Offensive war memorials focuses mostly on their touristic potential (Güngör, 2010; Kılıç and Akyurt, 2011), and a few concentrate only on the history of certain monuments (Osma, 2003; Güçler and Gür, 2021). Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy and I published an article focusing on landmarks within the area of the Battle of Dumlupınar (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022) and, by comparison, this was more process-driven, showing how these places have hybrid meanings and are always evolving. To achieve this goal, the literature and archive material concerning monument and government policies related to the Battle of Dumlupınar site were studied/examined. It was also possible to monitor the official causes behind the construction of monuments and war graves on the site thanks to the proceedings of Turkish Parliament sessions and parliamentary bills (Milli Birlik, 1961; TBMM, 1961), and information on how the sites have been seen and treated over time was also obtained from the memoirs of prominent early republican personalities and newspaper archives (Sabis, 1993; Orbay, 1993b; Koyunoğlu, 2008; Karabekir, 2020; Gaste Arşivi, 2021).

Perspectives The Great Offensive and its results have been discussed in a number of publications from 1922 to the present day. These include military histories (Hellenic Army History Directorate, 1967; Niş, 1968; Jowett and Walsh, 2015; Erickson, 2021), political-diplomatic histories of the war (Smith, 1998; Ercan, 1999; Yellice, 2018), studies on atrocities (Günhan, 2010; Hofmann et al., 2012; Matbuat ve İstihbarat Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi, 1922; Rechad, 1920) and oral historical studies (Neyzi, 2008; Erol, 2020).1 These works largely relied on documentary sources, including military reports, documents from various state archives and the memoirs of individuals who were involved. These subjects have been, and continue to be, treated and publicised in both Greek and Turkish Media. In 2015, my colleagues and I presented the Battle of Dumlupınar and the outcomes of our research on Turkish National TV (TRT) in two documentary episodes about the Greek-Turkish War. Besides

8  Introduction documentaries and debate programs, its events and myths have also become the subject of a few popular TV series (Farewell Anatolia and Wounded Love) and movies (Liberation and Smyrna 1922) in the past two decades. Existing literature on the Great Offensive predominantly approaches the conflict and its landscape in a result-oriented manner, in which TurkishGreek engagements constitute the core of the debate, while the material culture and the local community in the conflict zones are largely overlooked, as mentioned above. This book is an attempt to go beyond this conventional approach in academic literature by forming an interpretative framework for the study of the Greek-Turkish War via a more specific focus on its landscapes and multiple temporalities. Accordingly, my objectives in this book are fourfold. Firstly, I aim to present the surviving remains of the conflict in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar. The existing battle maps do not show all of the emplacements. Accordingly, mapping the distribution of material remains of conflict is essential to draw an accurate picture of the armies’ actions. In addition, the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar is under a constant threat of looting, intensive farming activities and development projects; therefore, publishing the material remains of the war is vital for their further study and to ensure their future conservation. Secondly, I wish to explore ‘the cause-and-effect’ relationships and cognitive stages of the conflict by revisiting the timelines of the conflict at its landscapes. This is key to contextualise the material remains and landscapes of the conflict in different temporalities derived from the hourly military reports from 1922 and the less precise oral histories of the local people. In doing so, this book aims to illustrate the Great Offensive and its aftermath in its complexity, including its temporalities, landscapes, events, technologies and people. The third objective is to illustrate how the sites of conflict have been defined and shaped by different government bodies and public initiatives since 1924. The present-day visitor and local experience in the battlefields are largely shaped by the decisions and actions of government bodies. Determining these actions in archival documents is therefore essential, not only to determine the socio-political motives behind the monuments and ceremonies but to explore the post-formation processes of the battlefields. The fourth aim is to investigate the past and present-day relationships between the material cultures/landscapes of the conflict and local communities of the conflict zone. This helps to contextualise and scrutinise the following points and questions: Looting – who is looting what and why? Spiritual beliefs – how folklore/spiritual beliefs appeared/mobilised in relation to war and its landscapes? Politics – how battle events became elements of local politics? Social relations – what is the role of war in determining the relations between different communities and villages? Lastly, I aspire to position my findings within the ongoing and forthcoming discussions about the Greek-Turkish War and encourage researchers of

Introduction 9 different backgrounds to undertake further research and fieldwork related to modern conflict sites in Turkey. By doing so, I offer this study as a contribution to the interdisciplinary study of modern conflict that has developed over the last 20 years. This book offers new case studies and perspectives on the following issues that have been addressed in modern conflict archaeology literature: treasure hunting, children and war, memory, memorialisation of war, recycling and repurposing of material culture of conflicts, local interpretations/myths of conflict in relation to official publications of military history (Saunders, 2003; Moshenska, 2010; Saunders, 2014; Seitsonen, 2021; Dendooven, 2022; Cornish, 2022a).

The Structure of This Book The Great Offensive was a complex conflict that took place over a vast area, and its events have been closely intertwined with national narratives and controversies over its results. In view of these circumstances, the most effective way of discussing the Great Offensive is by unfolding it and focusing on its multiple temporalities rather than wrapping it up with overarching themes and conclusions. The chapters of this book are organised in line with this standpoint. The second chapter summarises the historical background of the Greek-Turkish War and the Great Offensive. The social, political and tactical context of the conflict is outlined by touching upon the status quo in Western Anatolia under the Greek occupation, the rise of the Turkish resistance in Anatolia and the course of events during the Great Offensive. In the third chapter, I turn my attention to the historical background of the echoes of the Great Offensive, particularly in Turkey. This chapter sets the scene for further discussions on material culture, landscapes, memoryscapes, memorialisation and commemoration of the Great Offensive and the experiences of those visiting and living in its landscapes. Chapter four follows in the footsteps of the soldiers, commanders and civilians in the battlefields of Dumlupınar. The material remains that were recorded during the archaeological survey of the conflict zone are discussed in coordination with the timeline of the conflict from 07:00 on the morning of 29 August 1922 to the early hours of 31 August 1922. Chapter five explores the memoryscapes of the Great Offensive at its landscapes. It opens a window into the memories of the local population regarding the GreekTurkish War and its immediate aftermath. Chapter six illustrates how the conflict zone’s local communities engage with the landscapes, events and material remains of the conflict in the present day. Looting and salvaging activities, local beliefs, legends and local political rhetoric related to the Greek-Turkish War receive scrutiny. Chapter seven investigates post-war formation processes and memorialisation activities in the area of the Great Offensive. Since 1924, a considerable number of landmarks have been erected and ceremonies have been held at different parts of the conflict zone. Landmarks on the present-day

10  Introduction battlefield demonstrate that both the battlefield and the narratives of war are constantly being created and reframed by diverse governmental and public bodies. By looking at the styles and periods of these landmarks, it is possible to see a ‘typological’ pattern in the ways that the site is presented to visitors. Chapter eight discusses how the state and public have imagined and reenacted the Great Offensive since 1924, focusing on both past and present Victory Day ceremonies held at the Battlefield of Dumlupınar. Chapter nine explores how the decisions and memorialisation practices of government bodies shape the present-day visitor experience in the area of the Great Offensive. Tourism and visitor incentives are discussed in light of interviews carried out with visitors. Chapter ten investigates what kind of setting the heritage management policy in the area of the Great Offensive has created for its inhabitants and what locals’ projections are for their homeland. Finally, chapter eleven, the conclusion, outlines the themes and thoughts receiving scrutiny throughout this book: (1) the nature of conflict, (2) repurposing and alteration of the conflict zones and (3) visitor’s and local’s experiences in today’s landscape. Building on these themes, it determines the different temporalities of the Great Offensive and suggests prospects for future studies on the Turkish War of Independence.

Note

1 The references cited here do not comprise the entire corpus of literature on these subjects in the bibliography of this book. They are rather exemplary case studies.

2

Historical Background From Defeat of the Ottoman Empire to Foundation of the Turkish Republic

Glancing at postcards of western Anatolian towns and advertisements in guidebooks from 1899 to 1920 resurrects the region’s cosmopolitan past, which bustled with merchants, craftspeople, peasants and brigands of different religious and ethnic backgrounds (Atay, 1997; Berber, 1998). Today one would hardly recognise either the built environment or the lifestyle of this rather recent past. This dramatic change has its roots in the 24 days of conflict that occurred between the Greek and Turkish Armies in the late summer of 1922. For some, ‘paradise was lost’, while for others, ‘a long lasting sin was churningly and overwhelmingly punished’ (Tanrıöver, 1924). Furthermore, the routes and motives of future political regimes in both Greece and Turkey can be traced back to the Great Offensive. It was during this conflict that the stars of future leaders began to shine, where future political rivalries were seeded and national narratives were rooted. As such, the historiography of the Great Offensive has largely been shaped against this background. Here, I delve into the events that paved the way for the Great Offensive and its outcomes.

The Defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the Rise of the Ankara Government The Turkish War of Independence was one of the offshoots of the First World War. The Ottoman Empire was defeated by the Entente (Allied) powers1 and lost a considerable proportion of its territory by the end of the war. The hostilities between the Ottoman Empire and the Entente powers officially ceased with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918 on board the HMS Agamemnon. The harsh conditions of the armistice planted the seeds for the Turkish War of Independence; it imposed the demobilisation of a large proportion of the Ottoman forces and it gave rights to the Entente powers to occupy any strategic points in the event of any situation arising that threatened their security (Maurice, 1943; Orbay, 1993a). Following the signing of the armistice, Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Cemal Pasha – the leading ‘Three Pashas’ of the Committee of Union and Progress (henceforth CUP) – left Istanbul on a German torpedo boat R-01 to DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-2

12  Historical Background Yevpatoria in Crimea (Bardakçı, 2015). A coalition of Entente forces entered Istanbul and the surrounding straits. This was a fragile coalition, as there were major disagreements concerning the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. The Italian government expected to take control of Southwest and Western Anatolia, while Greece aimed to occupy Anatolia’s western coast and hinterland. During the Paris Peace Conference, Antalya was occupied by Italian forces and Italy’s self-ordained actions strengthened Greece’s position during this conference (Smith, 1998; Yellice, 2018). Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos claimed that Izmir’s Christian population were under severe threat, and under this pretext, Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson encouraged Greece to occupy Izmir (Erdem, 2010). Greek forces landed in Izmir on 15 May 1919 and the Greeks of Izmir cheered them on the quayside. While the Greek soldiers were advancing to Konak (Government House) and the Ottoman Barracks, a shot was fired at them. It is still disputed who pulled the trigger on that day. The Greek troops kept the Ottoman Barracks under fire for over half an hour and took prisoners from the barracks. As they marched the Ottoman soldiers to the prison ship, several prisoners were killed by the Greek crowd. Riots soon broke out in other parts of the city; numerous houses were looted and plundered by mobs and 300 to 400 Turks and around 100 Greeks were reported to have been killed and wounded during this first day of occupation (Solomonidis, 1984; Smith, 1998). Up to this point, resistance against Allied occupations had been largely limited to the political arena. Associations for the Defence of Rights (Müdafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyetleri), congress administrations and short-lived states such as the Oltu Council Administration (Oltu Şura Hükümeti) were established across Anatolia and Eastern Thrace (Tanör, 1998; Aydoğan, 2005). These organisations constituted the backbone of the civilian initiative behind the Turkish resistance. More than 30 congresses defending the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire were held in Anatolia and Thrace, most of which took place in the western Anatolian towns of Izmir, Nazili, Balıkesir, Alaşehir, Muğla and Afyon. Some of these congresses practically acted as local administrations, attempting to regularise social and economic life in their areas, mobilised people against the occupying forces and collected taxes (Tanör, 1998). The occupation of Izmir changed the tide of Turkish resistance and National Forces (Kuva-yi Milliye) sporadically emerged across Anatolia. These were irregular armed groups that gathered around local brigand leaders and retired army officers. They grew in number with the participation of discharged soldiers, officers on leave and volunteers that were mobilised by congress administrations (İnönü, 1985; Tanör, 1998). Western Anatolia had always been a hotbed of brigands that clashed with Ottoman administration forces and committed murders, robberies and kidnappings, mainly targeting the local rich and rival gangs. They enjoyed the relative support of the local population, as they were seen as figures dispensing justice and

Historical Background 13 supporting their fellow villagers (Adıvar, 1928; Uyanık, 2014; Pullukçuoğlu Yapucu, 2020). The disbandment of Ottoman forces and the march of the Greek Army towards the hinterland of Izmir created a void for these brigands to fill. They constituted the core of the Nationalist forces, while some collaborated with the Greek forces. In the meantime, a much greater political and military movement was rising in the Anatolian heartland, where the Allied forces had a weak presence and Ottoman forces were still active. Mustafa Kemal Pasha, an accomplished commander of the Ottoman Army and a critic of the Three Pashas of the CUP, was appointed to the position of Inspector of the Ninth Army in Sivas by the Ottoman Administration in order to avoid disorder amongst both the public and the Ottoman troops (Mango, 2002). This appointment resulted from a series of meetings that Mustafa Kemal had with prominent military and political figures in Istanbul. He was chosen to be the inspector of the best-equipped and most intact forces of the Empire in Central Anatolia. By assigning accomplished commanders to Anatolia, the Ottoman Administration aimed to keep the integrity of these forces so as to apply pressure on the Allies in upcoming peace agreement negotiations (Bardakçı, 2006). Mustafa Kemal Pasha and Kazım Karabekir Pasha (commander of the 15th Corps in Erzurum), Colonel Refet (commander of the 3rd Corps in Samsun), Ali Fuad Pasha (commander of the 20th Corps in Ankara) and Rauf Bey (ex-minister of the Ottoman Navy) were planning to resist the occupying forces from Anatolia (Cebesoy, 1953; Karabekir, 1960; Orbay, 1993a). They had the capability to rally civil initiatives, armed resistance groups and the military for this objective, as they had been members of the opposition in the CUP during the First World War. Accordingly, they were not held responsible for the defeat of the Empire by the public and were not implicated in the law of deportation issued for the Ottoman Armenians nor for corruption during the years of the Great War (İnönü, 1985). Upon his arrival in Samsun on 19 May 1919, Mustafa Kemal laid the foundations of the Turkish Nationalist Movement in collaboration with his associates. In the early hours of 22 June 1919, they declared their intentions of defence via the Amasya Circular (Cumhurbaşkanlığı, 2020). They stated that the Central Government in Istanbul was under the influence of Entente Powers and invited the representatives of defence associations to meet at a congress that would be held for the eastern provinces in Erzurum (23 July–07 August 1919) and in Sivas for the entire country (4–11 September 1919) (Adıvar, 1928; Mango, 2002). As a result of these congresses, these associations were unified under one umbrella organisation: the Association for the Defense of National Rights of Anatolia and Rumelia (DNRAR) with the Representative Body (Heyet-I Temsiliye) chaired by Mustafa Kemal. The representative body acted as a provisional government and consolidated its power by taking control of the Ottoman military and administrative bureaucracy in Anatolia, banishing administrators who did not follow their instructions (Adıvar, 1928;

14  Historical Background Akın, 2014). The candidates of the DNRAR won a majority in the Ottoman Parliament elections in October 1919. The elected parliament formulated their conditions for a peace agreement under the National Pact Decisions (Mîsâk-ı Millî) on 28 January 1920. The pact demanded sovereignty and union of the Ottoman territory, which was under the control of the Ottoman forces by the ratification of the Mudros Armistice (Toynbee, 1922; Orbay, 1993b; Cumhurbaşkanlığı, 2020). However, this parliament did not last long after the official occupation of Istanbul by Allied forces on 16 March 1920. Some of the members of parliament were imprisoned by British forces and the parliament ceased on 11 April 1920 (Orbay, 1993b). In response, the Representative Body ran elections in its area of control and invited the members of the Last Ottoman Parliament for the Grand National Assembly (henceforth GNA) to be convened in Ankara. Following its establishment on 23 April 1920, the Representative Body ceased its actions and the GNA elected Mustafa Kemal as its president. The GNA held unprecedented executive, legislative and jurisdictive powers (Akın, 2014). Accordingly, it took prompt and decisive actions throughout the years of the Turkish War of Independence: it raised and equipped a regular army, established official diplomatic ties with France and Soviet Russia, ran Independence Tribunals across Anatolia and regularised almost every aspect of economic, social and political life in areas under its control. Two factions in the GNA clashed over a number of issues: the First Group and the Second Group. The former held the majority and, headed by Mustafa Kemal, defended the supremacy of executive power. Conversely, members of the latter group defended the supremacy of the assembly and tried to curb the increasing authority of Mustafa Kemal (Demirel, 2003).

The Greek Turkish War The regular and irregular forces of the GNA prevailed against the First Armenian Republic in Eastern Anatolia in December 1920 and the French forces in Southern Anatolia in October 1921 (Karabekir, 1960). As a result of these victories, the GNA achieved the security of its borders with French occupied Syria and the Transcaucasian Soviet Republics in 1921. Conversely, the Greek forces in Western Anatolia posed an existential threat to the GNA. The occupation of Izmir was followed by a series of Greek offensives in 1920, which expanded the Greek Occupation zone to Alaşehir in the South and Bursa to the North (Jensen, 1979; Ercan, 1999). The motives behind the occupation of Western Anatolia were based on the vision of the Great Idea (Μεγάλη Ιδέα). The major goals of this vision were the foundation of a Greater Greece that would cover Eastern Thrace, Istanbul, Western Anatolia and the Black Sea Coast of Anatolia. It would also integrate the Greek Orthodox population of these regions into Greece (Smith, 1998; Koundoura, 2007).

Historical Background 15 Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos was an avid proponent of this vision and managed to realise it to a certain extent. Under his administration, Greece’s territory expanded from 25,014 to 41,993 square miles between 1910 and 1920. Yet, the authoritarian tendencies of his administration were challenged by the Royalists, whose leaders were forced to live in exile. The struggle between Royalists and Venizelists reached its peak during the November 1920 national elections; the United Opposition, headed by Royalist Dimitrios Gournaris, won the elections. Following the election, the new government replaced Venizelist military officers with some 1500 Royalist officers who had been discharged during the years of Venizelos’ government (Smith, 1998). Subsequently, the Greek forces in Anatolia were politicised and relations between the new military leadership and the army were strained (Solomonidis, 1984; Nioutsikos, 2020). This situation undermined the morale and hierarchy of the Greek forces: soldiers mobbed officers in Salihli and the Greek units in Turgutlu challenged the command’s order to aid the Greek units in Akhisar. After a short period of disorder, the Greek officers put aside their differences due to the somewhat neutral attitude of their Commander in Chief Anastasios Papoulas and increasing pressure from Turkish nationalists upon the Greek forces from 1921 onwards (Smith, 1998; Koundoura, 2007; Koliopoulos and Veremis, 2010). The outnumbered army of the GNA halted the Greek advance towards Eskişehir during the 1st (9–11 January 1921) and 2nd Battles of Inönü (26–31 March 1921). By mid-July 1921, the Greek Army mobilised an approximately 200,000 strong force in order to capture Ankara and wipe out the Turkish resistance in Western Anatolia. The Greek Army swiftly advanced to the Anatolian heartland, broke the Turkish defence lines and captured the cities of Kütahya, Afyonkarahisar and Eskisehir (10–24 July 1921). Following this defeat, the GNA appointed Mustafa Kemal to the temporary position of Commander in Chief with extraordinary powers and Turkish forces were ordered to retreat to the east of the Sakarya River. The Turkish Army stopped the Greek advance towards Ankara during the 3-week-long Battle of Sakarya (23 August–13 September 1921) (İncedayı, 2007; Çalışlar, 2009; Erickson, 2020).

Greek Occupation The Greek presence in Western Anatolia was, in many ways, on thin ice. The region’s ethnic and religious makeup was the primary obstacle for the permanence and expansion of the Greek occupation. Most of the population was Muslim, while the considerable Christian population were mainly concentrated in the Coastal settlements. The Greek Orthodox and Armenian communities largely embraced the Greek occupation, the Levantine and Jewish communities remained distant, and amongst the Muslims, there was general disapproval. The Greek administration sought to collaborate with the Cretan Turks2 who were fluent in Greek and the Circassian brigands

16  Historical Background who refused to be under the centralised command of the GNA (Toynbee, 1922; Erdem, 2010). The situation in Western Anatolia was further complicated by the presence of Turkish refugees from the Balkan wars and returning Anatolian Greek refugees who had left their homes during the Great War. The Greek occupied areas were administered by the High Commission headed by civil servant Aristeidis Stergiadis. As an experienced lawyer from Crete, he was acquainted with Sharia Law and served as the governor-general of Epirus, where a substantial Albanian population was present and brigands widespread. At the time of his appointment, independent investigations were under way over how Greek forces were handling the occupation and administration (Smith, 1998). High Commissioner Stergiadis had a difficult task to accomplish restoring order in Greek occupied areas, establishing control over Ottoman local authorities until the projected annexation of the area and defending Greek interests that were in the sights of the representatives and High Commissioners of the Allied powers. He set up a versatile public administration with eleven departments including Muslim Affairs, Public Health, Justice, Telecommunications, National Economy and Public Works. The High Commission tried to keep the Ottoman local administration in Western Anatolia intact in order to avoid any havoc during the transition of power and to win the trust of the local population (Solomonidis, 1984; Berber, 1999). The High Commission also launched a hearts and minds campaign during which rations of food were distributed and health services were provided to the poor families of all religious groups (Toynbee, 1922; Berber, 2009). Alongside this campaign, Muslims that were suspected of supporting the Turkish Nationalist cause were deported to other parts of the occupation zone and the Aegean islands (Smith, 1998). The High Commission’s attempts to restore order, integrate the Muslim population and propagate the occupation in a good light were largely overshadowed by the actions of the Greek forces and local Christian and Muslim brigands. Turkish and Greek districts in Aydın and the YalovaGemlik peninsula were torched, houses were looted and a large number of civilians were killed on both sides (Solomonidis, 1984; Smith, 1998; Erdem, 2010). The sides of the conflict were not always clear. There were cases of Turkish brigands assaulting the Turkish population on the grounds of rebellion against the National Forces (Ercan, 1999). There was tension amongst the soldiers from Greece and the Anatolian Greeks. A line from a Greek soldier song of the period illustrates this point vividly: ‘We came here from Old Greece to save you despicable dogs!’ (Benlisoy, 2010). Some Anatolian Greeks were trying to avoid the Greek Army’s conscription campaign by declaring that they were Ottoman subjects and Greek socialists advocated anti-war sentiments within the Greek Army (Benlisoy, 2010, 2014). To summarise, the situation in Greek-occupied Western Anatolia was way more complex than a struggle between the Greek and Turkish factions

Historical Background 17 or a clash between different nationalisms. It would be fair to describe it as a civil war with blurred lines involving different subjects of the disintegrating Ottoman Empire. The hostilities and alliances did not just occur in line with ethnicity but political affiliations, economic interests, religious affiliations, ideologies and local leaders’ interests.

The Great Offensive After the Battle of Sakarya, the Greek forces retreated towards the west and set up a defence line extending from the Bay of Gemlik to the Meander River, stationing approximately 225,000 soldiers along the front. In addition, a rear defence line was also established around the railway town of Dumlupınar. The Greek Army’s headquarters were in Izmir, far from the frontlines. By and large, the Greek defence line was composed of a series of artillery observation points, communication trenches, machine gun nests and slit trenches surrounded with barbed wire (Niş, 1968). The Ahır Mountains to the south of Afyon were largely left unfortified due to the formidability of its terrain for a possible offensive. Meanwhile, Turkish forces were also digging in on the other side of the defence line. The GNA and Commander in Chief Mustafa Kemal took steps to increase the army’s manpower and technical capabilities. Units from the Eastern and Southern Fronts were transferred to the Western Front and more civilians were conscripted into the army. The Turkish forces strengthened their firepower through Soviet aid, arms purchases from France and Italy, arms smuggling from the Ottoman Army depots in Istanbul and the confiscation of privately owned arms (Niş, 1968, pp. 2–3). In order to counter the Greek Air Force, six reconnaissance and four fighter planes were purchased. By August 1922, the manpower of the GNA Army reached around 199,000 soldiers and 6,000 officers. In comparison to the Greek Army, the GNA Army had a larger cavalry force, while the Greek forces had a greater number of motorised units and machine guns. Both forces were almost even in manpower. Under these circumstances, the Turkish command built their offensive plan on an element of surprise. According to this plan, the Turkish 1st Army Corps would concentrate its forces and firepower to the 25 km-long section of the Greek defence line lying south of Afyon and would breach the line towards the north using four-to-one manpower against the Greek forces. The 5th Cavalry Corps Army would cross the largely undefended Ahır Mountains and reach behind the Greek lines in the west. In coordination with these attacks, the weaker 2nd Army Corps would distract the larger Greek force stationed around Eskişehir and hold them there until the first army swept the Greek forces towards the north. For this plan to be realised, the troops and their loads had to be transferred to their positions without alerting the Greeks five days prior to the offensive. The plan was developed in great secrecy: the Turkish command held their conclusive meeting in the Turkish frontline HQ at Aksehir under the pretext

18  Historical Background of watching a football match between Turkish officers on 28 July 1922 (Niş, 1968; Erickson, 2020). On 20 August, a small column on the front page of the Hakimiyet-i Milliye (National Sovereignty) newspaper came out with the headline: ‘His Excellency Mustafa Kemal Pasha gives a reception for political dignitaries at his mansion’ (Akçasulu, 2019). In fact, Mustafa Kemal was neither in Ankara nor holding a reception with dignitaries; he was in Akşehir overseeing the final preparations of the offensive. The troops were ordered to march at night and heavy artillery pieces were placed in their positions the night prior to the offensive’s initiation. As the fog disappeared at dawn on 26 August, the Turkish batteries broke the silence of the frontline with a heavy bombardment. The Greek positions on rugged hills to the south of Afyon took severe blows and dry scrub on the frontline burst into flame and smoke decreased visibility. As the Turkish infantry units breached the lines of barbed wire under Greek heavy machine gun fire, the Turkish artillery constantly bombarded the Greek forces’ rear. Meanwhile, the Turkish 5th Cavalry Corps Army crossed the Ahır Mountains and reached the plains behind Greek lines. Cavalry units blew up some sections of the Afyon-Izmir railway line and interrupted the line of communication between the Greek forces on the front and their command HQ in Izmir. By dusk of 26 August, the Turkish forces managed to capture most of the key hills apart from Çiğiltepe. This rugged and heavily fortified hill was captured the following day after a bloody conflict. The pressure on Turkish officers was excessive; the 57th Division Commander, Colonel Reşat, committed suicide with his own pistol upon failing to capture the hill within the timeframe specified by Mustafa Kemal (Niş, 1968). This tragic event would later become an important aspect of the future narratives of the Great Offensive in Turkey, and it is often portrayed as a reflection of Turkish soldiers’ willingness to win this war (see chapter seven). A fog of uncertainty now loomed over the Greek forces. The Greek commanders on the frontline and the main command in Izmir had disagreements over the deployment of reserve forces and priorities of defence during the first two days of the war. They reached a consensus on 28 August over the step-by-step defence of the route to Izmir (Trikoupis, 1967; Niş, 1968). This goal could not be realised, as Turkish forces did not halt their advances and subsequently managed to split the Greek Army into two groups: The Trikoupis group led by General Nikolaos Trikoupis to the north of the Izmir-Afyon railway and the Frangou group under the command of General Athanasios Frangou south of the railway (Trikoupis, 1967; Niş, 1968). The order of the Turkish Western Front in the early hours of 28 August clearly spells out the Turkish strategy: ‘The enemy will be chased continuously and compelled to fight. Objective: Annihilation’ (Niş, 1968). After a two-day-long relentless pursuit, the two retreating groups of the Greek Army were close to merging their forces in the vicinity of the railway town of Dumlupınar. The pursuing GNA Army acted swiftly and intervened

Historical Background 19 between these two groups on 29 August. The following day, in intermittent rain and fog, the Trikoupis group was stuck in the muddy terrain northwest of Dumlupınar, while the Frangou group was holding Dumlupınar town centre and Kaplangı Mountain to the south. The Turkish command seized this opportunity and the Battle of Dumlupınar, the decisive conflict of the Great Offensive, took place. According to Turkish sources, the Trikoupis group numbered about 30,000 soldiers; however, Greek sources estimate the figure to be 15,000. The Turkish forces tried to encircle those Trikoupis from all directions while they sought to retreat in an orderly fashion via the only route that remained open to the west, Kızıltaş Valley. The fighting was fierce, only 6,000 of the Trikoupis group and a local collaborator group – named ‘the Memiş Efe Gang’ – managed to retreat by the night of 30 August (Niş, 1968). The Frangou group received supplies via the railway and tried to halt the Turkish 1st Army on Kaplangı Mountain since this was a key position that oversaw the route to Izmir. The summit of the mountain changed hands three times before Turkish forces seized the mountain by the morning of 31 August. From this point on, the Frangou’s forces withdrew from Uşak and marched further west in order to form a defence line between Buldan and Alaşehir. The remaining forces of the Trikoupis group marched towards the village of Banaz in the hope of merging with the Frangou group. Neither of these objectives could be met. Trikoupis and the remaining soldiers of the 13th Division were later captured in Banaz on 2 September. According to Trikoupis, he was forced to surrender by his exhausted soldiers, who had neither enough ammunition nor rations to continue their retreat (Trikoupis, 1967). The situation gradually worsened for the Greeks over the following days; Greek soldiers had to march relentlessly without sufficient provisions and ammunition under the early September heat. These marching columns were constantly attacked by Turkish cavalry and infantry units as well as by Turkish civilians. The Turkish soldiers and horses were exhausted, but the Turkish command did not allow the units to rest for more than a few hours at a time. The streams and fountains were filled with corpses, thus causing a water supply shortage. Each Turkish battalion continued to walk 20–25 km per day on average (Niş, 1968). Most towns and villages along the Greek Army’s trail of withdrawal were razed. Escaping from fires and arbitrary killings, the Turkish inhabitants of these towns sought refuge in the hills surrounding their towns, while Greek inhabitants rushed towards Izmir in the hope of reaching Greece (Neyzi, 2008). Izmir swarmed with injured Greek soldiers and refugees. The Greek forces started to withdraw from Izmir from 4 September onwards: ferries were evacuating soldiers and the Army’s equipment. The Christians that held European passports received the right to asylum from Allied consulates, but the majority were abandoned to their fate. Tensions increased in the Greek, Turkish and Armenian neighbourhoods, as all sides feared acts of revenge (Umar, 1974).

20  Historical Background Meanwhile, the Greek Army was trying to delay the Turkish advances in order to save its forces marching towards the coast. As the Turkish forces advanced towards Izmir, their lines of communication were overstretched; messengers on horseback and, rarely, wireless sets were used to coordinate the movements of the units (Niş and Söker, 1995). This gave room for a Greek elite force, the 5/42 Evzone Regiment, to ambush the Turkish units that were not aware of the current situation in the conflict zone. By employing hit and run and scorched earth tactics, the 5/42 Evzone Regiment prevented the Turkish forces from surrounding Frangou’s units (Niş and Söker, 1995). On 5 September, Turkish forces that approached Salihli railway station found that they were outnumbered by the 5/42 Evzone Regiment that had received reinforcements via train. Turkish cavalry units could not strike through the ditches and streams of Salihi’s farmlands. A fierce conflict took place around Salihli railway station and surrounding farms. The 5/42 Evzone Regiment managed to hold the railway station until the Greek forces withdrew from Salihli in the evening (Altay, 1925; Niş and Söker, 1995). By 8 September, 30,000 of the Greek Army and the staff of the Greek administration had been evacuated from Izmir. The regiments of the 5th Cavalry Corps were the first Turkish forces to enter Izmir on 9 September; they rode towards Konak via the seafront and hoisted the Turkish flag at both Government House and the Ottoman Military Barracks. They faced weak resistance: the Greek and Armenian inhabitants of the city locked themselves in their houses and churches, while the Turks were celebrating in the streets. Mustafa Kemal appointed 1st Army Commander Nureddin Pasha as governor of Izmir on 10 September. Upon his appointment, Nureddin Pasha summoned Izmir’s Archbishop Chrysostomos to his office. An avid supporter of the Greek occupation, Chrysostomos was known for blessing the landing of Greek soldiers on the quayside back in 1919. After the meeting was over, Chrysostomos was lynched by a Turkish crowd in front of Nureddin Pasha’s office. A fire broke out in the Armenian quarter of the city on 13 September and spread rapidly to the Greek and Levantine Quarters due to southerly winds. As the undermanned fire brigades could not keep up with the pace of the fire, residents of these neighbourhoods and Greek refugees rushed to the quayside and some jumped into the sea to seek refuge on Allied warships anchored in the bay. A large proportion of the city had been reduced to ashes by 15 September. The possible cause(s) of this fire is a heavily debated subject and two theories come to the forefront in various publications. The first theory states that the fire was linked to Turkish forces and irregulars. These sources claim that the Turkish forces waited for the wind to change direction and soaked the Armenian quarter with gasoline and set it on fire in different spots (Dobkin Housepian, 1998; Bierstadt, 2008). Since the Christian quarters of the city took the heaviest toll, the Great Fire of Izmir is viewed as an act of sweeping out the Christians from Izmir.

Historical Background 21 According to the second theory, the fire was started by Armenian gangs or Greek soldiers in hiding. The Armenians stored ammunition and weapons for their neighbourhood and pledged not to hand Izmir over to the Turks intact (Kinross, 1965; Umar, 1974; Lowry, 1988). From this perspective, the Great Fire of Izmir is viewed as the final link in the chain of fires set by the retreating Greek forces across Western Anatolia. While Izmir was in flames, around 20,000 of the Greek forces were retreating towards the Çeşme Peninsula under the protection of Greek warships’ artillery. The Turkish forces were pursuing them via inland routes. The 5/42 Evzone Regiment protected the rear of the Greek forces and delayed the Turkish advance around the Yağcılar Village of Urla (Niş and Söker, 1995). The bulk of the Greek forces managed to retreat to the Aegean islands from the Çeşme Peninsula on 16 September. On 18 September, the Greek military presence in Anatolia was no more, as the final remnant of the Greek Army embarked at Bandırma.

The Dawning of New Regimes The retreating Greek forces fled to the islands of Chios and Lesbos. A mutiny soon arose amongst the ranks of the Greek soldiers against King Constantine I and the Greek government. The uprising was led by Venizelist colonels, Nikolaos Plastiras in Chios and Stylianos Gonatas in Lesbos. They rallied the support of the Greek Navy through Captain Dimitrios Phokas of the Battleship Lemnos and initiated a coup on 24 September (Tüzel and Cebecioğlu, 1995; Smith, 1998). On 26 September, an airplane flew over Athens and the ultimatum of the coup members was dropped over the city. Following this event, the King abdicated in favour of his son George II and took refuge in Sicily. The next day, the remaining units of the Army of Asia Minor landed at Piraeus and marched to Athens. The three commanders entered the city on horseback and seized control of the government. One of the coup administration’s first acts was to strengthen the Greek military presence in Thrace in order to remain in control of Eastern Thrace. The coup received the support of Venizelos, who was in exile in Paris. The coup leaders asked him to represent Greece with the Entente powers; Venizelos accepted and represented Greece at the peace conference held in Lausanne. The overthrown government members and two royalist Commanders of the Army of Asia Minor were arrested and put on trial, known as the Trial of Six. Five, including Former prime minister Dimitrios Gounaris and the former Commander in Chief of the Army of Asia Minor Georgios Hatzianestis, were found guilty of high treason and executed by firing squad on 28 November (Smith, 1998; J. Koliopoulos and Veremis, 2010). By the end of the Great Offensive, the Army of the GNA had started to concentrate its forces in the neutral zone surrounding the Turkish straits and Istanbul. Tensions had risen between the British and Turkish forces (Walder, 1969; Erickson, 2021), and a series of protests and ultimatums were

22  Historical Background exchanged between the GNA and the Allies via diplomatic channels and newspapers. During this period of uncertainty, the GNA greatly benefited from its unexpected victory at the Great Offensive and the increasing tensions between the Allies and Soviets over the control of the straits. The Allies and the GNA government agreed on an armistice at Mudanya on 14 October in the absence of the Greek delegates (Tüzel and Cebecioğlu, 1995). As a result of this ceasefire agreement, the Greek forces were forced to evacuate Eastern Thrace in 13 days and a GNA Gendarme force and civil servants secured order in the area. Lines between the forces of the GNA and the Allies around the straits were defined, and both sites pledged not to cross these lines during the forthcoming peace conference in Lausanne. The GNA representative and governor of Eastern Thrace, Refet Pasha, landed in Istanbul with a 120-strong Gendarme force (Tüzel and Cebecioğlu, 1995). The governments of Istanbul and the GNA were in dispute over the participation and representation of the Turkish side in the peace conference. The GNA saw itself as the only authority that could represent the Turkish people’s interests, while the Istanbul government insisted on participation. The GNA ended this dispute by abolishing the Ottoman Sultanate on 1 November (Çetin, 2014). The fate of the Istanbul Government and Sultan Vahdettin was uncertain from this point on,3 and government members submitted their resignations to the sultan. Sultan Vahdettin took refuge on HMS Malaya and sailed to Malta on 17 November (Bardakçı, 2006), thus putting an end to six centuries of Ottoman rule. Along with these ground-breaking changes, the GNA solidified its legitimacy in the international arena. The GNA delegation headed by İsmet İnönü represented Turkey at the Lausanne peace conference, which began on 20 November. While negotiations took place in Lausanne, general elections were held in Turkey on 15 April. The main reason behind this snap election was Mustafa Kemal’s concerns over the Second Group in the GNA. The opposition would likely reject a peace treaty on the grounds that it did not meet the territorial claims in the National Pact Decisions of 1920 (YKY, 1998; Demirel, 2018). There was a heavy atmosphere in Ankara; a leading figure of the Second Group, Ali Şükrü Bey, suddenly disappeared on 27 March and his tortured body was later discovered in a ditch in a field4 (Orbay, 1993b). With changes made to the law of treason prior to the elections, it was challenging for candidates outside of Mustafa Kemal’s candidate list to run in the elections. The Second Group protested and, as a group, decided not to take part in the elections, which resulted in a total victory for Mustafa Kemal and his Defence of National Rights Group, later renamed the Republican People’s Party (CHP) (YKY, 1998; Demirel, 2018). The peace conference was tough and tortuous for all sides; negotiations broke down once and an agreement could only be reached on 17 July 1923 (Turan, 2003). As a result of the Treaty of Lausanne, the demographics of Greece and Turkey changed drastically. Turkey and Greece agreed a population exchange protocol that resulted in the exchange of approximately

Historical Background 23 1,200,000 Greek Orthodox and 456,720 Muslims. Only the Muslim population inhabiting Western Thrace and the Greek Orthodox population of Istanbul and the islands of Gökçeada and Bozcaada were exempt from this protocol (YKY, 1998; Goularas-Bayındır, 2012). Turkey now emerged as a sovereign state. The GNA declared this new state a republic on 29 October 1923 and chose Mustafa Kemal as its president. The new republic laid its foundations, reforms and national identity upon the legacy of the War of Independence and not the Ottoman past. As such, the treatment of the Great Offensive in this book is not an analysis of historical war; it is instead a journey into the foundation myth of the Turkish Republic and the ideological foundations of the Turkish state. The historical background of this epic national making is a rich subject and taken up in more detail in the following chapter.

Notes



1 Britain, France and Italy were the principal Allied powers that carried out the occupation of the Ottoman Empire. 2 A considerable number of Cretan Turks emigrated to Anatolia as a result of the Cretan Revolt (1897–1898) and population exchange of 1923. 3 Approval of the verdict of Mustafa Kemal’s execution in absentia by the Sultan in 1920 and the formation of The Forces of Order (Kuvva-yi İnzibatiye) against the GNA were already straining the ties between the Istanbul Government and the GNA (Akşin, 2010; Jowett and Walsh, 2015). 4 The investigators of the time concluded that he was murdered by the members of Mustafa Kemal’s bodyguard unit headed by Topal Osman. According to the memoirs of eyewitnesses, Topal Osman resisted the forces that came to arrest him, and he was killed along with some of his men on 2 April (Pulur, 2000).

3

Hector’s Vengeance Historical Background of the Echoes of the Great Offensive

‘The Nationalist Movement Party is walking with the spirit of Dumlupınar to call them to account and to save Turkey’ (Bahçeli, 2015)

Should one read such political speeches and the wide range of Turkishlanguage literature on the Greek-Turkish War, one would notice that the Great Offensive has ‘a body’ and ‘a spirit’. The body represents the very event of the conflict, and its spirit is defined by the socio-political echoes of the offensive over the past 100 years. While I carried out a thorough investigation of the Great Offensive’s body in the previous chapter, here I will invoke its spirit by taking a glance at how the Great Offensive has been perceived and contextualised over the past 100 years. The centre of my focus is largely on the Turkish literature and political discourses in Turkey, as the present research focuses on the landscapes and memoryscape of the Great Offensive in Turkey.1 I seek to illustrate how the Great Offensive is interpreted amongst the different political circles of Turkey. I do not aim to cover an entire spectrum of political factions; instead, the discourses that have had a visible influence in shaping the landscapes, official narratives and memoryscapes of the Great Offensive.

Harvest of Greeks: The Great Offensive in War-Time Literature The war-time literature and press often portrayed the Greek-Turkish War with references to ancient myths and historic wars related to Anatolia. This approach can be traced back to the Mudros armistice negotiations, which were finalised on board HMS Agamemnon. The Greek High Commission and the occupation forces paid homage to the ancient Greek colonies in Anatolia and the Byzantine Empire. The autonomous state that the Greek High Commission hoped to establish was named after the Ionian League, a coalition of city states that was established by Greek speaking groups in the Carian and Lelegian territories of the Aegean Anatolian coast in the seventh century BCE (Erdem, 2010, 2014). Furthermore, Ionian University was founded by DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-3

Hector’s Vengeance 25 the High Commission in Izmir. The unfinished Union and Progress School in Konak, Izmir, was seized for housing the university’s faculties. The establishment of the Ionian University was seen as a manifestation of Greece’s mission to bring ‘her superior civilization’ to ‘alien populations’ of Asia Minor (Solomonidis, 1984). These deeds were not purely ideologically driven; they aimed to legitimise the Greek occupation as the liberation of ancient Greek lands. The High Commission sought to demonstrate the Hellenicity of Anatolia by facilitating archaeological expeditions and restorations focusing on Ionian, Hellenistic and Byzantine material culture. Excavations were undertaken in Klazomenai, Nysa and Ephesus. The Greek forces were tasked to collect antiquities while they were advancing to Inner Anatolia (Pavli, 2013). The Greek press of the period compared the Greek advances to Inner Anatolia with the campaign of Alexander the Great: the ‘Gordian Knot’ was to be cut once again (Toynbee, 1922). In response to this news, Turkish humourous magazines of the period pointed out that Gordion lay along the frontline of the Battle of Sakarya and they made word-play with Gordion and the Turkish word ‘Kördüğüm’, which means deadlock (Çoruk, 2008). The propagation of the Greek occupation with reference to ancient history was not always looked upon in a positive light by western reporters of the period. During his visits to the Greek occupied regions of Anatolia, Arnold Toynbee evaluated the ongoing war in respect to the history of Western Anatolia. By discussing conflicts involving the Ionian city states, Alexander the Great and the Romans, he illustrated the immense difficulty of any permanent conquest of Anatolia from overseas. Toynbee compared Mustafa Kemal with Mithridates, who, he claimed, had also raised Anatolian national consciousness; meanwhile, the Turkish brigands were compared with Pontic warriors resisting the Romans (Toynbee, 1922). This comparative approach was picked up by later sources that partially shaped the present-day official narrative of the Great Offensive. For example, Greek Colonel Ambelas compared the retreat of the Greek Independent Division during the Great Offensive to Xenophon’s Anabasis and titled his 1937 book: The March of the Modern Ten Thousand (Ambelas, 1943, 1997).2 In Turkish media, the Great Offensive is often labelled as ‘the vengeance of Hector’, based on a highly disputed historical account by renowned Turkish author Sabahattin Eyüboğlu. While he was visiting Dumlupınar as a jury member for the Victory Monument design competition in 1962, he was struck by an anecdote told by a retired Turkish colonel who had fought in the Battle of Dumlupınar: Mustafa Kemal Pasha told the officers around him that ‘he took the revenge of the Trojans upon the Greeks at Dumlupınar’ (Eyüboğlu, 1994). With this story in mind, Eyüboğlu compared the Turkish War of Independence with the Illiad: ‘3200 years before our war of Independence, Anatolia gathered its entire force against the colonisers at Troy under the command of Hector who was perhaps the ancestor of the ancestors of Mustafa Kemal’ (Eyüboğlu, 1994). The Illiad evoked Eyüboğlu’s childhood memories

26  Hector’s Vengeance of war from Kütahya, where he had seen Turkish soldiers from different parts of Anatolia in their local attire marching to the frontline (Eyüboğlu, 1994). Remarkably, Eyüboğlu’s reflections found a voice not in the sites of the Great Offensive but at the very site of Troy: an exhibition panel in the Troy Museum is about the Battle of Dumlupınar and Hector’s vengeance. The Great Offensive has always been treated in the press of both the wartime period and the present-day with an air of ancient history. From the perspective of the Turkish press, the Great Offensive was the end of the Great Idea of Greece. Turkish caricatures published during war-time personified the Greek ideals as a skeleton in ancient Greek armour holding hands with an amputated and bruised Evzone (Simavi, 1922). The skeleton’s wearing of a crested attic helmet represents militarism in Rizopatsis, the Greek left-wing newspaper that opposed the Asia Minor campaign (Erdem, 2018). Anatolia is also described as a graveyard of the Greek Army and Greekness. Karagöz magazine published a mock epitaph for the Greek Army on 13 September 1922, and the epitaph follows the classical wording usually found on Turkish gravestones: ‘On this soil the Greek was scythed Hundred thousand mistresses were committed to the ground On his tomb our weapons were piled The Greekness were ruined all around here Fortunate traveller recognise and know the Greek in here …’ (Çoruk, 2008) Furthermore, symbolic values were attributed to certain trophies of war that were captured from Greek forces. Vases and cups sculpted from artillery shell cases were amongst these prized memorabilia of victory (Saunders, 2003).3 These repurposed munitions are rich in decoration, featuring lyres, swords, cannons, flowers and prominent figures of the Greek War of Independence. The inscriptions on some of the vases suggest that they started to be produced after the landing of the Greek forces at Izmir on 15 May 1919. Some are apparently personal trophies of war, as one of the cups bears the name of an officer of the Greek Navy (DHA, 2015; Medya Ege, 2019). Mustafa Kemal personally offered one of these vases to the Turkish novelist Halide Edip Adıvar as a war trophy. This particular vase was reported to feature an engraving embodying the Great Idea of Greece: two hands symbolising Asia Minor and Greece, clasped and bound together with a lock in the form of heart. Halide Edip described the vase as a souvenir of victory, which was made before the victory in her memoirs (Adıvar, 1928). In recent years, cups and vases of the Greek soldiers were covered by the Turkish media along with exhibitions held in Izmir concerning the Greek occupation. These objects are presented as trophies that the Greek officers could not take with them on their retreat from Anatolia (DHA, 2015; Medya Ege, 2019).

Hector’s Vengeance 27 Anatolia itself was embodied in both the Greek and Turkish press of the period. In the Greek Venizelist newspaper of Embros, Anatolia was personified as a woman begging the Greek Army for help to be liberated (Erdem, 2018). In a similar way, the Turkish nationalist press described Anatolia as a living being defending itself against the invading Greeks via its harsh winters and unforgiving landscapes (Çoruk, 2008). The seasons and landscapes of conflict played an important role in Turkish political satire, poems and memoirs of war-time. For instance, the Great Offensive is described as the harvest of the Greeks in the Turkish Karagöz magazine, as August is the vine-harvest season in Western Anatolia. Both the Greek and Turkish nationalist press tried to dehumanise their respective enemies and, in some cases, used common themes. A giant soldier or commander sweeping enemies over the map of Anatolia with a brush is a common theme that appeared in both Turkish and Greek newspaper illustrations (Simavi, 1921; Okay, 2004; Çoruk, 2008; Erdem, 2018). In both war-time and present-day Turkish press, the result of the Great Offensive is often described as a ‘pouring of the Greeks into the sea in Izmir’ (Âyine, 1922; Karagöz, 1922a, 1922b; Çoruk, 2008; Benlisoy, 2016). Such choices of words in describing the war correspond to the published memoirs and poems of some soldiers who took part in the offensive. For instance, the following poem of Abdulrahman Özgen, who fought on horseback against the Greek forces, offers a rare insight into the mindset of a Turkish soldier on the ground: ‘We were gasping as we were running, Our horses exhausting as they were chasing, The enemy that was resisting yesterday, Was popping out from the ground endlessly Hit with sword, hit with bullet, hit with gun stroke, hit with bayonet They were never ending, giaour the son of giaour We were ploughing our scythe as if we were rooting them out Their death had arrived, as we broke into the band of dogs Our horses were rearing up, at every turn to the victory Heads, arms and legs were breaking away endlessly …’ (Özgen, 1973)

‘A Long-Awaited Miracle’: Kemalist Discourses of the Great Offensive The Turkish War of Independence, especially the Great Offensive, lies at the very heart of the Kemalist imaging of the state and its citizens. Kemalism is the foundational ideology of the Turkish state that led the transition between the multi-national Ottoman Empire to the secular and unitary Republic of Turkey (Webster, 1973).4 It is composed of a set of pragmatic reforms devised by Mustafa Kemal in the early years of the republic

28  Hector’s Vengeance in order to elevate Turkey ‘above the level of contemporary civilizations’ (Atam, 1933; Köker, 2009). The founders of the Turkish Republic sought to form a new national identity to replace imperial, local and religious identities and allegiances. Within this context, the War of Independence is memorialised at the cost of the First World War and the Ottoman imperial regime in Kemalist circles (Atalay, 2019). The occupation of Anatolia by the Allies following the surrender of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 is viewed as the lowest point of Turkish history in Anatolia and the failure of the Ottoman regime. The ultimate victory at the Great Offensive is utilised in establishing the popularity, legitimacy and credibility of the new republican regime amongst the Turkish public. This new regime sprouted from Anatolian soil that was ‘washed with the blood of martyrs’. A new form of Turkish secularist nationalism was religionised by the Kemalist elite, and this ‘new faith’ was largely attributed to ‘the miracle’ of the War of Independence. The Great Offensive was described as a miracle that put an end to the long wave of disasters and defeats that had plagued the Turkish nation in the textbooks and official histories of the period. The ten years of ceaseless conflict and substantial loss of territory from the Balkan Wars to the end of the First World War drove the Turkish public to despair and led many to seek for a miracle and a saviour. With the triumph of the Great Offensive, Commander in Chief Mustafa Kemal fulfilled this ‘prophecy’ that had long been raised by nationalist poets and newspapers of the period (Atalay, 2019). Eventually, Mustafa Kemal’s image became the very embodiment of the Turkish victory and subsequent reforms of the early republic. In the immediate aftermath of the Great Offensive, the town of Nif changed its name to Kemalpaşa in memory of his stay there on 8 September 1922. Zafertepe Hill, where Mustafa Kemal personally led the Turkish forces at the Battle of Dumlupınar, was chosen to be a key stage for the commemoration of the War of Independence in 1924. Since then, Zafertepe Hill and its surrounding area continue to be politically significant to both the Turkish state and local political actors. Victory Day, 30 August, is celebrated on Zafertepe and across Turkey (see chapter eight). The other fronts of the Turkish War of Independence, such as the Eastern Front, have not attracted considerable attention even though the victories against the First Republic of Armenia in 1921 enabled Turkish forces to concentrate their weight towards Western Anatolia. The roots of this disinterest date back to the power struggles between Mustafa Kemal and some of the commanders of the War of Independence in the early years of the republic (Orbay, 1993b; Sabis, 1993; Karabekir, 2020). Alternative narratives about the War of Independence were largely silenced under the single party regime of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) from 1923 to 1945. Mustafa Kemal’s 36-hour-long speech (Nutuk) at the 1927 congress of the Republican People’s Party is propagated as the main source regarding the War of Independence and the early years of the Republic (Atatürk, 1995).

Hector’s Vengeance 29 In Nutuk, Mustafa Kemal claimed that Nurettin Pasha was the ghost author of a biographical booklet titled Conqueror of Izmir, the Victor of Karahisar and Dumlupınar Battles Ghazi Nurettin Pasha, and he countered Nurettin Pasha’s claims over his own achievements via numerous anecdotes (Atatürk, 1995, p. 709). According to Halide Edip, who visited the battlefields of Dumlupınar right after the defeat of the Greek Army, both Nurettin Pasha and Mustafa Kemal laid their claims to the triumph at the Battle of Dumlupınar. Nurettin Pasha claimed that he directed Mustafa Kemal’s attention to the concentration of Greek soldiers at Kızıltaş Valley (see chapter four). Mustafa Kemal said that he cautioned Nurettin Pasha about the movements of the Greek forces. İsmet İnönü sealed this debate by naming the battle ‘The Battle of the Commander in Chief’ (Adıvar, 1928). Since then, the battle is addressed under this name in the official histories of Turkey.5 In this respect, it is fair to state that the monuments on the battlefield praise the top brass of the early Turkish republic and their narrative of the Great Offensive (see chapter seven). Within this uniformity, the official narratives and imaginings of the Great Offensive have not changed drastically since then. The same could also be said for the memorialisation practices of the Great Offensive. Since 1924, the landscaping and erection of monuments featuring Mustafa Kemal have been viewed by both state and public agents as the chief ways of memorialising the Great Offensive (see chapter seven). At present, the political factions and parties that embrace the legacy of Kemalism attach particular importance to the Great Offensive and its sites. Amongst these circles, visits to these sites are considered as a pilgrimage and the revival of faith in those who founded the Turkish Republic (see chapter nine). It is believed that remembrance of the struggles and victories of the War of Independence would lead people to embrace Kemalist reforms and to be grateful to those who founded the republic. As the current president of the Atatürkist Thought Association Hüsnü Bozkurt said in the town of Dumlupınar: ‘A long time has passed since the war and humans are forgetful beings. We forget that this is how this country was attained. When we come here we remember it’ (Wake Up, 2017). The lack of visitors at the sites of commemoration is seen as ‘an open invitation for an invasion not of a land but of the minds of Turkish people’ (Wake Up, 2017). Within this context, the Battlefields of Dumlupınar are considered as hallowed ground ‘washed with the blood of martyrs’. There is a certain package of meanings attested to the Battle of Dumlupınar by these circles, and any diversion or opposition to these supposed meanings is met with fierce opposition: ‘Whoever does not embrace the meaning of Dumlupınar in his/her personality and soul is either ignorant or a traitor’ (Wake Up, 2017). The main target of such statements is Islamist circles and the way they frame the Great Offensive. Some factions of Islamist groups downplay the Great Offensive’s importance and see it as a lesser event in comparison to the past military achievements of the Ottoman Empire over three continents. In contrast with such views, Kemalist circles view the Great Offensive as one of the greatest and most successful offensives in

30  Hector’s Vengeance world military history. From this vantage point, if the forces of the Grand National Assembly had not won the Great Offensive, Anatolia and Eastern Thrace would not be a homeland for the Turks: ‘Remembering “the conquests” and forgetting “the liberations” is the greatest disrespect committed to those who made these lands our homeland once again’ (Meydan, 2018).

‘Inferiority Complex of the Republicans’: The Islamist Discourses on the Great Offensive The importance of the Turkish resistance to the Allies for Muslims all over the world was underlined by both the Turkish Nationalist Press and the GNA government during the course of the war (Hülagü, 1994, 2008). Within this context, the Great Offensive was described as the righteous resistance of the Muslims against Western Imperialism (Çoruk, 2008, pp. 101–102). Yet, this rhetoric was largely abandoned in the early years of the Turkish Republic due to the new state’s secular structure. The abolition of the caliphate and the adoption of secularism by the republic led some of the revivalist and Islamist groups and media organs to consider the Turkish War of Independence a lost cause (Anapalı, 2013). Kadir Mısıroğlu, one of the founders of The Ottomans Science and Knowledge Foundation (Osmanlılar İlim ve İrfan Vakfı), said that: ‘I wish the Greeks had prevailed, the caliphate would not have been shattered, sharia would not have been abolished, hodjas would not have been hanged’ (Mısırlıoğlu, 2017) on the basis that Sharia Law is allowed to be practiced by the Muslim minority in Greece. He viewed the Greek administration as a ‘lesser evil’ compared to the secular Turkish state. Even though Mısıroğlu’s statement is not fully embraced by all Islamist circles, it shows the nucleus of the Islamist discourse on the Great Offensive: it is the beginning of the end of the Ottoman imperial mindset and the practice of Islamic law. These groups view the GNA’s victory in the Great Offensive as an easy victory in comparison to victories the Ottomans won over the course of history (Mısırlıoğlu, 2020). From this viewpoint, a victory won against the Greeks has a lesser value; it is viewed as a victory against a former province of the Ottoman Empire (Yeniçağ, 2019). On these grounds, the celebration and commemoration of the Great Offensive are seen as a reflection of an ‘inferiority complex of the republicans’ as opposed to ‘the Ottoman pride’ (Mısırlıoğlu, 2020). To reiterate the key point, the Islamist and revivalist groups acknowledge the resistance and sufferings of the Muslim population under Greek occupation, but they generally underrate the activities of Mustafa Kemal and the forces of the GNA against those of the Greeks.

‘We Have Arrived! We Are Not Leaving!’: The Turkish-Islamic Discourse Currently, the Anatolian-centred narrative of the War of Independence has largely been taken over by a Turkish-Islamic history-centred approach. Within this discourse, the Great Offensive is viewed as a turning point in the

Hector’s Vengeance 31 history of the Turks in Anatolia. According to this narrative, ‘the gates of Anatolia’ were opened to the Turks after the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert on 26 August 1071,6 and the Turkishness of Anatolia was solidified at the Battle of Dumlupınar on 30 August 1922 (Anadolu Ajansı, 2018). In a different reading, the Turks’ retreat that began at ‘the gates of Vienna’ in 1683 came to an end with the Great Offensive of the Turkish Army (Turan, 1998). The date and month of the Great Offensive play a key role in this storyline; August is labelled as the month of victories for the Turks (Gündoğmuş, 2018). On this basis, a commemoration video that was broadcast by the Turkish Ministry of Defence on 26 August 2020 links the Battle of Manzikert, the Great Offensive and Operation Euphrates Shield of the Turkish forces in Syria in 2016–2017 (Sözcü, 2020). Additional lists of August battles involving the Seljuks and the Ottomans were broadcast on TV on commemoration days of the Great Offensive and the Battle of Manzikert (Gündoğmuş, 2018). These broadcasts are not purely retrospective, they often imply that there are further August victories to be won. The Great Offensive and the Turkish War of Independence have been mentioned in Turkish President Erdoğan’s speeches regarding Turkey’s interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean and Syria (BBC Türkçe, 2019). Similar references to the Great Offensive were made by senior officials of the Turkish state and newspapers in the past regarding the Second World War, the Korean War and the Cyprus Question (Akşam, 1951, 1955). Such a long track of references made to the Great Offensive in relation to the order of the day illustrates that, even though the material effects of the Turkish War of Independence have long perished, the war is still very much alive in the Turkish state’s institutional memory. The economic struggles and recent military conflicts are all presented as the new war of Independence and as ‘a matter of survival’ (see chapter eight). The impact that Turkish-Islamic discourses have had on the commemoration and official narrations of the Great Offensive on the ground can be observed from 2014 onwards. Built in 2014, the Independence Information Centre in the vicinity of Afyon fleshes out the Turkish-Islamic discourse on the site of the Great Offensive. It is a two-storey structure featuring an eclectic design combining Ottoman roof eaves, glass curtain walls and stuccowork in the form of arches. The walls of the first floor are covered in panels about the so-called 16 Great Turkic Empires and their prominent field battles and sieges. On the second floor, a panoramic painting lies behind fibreglass rocks representing the landscape. The painting illustrates an exaggerated and imaginary view of the first day of the Great Offensive from the Turkish frontlines. In one important sense, the Information Centre fails to live up to its name, as the only solid information available about the Great Offensive overall comprises three panels about the offensive and the recapture of Izmir by Turkish Forces. In reference to the Battles of Manzikert and Dumlupınar, the days between 26 and 30 August started to be announced as Victory Week from 2017 onwards. Since 2017, commemoration ceremonies of the Battle of Manzikert

32  Hector’s Vengeance started to be held at Ahlat in the Bitlis Province on 26 August, and a presidential residence was built in the area where the ceremonies are held. Since then, posters and billboards have been put up by a number of municipalities across Turkey for the commemoration of both the Battle of Manzikert and the Great Offensive. These feature a mashed-up image of Mustafa Kemal with Sultan Alparslan, the commander of the Seljuk forces at the Battle of Manzikert.7 On some of these posters, both figures appear as saying: Alparslan ‘we have arrived!’ and Mustafa Kemal ‘we are not leaving!’ (Acıpayam Belediyesi, 2021).

The Foundation Myth of Modern Turkey The Great Offensive, and the Turkish War of Independence in general, lie at the heart of the Turkish Republic’s foundation, and the Kemalist reforms that followed were realised over the imperial, multi-national regime of the Ottoman Empire. As such, the war is still alive in the Turkish state’s institutional memory, and it continues to be a major subject in debates amongst different political factions in Turkey over the foundational ideology of the Republic. As the Great Offensive continues to be politicised, it has become more detached from its landscapes and its events. It has transformed into a rather separate subject matter that politicians and locals of the conflict zone tend to call the ‘spirit’ of Dumlupınar. As much as this book is about the material remains and memoryscapes of the Great Offensive, it is also about the echoes of this conflict from the time of the war to the present day. The official narratives of the Great Offensive, the acts of memorialisation at its battlefields, the experiences of visitors and the living conditions of the conflict zone’s locals are largely defined by the political and social echoes of the Great Offensive rather than by the war itself. Focusing on various forms of literature ranging from press coverage to memoirs about the Great Offensive, I have tried to illustrate where the dominant narratives of this war originated and what socio-political ends these narratives were planned to serve. Such historical background analysis is crucial to understand the Turkish state’s motives in shaping and utilising the narratives and landscapes of this war. Building on this, the echoes of the Great Offensive in its landscapes and beyond will be discussed in the following chapters.

Notes



1 The treatment of the Greek-Turkish War in Greek historiography and political groups is a rich subject matter that is beyond the scope of this work. A number of comprehensive studies have been published on this subject in recent years (Erdem, 2010; Erol, 2020; Sert and Türkmen, 2020; Tamer Gülsevin, 2020). 2 Turkish historian Engin Berber also addressed the Greek forces and administration in Anatolia as the New Ten Thousand in his publications about the Greek occupation of Western Anatolia (Berber, 1999, 2009). 3 A further study on the trench art of the period, particularly amongst the Turkish forces, would shed new light on the daily life of soldiers and contribute to the study of trench art in general (Saunders, 2003).

Hector’s Vengeance 33







4 Kemalism is a very loaded term. It was initially used in the international media to describe the Turkish resistance movement in Anatolia during the years of the War of Independence. Presently, a wide range of political groups in Turkey has laid their claim to Kemalism. Based on their interpretations, we can speak of different Kemalisms in the present day: right wing, left wing, elitist, liberal, reformist and culturalist Kemalisms (İnsel, 2009). 5 There are several names given to the Battle of Dumlupınar by various Turkish and Greek commanders. Most of these were named after the settlements in the area of the battle; Allıören (or Ali Viran), Aslıhanlar and Dumlupınar (Trikoupis, 1967; Belen, 1999). Mustafa Kemal initially named the Battle as Rum Sındığı (i.e., Destruction of the Romans/Greeks) (Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi, 2006). It is probably a reference to the Battle of Sırp Sındığı in 1364, which resulted in the defeat of Serbian forces by Ottoman forces. 6 One may wonder whether 26 August was chosen as the day of the offensive in reference to the Battle of Manzikert. This was apparently not the case, as the offensive was planned for an earlier date, but the Turkish Army was not projected to be ready by then, so the offensive was postponed to 26 August (Niş, 1968). 7 Such comparisons of Mustafa Kemal with other historical figures could be traced back to the postcards of the period of the War of Independence. Images of Mustafa Kemal were shown alongside those of Mehmet the Conquerer, Mimar Sinan and possibly Sultan Alparslan (Arı, 2011).

4

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

No place was spared in the Great Offensive. Clashes between Greek and Turkish forces took place on hills, settlements, railway stations, bridges, mountains and plains that lay between the cities of Afyon and Izmir. This chapter sets its sight on one of the sites: the muddy fields of the Battle of Dumlupınar. The Battle of Dumlupınar, 29–31 August 1922, was a brief but intricate battle during which 30,000 combatants forever changed the landscape of the Çalköy, Allıören and Yüğlük villages located within the Kütahya Province of Turkey. Following the hourly orders of their army commanders’, and those of division commanders who took the initiative on numerous occasions, the soldiers set about digging numerous earthworks, saw to the heavy shelling of strategic locations such as hills and mountain passages and razed numerous settlements. It was one of the most arduous field offensives ever faced by the Turkish Army and a watershed point in the Turkish War of Independence. This battle, fought between the Turkish Army of Grand Assembly and the Greek Army of Asia Minor, brought about the defeat and withdrawal of all Greek military forces from Anatolia. To be able to fully comprehend the dynamics of this combat requires a time-based research and interpretation of the conflict zone. Only by examining the timeline of the battle in its landscape will it be possible to understand the ‘cause-and-effect’ connections and cognitive stages of the conflict. This is crucial for placing the conflict’s material remains and landscapes in multiple temporalities, as obtained from the hourly military reports from 1922 and the less exact oral narratives of the locals. By so doing, the Battle of Dumlupınar and its aftermath will be depicted in all its complexity, encompassing temporalities, landscapes, events, technologies, units and individuals (Aksoy, 2021). Due to intricate movements and human actions throughout the Battle of Dumlupınar, a holistic framework has been used when presenting the information. This method has its origins in the transdisciplinary structure of the survey that influenced Aksoy and Bayar’s (2016) integration of archaeology and graphic design. Building on that earlier research, the DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-4

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 35

Figure 4.1  Icons designed for the chapter’s sections Source:  Designed by Ziyacan Bayar and Can Aksoy.

current text employs a series of icons to depict the varied actions of the Turkish and Greek divisions, as well as the conflict chronology of each of the survey’s areas (Figure 4.1). The military equipment recovered from the site, now housed at the Museum of Dumlupınar, inspired the design of these icons (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016). Information regarding the timing and nature of military action in a specific conflict zone investigated by the team is laid out within its relevant timeline. These timelines are based on three sources of data: documented history, an archaeological study of the battlefield, and an oral history of the conflict zone’s local community. The material evidence of conflict, events, units and individuals are all discussed in the sections following the timelines relating to this corpus of data.

The Battlefields of Dumlupınar The combat landscapes have been divided and analysed over three major zones that correspond to the battle’s progression (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Zone 1 covers the early events leading up to the conflict and their various material remains. Zone 2 details the warfare on 30 August 1922, and finally, Zone 3 describes the Greek forces’ retreat. Prior to focusing on these three survey zones, it is important to note that previous conflicts between Turkish and Greek forces occurred in the vicinity of Dumlupınar on the following dates: (1) 28–29 August 1920 during the Greek Summer Offensive, (2) 08 April 1921 during the Second Battle of Inönü and (3) 10–12 July 1921 during the Battle of Kütahya-Eskişehir (İncedayı, 2007; Çalışlar, 2009). These earlier battlegrounds, which lie around Aslıhanlar Village and to the west of Dumlupınar, are not covered in Zones 1, 2 or 3.

36  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

Figure 4.2  Zones of Survey Source:  Openstreetmap 2013, edited by Burhan Sohoglu and Ziyacan Bayar.

Source:  Openstreetmap 2015, edited by Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy and Burhan Sohoglu.

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 37

Figure 4.3  The Battle of Dumlupınar finds map

38  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

The Battlefields of Yüylük Village and Its Surrounds

During the first three days of the offensive, the Turkish forces managed to keep the Frangou and Trikoupis groups separated. On 29 August 1922, the gap between the two groups of the Greek Army was reduced to only a few kilometres once the Trikoupis group reached Dumlupınar’s north-eastern villages of Çalköy, Yüylük and Allıören. The Frangou group already had control of Dumlupınar’s town centre prior to this date. The only remaining barrier between them was the mountainous landscape of Yüylük, which lies between Dumlupınar and Çalköy. From the morning of 29 August until 07:30 on 30 August, General Trikoupis attempted to join his forces with those of Frangou by negotiating a narrow mountain passage known as the Arpa Pass. However, due to a series of bayonet charges by the Turkish Army’s First Corps, his men were unsuccessful (Kanellopulos, 1936; Niş, 1968; Çalışlar, 2009). At 05:45 on 29 August, Frangou’s elite 5/42 Evzone Regiment, led by Colonel Nikolaos Plastiras, had control of this passage. Also known as Satan’s Regiment, they stood out with their Evzone uniforms – which had evolved from the attire worn by Greek fighters in the Greek War of Independence – and their leader had earned himself nicknames such as ‘the black rider’ and ‘the black pepper’ in contemporary newspapers. Because of the aid he provided and his stamina during the turmoil of the Greek Army’s departure from Anatolia, Colonel Nikolaos Plastiras was well respected by the Anatolian Greeks (Heller, 1950; Mamarelis, 2003; Rençberler, 2014). He eventually became a key figure in the Greek coup of 1922, which saw five members of the Gounaris cabinet, including his commander-in-chief General Georgios Hatzianestis, executed (Erdem, 2010) (see chapter two). It was here, at the Arpa Pass, that the withdrawal of the 5/42 Evzone Regiment began. To prevent the two Greek groups from combining, at 14:00 the 23rd Turkish Division launched an attack on the mountain path. The Turks were caught in artillery crossfire and infantry charges by both the 5/42 Evzone Regiment and the Trikoupis group’s 9th and 4th Divisions. The battle raged on in the dark until 07:00 on 30 August. The Turkish Forces managed to hold their ground and forced the Greek Forces to retreat from the mountain pass (Niş, 1968; Belen, 1999). The aftermath of this bloody struggle can still be seen in the landscape today. Following interviews with residents of Yüylük Village, the survey team discovered a four-square-meter round earthwork with a 50-cm-deep inner circle (Figure 4.4a). According to villagers in Yüylük, a Turkish gunnery sergeant named ‘Mehmet Çavuş’ was slain and buried here. Military

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 39

Figure 4.4  A  rtillery Positions. (a) Earthwork of an artillery position at the Arpa Pass (b) A Greek artillery position in Western Anatolia Source: a: © Can Aksoy 2013. b: © Hasan Özpunar.

40  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive sources from 1922 emphasised the presence of Turkish and Greek light guns and howitzers in the Arpa Pass zone (Niş, 1968; Belen, 1999; Çalışlar, 2009). The circle might be identified as a gun pit after a careful analysis of the round earthwork and images of Greek artillery positions from 1922 (Figure 4.4b). In addition to the Greek Evzone battalions, the Arpa Pass also provides information on the involvement of third-party actors in the Turkish War of Independence: The Efe (Zeibek) gangs. From the seventeenth century onwards, these local gangs, the members of which often wore ostentatious clothing, formed for various reasons such as harsh taxation, lengthy conscription periods and personal interests. Their activities were primarily motivated by what they considered their duty of ‘dispensing justice’ in exchange for the local population’s support (Uyanık, 2014). Some of these groups formed the core of the Turkish armed resistance during the Turkish War of Independence, while others colluded with the Greek Army (Ergül, 2013). On 30 August, one of these collaborator gangs, the Memiş Efe, used the Arpa Pass to withdraw through Dumlupınar. Turkish military sources do not specify the exact moment of their retreat; however, they were seen around the Arpa Pass at about 17:30 (Niş, 1968; Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, 1997). While the deeds of the Memiş Efe gang remain strong in the memories of the locals, existing publications concerning the War of Independence provide no detailed information regarding this gang (Niş, 1968; Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, 1997; Ersin, 2013). It is therefore not possible to conclusively verify most of the information provided by villagers about this gang: few historic sources mention them and our survey in the conflict zone was non-intrusive. Numerous interviews with various locals of the villages within the conflict zone have led me to believe that the leaders of the gang were Memiş Efe from Keçiller Village – later renamed Yeşilyurt – and Veysel Efe from Yüylük Village. A single stone located north-west of the Arpa Pass marks the site of what Yüylük villagers claim to be the possible grave of Veysel Efe (Figure 4.5). According to the locals, his relatives buried his body here after he was shot during a quarrel with fellow gang members concerning the portioning out of money while they were attempting to escape the Turkish advance. Apart from robberies they conducted in their own and surrounding villages, the gang is also said to have collaborated with the Greek Army, and in one particular village, Allıören, the gang is said to have forced villagers to work on the construction of a rear defence line around Dumlupınar. Conversely, some inhabitants of Yüylük have a more positive view of the gang, noting that they protected their village during the years of occupation. Feelings and viewpoints regarding the gang differ significantly from village to village, most particularly amongst the villagers of Allıören, Yeşilyurt and Yüylük (see chapter five). Here, I must stress that these oral histories and local viewpoints are not necessarily true or verifiable facts regarding the past; instead, they stand as a mirror into the memory dynamics of the conflict zone. In contrast to the prevalent tales of resistance and martyrdom

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 41

Figure 4.5  The possible grave of Veysel Efe Source:  © Can Aksoy 2013.

depicted in monuments and symbolic graves in the conflict area, the Memiş Efe gang’s story might better be described as a shared and hidden memory. The polarisation amongst local villages over the gang’s actions during the Greek occupation should therefore be examined through the lens of group identities and local politics (see chapters five and ten) (Ashplant et al., 2000; Radstone, 2005; Moshenska, 2010).

The Battlefields of the Çalköy-Allıören Line The hills and open fields between the villages of Çalköy and Allıören were where the most decisive battles of Dumlupınar occurred. The Trikoupis group withdrew from the Arpa Pass on 30 August and were subsequently besieged by Turkish forces in the muddy fields of the Çalköy-AllıörenYüylük triangle. Their sole available path out of the Turkish siege was the Kızıltaş Valley on the Keçiller-Oysu line. This, subsequently, led to their main objective of defending their positions until sunset, after which, under cover of night, they would withdraw to the west through the Kızıltaş Valley (Niş, 1968; Artuç, 1986; Çalışlar, 2009). To carry out this plan, the Greek forces set up a quadripartite defence line against the Turkish forces, with their centre of gravity in the centre (Niş, 1968). The Greek soldiers suffered

42  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive considerable losses as a result of continual artillery fire and attacks by infantry and cavalry coming from all sides except the west. During the Greek Army’s retreat, the greatest skirmishes took place in Allıören and the surrounding hills and plains. At around 16:00–17:00 on 30 August, a series of counterattacks were carried out in these zones between the Turkish 61st Division and mixed Greek divisions (Niş, 1968). Despite the Turkish attack’s ferocity, they were unable to block the Kızıltaş Valley and roughly 6,000 soldiers of the Greek force, including General Trikoupis, retreated along the valley’s western course (Niş, 1968; Belen, 1999). The field combat along the Çalköy-Allıören line marked a pivotal point in Turkish history. It influenced the subsequent political careers of Turkish officers, most notably that of Commander-in-Chief Mustafa Kemal, who would, in 1923, go on to become the first president of the Turkish Republic (see chapter three). This battlefield marked the beginning of the Asia Minor catastrophe and the tragedy of ‘the modern ten thousand’ in Greek military history and is known as the Battle of Ali Viran, after the settlement of Allıören (Ambelas, 1943; Mason, 2002; Koliopoulos and Veremis, 2010). According to General Trikoupis and other Greek sources: In order to manage the retreat of our remaining army, I was with the last unit preventing the Turkish forces from getting closer. By 21:00, the withdrawal of various units had started. As I wanted to be with our units that would pave the way in the battle with the Turks, I set off in a westerly direction on the open road. At the beginning of our march, we started to hear machine gunfire around the Ali Viran village. Soldiers of this battle named the Battle of Ali Viran as ‘Death Hole’ to express the heavy casualties that our army suffered. (Trikoupis, 1967) Physical evidence of the Greek occupation and conflict was uncovered during the survey of the Çalköy-Allıören route, which also provided me with further data on the processes of landscape development during the post-war period. The significant locations of the combat are covered in the following sections, along with the battle’s chronology.

Akpirim Hill

Two machine gun squadrons, one artillery battery and six cavalry squadrons made up the Turkish 14th Cavalry Division atop Akpirim Hill, and the fields around Çalköy, where the Trikoupis group was positioned on 29 August,

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 43

Figure 4.6  Çalköy. The tombs of Captain Şekip and privates Veysel Ömer, Veli Mehmet and İbiş Ömer Source:  © Can Aksoy 2015.

are clearly visible from this hill. From 11:00 to 18:45, the Turkish division’s artillery battery shelled two Greek divisions at Çalköy, virtually exhausting its ammunition. The shelling of the 14th Division, which was stationed behind Greek lines, created confusion amongst the Greek divisions and, taking advantage of the situation, the 14th Division launched a night attack on Çalköy with mounted squadrons in order to surprise the Greek soldiers and seize their artillery batteries. According to Turkish accounts, during the initial stages of the attack, the division captured between 1,500 and 2,000 Greek soldiers; however, they later encountered stiff opposition and Greek artillery fire. A small number of guards could not hold the Greek captives, and Captain Şekip and some of his soldiers were trapped and killed on the Greek lines. Today, the tombs of Captain Şekip and his soldiers lie on the western side of Çalköy (Figure 4.6) (Niş, 1968). After being unsuccessful in their objectives on the night of 29 August, the Turkish 14th Division and its squadrons withdrew to various positions, notably Akpirim Hill (Niş, 1968). The Arpa Pass was then captured by Turkish forces on the morning of 30 August, leaving the Trikoupis group stuck at the Adatepe-Allıören line (refer to the section: the Battlefields of Yüylük and its Surrounds). The Turkish 14th Division’s squadrons were subsequently assigned crucial positions further north, and at 14:30, the

44  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

Figure 4.7  Gunpits on Akpirim Hill Source:  © Can Aksoy 2015.

61st Division took their place on Akpirim Hill as a reserve force. Between 16:00 and 16:30, Greek forces launched a counterattack on Turkish positions to the east of the Adatape-Allıören line, including Akpirim Hill on which Turkish soldiers managed to retain their position until the morning of 31 August, despite exchanges of fire (Niş, 1968). On the western slope of Akpirim Hill, ten shallow earthworks in two rows behind an earthen crest were discovered (Figure 4.7), each of which measured about 2 m × 2 m and in an extensively degraded condition. These earthworks could be linked to the Turkish 14th Cavalry Division’s artillery battery based on their alignment and location. Gun emplacements such as this allowed artillery to be deployed on levelled ground, with the reversecrest position protecting the gunners from direct enemy fire (ERT, 2019; Aksoy, 2021).

Tavşantepe Hill

Tavşantepe Hill is near Büyük Adatepe Hill, which was one of the last positions held by Greek Forces on 30 August. At about 10:30, hidden from Turkish bombardment by rain and fog, the 13th Greek Division positioned their gunnery units and took up positions on Büyük Adatepe and neighbouring hills (Niş, 1968). They managed to hold the Adatepe hills until the

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 45 very last hours of the conflict in order to hinder and delay the Turkish units who were pursuing the Greek divisions retreating towards Kızıltaş Valley. At 15:30, the Turkish 23rd and 3rd Caucasus Divisions began advancing towards the Adatepe hills as the rain had stopped, and at around 23:30 were commanded to engage with bayonets due to the potential of friendly fire in this heavily wooded area. The Turkish divisions, after an intense battle, were able to capture the hilltop of Büyük Adatepe at 23:30 and the neighbouring hills, including Tavşantepe, at 24:00. According to Turkish reports, the battle resulted in the Greek losses of 600 men on these heights, and a further 50 who were captured by Turkish Forces (Niş, 1968; Artuç, 1986). Allıören, Çalköy, Kanlı Köprü (‘Bloody Bridge’) and the Turkish headquarters at Zafertepe can all be seen from Tavşantepe’s hilltop, which stands out as a topographical crest within the plains to the west and south. On the hill’s north-eastern slope, a series of earthworks were discovered (Figures 4.8 and 4.9); however, due to erosion and holes created by looting, it is impossible to determine the actual layout of the earthworks or their original size. A trench complex consisting of tunnels and T-shaped posts can be hypothesised based on the existing state of the earthworks (ERT, 2019). The T-shaped posts’ resemblance to Greek machine gun and mountain gun nests photographed along the Afyon defence line led me to suggest that they were trench nests (ERT, 2019). The earthworks have an average depth of 1.10 m and a width of 1.80 m. The Greek trenches surrounding Afyon were shallow, according to images taken in 1922, and their outer faces were frequently covered with stone parapets (ERT, 2019). The Tavşantepe earthworks feature a similar structural layout: limestone and earth piles on the outer faces of earthworks 1 and 2 indicate that a stone parapet wall once existed. According to the inhabitants of Allıören, these earthworks on the hill were forcibly dug by villagers and Turkish prisoners of war prior to the Great Izmir Offensive. As a footnote to this particular subject, forced labour was a regular practice during the war (see chapter five). During interviews with civilian witnesses, several examples of forced labour were mentioned, and the ERT’s photographic archive includes photos of Turkish peasants labouring on the construction of Greek defence lines (Sağlam, 2012; ERT, 2019). Adjacent to a looting hole on the hilltop, an unused Mauser cartridge with dimensions of 9.5 mm × 60 mm was also discovered. These rounds were made for the Ottoman Army’s Model 1887 Mauser rifles, a pattern which had been obsolete since 1890 when it had been superseded by rifles chambered for smaller calibre cartridges using smokeless powder (Barnes, 1972). The cartridge is likely to have been procured either through Mustafa Kemal’s National Obligations Orders or through armaments smuggling from the Ottoman Army’s ammunition stores in Istanbul. Based on the tone of the conflict’s reports and battle maps, it is possible that this bullet may have been part of the ammunition of an Eleventh Division Turkish soldier.

46  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

Figure 4.8  Tavşantepe Earthworks Source:  © Can Aksoy and Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2012.

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 47

Figure 4.9  Tavşantepe Earthworks Source:  © Can Aksoy and Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2012.

48  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

Hill 1149

Functioning as a defence post of the Greek Army on the Çalköy-Allıören line, Hill 1149 is a rocky hill located on Tavşantepe’s north-western outskirts (Çalışlar, 2009). According to the Greek Army’s Asia Minor campaign archival photographs, the Greek infantry may have used the rocks on this hill to take up a position against the Turkish forces (ERT, 2019). Located between the settlements of Allıören and Çalköy, it was one of the major positions overlooking Kanlı Dere (‘Bloody Brook’) and Kanlı Köprü (‘Bloody Bridge’). It was, however, an unfavourable position against Turkish artillery located on the higher Kızıltaş and Akpirim hills and an open target for Turkish cannons throughout the war. It was held by the Greek Army’s 13th Division and, after a series of artillery and bayonet charges, was overrun by the Turkish Army’s 126th Regiment of the 11th Division at 23.30 on 30 August 1922 (Niş, 1968). On the northern slope of the hill, two earthworks facing the dirt road between the villages of Çalköy and Allıören were discovered (Figure 4.10). Due to erosion and section collapses, their current

Figure 4.10  Hill 1149 – Trench 1 Source:  © Can Aksoy 2013.

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 49 layout is ambiguous, and, as a result, determining whether these earthworks were military outposts or not is problematic (Aksoy, 2021).

Kanlı Köprü

Kanlı Köprü was a major crossing in the Greek Army’s withdrawal and resistance line, and it was given the title ‘Kanlı’ (‘bloody’) by the locals due to the amount of blood pouring through the brook (Niş, 1968; Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, 1997). It is located on Kanlı Dere (‘Bloody Brook’), between Büyük Adatepe and Hill 1149. The original bridge has subsequently been replaced by a concrete version, but the previous bridge’s ruins and edges may still be seen on the surface (Figure 4.11). The bridge of 1922 is assumed to have been built with wooden planks set on brick abutments and estimated to have measured 3.2 m in length and 2 m in width, based on the brick abutment remnants of the old bridge and information provided by locals of Çalköy and Allıören. At around 23:30 on 30 August, the 13th Greek Division suffered serious casualties on Kanlı Köprü as a consequence of grenade attacks and bayonet charges by the 126th Regiment of the 11th Turkish Division. The rationale for the bridge’s high loss rate is likely due to its small dimensions and impassibility for vehicles, guns and large formations of soldiers.

Figure 4.11  Kanlı Köprü (‘Bloody Bridge’) Source:  © Can Aksoy 2013.

50  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive

Figure 4.12  Çırçır Fountain with Otlukçu Hill in the background Source:  © Can Aksoy 2015.

Çırçır Fountain Exactly what role the area of the Çırçır Fountain, located on the southern slope of Otlukçu Hill and to the north-west of Hill 1149 (Figure 4.12), played during the war is unknown, as it is not mentioned in the military records of 1922 or on the battle maps. All we can currently deduce, according to Veli, an Allıören local whose father witnessed the conflict, is that it was here that the Greek Army set up their field kitchen on 29 August. According to legend, ‘men wearing turbans’ pursued the Greeks, thereby saving the village of Allıören from possible destruction (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016). The fountain and Otlukcu Hill also have religious importance for the local Alevi1 community: saints (‘erenler’) are said to be buried beside the fountain and animal sacrifices are frequently performed on this spot (see chapter five).

Kaletepe Hill

A Turkish position between 15:45 and 17:00, the 159th and 190th Regiments of the 61st Division positioned themselves here in order to engage the Greek 12th Division with a combined infantry and artillery attack (Figure 4.13) (Niş, 1968). The east and south-east slopes of the hill are covered in a 1-m-thick layer of crude limestone which, when we first looked at it in 2014, we thought to be the stone parapet of a Turkish trench (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016). Ceramic

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 51

Figure 4.13  Kaletepe Hill, Greek and Turkish movement on 30 August between 16:30 and 17:00 Source:  Openstreetmap 2013, edited by Ziyacan Bayar.

sherds and a limestone block have since been discovered due to recent looting holes, and the limestone line could be contemporaneous with these discoveries, indicating a possible classical habitation of Kaletepe Hill (Aksoy, 2021).

Dana Kale Hill and Its Surroundings

Dana Kale Hill, which lies north of Allıören, was a key observation position. It is from here that the retreating Greek line, which ran from Adatepe to Allıören and along Kanlı Dere (‘Bloody Brook’), could be observed. According to the military reports of 1922, at around 12:15, the Turkish 61st Division’s 159th Regiment was stationed on the north side of the hill’s crest, and at 13:30, the 12th Greek Division took control of its lower southern slopes (Niş, 1968). On the hill’s south-eastern slope, a stone quarry that could have been General Trikoupis’s temporary command post was discovered. As Captain Kannelopulos, one of Trikoupis’s officers, described in his memoirs: ‘The Turks had us completely surrounded. The bitter battle had begun. General Trikoupis and Digenis watched the start of the disaster in a stone quarry, senseless and tranquil like statues. Staff officers sat around and protected their commanders against shrapnel pieces’ (Kanellopulos, 1936). Throughout our investigation of the area, no additional stone quarry was discovered in the neighbourhood of Allıören or in the analysis of the area’s satellite images. Fierce bayonet and cavalry combat between the Greek 12th Division and the Turkish 61st Division occurred on the fields between Dana Kale and the Kaletepe hills. It has been alleged by residents of Allıören that a mass grave was dug in the fields between Dana Kale and the Erikli hills, and Hüseyin stated that his father was one of the Turkish villagers who buried the troops’

52  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive bodies. Other village residents verified the location of the spot, but no human remains were discovered on the surface of the ditch during our survey. There are no obvious features on the ground indicating it to be a burial place. The site, which lies between two farm fields and is virtually inaccessible due to the poor conditions of the area’s dirt roads, is little-known to visitors (Aksoy, 2021) (see chapter nine).

The Battlefields of Kızıltaş Valley

The Murat Mountain’s densely forested slopes, a thin strip of alluvial fields and the villages of Keçiller, Oysu and Belova make up the 40-km-long river valley of Kızıltaş. This valley was the Trikoupis group’s only open path of retreat after Turkish forces captured the Arpa Pass on the morning of 30 August, and they made their way through this valley from the morning of 30 August to the early hours of 31 August. According to military sources, there were two significant periods of retreat. On the morning of 30 August, under the leadership of Colonel Gordikos, some soldiers from the Greek Army’s 5th and 9th Divisions retreated through the Keçiller–Oysu–Belova route (Niş, 1968; Belen, 1999). The remainder of the Trikoupis force, consisting of roughly 6,000 soldiers, including General Trikoupis and General Digenis, withdrew at 24:00 towards the west along the Allıören–Keçiller–Oysu route (Niş, 1968). The Greek soldiers endured a rough passage through the valley, according to General Trikoupis’ recollections: ‘Soldiers within the unit never rested, fighting continuously; they were without sleep. Exhaustion, hunger and being continuously on the move had created a psychological disorder in many soldiers as well as physical exhaustion. Within this state of agitation, in the forests of Murat, some of them had mistaken tree branches for a parka and tree trunks for the columns of a mythical palace’ (Trikoupis, 1967). During the survey, no physical evidence of warfare was uncovered in the valley. According to sources from the time, the fighting did not continue long enough for any positions to be established, and the 61st Infantry Division, as well as the 2nd, 11th, and 54th Cavalry Divisions made up a large fraction of the Turkish Forces involved in the conflict (Niş, 1968; Belen, 1999). The inhabitants of Saraycık revealed that parts of the Greek Forces’ loads were left in the Kızıltaş Valley and that they used to recover bullet cartridges while cultivating fields around the river. They also said that the settlement had 28 houses in 1922, but only three remained after the Greek Army torched the village. With regards to this point, Turkish aerial surveillance data from 1 September showed flames in three villages east of Uşak, with more settlements being burnt in the days that followed (Özgen, 1973; Erdem, 2010; Raşit Yüzbaşı, 2012; Müjdeci, 2014).

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 53 During the time spent with the villagers of Saraycık, they shared many anecdotes regarding resistance and collaboration activities during the years of the Greek occupation and focused attention on two particular figures of local resistance: İsmail the mute and the 18-year-old Bedeve. Their anecdotes also brought forth conflicting views regarding a local named Cebo, whom many viewed as a collaborator. The Greek forces chose İsmail to guide them in their retreat, and he guided them in the wrong direction to delay and confuse their retreat. He was later shot, and his body found lying in a riverbed. Bedeve was more infamous in his approach to resistance, and he is believed to have shot and dismembered Greek soldiers in Çukurören. The locals’ views of Cebo’s role in the battle, as with that of the Memiş Efe gang of Keçiler Village, are conflicting. The more positive view saw Cebo as a mediator between local residents and the Greek forces, his actions enabling them to keep their possessions during the years of occupation. The negative view saw him as a collaborator, and it is likely that on the morning of 30 August, he offered guidance to the first group of retreating Greek soldiers. It is also believed that he played a part in the killing of 13 Turkish soldiers by Greek troops in the Oğuzlar region next to Saraycık. While the deaths of these Turkish soldiers were not mentioned in the published reports of 30 August – the Turkish reports note that Greek forces were holding the high ground around Saraycık at 18:00 and that they had halted the Turkish 54th Cavalry unit – some villagers claim that the bodies of these Turkish soldiers were buried in the village cemetery (Niş, 1968; Aksoy, 2021). No particular grave markers were found during the survey.

The Nature of Conflict in the Battle of Dumlupıınar The initial aim of the Battle of Dumlupınar Survey project was to offer a progress-driven and specialised basis for future studies of the Turkish War of Independence. The project achieved this objective by marrying the recorded timelines and accounts of the battle with its physical and social setting. However, the survey results are still far from determining the entire physical and social setting of the battle, as more work must be done on probable sites of conflict both in the area of the Battle of Dumlupınar and the area of the Great Offensive in general. Fieldwork focusing on a sample of sites of conflict that lie around the Greek defence lines around Afyon and the settlements that were razed in Western Anatolia would offer a more complete picture of the Great Offensive. It is hoped that the results of this survey project will enable more comprehensive fieldwork to be undertaken in the future. At present, the non-intrusive survey of the battlefield and the semistructured interviews with the locals have revealed the following details concerning the operational designs, technologies and social impact of the Battle of Dumlupınar. In this sense, it is an early contribution to modern

54  Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive conflict archaeology in Turkey. The survey of the combat zone revealed how the operational designs and capabilities of the Greek and Turkish sides shaped the landscape over the two-day-long conflict. Apart from those at Tavşantepe, the earthworks on other hills have an irregular pattern and appear to have been dug within a short period of time. Their shallow traverses and stone parapets would have offered little protection against artillery fire; therefore, they were likely to have been prepared as jumping-off points for infantry attacks. In general, these trenches do not encircle the slopes of the hills entirely, leaving large gaps in the defence line of the hill. A close analysis of the battle maps, together with the orientation of earthworks, suggests that the trenches were positioned according to the direction of attacks. A clear example of this situation is Akpirim Hill, where the gun pits of the Turkish artillery battery face the surroundings of Çalköy, where the Greek divisions were concentrated on 29 August. Another outstanding feature of the Battle of Dumlupınar is the diversity of technologies used by both the Greek and Turkish armies. The shortages, alliances and economies of the war resulted in fighting in which cavalry units, swords, ox carts and black powder were used alongside aeroplanes, wireless sets, smokeless powder and motorised vehicles. The published lists of equipment provide the numbers and types of weaponry and ammunition available at the outset of the Great Izmir Offensive. However, it is not possible to track the entire repertoire of captured and lost equipment of the two sides from the first day of the offensive to the Battle of Dumlupınar itself. The military equipment in Dumlupınar Museum offers us a glimpse of the weapons used in the battle: the cartridges, grenades, bayonets, rifles and machine guns in the museum are diverse in origin and period. The Greek Army was mainly equipped with French, Austro-Hungarian and British arms through acquisitions and aid from the Allies. The Turkish Army of Grand Assembly was supplied with German, Soviet, US, British, French and Italian arms via purchases, Soviet aid, arms smuggling from the Ottoman Army depots and confiscations from the public under the National Obligations Order. The Turkish M87 black powder bullet that was found on Tavşantepe Hill is more likely to have been smuggled or confiscated, as these bullets were specially manufactured for the Ottoman Army in 1887 and black powder bullets were a comparatively outdated technology in 1922. Alternatively, it could have been a munition of the Eastern Front Command, formerly known as the Fifteenth Corps, one of the Ottoman corps that remained active after the Mudros Armistice of 30 October 1918. The oral historical and archaeological research presented in this chapter describes the Battle of Dumlupınar with its multiple temporalities and landscapes overlapping each other. In view of this, I have tried to offer a space of praxis where interplay can take place between the deterministic ends of the battle, the self-regulating nature of actual combat conditions, and the living legacy of the battle amongst the local population. It is hoped that this

Battlefields and Material Remains of the Great Offensive 55 approach will break fresh ground, in contrast to the result-orientated flat narratives of military history accounts of the Greek-Turkish War, and that, in turn, it will encourage researchers to undertake further interdisciplinary studies about the Turkish War of Independence.

Note

1 The definition of Alevism in literature and amongst the Alevi communities varies widely. In its simplest form, Alevism could be described as an Islamic tradition that revolves around two key characteristics: (1) doctrines centred around Prophet Muhammad’s cousin Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and (2) the absence of binding religious dogmas. It is assumed that around 15% of Turkey’s population is Alevi (Yıldırım, 2017, pp. 18–19).

5

Those Hard Days Memoryscapes of the Greco-Turkish War

The Great Offensive sparked one of the largest population movements of the twentieth century. Following the 1923 population exchange treaty between Turkey and Greece, around two million Muslims and Greek Orthodox Christians migrated from one country to the other in both directions. About a century later, my research on the Battle of Dumlupınar occurred during another population movement in Turkey and across Europe, as more than three million Syrians took refuge in Turkey. The Turkish public and political parties are divided over this issue. The locals living in the area of the Battle of Dumlupınar brought up the presentday refugee crisis when they discussed the hardships of the occupation years. Some reflected on what their ancestors went through during those years and sympathised with the refugees: ‘Allah forbid, I hope we will not see those hard days again. An entire generation fought ceaselessly for years. Now, Afghans and Syrians are fleeing war and take refuge here, what would you do if you underwent such a traumatic experience? If you are humane, you should take care of them, if you are not, do not wait, and throw a stone at them!int1’. Some interviewees had a different take on this matter, saying that their ancestors did not leave their lands and instead resisted the Greek forces in ‘those hard days’. They added that they would expect the refugees to stay in their country and defend their land. Such conflicting ideas were some of the many that we encountered during our survey. A lot of today’s issues, like the refugee crisis, bring past memories and traumas of the Greek-Turkish War back to the present for the local population. They open a window into the memoryscapes of the Battle of Dumlupınar and the Greek-Turkish war in general. In this chapter, I delve into the local’s memories about the war and discuss them in light of the published testimonies of the period.

Violence The violence amongst the Greek and the Turkish inhabitants of Western Anatolian towns is treated extensively in literature concerning the GrecoTurkish wars; however, intra-group violence amongst the Turkish communities DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-5

Those Hard Days 57 during this period is rarely addressed (Adıvar, 1928, p. 278). Oral historical research done at the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar reflects the complex relationship amongst different village communities during the war and its aftermath. Anecdotes of banditry were frequently raised during interviews. As the Greek forces took control of the region by the summer of 1921, chaos had risen in those villages populated by Turks. Some village communities took refuge in other villages they considered to be safer. One of these communities was of Allıören, whose inhabitants fled up north to the village of Karaağaç. According to interviewees from Allıören, the villagers of Karaağaç turned Allıören’s crisis into an opportunity by looting the deserted village. I cannot verify this claim since I could not discuss this with the inhabitants of Karaağaç, as the village lies outside the survey area. Whether this information is true or not, it shows that there was an apparent hostility amongst different village communities during the Greek occupation. The Great Offensive brought a second wave of havoc to the region in the summer of 1922. Turkish forces were chasing the Greeks relentlessly, and as indicated from interviews with the locals, the Turkish forces did not spare many of their forces to maintain order in rural areas. Within this vacuum of power, some local bandits showed up in unguarded villages and started to loot deserted houses and stole the belongings of unarmed villagers. As one interviewee said: ‘Once the Greeks left, thieves became kings. At that time, our state was puzzled. Rumours like so and so has gold and livestock were spreading around. Armed men were following up these rumours and seizing the villagers’ belongingsint2’. Banditry went hand in hand with acts of collaboration during the Greek occupation period. Interviews with locals of the Dumlupınar district suggest that there were collaborators in most villages. These people are often addressed as Grecist (Yunancı) or giorist (gavurcu) with derogatory undertones. Their relatives are still called by these nicknames, and most of their families migrated elsewhere. The graves of those who are claimed to have been collaborators are not taken care of or respected: ‘We are living under the shadow of our martyrs, we do not pray at the graves of traitorsint3’. I was faced with mixed reactions from the locals when I raised the issue of collaboration. Most were reluctant to talk about it within their own village: ‘This is a delicate subject, sometimes it is better not to delve into such a subjectint4’. Instead, they were more willing to talk about the stories of collaboration by neighbouring villages. Mostly, the elderly and women were open to discussing this issue: ‘There were one or two collaborators in almost all of the villages around hereint2’. Amongst these collaborators, the so-called Memiş Efe gang was perhaps the most organised, as they were specified as an enemy force in battle maps of the Turkish General Staff (Niş, 1968), and their deeds in the war remain hotly debated amongst different village communities. The gang’s members were from the villages of Keçiler (known today as Yeşilyurt) and Yüylük. At the time of the field investigations, the villagers of Keçiller and Yüylük

58  Those Hard Days were largely silent about the gang. Only two local women spoke about the gang in an open manner, associating their acts with the hardships of life during the Greek occupation: ‘Veysel Efe and Memiş Efe collaborated with the Greeks for the sake of providing safety to their fellow villagersint5’. The gang members protected their own villages at the expense of other villages’ wellbeing. According to the villagers of Allırören, their village particularly suffered from their raids: the villagers’ herds and properties were looted, and gang members forced them to work in the construction of Greek defences around Dumlupınar. Such disputes between the village communities reflect the circumstances during which such acts of collaboration were carried out. Given the hostile relations between the Greek forces and Turkish villagers and banditry amongst different villages, I believe that the village communities found themselves in an ‘us versus them’ situation. This does not mean that the act of collaboration served purely the needs of different village communities. The collaborators were not just raiding other villages but were informing on their fellow villagers to Greek authorities for their own personal gain: ‘At the time of the Greek occupation, there was one Grecist (Yunancı) in our village who was reporting to the Greeks on villagers that had valuable belongings and livestock. He amassed considerable wealth during the occupationint1’. Some locals refused to name these collaborators as zeibeks, given the respect attached to them due to their contributions to the Turkish nationalist cause: ‘These people were not zeibeks, they were simply armed thieves and bandits that stood against their own people. As they stole from villagers, they set their eyes to each other’s wealth int1’. In line with this statement, stories about collaborators usually end with them falling out with each other over booty sharing (see chapter four).

Greek Occupation and Defeat During the initial stage of the occupation of Dumlupınar and its surrounding area, the Greek administration imposed its authority over the local population by brute force. According to the locals of Dumlupınar, one of the first things that Greek soldiers did was to shoot stray dogs and the mukhtar of the town. Local interviewees often stated that forced labour was a common practice in the region throughout the war. The locals associate the remaining emplacements and earthworks of the war with forced labour and the suffering of their ancestors. According to interviewees from Dumlupınar and Allırören, the emplacements around Dumlupınar Dam and the Adatepe hills were dug by the villagers. Furthermore, Greek forces deployed the locals in logging the surrounding forests. The logs were then shipped to different parts of the Greek occupation zone and to mainland Greece via railway. These interviews show how the Greek forces organised the local labour force in the construction of the defence line extending from the Bay of Gemlik to the Meander River. Apparently, there was a shortage

Those Hard Days 59 of local labour on the trail of the line, and bands of villagers were dispatched from the inland area of the Greek occupation zone to the frontline. One interviewee’s grandfather was sent at age 18 from Dumlupınar to the town of Sivrihisar in the county of Eskişehir. He could not keep up with the harsh working conditions, and somehow, he managed to escape from the frontline and returned to Dumlupınar on a donkey. The confiscation of villagers’ livestock and belongings is one of the major subjects that interviewees returned to in discussions about the Greek occupation: ‘They seized many sheep from my grandfather’s herd, he camouflaged the door of his barn to try and hide the herd from them, but eventually the Greek soldiers found the herdint6’. According to the locals, Greek soldiers punished those who dared to hide their belongings from them. The shooting of a villager from Yıldırımkemal is a much-told story amongst the villagers. While an elderly villager from Yıldırımkemal was herding his sheep after grazing, a Greek soldier spotted him and thought that he was taking the animals away to hide them. He shot the villager in his leg. The villager cried out: ‘You dog, you have shot me in my leg, I am useless now, at least kill me and leave’. The Greek soldier felt compassionate, took some bandages from his headquarters and told the villager that he should eat yoghurt for a fast recovery. The villager replied: ‘You dog! You left us nothing, you have collected all we had, how can I eat yoghurt if I have no milk’. Upon this exchange of words, the Greek soldier told the villager to send his son to the Greek headquarters and take back his livestock int7. Animal husbandry was, and still is, one of the major sources of income for local families. As such, livestock is a prominent aspect of the local lore regarding the war era.1 Interviews with locals suggest that Greek merchants were deeply involved in local livestock trade during the occupation period. A Greek called Bulky Dimitris (Azman Dimitri) was one of these merchants. He would buy cattle from the villagers, in particular from those that today are labelled to have been collaborators. As the tide turned against the Greek forces and the local mob sought to rob well-off villagers, many cattle farmers tried to distance themselves from such Greek merchants in order to keep a low profile. A resident of Yıldırımkemal recalled the words of a local herder to Dimitris, ‘You monster! Stay away from me, people are eating each other these daysint8’. According to the interviewee, Dimitris was later killed by bandits in Eyice Village and the money that he had wrapped around his leg was taken. Such anecdotes summarise how the locals viewed the Greek soldiers: as a threat to their own assets and families.

Local Women and Children during the War Most oral histories recorded were childhood memoirs of interviewees’ grandparents. In some cases, the anecdotes were told from a child’s point of view. For instance, the field kitchen of the Greek soldiers at Çırçır Fountain was described by an elderly villager of Allırören whose father had played

60  Those Hard Days with a cauldron that had been left behind by the Greeks after the Battle of Dumlupınar (see chapter four). Apparently, some local children had amicable relations with the Greek soldiers: ‘My mother’s grandfather’s nickname was Kumiti, he was an errand boy of the Greek soldiers, they would make him do their grocery shopping and they would call him kumiti! kumiti! which means come in Greek int9’.2 In such anecdotes, village boys often acted as messengers between the Greek soldiers and the locals. However, there are other anecdotes that cast a bad light on the Greek soldiers. In almost all the villages in which interviews were carried out, there is a common image of the Greek soldiers as baby killers: bayoneting infants in front of their mothers. Similar anecdotes of Turkish soldiers bayoneting Greek civilians were also raised by the Greek refugees from Anatolia (Sjöberg, 2017; Ze’evi and Morris, 2019). An in-depth analysis of these claims is beyond the limits and aims of this book, but it is noteworthy that there is an extensive literature on this subject covering the reports of international observers and photographs of tortured and murdered civilians (Ministry of Interior Department of Refugees, 1921; Matbuat ve İstihbarat Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi, 1922; Günhan, 2010; Rechad, 1920; Sjöberg, 2017; Ze’evi and Morris, 2019). The locals claim that the Greek soldiers had their eyes not only on villagers’ belongings but also on the local women. An anecdote told by a female interviewee from Allıören is that their great grandmothers would hide in the basements of their houses when the Greek soldiers paid visits to their village. Some families painted their girls’ faces with chimney soot to make them look undesirable. Halide Edip brought up the treatment of Turkish women by the Greek soldiers in her memoirs of the War of Independence, and she offers a glimpse into the traumatic experiences of the women of Dumlupınar. She narrated a Turkish captain’s observations from Dumlupınar Village right after the Battle of Dumlupınar: ‘The women in the village are most interesting. They have been handled in an unmentionable manner. I have never seen women in Anatolia in this vindictive and wild mood. We found them lynching a Greek who had hidden in the village. Evidently, he was recognised as one of the beastliest. He knew their names, too. He begged all the time, “Don’t strike, Fatima”’ (Adıvar, 1928). Halide Edip later encountered Mustafa Kemal in Dumlupınar and claimed that his first words were: ‘You ought to have come last night and seen how women avenged the wrongs brought upon them. They were lynching a Greek’ (Adıvar, 1928). She later saw a crowd of village women talking with Mustafa Kemal, vividly describing how the Greek soldiers had treated them and demanding vengeance, and that they wanted to treat the Greek women as they had been treated by the Greek soldiers. Halide Edip viewed their vindictiveness as a corruption of ‘the real Eastern soul’ and as something that ‘the West had been trying so hard to teach the East’ (Adıvar, 1928). Meanwhile, Greek prisoners of war and their families were being transported via the Dumlupınar train station. A crowd had gathered around the station and Halide Edip witnessed a Greek officer and his wife walking beside a Turkish sergeant holding their

Those Hard Days 61 baby. A Turkish major had arranged a room for the Greek officer’s wife and had placed a guard in front of the room to prevent any disturbance. The village women were watching and they rebuked the Turkish major: ‘Did he like the Greeks, did he think that the women of Dumlupınar were made of mud and dirt and that the Greek women were of superior flesh?’ (Adıvar, 1928). Interviews conducted in Dumlupınar indicate that the locals did more than rebuke the Turkish soldiers and watch Greek prisoners from a distance: ‘After the field battle, the local people searched house by house for the Greeks in Dumlupınar. According to my grandfather, they found seven Greek soldiers hiding in a stable in the vicinity of the mosque. They pulled them out and cut them in publicint6’. Similar stories were recorded in Çalköy Village; the interviewees mentioned the Greek soldiers that went into hiding as Jacksnipe Greeks (Çulluk Yunanı) and described the villagers’ search as a hunt. One of the interviewees went into disturbing details as told by his grandfather. He imitated how a Greek soldier reacted when he was found in a barn, crouching, shaking with bulging eyes and holding his head between his hands. The locals state that their grandparents not only encountered soldiers in hiding but also Greek children searching for their parents on the battlefield. One of the most striking statements recorded is the story of Ethem, a blonde boy who was found by the villagers of Allıören after the battle. According to the villagers, when he was found alone wandering on the battlefield, he told them that he came there to cut off the ears of the Turks. He was adopted by Sergeant Habib from Allıören (see chapter six). The villagers believe that Ethem was of Greek origin, and for this reason, no women from the village would marry him. I have been told that he passed away sometime in the 1970s and his grave lies in the village cemetery. When asked whether they considered him an outsider or not, the villagers said that he was a beloved member of the community. They remember him as a very skilled farmer, carpenter and folk singer. They say that the Greek officers brought their families to Dumlupınar and speculated that Ethem might have been a son of one of them. The observations of Halide Edip on the Greek officers’ families in Dumlupınar have lent support to this claim (Adıvar, 1928).

Scorched Earth Tactics and Resistance According to the interviewees, the retreating Greek forces treated the Turkish villagers in a violent manner: ‘Back then, everybody was trying to save their own skin. There was a lot of robbery going on, bandits and Greeks came here, burnt, destroyed as they wished and there was no one to stop them. While the Greeks were retreating, they cut the ear of a villager in Hamurköy and told him to pray that he livedint10’. In particular, the villagers of Yıldırımkemal found themselves in a vulnerable position prior to the Battle of Dumlupınar, as they were located in a gap between the advancing Turkish and retreating Greek forces. Recalling the memoirs of his late

62  Those Hard Days uncle, one elderly interviewee from Yıldırımkemal described the frustration that the villagers experienced back then: My uncle saw a cloud of dust rising on the horizon, he was terrified, as he was not sure which side was heading towards his village. It was a Turkish advance party. They shot the Greek soldiers stationed around the Yıldırımkemal railway station and the village. They took my uncle to guide them to Olucak Village and released him upon their arrival there. Later the same day, the villagers saw another cloud of dust approaching, this time it was retreating Greek soldiers, they looted the village’s harvest and hastily leftint11. Written sources correspond with such oral history accounts. We know from the publications and memoirs of Greek soldiers that their rations were running low, as their supply lines were under constant threat by the Turkish cavalry, and they collected food from the settlements they passed through (Erdem, 2010). It was noticeable that the traumas and memories of the scorched earth tactics resurface when the locals discuss, in their village coffeehouses, the crises and military actions that Turkey is currently dealing with. Turkey was in turmoil during the summer of 2015: the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) were targeting settlements and infrastructure across the country. As a result of this conflict, numerous settlements in Southeast Turkey turned into battlegrounds and were largely devastated. In particular, the villagers of Kızıltaş Valley brought up this subject during interviews. They compared the situation in Southeast Turkey with the destruction of their villages by the retreating Greek Army. There was general frustration amongst the interviewees from Saraycık Village about the burning of their villages by the Greek forces in 1922: ‘It is a fact that the Greeks passed through our village, we always wish that our grandfathers had had the same strength and opportunities that we have now. Nowadays, everybody here would fight to the death; at the very least, we are all armed with hunting rifles. We will not bow our heads to any other invader int12’. Within these interviews, the key events of 2015 came to the fore, in which some interviewees likened the Greek soldiers of the past to ISIL and PKK members crossing through the Turkish-Syrian border: ‘Not just the Greeks, if those coming from Syria reach the borders of our village, they will not be able to enter. I cannot say the same for the other villages; I assume they would seek the aid of othersint13’. Such statements suggest that the past is invading the present, the Greek occupation is considered as a token of shame by some village communities. Against this background, the stories of local resistance, like shepherds directing the retreating Greek forces in wrong directions or the stabbing of Greek soldiers by a Turkish Nurse, are highly praised amongst the local communities (see chapter four). The locals often shift between two different

Those Hard Days 63 narratives when conveying their ancestor’s memoirs. One narrative corresponds to the official narratives of the war: the story of Turkish villagers suffering under the Greek administration and resisting Greek invaders. The other touches upon the issues of collaboration and examples of amicable relations between locals and the Greek forces. The former is more prevalent and openly discussed in public, while the latter is more subtle and often mentioned only during one-to-one interviews.

A Continuing Trauma of Occupation Interviews with locals of Dumlupınar and the Altıntaş districts of Kütahya province opened a new window into the events of the Greek occupation and the Great Offensive. They illustrated how the local population perceives the period of war 100 years on, and they offer a rather specialised focus on the rural daily life of Anatolia under Greek occupation. This period is often referred to as ‘those hard days’, and the past scenery they describe is ravaged by the Greek forces and local bandits as well as being haunted by the memories of violence and scorched earth tactics. Local women and children were often mentioned as being victims of the Greek occupation, while the memories about looting and confiscation of commodities were mainly about livestock. These interviews suggest that the conflicts and feuds occurred not only between Greek soldiers and Turkish villagers but also between different Turkish village communities. Some villages turned against each other over the issues of the looting of livestock and houses. Local bandits pillaged other villages while protecting their own, and some of these groups and individuals collaborated with the Greek administration. One-to-one interviews revealed the circumstances that brought about these acts of collaboration, and a few interviewees described these as individual acts committed out of desperation to protect their own families. Most interviewees, however, see these as opportunistic acts to profit and gain influence during the turmoil of the occupation. Another detail these interviews reflect upon is the organisation of the local workforce by the occupying Greeks for forestation works and the establishment of the main Greek defence line prior to the offensive. They suggest that it was not just local populations within the immediate area of the defence line that were mobilised for this major undertaking but so too those of the far rear. Finally, the interviews shed light on the immediate aftermath of the retaking of the area by Turkish forces. Apparently, the fast pace of the offensive created a sudden power vacuum in the region creating havoc amongst the local communities. The largely defenceless villages were pillaged by local bandits, and old scores were settled between those who had collaborated and those who had supported the Turkish nationalist cause. The myths and oral histories of the Greco-Turkish War do not receive much scrutiny in existing literature concerning the Turkish War of Independence. They are generally treated either as a simple dilution of historical facts or as

64  Those Hard Days a secondary source to be referred to on subjects where sufficient documentary evidence is lacking (Şabanoğlu, 2015; Çelebi, 2019). In his article, The Forgotten War, Melih Şabanoğlu noted that unrealistic stories and legends are in very high demand amongst the visitors and site guides around Afyon. He wrote that ‘a history that is irrelevant to the battlefields is being written at the battlefields’ (Şabanoğlu, 2015). According to Şabanoğlu, this is largely due to the inherent silence of monuments and war cemeteries about the offensive (Şabanoğlu, 2015). Without a doubt, local lore about the Battle of Dumlupınar, and the Great Offensive in general, represents a counter history to published histories of these events. However, I do not think that these stories are irrelevant to the battlefields; instead, they are profoundly bonded to their landscapes and material culture. They are, in fact, a different and powerful lens through which to understand those momentous events. The Battle of Dumlupınar Survey indicates that the key terrains of conflict such as hills, bridges, mountain passages, railway stations and villages hold a significant place in oral narratives of the Great Offensive (see chapter six). These oral histories have a key importance in illustrating the complex relationship between the local communities and the battlefields spanning over a hundred years and how the local communities cope with the memories and wounds of this war in the present day. Despite their significance, the local narratives of the Great Offensive barely find a voice on local newspaper’s websites and in local history magazines such as Taşpınar (Tunçoğlu, 2020). If we cast the net wider to international publications and media, the oral testimonies of the war by those who experienced it receive scrutiny particular to that of controversial matters like the Great Fire of Izmir (Ministry of Interior Department of Refugees, 1921; Umar, 1974, 2002; Sjöberg, 2017; Ze’evi and Morris, 2019). Civilians of both Greek and Turkish origin are either presented as victims or collaborators of Turkish or Greek forces. Their sufferings are simply treated as examples to prove mutual claims of massacre and other atrocities. When Greek-Turkish relations become strained, such examples are brought forth to portray the opposing side in the eyes of the international community. Within this politically fuelled environment, the richness of narratives and legends related to the war are side-lined, edited, and reconfigured as a political tool. Having said that, quotations from interviews used in this book should not be treated as testimonies of war. It should be emphasized that the survey team could only record local narratives of the war as told by second and third generations, as no local witnesses of the Battle of Dumlupınar are alive today. What these interviews with second- and third-generation locals do show is that the Greek occupation and the Battle of Dumlupınar had, and continue to have, a deep influence on the local population of the battle zone. However, apart from references to irregular armed groups, the role of the local population in the conflict is almost absent in official military

Those Hard Days 65 histories. Surveillance reports and memoirs are still the main sources on this subject (see chapter four). Interviews conducted on the site of the battle provide details about the relations between the Greek Army and the local Turkish population: they reveal the destruction of villages, local collaborators, local figures of resistance and forced labour during the years of occupation. Some of these local accounts of war, such as reports of the collaboration of the Memiş Efe gang with the Greek Army and the burning of villages, match with the sources of the period. Unfortunately, stories of local resistance are yet to be confirmed by fieldwork and literature review. It is also important to note that the events in the battle became elements of religious belief and local politics in the region (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016; Drozdzewski et al., 2016). Within this context, each village could be identified as a different mnemonic community promoting its own narratives, reproducing places and identities. It is highly likely that this casts doubt on the integrity of the information provided to us while, at the same time, it enriches our understanding of how this singleday conflict resonated amongst the local population. The oral historical research draws a complex map of memories and reveals a diverse battle landscape created via shared remembrance (Moshenska, 2010).

Notes

1 It is worth noting that livestock is one of the key components of local myths and religious beliefs as well (see chapter five). 2 Kumiti does not mean come in Greek. I could not detect the meaning and origin of this word. It might be a Greek word that was misunderstood and altered by the locals.

6

‘Beware of the Buried’ The Locals, Landscape and Material Culture of the Great Offensive

Even though the material effects of the Great Offensive have vanished over the past 100 years, the conflict is still shaping the daily practices, political views, memories and myths of the locals of the conflict zone. I recognised this very clearly within the first day of the survey’s 2013 season when, before sunset, Ziyacan Bayar and I decided to pitch our tent next to the Çırçır Fountain. This location seemed to us to be the rational choice, as there was a water source nearby and the fountain is just a stone’s throw away from our survey area. As we were preparing for the following day, a shepherd from Çalköy stopped by our tent. While drinking tea, he told us that ‘the buried’ around the fountain will not leave us in peace, that he sees the ghosts of soldiers in uniform while herding and there are wolves wandering in the area. We had heard similar stories regarding the battlefields in Gallipoli and the main road linking Uşak and Afyon. We did not take his words seriously and decided to turn on our handheld radio to cheer us up; however, after a few minutes the battery ran out and we heard a strange noise that we were inclined to compare to that of a machine gun. As we were about to sleep, I noticed a growling sound from behind our tent. Needless to say, we had a very uneasy night’s sleep and could not discover the source of these mysterious sounds until the morning. We later realised that the sounds were caused by air being forced out from the pipe of the fountain in 20-minute intervals. Our restless night on this ‘hallowed and haunted’ ground inspired me to investigate the ways in which local communities engage with the landscapes, events and material remains of the conflict zone. In this chapter, I present the Battle of Dumlupınar Survey team’s observations from the ground. By doing so, I seek to illustrate the past and present-day relationships between the material cultures/landscapes of the Battle of Dumlupınar and the local communities of the conflict zone: Looting – who is looting what and why? Spiritual beliefs – how did folklore/ spiritual beliefs appear or mobilise in relation to the war and its landscapes? Politics – how did battle events become elements of local politics? Social relations – what is the role of war in determining the relationships between different communities and villages? DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-6

‘Beware of the Buried’ 67

Legends and Beliefs As a landscape altered by a rapid annihilation war, the conflict zone gave birth to religious customs and myths, particularly in the communities of Allıören, Çalköy and Dumlupınar. Otlukçu Hill lying between Çalköy and Allıören is considered to be a sacred place by the Alevi community of the region. The locals of Allıören believe that the retreating Greek Army could not destroy their village on 30 August 1922 because of the saints (‘erenler’) buried on the hill and in the vicinity of Çırçır Fountain. The root of this belief dates to the foundation myths of Allıören and is intertwined with the concept of martyrdom and the turbulent history of the Alevis in Anatolia. According to the villagers, their ancestors migrated either from Khorasan or Ardabil under the guidance of two Alevi spiritual figures: Ali Dede1 and Kamil Dede. The exact date of their migration is not known, but it is said that they were escaping from the suppression of the Alevis and the oppression of bandits. Ali Dede settled in the place that is now Allıören with his wife Satı Ana. They were martyred here and buried in a shrine at the centre of the village. Today, the shrine is one of the major holy sites of Alevism in the Kütayha province. The village’s house of worship (Cemevi) is named after Ali Dede and lies next to his shrine. The village community and visitors meet in and around the shrine for all sorts of events, such as religious gatherings, weddings and send-off ceremonies for conscripts. The saints are an integral part of their daily lives and are considered a part of the community. I noticed this at a fast-breaking meal to which the survey team was invited. The women ate their supper next to the coffins of Ali Dede and Satı Ana while the men of the village broke their fast in front of the shrine. Kamil Dede and his followers pitched their tents at Otlukçu Hill and are believed to be martyred and buried there. At the time of our research, there were no visible indicators for such burials. In 2019, a small shrine was built behind Çırçır Fountain where Kamil Dede is thought to be buried. Locals from surrounding villages visit the hill to say prayers for rain and to make vows to the saints. These vows and prayers are often accompanied by animal sacrifices which are usually carried out in front of the Çırçır Fountain at Otlukçu Hill. The meat of the sacrificial animal is cooked and distributed at the shrine of Ali Dede in the village. The naming of a child after Kamil Dede is another way of taking a vow. Kamil Dede is regarded as a saint that enables women to bear sons: ‘If a woman always gives birth to daughters, her family will make a vow to Kamil Dede that if she bears a son, they will name the child after him int14’. To this end, Otlukçu is considered as a site of ‘countless great miracles’ and ‘divine retributions’ related both to the Greco-Turkish war and the daily lives of the locals. The perimeters of the hallowed ground of Otlukçu Hill are defined as the hilly area between Çırçır Fountain to the west and the Allıören-Çalköy tarmac road to the east. The landscape and flora of this

68  ‘Beware of the Buried’ area are considered unique; ‘Pine trees do not grow easily in this area, but you can always find them hereint15’. It is also believed that no wildfires could breakout in Otlukçu. In the local lore, this is not ‘a blank place’: the trees on this hill are considered to be conscious beings (Aday, 2013, p. 410). It is believed that taking away a piece of wood or causing any damage would be punished by the saints. They would haunt the perpetrator’s dreams, wreak havoc on his/her life and even cause his/her death. If a stone or piece of wood collected from Otlukçu Hill is used for the construction of a house, it will be razed by fire. In one of the legends, pieces of wood started talking in the dreams of a villager who collected wood from Otlukçu Hill: ‘We are soldiers here, how could you displace us and put us to on the borders of your field, what will we do to you now!int16’. In another version of this story, the wood pieces said that they were the posts of the hill, not the house, and that, eventually, the house would be razed to the ground. It is also claimed that pieces of wood from Otlukçu are too sharp, and that they could overturn tractors if they became jammed in a mud guard. Against this background, the Greek occupation is viewed as an intrusion into the sacred area of Otlukçu and a violation of its immunity. According to belief, the Greek soldiers could not raze Allıören on 30 August 1922 because the ‘men wearing turbans’ rose from their graves and chased the retreating Greek soldiers. This legend has its roots in the local belief that Otlukçu Hill is a site of resurrection. It is believed that all the saints of Otlukçu Hill wake up from their graves once a year and, glittering in the light, walk to Murat Mountain and play drums (Aday, 2013). The fallen Turkish soldiers are also believed to come back to life on this hill: ‘Our martyrs that fell on Otlukçu have risen again and again to fight against the enemyint17’. Interviewees also noted that Greek soldiers were witnesses to these mythic events. Allegedly, one Greek prisoner of war said that ‘As much as we killed the Turks coming from this hill (Otlukçu) their numbers multiply and they continue to attack us in wavesint17’. It is not just the saints but the pine trees of Otlukçu that are believed to have fought against the Greeks. The locals say that the Greek soldiers who witnessed this phenomenon said that the pine trees transformed into soldiers and hindered their passage. Some local myths also describe the hill’s pine trees as human. One of the most dramatic stories relating to this is that of the suicide of two brothers after they built their hayloft with stones and wood gathered from the hill. Upon their suicide, the brothers appeared in their sister’s dream. They told her that all the trees on the hill are not actually trees but human beings and that it was the trees that made them commit suicide. According to the locals of Çalköy, the pine trees on Adatepe, Otlukçu and Akpirim are filled with bullets and shrapnel, and for this reason, the locals do not attempt to cut them down.2 Black poplar trees found in Selkisaray Village are treated in a similar way. As a strategic point on the railway line, the village witnessed violent clashes between the retreating Greek forces and the attacking Turkish forces prior to the Battle of Dumlupınar. Due to bullets and shrapnel that

‘Beware of the Buried’ 69 hit them, these poplar trees are named Veteran Trees (i.e., Gazi Ağaçlar) by the locals. As in the case of Otlukçu Hill, cutting or taking pieces of these trees is considered a bad omen. It is believed that if someone takes a piece of these trees and brings it into their home, they will become ill or something bad will happen to them: ‘Immediately after one of the villagers cut two of these trees he was diagnosed with cancer and died in agonyint18’. Selkisaray’s Veteran Trees have recently been dated as being 370 years old and information plates erected by the National Parks acknowledge their locally used name of Veteran Trees. To my knowledge, this is the only example of a locally significant site being acknowledged by a state institution. As much as Otlukçu Hill was hostile to the Greek soldiers, it was caring to the Turkish soldiers in the local myths. It is believed that even though the Greek soldiers were on the higher and densely forested Adatepe hills, they could not spot the Turkish soldiers on the sparsely vegetated Otlukçu Hill. The saints and the hill are believed to judge and treat their visitors in respect to their intentions. The saints or beings of Otlukçu would be compassionate and harmless to those who have good intentions: ‘A few years ago my husband fell in sleep there while he was grazing his sheep. They appeared in his dream and told him, “Wake up wake up! Your herd is heading towards the monster (wolf)”. If a lamb is lost on Otlukçu Hill, no wolf will eat it, and a few days later would be found as a healthy sheepint14’. Unaware of its religious significance, Ziyacan and I set up our camp on Otlukçu Hill in 2013. We were warned by passing villagers to have good intentions and not to collect any pieces of wood or stone from the site out of respect for the saints and to avoid being haunted by them. It should be underlined that not all locals interviewed believe in the abovementioned myths. I observed that these beliefs are largely embraced by the Alevi communities of Allıören and Çalköy. Most Sunni interviewees did not agree with the Alevi community’s beliefs and traditions related to Otlukçu Hill and considered these beliefs as superstition. Apparently, the Sunni communities of the conflict zone are largely detached from such beliefs related to sacred places.3 One of these sites is the Cafer Ghazi Tumuli. This tumulus is said to have been named after Cafer Ghazi, a Seljuk raider leader who, according to local legend, was murdered here by the Byzantines and buried on this enormous tumulus, as befitting his nobility (Dumlupınar Kaymakamlığı, 2009). Cafer is a common name used amongst Dumlupınar families in honour of Cafer Ghazi. The tumulus is/was considered hallowed ground by the locals of Dumlupınar (see chapter seven) and locals used to refer to it as tekke (Dervish lodge). The shepherds would avoid grazing their herds there, and the locals would neither fell any trees nor collect wood or stones from the site since these acts were considered to have damning results for the perpetrator. However, in 1992, Cafer Ghazi’s tomb was bulldozed in order to transform the site into Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery with the approval and assistance of the local administration in Dumlupınar. According to an ex-member of the Dumlupınar’s town council, the council

70  ‘Beware of the Buried’ members viewed a cemetery for martyrs as the only appropriate project that could be realised in the place of Cafer Ghazi’s tomb. Casting the net wider, the cases of Otlukçu Hill and Cafer Ghazi are not exceptional examples. Comparable myths of the transformation of trees into soldiers or the sudden appearance of men wearing turbans and chasing the Greeks are also recorded in other parts of Western Anatolia (Aday, 2013). The commonalties in these beliefs have led some scholars to identify them as cultic activities dating back to pre-Islamic Turkic cults of water, forests and mountains (Çelebi, 2019). In my opinion, this could be one of many possibilities, as there are numerous examples of cults of water, forests and mountains in the history of Anatolia. It is possible that these beliefs are associated with mythical figures who are believed to be the founders of Allıören and who contributed to the spreading of Islam within the region. So why does the Greek-Turkish War hold a significant place in the local myths of Allıören? Since Otlukçu is considered a space not to be disturbed or altered, it is no surprise that the Greek soldiers become an aspect of stories of divine punishment. The founding fathers and mythical figures of the locals travelled across time and space to fight against the Greek soldiers. I believe such myths reflect the local communities’ desire to ascribe a meaning to the survival of their village from the war’s destruction. By giving voice to the Greek soldiers, the saints, and the trees in these myths, they contextualise this event in their own collective history and legitimise it in the eyes of outsiders. To this end, it is not very different from the Turkish state’s attempts to frame the Great Offensive within a larger setting like ‘the history of Turks in Anatolia’ (see chapters three and eight). In essence, it could be viewed as a memorialisation of the war on a local scale. Regarding this point, there are other narratives of the survival of the village that contradict the myth of Otlukçu Hill. One of these attributes this event to an ancestor of the Teller family of Allıören. When the Greek soldiers were retreating via Allıören, General Trikoupis picked one of his sturdiest soldiers and challenged the villagers to a wrestling match: ‘If one of your fellowmen can pin down my soldier, I will not burn your village’. A short elderly man from the Teller family stepped forward and pinned down the tall Greek soldier on his first move. Thanks to this wrestling match, Trikoupis spared the village from imminent destruction. The narrator of this story is related to the Teller family, and he told his story during a one-to-one interview. There are clearly alternative narratives that place the survival of Allırören into a more micro setting that praises certain families and individuals of the village.

Looting, Salvaging and Repurposing the Material Culture of Conflict Looting or, treasure hunting as the locals call it, is one of the key aspects of the local populace’s complex relationship with the landscapes and material culture of the conflict. As much as Otlukçu Hill and the known burial

‘Beware of the Buried’ 71 sites of Turkish soldiers are considered sacred, a vast proportion of the battlefield lying far from the eyes of the gendarmerie is exposed to looting. The survey team encountered many looting holes throughout the fieldwork area. These were not just dug at the sites of the Battle of Dumlupınar but also at earlier archaeological sites in the proximities of these villages. One of these earlier sites was the Cafer Ghazi tumulus, which bears resemblances to the Iron Age burial mounds of central Anatolia.4 It was a frequent target of looters, and according to the locals, there was a collapsed looting tunnel on its northern side. The locals are apparently responsible for most of these looting activities, as it is unlikely that outsiders would be able to dig so many holes without their knowledge. The looting of the surrounding area is a touchy subject, and all interviewees said that they were not involved in such activities. They would instead discuss it as being the deeds of other locals or outsiders: ‘98% of treasure hunters come here from outside of this region, some engage with the localsint19’. Even if this is the case, I realised that some interviewees had a working knowledge of various metal detector models and geophysical survey devices. They are also aware of archaeological sites which are little-known and barely published in literature (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016). In essence, the underlying reason behind these looting activities is largely economic. There are limited job opportunities in these villages and neighbouring cities, and due to this, village populations have been falling over the past 60 years with migration to various parts of Turkey and Europe in pursuit of employment. Against this background, treasure hunting is regarded as a way of earning a living. When asked what motivates treasure hunters, one interviewee said that: ‘it is totally emotional’ while making a gesture of rubbing his thumb over the tip of his index finger and middle finger, meaning money coming in. He went on: ‘it is simply derived from the questions of how I can find the gold? and how I can fill my pockets?int20’. Some interviewees said that the treasure hunt is more than a simple search for gold, it is rather an addiction that they compare to gambling: ‘Especially, if they discover an insignificant thing, they become more determined and hopeful int19’. Incidental discoveries of archaeological finds stir this addiction further: ‘Sometimes tractors plough out marble columns and ceramics, and such finds entice people to look out for moreint20’. The looters value the finds according to their value in the eyes of collectors and their convertibility to hard cash. I have been told that, in the past, bayonets, swords or pieces of pistols would be considered junk, but today, the looters are more aware of their historical value and there is a growing interest in these objects in the antique market. Rumours of discoveries are another factor that has led locals to loot sites in their vicinity: ‘They often act on hearsay like so and so found one million worth of gold, became rich and bought landint21’. Such stories suggest the treasure hunt is viewed as chasing or missing an opportunity, as one interviewee from Allıören put it: ‘If they found the gold and became rich,

72  ‘Beware of the Buried’ what I am lacking, I can do it too!int19’. During our first encounters with the locals, our survey team was often believed to be treasure hunters searching for ‘the Greek gold’. There is a frequently told rumour in the region that the Greek forces hid a large amount of gold while they were retreating from the battlefield.5 Consequently, our queries concerning the material remains of war were countered with suspicion, the survey team’s whereabouts were frequently reported to the gendarmerie, and we were questioned several times at our campsites in the middle of the night. The gendarmerie officers told us that the looters usually dug holes on moonless nights or under heavy rain to conceal themselves and suppress the noises they made. We were assaulted once; a villager punched our car window and cursed us while we were showing him our fieldwork permits. He believed that we were dishonest and that our real purpose was finding ‘the Greek gold’. Against this background, it took precious time and effort to assure the locals that our fieldwork mission was not a treasure hunt. I contacted the mayor of Çalköy in 2013, Arif Teke, who aided the team in establishing contact with the locals at the start of the survey. Visits were made to village coffeehouses to explain the purposes of the survey to the locals. Most importantly, the significance of their recollections for our research was underlined. These efforts proved successful in making contacts and surveying the conflict zone (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016). It was later learned that the ‘window-punching’ assailant was known to be an ambitious treasure hunter and that he spent large sums on metal detectors. Such cases illustrate the ugly side of these looting activities; a money trap promoted by various TV and online channels under the sponsorships of detector dealers. These channels are often hosted by psychics who claim to know the locations of the treasures and to be able to break their protective spells. I also asked interviewees if they knew someone who became rich from treasure hunting. On my asking, they put aside their analytical views on looting and discussed various cases passionately and in detail. The absence of certain parts of historical structures is often attributed to treasure hunting. For instance, a tap-less fountain alongside the Çalköy-Allırören road is said to be one of the supposed sites of discovery: ‘There used to be a tap that looked like it was made of brass, but a villager with a metal detector discovered that it was actually made of goldint21’. In such stories, certain geographical features like rivers and rocks are considered potential markers of treasures. For instance, it is claimed that a hoard of coins dated to 1862 was found under a rock in the vicinity of Akpirim Hill (see chapter four). The interviewee believed that these coins once belonged to an affluent Turkish family who buried their valuables during the Greek occupation. Beyond these stories of treasure hunting, what villagers most often find in their surrounding area are small arms cartridges and artillery shells. Such findings often evoke childhood memories. As kids, they would collect cartridges and artillery shell cases from ploughed fields to sell them to waste collectors. Unfired cartridges were used as firework crackers. The bullets

‘Beware of the Buried’ 73 would be pointed in the direction of Murat Mountain and a wood fire lit to ignite the cartridge. Artillery shells were used as toys; one interviewee said that he was very excited when he found his first artillery shell at the age of ten. He, along with other kids in the village, would play with this unexploded shell until their dangerous game was discovered by the adults and the shell was eventually handed over to the gendarmerie. The locals are accustomed to unexploded ordnance, as they encounter them daily while ploughing or herding. They do not view them as dangerous objects to be avoided; instead, farmers often collect and keep the ammunition in their tractor cabins while ploughing their lands. I have seen unexploded shells kept in village houses, treated as prized objects that may be of considerable value in the future. When the scope of the research was discussed in coffeehouses, some locals would bring unexploded shells and line them up to ask whether these were Greek or Turkish artillery. In the past, these objects would be recycled and repurposed by the villagers. The powder extracted from the bullets was used to fill shotgun cartridges for hunting. The metal casings were used in the manufacture of hatchets and knives. Bullets are not worth much as scrap metal today, whereas militaria collectors and antique shop owners offer decent amounts for such finds. Certainly, there is an increasing interest towards memorabilia of the War of Independence. Since 2019, the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the War of Independence, pieces from private collections have been displayed in a number of exhibitions in western Anatolian towns and cities (DHA, 2015). As there is an increasing demand in the antiques market, looting is apparently becoming more widespread. Thus, changing historical and economic perspectives are revaluing the material culture of the war and, in turn, changing the shape of the landscape as well (Saunders, 2000). The question that remains to be addressed is what looting signifies within the engagement of the locals with the material culture of the conflict. At first glance, the destruction and damaging of the emplacements and the landscapes of conflict could be seen as a disengagement from the material culture and historical significance of the site. In my opinion, this is not entirely the case. The impression acquired from interviews conducted is that the concepts of conservation and preservation of the material remains of war are largely absent in the local mindset. Most locals I spoke to do not view the eroding earthworks of the battle as an archaeological feature worthy to be seen by or shown to visitors. The supposed areas of collective burials and individual graves of Turkish soldiers, however, are seen as being more worthy of care and respect. The nature of this care is expected to be intrusive rather than protective. They expect monuments to be erected and gravestones to be set in these locations (see chapter ten). The preservation of material remains of war is rather a foreign idea that state agents have been imposing on them under the regulations of the Commander in Chief National Park (see chapter ten). In fact, the only act that could be described as the preservation of material culture amongst the

74  ‘Beware of the Buried’ locals was stopped by the state. Each household used to have pistols and rifles kept as memorabilia from the battle. However, after the 1980 coup, the military administration ordered the mukhtars of the villages to collect these arms from the villagers and to report those refusing to hand them over. Even though some villagers buried their guns, they were eventually reported. Today, the locals recall this event with sorrow, as they regarded these guns as prized and beautiful objects inherited from their forefathers: ‘I wish the state would not confiscate these guns, all the families would have a piece of history and a memoir of their grandfathers in their housesint22’. The state’s strict policy of protection at the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar does not particularly encourage locals to be part of the preservation process; in actuality, it is the complete opposite. The villagers are concerned that their lands would be expropriated or declared as Grade 1 protected areas by the state should they report any finds or material remain in or around their properties. Instead, they prefer to eradicate the remains and sell off those finds that are of some value. This was indeed one of the fieldwork’s major obstacles, as the locals were hesitant to show battle remains and mass graves that were located on privately owned lands versus those on public property. From my point of view, looting activities in and around the Battlefield of Dumlupınar could be viewed as a natural process that has been ongoing since 31 August 1922. Both written records of the period and the local’s recollections from their grandparents suggest that it all began with the collection of spoils found on the battlefield. Halide Edip informed us that the battlefield of Dumlupınar was filled with Greek military equipment that included rifles, ammunition in piles and forsaken artillery pieces. Nureddin Pasha encouraged Halide Edip to choose a gun while they were inspecting the situation in the Kızıltaş Valley (Adıvar, 1928, p. 278). Local knowledge coincides with such eyewitnesses: ‘As the Battle of Dumlupınar was a triumphal victory for the Turks and a devastating defeat for the Greeks, there were a lot of war trophies left in the battlefield. Our great grandfathers collected the arms of deceased Greek soldiers lying on the battlefieldint23’. Given this background, I do not see much difference between the acts of the past and those of today. The locals are still seeking spoils of the war, just as their ancestors used to do. It is important to point out that similar cases of looting, salvaging and repurposing material culture of conflict have also been recorded in various modern conflict sites across Europe and Western Asia (Herva et al., 2016; Saunders, 2020, pp. 50–60; Seitsonen, 2021, p. 107). These acts have been a common feature of the relationship between the globalised industrial battlefields of the twentieth century and those living in them (Saunders, 2004).

Local Politics in a Mystical Landscape The legacy of the Battle of Dumlupınar holds a significant place in today’s local politics. It plays a key role in shaping the candidates’ election propaganda, and it is an integral part of political etiquette. Before investigating

‘Beware of the Buried’ 75 the impact of the Battle of Dumlupınar in today’s local politics, we should briefly survey the Kütahya province within which it exists. The Kütahya province is known to be home to two sites of foundation: Domaniç, alongside of Söğüt in the Bilecik province, was where the Ottomans rose to power at the turn of the fourteenth century, then the Battlefield of Dumlupınar where the foundation of the Turkish Republic is claimed to have been laid by Atatürk. Both Domaniç and Dumlupınar are integral elements of Kütahya’s local political etiquette. Local politicians tend to present their projects and bills for the county with references to these sites. For instance, the Nationalist Movement Party’s (MHP) 2014 election campaign slogan for Kütahya was inspired from both Domaniç and Dumlupınar: ‘from foundation to independence’ (i.e., Kuruluştan, Kurtuluşa). Kütahya could be described as the battleground province of elections over the past 20 years. The Justice and Development Party (AKP), MHP and Republican People’s Party (CHP) have all been head-to-head in elections, each party having their own take on Domaniç and Dumlupınar as they try to make their presence felt in the events that took place at these sites. For example, the MHP party leader Devlet Bahçeli chose his party’s candidate for Kütahya municipality, Alim Işık, in a black tent which was pitched for the Foundation Ceremonies in Domaniç (Işık, 2014). In 2018, the AKP’s parliamentary candidates from Kütayha launched their election campaign from Dumlupınar Martyr’s Cemetery, praying together at the cemetery before paying visits to Kütahya province districts (IHA, 2018). CHP members and the head of the party, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, paid visits to Dumlupınar regularly and these were obviously an important statement for their Kemalist base. For instance, in 2016, the CHP’s Konya MP Mustafa Hüsnü Bozkurt, who later became the chairperson of the Ataturkist Thought Association in 2021, drew an organic line between Dumlupınar and the CHP: ‘The CHP is above the individual, the CHP is the love of the nation that emanates from the blood of the martyrs at Dumlupınar’ (Wake Up, 2017). Some of the locals I spoke with see a window of opportunity in this headto-head competition between the political parties. From their point of view, the CHP and its municipalities should support the Dumlupınar district with their funds since the party was founded by Mustafa Kemal: ‘They should praise this important event in Mustafa Kemal’s life if they want to make a statement against the AKP government’s ideologyint24’. Some view the CHP as a trump card for publicity activities that the AKP government may not support in Dumlupınar: ‘If the Ministry of Culture and Tourism does not publish a guidebook about the Battle, then the CHP municipalities should step inint25’. They believe that fuelling such a competition would encourage the AKP government to invest in their district: ‘If the CHP municipalities offer support to the Dumlupınar district then the AKP government would do moreint24’. These predictions are not baseless, the locals are aware of their district’s symbolic significance for political parties with nationalist tendencies. A local MHP member interviewed in Allıören said that the MHP was

76  ‘Beware of the Buried’ particularly keen on winning elections at Domaniç and Dumlupınar in the 2014 local elections due to these towns’ symbolic value and significance in Turkish history. He added that the Kütahya province is a mystical place where both foundation and independence took place. The MHP’s candidate Alim Işık, who was later elected as mayor of Kütahya city in 2019, presented his arguments and project proposals with a similar rhetoric. In his campaign videos, he described Kütahya as a holy land that was gained with the blood of 137,000 martyrs but neglected and exploited by the Party of AKP’s administration (Işık, 2010). Against this background, Işık presented his projects on transportation, education, local economy and culture. Upon his successful election in 2019, Işık commissioned an Atatürk monument to be erected in front of the Kütahya city hall. This monument was named after the MHP’s election slogan of 2014: ‘from foundation to independence’ (Kütahya Belediyesi, 2019). Local politicians of the AKP are also inspired by the legacy of the Battle of Dumlupınar. For instance, in a recently broadcasted interview, the current Mayor of Dumlupınar Şemsetin Akağaç described Dumlupınar as ‘one of our holy lands where our deep-rooted nation is reborn from the ashes like a phoenix, it is where the foundations of the Turkish Republic were laid and our flag has never fallen to the ground’ (Gezdikçe Bilelim, 2021). He discussed projects related to the publicity of Dumlupınar in line with this statement. The guidebook for visiting children, published by the city hall of Çalköy, is another notable example; in terms of understanding the politics involved in the way that the battlefield is presented to visitors (Atak, 2010). The book is about the story of Ömer and his father, the Broken Ox-Cart Monument, Victory Hill and the Martyr Flagbearer Monument. Apart from its touristic aspects, the guidebook also emphasises the Mayor of Zafertepe-Çalköy Arif Teke as ‘a successful mayor’ (Atak, 2010) and includes caricatures of him playing with children and helping people with special needs, thus reflecting the use of the battlefield in political propaganda (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016). Within such a politically fuelled environment, it was no surprise to come across such mixed views regarding the 30 August Ceremonies amongst the local population of Dumlupınar and its surrounding area (see chapter eight). The following question arose from these observations: Whether the wartime events in Dumlupınar had any impact over the electors’ choices, or are they just a façade for the ambitions and projects of local politicians? Interviews with the villagers of Dumlupınar and the Altıntaş districts suggest that both are plausible. Around 1,000 registered voters exist in the Dumlupınar district and 3,900 in the Altıntaş district. Family connections and sectarianism between Sunni and Alevi communities also come into play within such a small pool of voters. Interviews revealed that the political choices of families were often linked to the supposed acts of their ancestors during the war. The villagers of Allıören described themselves as ‘the real Kemalists following the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’ during one of the collective interviews held at the village coffeehouse. According to them, their

‘Beware of the Buried’ 77 ancestors had always been staunch supporters of the Turkish Nationalist Movement during the war, and they are simply following their forefathers’ way. In reverse, they label the villages of Yüylük and Keçiller as collaborator villages due to the Memiş Efe Gangs’ deeds during the war: ‘The people of Keçiller would not mention Memiş Efe because his bloodline continues in the village. They would not speak openly about his atrocities because their ancestors were the ones who harboured the Greeks and laid ambushes for Turkish soldiersint26’. The Kemalist roots of Allıören are linked to a particular historical figure named Sergeant Habib, who is seen as an exemplary war-time hero of the village. According to local lore, he fought at Gallipoli under the command of Mustafa Kemal and returned to his village at the end of the First World War. The villagers of Allıören remember him as a prominent and wealthy figure, a staunch supporter of the Turkish nationalist cause. The pastpresent-day hostilities between the villages of Keçiller and Allıören resurfaced when he was mentioned in interviews with the villagers of Allıören. It was said that he had been given orders by Mustafa Kemal to raze the entire village of Keçiller as retribution for their collaboration with the Greeks. But Sergeant Habib did not obey Mustafa Kemal’s order completely; instead, he set only one house and field around the village on fire in order to delude Mustafa Kemal. Some interviewees were upset by this story because of Sergeant Habib’s failure to follow the orders of Mustafa Kemal. The descendants of Sergeant Habib claimed that they are treated with respect by the elders of Keçiller due to their great grandfather’s compassionate decision in 1922. Interviewees from Keçiller denied these claims and framed them as attempts by the people of Allıören to take credit from the legacy of the war and to glorify their community at the expense of others. According to them, the villagers of Allıören exaggerate the Memiş Efe gang’s role in the battle and claim that they fabricate these stories due to their different religious and political views. Some of the Allıören interviewees claim that the families from Yüylük and Keçiller constitute an oligarchy in the political scene of Kütahya: ‘The families of Yüylük chose Kütahya’s Members of Parliament, they have a radical and sectarian approach to politics and are influential in bureaucracyint24’. In return, they define Allıören as a closed community: ‘Our youth are more conscious, they take part in bureaucracy, and we are now more vocal about our requests from the governmentint26’. In fact, one of the Justice and Development Party’s Members of Parliament for Kütahya is from Yüylük and most of the interviewees from this village were retired government employees. Some residents said their active role in the government was due to their ancestors whom they claimed to be Utman Beg of Aq Qoyunlu Turkmen Confederation: ‘The reason why all of our fellow villagers became administrators to the places that cannot rule themselves is because we are descendants of a tribe that founded a state’ (Yalçın, 2021). To sum up, war-time events are treated as defining moments that, in Dumlupınar’s local lore, differentiate one village

78  ‘Beware of the Buried’ from another. From this angle, the historical grievances between villages of the Dumlupınar district do play a minor role in shaping the villagers’ political views and choices. At the end of the day, the local electorates expect concrete steps from the district governors and Dumlupınar’s municipality towards the development of tourism in the region.

The Battlefields of Dumlupınar: Sacralised and Looted Throughout the course of the Battle of Dumlupınar Survey, the long-term effects of the battle on the local community were observed in various contexts, including religious beliefs, looting of the battlefields and local politics. I do not claim that these observations draw a full picture of the relationship between the locals and the material culture of the battle, but it does show how the battlefield of Dumlupınar is largely perceived by the local communities. One of the key points that strikes home is the division of sacred and non-sacred grounds in the locals’ understanding of their surroundings. This division defines which areas of the battlefield could be altered and how they should be altered within the local tradition. Sacred areas like Otlukçu Hill in the vicinity of Allıören, the Veteran Trees at Selkisaray and the known burial grounds of Turkish Soldiers are considered off-limits for intrusive activities like ploughing, felling and the gathering of stone or wood. The only intervention that has been seen as worthy for these sacred grounds is the erection of cemeteries and monuments to the fallen Turkish soldiers and shrines for ancestors and saints (see chapter ten). The earthly aspects of the Battle of Dumlupınar are not treated with the same respect by the locals. The landscape and material remains of war are instead seen as an asset to make an earning or fortune from. While ‘the gold of the Greek Army’ is the ultimate dream of treasure hunters, metal objects have been salvaged and repurposed by the local communities since the very end of the conflict in 1922. Due to the rising interest towards War of Independence memorabilia in the Turkish Antiques Market, an additional value has been added to these finds that were once considered unworthy to keep intact and were instead recycled and repurposed. In view of these observations, I propose that the Battle of Dumlupınar is not purely perceived from a human scale in the local tradition but from an unearthly divine dimension; the natural surroundings of the battlefield and the local’s ancestors who resisted and fought against the Greek forces and continue to protect certain zones of the battlefield from intruders. In a similar fashion, the local politicians of Kütahya province identify the Battle of Dumlupınar beyond the human scale. The fallen Turkish soldiers and the figure of Mustafa Kemal are sacralised in their speeches and the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar is considered as sacred ground awash with the blood of martyrs. To a larger degree, the Turkish state sacralised the battlefield by holding ceremonies and by erecting a wide range of monuments and cemeteries.

‘Beware of the Buried’ 79

Notes





1 There are other myths related to Ali Dede: (1) Ali Dede was a Bektashi dervish who came to Allıören and was martyred there, (2) Ali Dede was a Turkish soldier who came to Allıören at the time of war and was martyred there (Aday, 2013). 2 It is worth noting that tree related narratives and symbolism are also widespread amongst the local communities of First World War sites in Western Europe (Saunders, 2014, pp. 31–35). 3 Regardless of the sect, traditions related to the prominent religious figures of the past and saints are widespread amongst Turkish Muslims (Aday, 2013). Since Alevi traditions do not rely on binding religious dogmas, its adherents are more inclined to follow unorthodox practices of Islam. 4 To my knowledge, there is no comprehensive publication on Cafer Ghazi Tumuli apart from proceedings of the 1992 Turkish Ministry of Culture’s conference for excavations. 5 Similar stories of ‘the gold of the defeated’ are recorded in other modern conflict sites such as the Hejaz Railway (Saunders, 2020, pp. 130–138). I had encountered rumours of gold left by the Ottoman forces while I was surveying rock art sites in Tabuk province of Saudi Arabia. Since I am Turkish, some of the locals thought that I was searching for gold and questioned me about the supposed treasure markers carved on rocks.

7

Imaginings of the Great Offensive

Since 1924, governments and local municipalities have been proposing and realising projects to recreate the sites of the Great Offensive. Monuments, cemeteries and museums were erected across Afyon and Kütahya provinces (Figure 7.1). Placed on hills and in town centres, these landmarks have acquired a variety of meanings over the past 100 years and have become the face of the Great Offensive for visitors. Hence, these landmarks have intriguing biographies as sites of commemoration, image-making and political statement ranging from 1924 to the present day. They demonstrate that both the battlefields and the narratives of war are constantly being created and reframed by diverse governmental and public bodies. Judging by the landmarks’ dates of construction and architectural affinities, we can see a ‘typological’ pattern in the ways that the Great Offensive has been memorialised and how its battlefields have been transformed.

The Foundation Stone of a New Regime The site of the Battle of Dumlupınar was initially labelled as a place where the foundation of the Turkish Republic was consolidated by Mustafa Kemal in 1924, over the previous Ottoman imperial regime (see chapters three and eight). The new republican and nationalist regime sought to legitimise its social and political reforms with references to Turkish willpower and sacrifice during the War of Independence. The Martyr Flag Bearer Monument, featuring a bronze arm holding a Turkish flag set upon a marble base, was to be the very embodiment of this rhetoric. It was the first monument to be erected on the battlefield: its ground-breaking ceremony was performed on 30 August 1924 and construction completed in 1927 (Sayılır, 2014) (Figure 7.2). This monument, the embodiment of the loss of life suffered by the Turkish Army during the war, has both an intriguing history and an eclectic design. The marble base, on which the flag bearing bronze arm is placed, features several Ottoman and Seljuk style decorative elements: arabesque facades, eight-pointed star figures and muqarnas corners. This typical example of the First National Architectural Movement, as defined by Turkish nationalists of the late Ottoman Empire and supporters during the republic’s first DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-7

Source:  Openstreet Map edited by Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2015.

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 81

Figure 7.1  Landmarks within the Dumlupınar districts discussed in this chapter

82  Imaginings of the Great Offensive

Figure 7.2  Martyr Flag Bearer Monument on Berberçamı Hill Source:  © Can Aksoy 2015.

decade, was a mix of Ottoman-Turkish decorative elements and Western style sculpture. This monument is especially intriguing, as it is no longer referred to by its original name; it is no longer in its original location or in its original form (Bozdoğan, 2001; Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). Photographs and descriptions of the monument from 1930s’ newspapers reveal that some alterations have been made to it. The bronze arm has since been painted white and one of the ornaments on the flagpole is missing. This may have been lost during the removal of the monument in 1964 from its original location on Zafertepe (Toros, 1937; Çağlar, 1938; Gençosman, 1942). The dismantlement and removal of this monument from Zafertepe were specified in the 1960 Turkish Military Junta’s resolution for the construction of a new monument – the Dumlupınar Victory Monument – and visitor facilities. The earlier monument, which now stands on Berberçamı Hill, was viewed as ‘far from expressing the meaning and zeitgeist of the modern-day Republic’ and described in a negative way (Milli Birlik Komitesi, 1961): On a treeless, waterless hill, there is a hand holding a bronze flag over a raised marble platform without any bas-relief or inscription. The modest

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 83 appearance of this monument does not express the fact it is the foundation stone of today’s Turkish Republic. (Milli Birlik Komitesi, 1961)1 Until it was ‘rediscovered’ by Major-General Ali Özveren and placed on Berberçamı Hill in 1979, the dismantled monument was held in storage in the Afyon Museum (Talipoğlu, 1998, p. 69; Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). According to numerous publications and official websites, a recollection of Mustafa Kemal’s about Berberçamı Hill is said to have inspired its design: while inspecting the fields after the battle, he saw in a shell crater the hand of a slain Turkish soldier holding the flag aloft. This is also mentioned on the current information board at its site. Mustafa Kemal, according to this narrative, wanted this image to become the icon of the Battle of Dumlupınar, hence the monument’s design (Kılıç and Akyurt, 2011; Türkiye Kültür Portalı, 2013; Yeldemez and Soylu, 2015). However, these sources do not provide a reference for this anecdote. Mustafa Kemal neither referenced this event nor in his 1924 speech in Dumlupınar did he name it as the Martyr Flag Bearer. Instead, he called it the ‘Martyr Soldier Monument’ and it was referred to as the ‘Monument of the Unknown Soldier’ in 1930s’ newspaper articles (Toros, 1937; Çağlar, 1938; Gençosman, 1942). Furthermore, in his memoirs, architect Hikmet Koyunoğlu who designed the monument wrote that Mustafa Kemal summoned him in late May 1923 and said: ‘the newly founded state’s first monument is going to be built at Dumlupınar and its name will be the Martyr Soldier Monument’ (Koyunoğlu, 2008). The only comparable anecdote that could be found after examining the memoirs of Mustafa Kemal’s staff and companions (Adıvar, 1928; Kılıç, 1964; Uğurlu et al., 2014) in order to confirm the story of the Martyr Flag Bearer, is that of Hasan Rıza Soyak who witnessed the inspection of the battlefield by Mustafa Kemal. He does not mention the Martyr Flag Bearer but wrote that soldiers were ordered by Mustafa Kemal to pick up a Greek flag from the ground as ‘it is a symbol of a nation’s independence’ (Soyak, 1973). Recent newspaper articles and tour guides have, interestingly, also confused Soyak’s recollection with the anecdote of the dead Turkish soldier holding the Turkish flag aloft while the Greek flag lay on the ground. This is often used as a metaphor for Turkish victory and Greek defeat (IHA, 2015; Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). An alternative version of this story also exists in local lore: ‘the martyr flag bearer stopped holding the flag after Mustafa Kemal ordered him to do soint27’. The lack of reference points and evidence in existing publications surely casts doubt on the Mustafa Kemal anecdote of the Martyr Flag Bearer, raising the possibility that it may have been fabricated in order to put the reconstruction of the monument on Berberçamı Hill within context. From the 1940s onwards, it is possible to read about the attempts to personify the flag bearer that appeared in newspapers of the period. For instance, during the 1942 Victory Day, an unnamed lieutenant explained the flag bearer to

84  Imaginings of the Great Offensive reporters as ‘a hero who, shot by a treacherous enemy bullet and exhausted, tried to raise the flag that he could not hold with his right hand with his left’ (Vatan, 1942). For the time being, this anecdote remains questionable, as it is possible that I could have overlooked a source. Because the name and placement of this monument were later modified, only two official interpretations can be attributed to it. First, it was created as a monument to a martyr soldier evoking the sacrifices and willpower of the Turkish nation and, above all, Atatürk’s reforms. Erected in 1924 in Zafertepe, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s command post. Second that it was reconstructed at Berberçamı Hill in 1979 and renamed as a memorial to a Turkish flag bearer who allegedly died there. As a result, the state has provided the martyr soldier with a more representational conception (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022).

A Symbol of National Unity More abstract forms of expression began to emerge during the 1960s in the area of the Great Offensive. The Dumlupınar Victory Monument, with its ten sharp-angled triangular blocks made of grey stone slabs – the lengths of which range between 3 m and 14 m – was created to symbolise the difficult years of the Turkish War of Independence as well as the Turkish people’s unity. National unity was a popular slogan during the 1960s when the government’s primary institutions and the constitution were being reconstructed following the republic’s first coup. The multi-component layout of the Dumlupınar Victory Monument is visible from the entire battleground (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022) (Figure 7.3). Plans to recreate Zafertepe can be dated back to 1953 and The Victory Monument’s Beautification and Memorial Society (i.e., Zafer Âbidesini Güzelleştirme ve Yaşatma Derneği) raised funds for the construction of roads and forestation works in this area (Milli Birlik Komitesi, 1961; İnan, 2007). Headed by sociologist Afet Inan, one of the adopted daughters of Mustafa Kemal, the society had been proposing for a new monument to be erected on Zafertepe since 1949. In comparison to the Junta of 1960, Inan envisaged the incorporation of the Martyr Flag Bearer Monument into a new monument that would be erected on the hill: ‘Erecting a monument in proportion with the value of the historical event on Zafertepe is the main objective here. The bronze hand of the existing monument has to be protected’ (İnan, 2007). The society commissioned a model design from architects Sadık Sever and Hüseyin Baban based on the ideas of Inan: a monument comprised of a colossal block and reliefs including the bronze arm of the Martyr Flag Bearer (İnan, 1957). None of the features of this design were adopted by Yaşar Marulyalı and Levent Aksüt, the architects of the present Victory Monument, the construction of which was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence after an architectural competition in 1962 (TBMM, 1961; Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). The winning architects noted that their design was inspired by the words of Prime

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 85

Figure 7.3  Victory Monument on Zafertepe Source:  © Can Aksoy 2014.

Minister İsmet İnönü: ‘We want the selected artists to reflect the sufferings of past generations and the determination and willpower of the next generations’ (Marulyalı and Aksüt, 2007) using the triangular blocks to symbolise ‘the Turkish people’s struggle against the invading forces and rebellion against injustice … The 14-m-high block represents the unity of the Turkish people and the final blow to the enemy’ (UMO, 2013). The parliamentary law for the monument’s erection was submitted and approved by the National Unity Commission – the Junta of 1960 – whose propaganda was heavily based on unification themes. The populace was divided in its party allegiance prior to the coup, and frequent student demonstrations had taken place in cities around Turkey. The coup regime presented the coup as a democratic revolution, marking the start of the second republic, and enacted a new constitution with many additional monuments being commissioned throughout this time period. A new era in the commemoration and interpretation of the Battle of Dumlupınar was ushered in

86  Imaginings of the Great Offensive with the erection of the Dumlupınar Victory Monument. A parade ground was established on Zafertepe’s western slope as Victory Day ceremonies became more lavish and militaristic. This parade area is currently only used for Victory Day ceremonies. The surrounding facilities, including the exhibition halls, are in a state of disrepair and seemingly abandoned for the rest of the year. This suggests that the initial objectives for the year-round public engagement and an active site museum were not met (see chapter nine).

The Embodiment of the Great Offensive with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the Great Offensive are an inseparable whole in the official narratives of the Great Offensive (see chapter three). The battlefields and events of the Offensive are shaped around the figure of Mustafa Kemal: his statues stand in town centres, war cemeteries and landscaped sites of the Offensive, and photos that were taken of him during the Offensive fill the walls of local museums and temporary exhibitions. The National Park that encompasses the areas of the Great Offensive in the vicinities of Dumlupınar and Afyon is named after his military title in 1922, i.e., ‘Commander in Chief’. The bond between Mustafa Kemal and the battlefields of the Great Offensive reaches beyond his representations; his body lies in a mix of soils brought from 105 places, including the battlefields of Dumlupınar,2 Gallipoli, İnönü, Sakarya and various war cemeteries (Güler, 2017). The personification of the Great Offensive with the image of Mustafa Kemal can be dated back to his lifetime and the single-party regime of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Erected in 1936, the Afyon Victory Monument is an early example of the memorialisation of the Great Offensive using the image of Mustafa Kemal (Figure 7.4). The bronze monument was designed and sculpted by Austrian sculptor Heinrich Krippel in Vienna, and according to some testimonies from the period, Mustafa Kemal was personally involved in the designation of the monument’s theme and design (Gür, 2013). The base of the monument consists of four bronze cast reliefs. The eastern relief features a portrait of Mustafa Kemal in profile and a small signature of Krippel. The western relief treats the liberation of Afyon on 28 August, showing a Turkish man in local attire kissing the Turkish flag held by Turkish soldiers wearing stahlhelm helmets. The northern relief features Turkish and Greek soldiers fighting hand to hand after the Battle of Dumlupınar on 31 August. The southern relief depicts Turkish commanders’ İsmet İnönü, Fevzi Çakmak and Mustafa Kemal leaning and slamming their fists on a map. The wider political undertones of this monument need to be tackled in more depth. Here we should underscore that these were the most powerful figures of the Turkish Republic at the time of the monument’s construction: Mustafa Kemal was president of the republic between 1923 and 1938, Fevzi Çakmak the Chief of General Staff between 1922 and 1944 and İsmet İnönü

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 87

Figure 7.4  Afyon Victory Monument Source:  © Burhan Şohoğlu 2022.

the Prime Minister between 1925 and 1937 before he later became president of the republic. Other key figures in the Turkish command at the time of the Great Offensive are nowhere to be seen neither on the Afyon Victory Monument nor other monuments in the area of the Great Offensive. The most striking of these is the commander of the 1st Army, Nurettin Pasha. The underlying reason for his absence is likely to have been his involvement with the opposition to Mustafa Kemal after the foundation of the republic and Mustafa Kemal’s heavy criticism of him in the Speech (Nutuk) as ‘one of the people who has the least right to be part of the great victory pride’ (Atatürk, 1995) (see chapters two and three). The bronze statue of the monument is comprised of two nude, muscular male figures on a rock. The main figure stands firmly with his left hand clenched and his right hooked, ready to strike, while the second figure lies in agony beneath him. Krippel explained the monument as ‘a representation of victory … The reason why the statue is naked is to show might and magnificence’ (Cumhuriyet, 1935). According to official sources, the standing figure symbolises the Turkish nation and the fallen figure represents the enemy (Cumhuriyet, 1935; Osma, 2003). Mustafa Kemal visited the monument in 1937 and, according to the sources of the period, he stated that: ‘This monument is the most expressive monument that revives

88  Imaginings of the Great Offensive victory and independence’ (Günek, 2021). However, if one considers the local lore and scholarly publications, there is an ongoing ambiguity over the identity of these figures. Some locals of Afyon and observers of the period address the monument as the ‘Atatürk monument’ since the face of the standing male figure bears a resemblance to Mustafa Kemal (İnan, 2007; Gür, 2013). Other ascriptions for the standing figure are ‘the masculine image of the state’, ‘the male Turk’, ‘Atatürk’ and ‘a deific display of power’ (Tekiner, 2010; Gür, 2013; Atalay, 2019). The prone figure has been identified as imperialist invading forces and Hercules by various scholars (Kılıç and Akyurt, 2011; Gür, 2013; Marmara Universitesi Mehmet Genç Kulliyesi, 2013). These inferences are not entirely baseless. The Afyon Victory Monument was designed and erected at a time when the Turkish people were experiencing a series of fundamental reforms and Kemalism was treated as a secular faith amongst some circles close to Mustafa Kemal. From this point of view, the Turkish nation is sacred, Mustafa Kemal embodies the Turkish nation and the Turkish nation embodies Mustafa Kemal (Atalay, 2019). Therefore, it is plausible to view the standing figure as Mustafa Kemal (see chapter three). Setting aside the ambiguity over the visual codes of these male figures, it is the inscription at the rear of the statue that establishes a solid link with this composition to Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish Army: ‘The city of Afyon was first occupied by the enemy on 28 March 1921 and then again on 18 July 1921. It was liberated on 27 August 1922 and this monument was erected as a memorial of the gratitude of the people of Afyon to the National Army and the Great National Hero Atatürk’. Yet, this inscription was a later addition to the monument. Photographs of the rear of the bronze statue from 1937 and 1939 show that the name of the sculptor ‘Heinrich Krippel’ and the place and year of the statue’s casting, ‘Vienna 1934’, were inscribed with bold and large letters (Saklıca et al., 2007; Özpunar, 2021b). In 1940, this inscription was covered with the current inscription by Hungarian sculptor Zizek Karoly at the invitation of the Afyon Municipality (Günek, 2021). Published testimonies of witnesses to Mustafa Kemal’s visit to the monument in 1937 state that Mustafa Kemal was displeased to see the sculptor’s name in big bold letters on the back of the monument (Aygen and Görktan, 1982; Kocabıyık, 2004). According to these witnesses, Mustafa Kemal said: ‘this signature appears greater than the monument’ (Özpunar, 2021b). Local historians Hasan Özpunar and Hasan Tahsin Günek speculate that this incident might be the reason for the removal of Krippel’s name from the rear face of the monument (Özpunar, 2013; Günek, 2021). The fact that the inscription was altered three years after this incident and two years after the death of Mustafa Kemal leaves a question mark on whether this was indeed the real motive behind this alteration. For my part, the amount of detail in the present inscription suggests that it was deemed necessary to complement the imagery

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 89 of the monument with text. Further attempts to alter the monument support this assumption. After reviewing the Archives of the Governorship of Afyon, Faik Gür claims that in 1954 representatives of the Democrat Party from Afyon complained about the nudity of the figures. A commission was formed by the local government to investigate this matter and it was decided to reduce the size of the male organ of the standing figure under the pretext that it was ‘degrading people’s moral values’ (Gür, 2013). No visible difference can be observed when one compares the photos of the statute from Krippel’s studio and the present state of the statue. Whether this alteration was carried out or not is not the main concern here, but debates on this subject suggest that the Afyon Victory Monument’s imagery has always been found to be controversial by some quarters. Perhaps this might be the reason why the Afyon Victory Monument has not inspired any future monuments of Mustafa Kemal to be erected in the area of the Great Offensive. Instead, reliefs and statues of Mustafa Kemal in military attire have dominated the landscape of the Great Offensive from the 1950s onwards. The Kocatepe Memorial, consisting of a marble inscription framed with hewn stone slabs, is an early example of this trend (Figure 7.5). The marble

Figure 7.5  The Kocatepe Memorial Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2022.

90  Imaginings of the Great Offensive inscription summarises and praises Mustafa Kemal’s deeds at the Great Offensive: The president of the Grand Assembly of Turkey Commander in Chief Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) set his headquarters here in Kocatepe on 25.08.1922. On the morning of 29.06.1922 at 6.30, he gave the order to the Turkish Forces to strike the enemy. He annihilated the broken Greek Army on 30.08.1922 at the Field Battle of Dumlupınar. He poured the Greeks to the sea on 09.09.1922 with the order of ‘armies, your first goal is the Mediterranean Sea – Forward!’. The people of the Afyonkarahisar province express their gratitude to his eternal memory 26.08.1953. The phrasing in this inscription very clearly reflects the codes of personification of the Great Offensive with both the deeds and images of Mustafa Kemal. In the years to follow, the details of this inscription have taken shape in the form of monuments across the area of the Great Offensive. The marble inscription is decorated with floral figures and a carving of Mustafa Kemal deep in thought with his thumb on his lips. This carving is a reproduction of the well-known photograph taken by photographer Etem Tem on 26 August on Kocatepe Hill (Figure 7.6). Tem’s memoirs and interviews suggest that a lot of effort was put into photographing Mustafa Kemal and the Turkish Forces during the offensive3 (Otyam, 1960; Baran, 2020). Mustafa Kemal personally examined a number of shots, including this particular one in Uşak, while the offensive was continuing. Tem viewed this photograph as being equal to a monument: ‘A simple soldier’s garments,

Figure 7.6  Etem Tem’s photograph of Atatürk on Kocatepe Source:  Volki 16, 2008.

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 91 an unconstrained attitude, an agile line of body, then the head that gave birth to and remoulded all those events … look at this picture again. No nation could have a monument of independence more beautiful than this ordinary photograph’ (Yeditepe Üniversitesi, 2020). Known as ‘Atatürk in Kocatepe’, Tem’s photograph has been replicated in the form of monuments across all of Turkey, not just in the area of the Great Offensive. Two more ‘Atatürk in Kocatepe’ monuments exist in the area of the Commander in Chief National Park: one on the peak of Kocatepe Hill and the second one in the Great Offensive Martyrs Cemetery. The Kocatepe Memorial was erected against the backdrop of Democratic Party rule in Turkey between 1950 and 1960. The legacy of Mustafa Kemal was re-emerging with the end of İsmet İnönü’s presidency and the singleparty rule of the CHP in 1950. The presidency of İsmet İnönü was a period of reconciliation with the ousted pashas of the War of Independence. The image of Mustafa Kemal was not as glorified as it had been during his lifetime, and his portraits on banknotes, stamps and government offices were replaced with those of İnönü. Only a small number of Atatürk monuments were erected in various cities, and, to my knowledge, no monuments of Mustafa Kemal were erected in the region of the Great Offensive during this 12-year period (İşçi, 2011). Once the Democrat Party won the elections in 1950, their government, headed by president Celal Bayar and Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, took several concrete steps to revitalise the image of Mustafa Kemal in order to cut the organic ties between Mustafa Kemal and the CHP in the eyes of the public. They opened Atatürk’s Mausoleum in 1953, restored his image on banknotes and passed a code for crimes committed against Atatürk, which prescribed imprisonment for any insult to his memory or attempts to destroy his monuments and images. The Democrat Party’s administration placed more emphasis on Atatürk’s military record as the nation’s liberator than his reforms modernising and secularising Turkey (Güçler and Gür, 2021). With its imagery and choice of words, the Kocatepe Memorial clearly spells out this approach and marks the revival of Mustafa Kemal’s image in the battlefields of the Great Offensive. Since the 1970s, statues of Mustafa Kemal have been erected on the conflict zones of the Battle of Dumlupınar. After a decade of violent fighting between Turkey’s different left- and right-wing factions, the military administration promoted Atatürk as a unifying symbol of the nation following the 1980 coup. Atatürk sculptures found in the battle zone memorialize the meeting of the Turkish high command in the courtyard of an abandoned home in the village of Çalköy. It was here, around a broken oxcart at noon on 31 August 1922 that the commanders decided that the entire Greek Army in Anatolia had to be pushed towards Izmir, according to Atatürk’s Speech (Nutuk) (Niş, 1968). This decision was communicated to all Turkish Western Front divisions on 1 September and ended with Mustafa Kemal’s well-known phrase: ‘Armies, your first goal is the Mediterranean Sea — Forward!’ (Niş, 1968). This is still

92  Imaginings of the Great Offensive a well-known phrase today and frequently found on statues of Atatürk pointing his index finger with a straight arm (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). This style of depiction is reproduced in the town centres of Dumlupınar and Çalköy, as well as at Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, with nearly identical sculptures of Atatürk. The bronze statue of Mustafa Kemal in Dumlupınar’s town centre is located near to the recreated house where Mustafa Kemal stayed following his triumph in Dumlupınar. The Battle of Dumlupınar is commemorated by lightning-shaped concrete blocks behind Mustafa Kemal’s statue. This monument exemplifies the eclectic style of the 1970s and 1980s, which combined abstract and realist aspects in monument design (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). The realist Atatürk statue and concrete metaphorical lightning bolts and on the First Goal Monument epitomise this style (Figure 7.7). The First Goal Monument, located in the heart of Dumlupınar, is an important milestone in the commemoration of the Battle of Dumlupınar. With the figure of Mustafa Kemal, it represents the Great Offensive and, to my knowledge, is the first statue of Mustafa Kemal erected on this location. It was also the first monument planned and funded by the Dumlupınar Monument Construction Society (i.e., Dumlupınar Abidesi Yaptrma Dernei). Cafer Pekmez, a determined schoolteacher, led this community. He considered himself a child of the Turkish Republic, having been born in ‘the first harvest after the Greeks departed Dumlupınar’ (Ihvan, 2020). Educated at village institutions, which were founded to educate youngsters from communities in order to train them to become teachers in their own villages, he felt it was his duty to serve his village. He fought a protracted battle with the governor of Kütahya, officials and ministers in Ankara and the inhabitants of Dumlupınar in order to establish the memorial and recreate its surroundings (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). In 1953, the destruction of a village house in which Mustafa Kemal had stayed in 1922 by the Ministry of Education for a rebuilding project prompted the inhabitants of Dumlupınar to start such a project (İnan, 2007). However, because the building’s debris lay in the town’s centre, this took years to complete. The group was created in 1959 by the people of Dumlupınar in order to build a full ceremonial complex under the direction of Cafer Pekmez. On this, the members of the society sought advice from Erturul Süer, the governor of Kütahya. According to Pekmez, the governor was against the proposal since they could not build a greater ceremonial structure than that of the state’s on Zafertepe. He advised Pekmez to create a small statue rather than an entire parade ground (Ihvan, 2020). The group ignored this suggestion and instead organised a national design competition, choosing Doğan Tekeli’s proposal and Yavuz Gürey’s statue design and began collecting donations from all over Turkey (Özyıldıran, 2020). However, the state shut them down on the grounds that they had received money from outside Turkey and construction was put on hold. Cafer Pekmez organised a counter 30 August parade in response during which Dumlupınar’s elders and youth marched in front of the building site. To pay the sculptor of the First Goal Monument, Cafer Pekmez sold poplar trees on his property.

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 93

Figure 7.7  ‘The First Goal’ Monuments. (a) Dumlupınar town centre. (b) Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2015.

94  Imaginings of the Great Offensive The society was reconstituted, and construction resumed after a lengthy legal battle and the appointment of the governor to the Muş province. Nonetheless, the initiative ran out of finances and the members entered a lottery held by the Şeker Bank for clients who would transfer their pay accounts to the bank. Despite the fact that one of the members won the lottery, the state withheld a significant percentage of the prize money as tax. Minister of Finance Ferit Melen agreed to repay the money as a donation to the society after repeated appeals from society members. Cafer Pekmez saw himself as ‘a wounded but successful soldier who had forgotten his wounds’ (Ihvan, 2020). Locals dubbed him ‘Crackbrain Cafer’ (Çatlak Cafer) in honour of his dedication to the monument’s construction, and despite being mocked at the time, he was elected mayor of Dumlupınar between 1973 and 1977. During interviews, locals praised and admired him, and several interviewees described him as a visionary politician who helped Dumlupınar become the region’s main district (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). During the 1990s, when debates on secularism and Islam flared up amongst the public, political parties and the army, the manufacture of fibreglass sculptures of Atatürk boomed. The same themes and forms, as depicted by the First Goal Monument, were repeatedly portrayed in a realist style. The monuments at Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery and Çalköy are amongst them. The Three Commanders Monument at Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, erected in 1992, depicts three commanders standing side by side with Mustafa Kemal in the middle, pointing his index finger while stating ‘the first goal’ (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). In 2007, another version of the first goal anecdote was erected in the centre of Çalköy: The Broken Oxcart Monument. This monument is composed of fibreglass statues depicting three Turkish commanders, Mustafa Kemal, İsmet İnönü and Fevzi Çakmak, around a broken oxcart. İnönü and Çakmak are looking at an unfurled map on the broken oxcart, while Mustafa Kemal is pointing his right index finger towards the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 7.8).

Washed with Martyrs Blood The concept of martyrdom4 is at the very heart of all imaginings of the Great Offensive by the state, politicians and locals of the conflict zone. The area of the Great Offensive and the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar, in particular, are identified as the land of martyrs on the road signs and in official sources. The Battlefields of Dumlupınar are considered as hallowed ground ‘washed with the blood of martyrs’ and where ‘shroudless thousands’ lie. As outlined by Mustafa Kemal in his speech at the groundbreaking ceremony of the Martyr Soldier Monument in 1924, what makes the landscapes of the Great Offensive so important is the sacrifices of the past: ‘The Turkish blood that flowed on this site, the souls of martyrs hovering in this sky, are the eternal protectors of our state and republic’ (Sayılır, 2014).

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 95

Figure 7.8  Broken Oxcart Monument in Çalköy Source:  © Can Aksoy 2015.

The earliest martyr cemeteries in the area of the Great Offensive are ‘Captain Şekip’, ‘Anıtkaya’ and ‘Yıldırım Kemal’. These are characterised by marble monuments in the form of obelisks (Figure 4.6). Epithets on these obelisks are inscribed in Ottoman Turkish and list the names and ranks of fallen soldiers along with the day they were killed in action. Unfortunately, these monuments do not bear the date of their erection. Some sources suggest that they were erected by Fahrettin Altay, the Commander of the 5th Cavalry Corps Army, in 1924 without providing any reference (Şabanoğlu, 2015). In his memoirs, Fahrettin Altay does not mention such an endeavour (Altay, 1970). Since Latin script was officially adopted by Turkey in 1928, it is safe to assume that these were erected in a period between 1923 and 1928. The locations of these monuments are claimed to be actual sites of burial and, recently, geophysical surveys of Captain Şekip Martyrs Cemetery were carried out by a research team from the 18th of March Çanakkale University (T.C. Kütahya Valiliği, 2020). The results of their research have not yet been

96  Imaginings of the Great Offensive published; therefore, I leave a question mark over this issue. Nevertheless, these cemeteries do lie next to the actual sites of conflict. For instance, the martyrs’ cemetery in Yıldırım Kemal is located next to the Küçükköy railway station, where 36 Turkish cavalrymen were killed on 27 August 1922. In memory of this event, Küçükköy was named after one of the soldiers buried here, Yıldırım Kemal (Altay, 1970). Nicknamed ‘Thunderbolt’ (i.e., Yıldırım), Lieutenant Kemal was renowned for his bravery and was presented as an exemplary cavalryman in a number of Turkish comics in the 1980s (Dündar, 1999; Dündar and Dündar, 2012). Along with these earlier martyr cemeteries, the ‘Şuhut’, ‘Airmen’ and ‘Giresunlular’ cemeteries are considered genuine burial sites within the perimeters of the national park. By and large, these cemeteries host the tombs of soldiers of specific Turkish regiments. In view of Turkish losses throughout the offensive and the vastness of the National Park, one expects to see larger cemeteries encompassing tombs of soldiers belonging to different regiments. This situation could be due to the swiftness of the Great Offensive. Apparently, the burials were carried out hastily while the offensive was ongoing (Adıvar, 1928). Testimonies from the period, along with the survey team’s interviews with locals of the conflict zones, indicate that soldiers from both sides were buried in separate graves with the help of local villagers. There were also random individual burials of soldiers, in particular, officers on the spots that they were killed. Some of the interviewed locals mentioned bones that they had found on their farms, and they regarded the presence of these bones in open fields as disrespect to the ‘memory of martyrs’. Presently, there is an ongoing survey in the National Park to detect these burial grounds and recreate them as cemeteries (see chapter ten). The quest for finding Turkish burial grounds can be traced back to the endeavours of war veteran Ahmet Halis Asal, who sought to find the graves of 14 of his comrades from the Giresun 47th Volunteer Regiment5 in 1964. According to Asal’s grandchildren, the members of the regiment promised each other that whoever survives the war would make sure their graves would not be lost, and in 1922 Asal demarcated the graves of his fallen comrades with stones in the vicinity of Doğanlar Village in the Afyon Province (Asal, 2014). He again visited the village 42 years later to identify the graves. According to his son, Asal took the bearing of the fountain where he had sharpened his bayonet in 1922 and identified an area covered with piles of stones as the burial place of his comrades. He spent his summers in Doğanlar and built the graves with the help of the villagers (Asal, 2014, 2016). There is a photograph of Ahmet Halis Asal in his war-time all-black dress uniform building the cemetery with his own hands, the photograph is titled: ‘If I cannot make them to do it, I will do it myself’. Another photograph shows him re-enacting the attack his regiment carried out on Dedesivrisi Hill with villagers armed with rifles. With support from the Giresun municipality, the Afyon governorate and the Turkish General Staff, Asal managed to officially register the area as a martyr’s cemetery in 1967, and according to his will, he was buried next to his comrades in 1977 with a military funeral (Kahraman, 2014).

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 97 The largest martyrs’ cemeteries within the area of the Commander in Chief National Park are, in fact, symbolic cemeteries: ‘Captain Ağah Efendi’ (built in 1972 – recreated in 1993), ‘Great Offensive’ (built in 1993), ‘Çiğiltepe’ (built in 1993) and ‘Dumlupınar’ (built in 1992). Apart from ‘Ağah Efendi’, all these cemeteries were built and landscaped by the state between 1992 and 1993. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism viewed these martyrs’ cemeteries as ‘testaments of our national unity and solidarity’ (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2010). Such a statement makes sense within the turbulent years of the 1990s, a period when numerous armed groups were carrying out ever increasing terror attacks and ethnic-sectarian tensions were rising across the country. The ministry summarised its motives for the construction of martyrs’ cemeteries between 1991 and 1995 as follows: ‘to commemorate the memory of our saintly martyrs who sacrificed their lives with pleasure in defence of our sacred nation’s lands, to create places where al-Fatiha prayers could be read for their souls, to instil the love of country and nation in new generations’ (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2010). Located next to the Uşak-Afyon highway, Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery exemplifies these motives (Figure 7.9). The cemetery contains 500 marble

Figure 7.9  Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery Source:  © Can Aksoy 2015.

98  Imaginings of the Great Offensive gravestones, 4 statues and a prayer ground in remembrance of fallen Turkish troops and citizens. The landscape is dominated by the statue of a riflebearing Turkish soldier walking towards the battlefield, perched atop Cafer Ghazi tumulus, which is like that of Phrygian burial mounds6 found in central Anatolia. Cafer Ghazi’s grave stood on the summit of the hill where the marching Turkish soldier statue now stands, and according to those who worked on the cemetery’s landscaping, it was a roofless, 1-m-tall dry stone structure (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). As previously mentioned, Cafer Ghazi’s grave was bulldozed in 1992, and a path leading to the summit was opened to transfer the marching soldier monument. The statue fell from the crane and smashed into pieces on the first attempt, being refitted and erected during a second effort. During the excavation, interviewees said they had discovered 15 human skeletons and cartridge belts, which they later buried beneath the monument. The tumulus, they claimed, was a Greek machine gun position and over 500 Turkish men died attempting to conquer it. The war’s tactical maps and other available sources don’t mention a brutal battle atop this tumulus. I believe this is a fabrication of Dumlupınar’s residents in order to certify the cemetery as a legitimate conflict site. Two interviewees were members of the town council who voted to allow the cemetery’s construction (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). The tumulus was chosen as the cemetery’s location for functional and aesthetic reasons, they explained. To begin with, the tumulus was public property; therefore, state entities did not have to go through the lengthy process of expropriation. Second, the tumulus was thought to be a one-of-a-kind and magnificent feature. One interviewee stated that building such an artificial hill would have cost half of the project’s budget; hence, the tumulus was a cost-effective option.7 Based on the afore-mentioned points, I raised the question of whether any of the locals had protested against the cemetery project since Cafer Ghazi’s tomb and the tumulus were considered to be holy sites amongst Dumlupınar’s residents (see chapter five). Most interviewees said that the majority approved, as it commemorates the Turkish soldiers who fought in the war, and it would bring more visitors to the town. However, I also recorded opposing views to this project: some locals see the destruction of the tomb as a disrespectful act to the memory of Cafer Ghazi. Leaving aside the local’s debates on this matter, the Turkish media and politicians casts a positive light on this issue and view the Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery as a symbol of continuity from the Seljuqs to the Turkish Republic: ‘The significance of this martyrs’ cemetery is not just due to our martyrs. This place is so important. While Anatolia was being Turkified at the time of Seljuqs, the raider chief Cafer Ghazi was martyred here after turning these lands into a Turkish country. See this long-sightedness! The graves of martyrs of our War of Independence and the grave of an Anatolian Seljuqs’ martyr are in the same place. When you visit the cemetery you are embraced by history’ (Wake Up, 2017).

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 99 At the base of the tumulus, near the tombstones, are the memorials to the Three Commanders, the Militias and the Martyr Father and Son. As previously stated, the Three Commanders Monument represents Mustafa Kemal’s ‘first goal’ directive. The Militias Monument’s figures depict civilians who took part in the battle: a mother carries her daughter and lowers her head towards her armed husband, while behind them, an elderly war veteran raises his index finger to the front (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). The narrative of Sergeant Kara Ali of Çetmi is depicted in the Martyr Father and Son Monument. Kara Ali left Çetmi and went on to fight in the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence. At the time, his son Mehmet was eight years old. It was on the battlefield of Dumlupınar that he was reunited with his son and died in his arms (Figure 7.10). His son was later killed on the outskirts of Izmir on 9 September 1922. The only definite information regarding this story that we could locate came from a recent interview is that of Kara Ali’s grandsons, which he gave to a Turkish film crew for a documentary. Whether or not it is based on a true story, the Martyr Father and Son Monument honours the Ottoman Empire’s lost generation and depicts the state’s shift from private grieving to public mourning (Winter, 1995; Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022).

Figure 7.10  Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery. Statue of Father and Son Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2015.

100  Imaginings of the Great Offensive

Memorialisation of the Great Offensive The area of the Great Offensive was designated as a key stage for the memorialisation of the War of Independence by Mustafa Kemal in 1924, and it continues to be politically significant for the Turkish Republic. The landscaping and erection of monuments are viewed as prominent ways of memorialising this battle by both state agents and local administrations. The erection and relocation of these monuments to their specific locations have not just formed a politically charged landscape but a heritage management policy that advocates visits to certain locations in the region, leaving a considerable proportion of the battlefield off-limits (see chapter nine). The construction of the monuments and cemeteries does roughly coincide with breaking points in modern Turkish political history. This suggests that the main driving force in the changing design and forms of memorialisation have been largely socio-political. Official narratives and imaginings of the Great Offensive revolve around the figure of Mustafa Kemal, the founding myth of the Turkish Republic and the concepts of martyrdom and national unity. These compromise a memory regime in the area of the Great Offensive. Within this regime, the area of the Great Offensive is treated as sacred ground washed with the blood of martyrs and named after the founding father of Turkey. One may argue that sacralisation of the Great Offensive is a completely top-down act of the Turkish state. I would disagree, as I believe the present-day status quo is a product of a reciprocal relationship between the state and the public. From the fighting on Gallipoli, we can trace the quest for searching for a saviour as a miracle amongst the Turkish public (Atalay, 2019). The underlying reason behind this sacralisation is the fact that the Great Offensive was a defining moment for the Turkish people, after ten years of endless war and defeats from the Balkan Wars to the Great Offensive. I cannot assume that such a memory regime would last 100 years without the support and participation of the public. The 30 August ceremonies that we discuss in the next chapter illustrate this point more explicitly.

Notes



1 The wording of this statement matches Afet İnan’s writings on Zafertepe (İnan, 2007). Her endeavours towards the development of the area are acknowledged in the resolution by Junta members. 2 On 30 August 1948, a handful of soil from Zafertepe was collected by Afet Inan to be placed in the grave of Mustafa Kemal (İnan, 2007). 3 Some images/photographs that were taken on Kocatepe Hill were developed in a barn in Uşak on 2 September. The remaining negatives were handed over to a Greek photographer in Izmir for development after the recapture of the city by the Turkish forces. These negatives did not survive the Great Fire of Izmir (Otyam, 1960). 4 Martyrdom is a loaded term in Turkey. It is intertwined with a wide range of ideologies and beliefs, including nationalism, Islam, democracy and revolution

Imaginings of the Great Offensive 101







(Yanık and Hisarlıoğlu, 2019; Yılmaz and Ertürk, 2021). The Turkish Republic identifies martyrdom by law (Bakanlar Kurulu, 2016). The sites that I discuss in this section are regulated by this law. 5 Led by Topal Osman, the head of Mustafa Kemal’s bodyguard unit, the 47th Volunteer Regiment was compromised of militias from Giresun wearing the traditional all-black dress of the Black Sea coastal region. It was one of the most effective and fierce units of the Turkish Army (Jowett and Walsh, 2015). 6 Similar burial mounds were recorded in the area stretching between the provinces of Eskisehir, Ankara and Kütahya, where the Phrygian kingdom was influential between the ninth and seventh centuries BC (Sivas Tüfekçi and Sivas, 2016). 7 Parallels can be drawn with the re-using of burial mounds in France and Belgium for First World War memorials (Miles, 2016, p. 74).

8

The Day of the Turk Commemoration of the Great Offensive

‘All of us were making room in the train to take one more passenger and growing impatient to kneel down in front of the Unknown Soldier’. (An Unnamed Turkish Reporter’s reflections from the 1942 Victory Day Commemoration – Vatan, 1942)

Beyond the messages that they are intended to convey, the monuments and martyrs’ cemeteries in the area of the Great Offensive function as sites of commemoration. Starting from 26 August until 16 September, ceremonies are held at almost every settlement and landmark that lie between Kocatepe in the Afyon province and Çeşme in the Izmir province. These annual ceremonies create a pattern of movement that recreate the direction of the Turkish offensive from Kocatepe to Çeşme. Most of these ceremonies are organised to celebrate the liberation of each settlement from the Greek forces in 1922, while only a few commemorate the fallen Turkish soldiers and conflicts in specific areas. Rarely visited monuments, cemeteries and towns liven up between these dates; exhibitions and concerts are held in front of monuments, while prayers are said and speeches delivered at cemeteries. Apart from those held in the cities of İzmir, Afyon and Uşak, most of these ceremonies are low-key events in which wreaths are laid by local politicians and administrators in front of the monuments and speeches are delivered to a small audience. Amongst these ceremonies, the 30 August Victory Day is celebrated nationwide as the day of the Turkish Armed Forces. While the most elaborate ceremonies are held in Ankara, Zafertepe and its surrounding area are the epicentre of Victory Day ceremonies in the region of the Great Offensive. By investigating past and present Victory Day ceremonies, the chief purpose of this chapter is to illustrate how both the state and the public imagine and re-enact the Battle of Dumlupınar each year. Following a brief on the history of 30 August ceremonies, I will cast a glance at the events of the 2021 ceremonies. These reflections are based on my and Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy’s participant observations as a proactive aspect of interdisciplinary modern conflict archaeology. DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-8

The Day of the Turk 103

National and Local Discourses In 1924, high-ranking state officials of the young Turkish Republic attended the first-ever commemorative ceremony held in the area of the Battle of Dumlupınar. President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Prime Minister İsmet İnönü and Chief of Staff Fevzi Çakmak were amongst the members of the Turkish High Command that attended. The opening speech, delivered by Fevzi Çakmak, covered technical aspects of the battle, after which they proceeded at Zafertepe with the groundbreaking ceremony for the Martyr Soldier Monument. Additional speeches were also made by Speaker of the Turkish Parliament Fethi Okyar and by delegates from various universities and unions such as Istanbul University, the Teachers Union, the Sports Clubs Union, the Bar Association and the Red Crescent. That the Battlefield of Dumlupınar was to be a key component in the young Turkish Republic’s nationalist-reformist agenda was made clear by the attendance of delegates from a wide range of organisations. Mustafa Kemal clearly reveals this intention during the ceremony’s final speech: It is obvious that the new Turkish State’s, the young Turkish Republic’s foundation was consolidated here. Its eternal life was crowned here. The Turkish blood that flowed on this site, the souls of martyrs hovering in this sky, are the eternal protectors of our state and republic. The Martyr Soldier Monument will represent those souls, their veteran companions, the devoted and heroic Turkish people. This monument will be a reminder of the Turk’s fire, bayonet, strike, force and fury in his/her willpower to those who set their eyes on the Turkish land. Among all the various aspects of this great victory, the Turkish people’s unconditional takeover of their own sovereignty is the most important and greatest one… Yet, until the day following this great victory, there was a person who held the title of caliph and sultan and a position called caliphate and sultanate in Istanbul. But, after this victory, the people brought those positions and their owners to their deserved end. (Sayılır, 2014) Mustafa Kemal linked the rapid implementation of economic, political and social reforms that were taking place in 1924 to the struggle the Turkish people had faced during the Battle of Dumlupınar. However, not all those in attendance took kindly to or agreed with such remarks. Kazım Karabekir, the War of Independence’s Eastern Front Commander, mentions his early opposition towards the first attempt of war memorialisation in his memoirs. His thoughts regarding the Martyr Soldier Monument’s groundbreaking ceremony can be found in his book Struggle of the Pashas: ‘Fevzi Çakmak read his speech. The War of Independence began with the Battle of Inönü and culminated with the Dumlupınar victory. He made no mention of the Eastern Front or the other fronts. In conclusion, this speech also ended with praises to the Ghazi’ (Karabekir, 2020).

104  The Day of the Turk The initial arguments over the narratives of the Turkish War of Independence and the Battle of Dumlupınar’s place in it are clearly marked by Karabekir’s observations at the groundbreaking ceremony: Istanbul University Rector İsmail Hakkı remarked on the entire nation’s efforts and sacrifices, and he expressed his gratitude to commanders who conducted the Battle of Independence without mentioning their names. I saw that the truthful words of this person were disliked by the Ghazi, thus, after a while this man of truth was dismissed from his position! Fevzi Pasha’s monopolisation of the War of Independence— incompletely—to the Western Front was liked so much, that for years to come this principal was repeated by some of our sycophantic men of letters and historians. (Karabekir, 2020) Others, such as Ali İhsan Pasha and Halide Edip who were key figures in the War of Independence, also left their own accounts of the war (Adıvar, 1928; Sabis, 1993). However, during the republic’s early years, there was a wariness of being put under surveillance or being forced into exile; consequently, most opposition figures were unable to openly express their dissatisfaction with the way the war was being recounted and memorialised. The transition of the Dumlupınar Battlefield into one of Turkey’s prominent political and public icons was marked by the 1924 groundbreaking ceremony at Zafertepe, and in 1926 the Turkish Parliament decreed that the 30 August would henceforth be known as the Victory Day of the Turkish Armed Forces. Beyond its historical significance, the 30 August is also the day on which colonels and generals of the Turkish forces are assigned their new ranks and positions. Until the mid-1930s, celebrations had a rather commemorative format in which speeches and poetry were read by politicians, villagers, commanders and university students on the site of the battle and in other Turkish cities (Toros, 1937; Vatan, 1942; İnan, 2007). During the presidency of İsmet İnönü, between 1938 and 1941, some modifications could be observed in the way that the Great Offensive was commemorated, both at the sites of the Offensive and in the newspapers of the period. The cover pages of Turkish newspapers were often adorned with images of İnönü and Mustafa Kemal standing side by side (Akşam, 1939; Son Posta, 1941; Son Telgraf, 1942). Photos of İnönü on Kocatepe on the first day of the offensive were published alongside that of İlhan Tem’s renowned photograph ‘Atatürk on Kocatepe’ (Akşam, 1939). The 29 August was declared as Inönü Day by Afyon’s municipality to commemorate the stay of İnönü, Mustafa Kemal and Fevzi Çakmak in the city of Afyon prior to the Battle of Dumlupınar. The municipality’s point of reference for declaring İnönü Day was the bronze relief featuring İnönü, Çakmak and Mustafa Kemal on the Afyon Victory Monument. The bronze relief was discussed as verification of their stay in the city (Akşam, 1941; Cumhuriyet, 1941).

The Day of the Turk 105 By 1950, with the end of the CHP’s Single Party Regime and that of Inönü’s presidency, images of İnönü disappeared from newspapers published on 30 August. Now images of Mustafa Kemal in his full military attire, as well as colourful images of Turkish soldiers fighting in the Korean War, adorned the newspapers’ front covers (Zafer, 1950; Akşam, 1951). The election held on 14 May 1950 that ended in victory for the Democrat Party is presented as ‘the highest point’ that the 30 August victory ever reached (Fenik, 1950). Victory Day celebrations became more extravagant after the 1960 coup d’état, with larger military parades (Hurriyet, 1960; Yeni Gün, 1960). In Ankara, the celebrations turned into a showcase of the Turkish Armed Forces’ might and cutting-edge technology, and today the most elaborate parades and ceremonies are still staged in Ankara. Those in Dumlupınar are, by comparison, much more low-key. Here the parades are far less grand and sporadically attended by opposition party leaders. Throughout the year, Dumlupınar’s parade ground and other facilities are poorly maintained, and in 2015, a local campaign called ‘Safeguard Dumlupınar’ urged the government and opposition leaders to attend events held in the area and to ‘put an end to this remissness’ (Kütahya Net Haber, 2015). When compared to the battlefields of Gallipoli, Dumlupınar’s inadequate maintenance and lack of visitor amenities have caused some journals and newspapers to refer to the Battle of Dumlupınar as ‘the forgotten battle of Turkey’ (Şabanoğlu, 2015; Dündar, 2018). Climbers, trekkers, bikers and youth organisations have, in recent years, organised visits to Dumlupınar from various cities throughout Turkey (Cumhuriyet, 2008; Şabanoğlu, 2015). Some are politically driven, and their statements and events contain both Kemalist and religious overtones. There are disparities in the local population’s perspectives regarding Victory Day celebrations. Victory Day is considered by many to be the liveliest day in the area when festivities and concerts are hosted by Dumlupınar municipality and attended by residents from surrounding villages. In contrast, these performances and celebrations are seen by several local interviewees as being disrespectful to those soldiers who lost their lives. To them, it should be a day of mourning and those attending should show their respect to the deceased through communal prayer and more solemn behaviour and events. Even the type of music performed can become a point of contention. Some spectators found the Turkish pop genre to be too shallow and joyful for such an event. They expect the municipality to invite musicians and singers who are ‘aware of the importance of this region and have a strong ideologyint28’. For instance, Anatolian rock singer Haluk Levent was considered as more appropriate for such an event, as his reinterpretation of the Izmir March is widely popular throughout Turkey (Hackwill, 2017). The march is about the liberation of Izmir in 1922 and praises Mustafa Kemal with these lyrics: ‘Long live Mustafa Kemal Pasha. Your name will be written on a gemstone’.

106  The Day of the Turk

The Changing Patterns in Ceremonies Changing patterns in the way that ceremonies have been held have defined the course of those that have followed over the past years. Until the early 1990s, visitors and government officials would arrive at the ceremonies onboard a train from Afyon that had been covered with Turkish flags (İnan, 2007). They would pay a visit to the Yıldırım Kemal Martyrs Cemetery, disembark at the village of Selkisaray and from there board military trucks heading to Zafertepe. Today, the place where Mustafa Kemal disembarked in 1924 from the train for the groundbreaking ceremony of the Martyr Flag Bearer Monument is marked by a large signboard. Elderly villagers of Selkisaray and Yıldırımkemal recall past celebrations with an air of nostalgia: ‘the important figures of the day and the large number of visitors that would come to our station. The cavalry units passed through our village and asked directions to Zafertepe. Back then there were no proper land routes or signposts to Zafertepe, horsemen would cross through our fieldsint29’. Once the road between Afyon and Çalköy had been developed, visitors no longer considered the railway as a viable option. The reduction of their village’s role in the ceremonies has displeased the villagers of Yıldırımkemal. They see the ceremonies that are held at Yıldırım Kemal Martyrs Cemetery as a modest event: ‘the officials come here for a few hours, they deliver speeches, pay their respects to the soldiers and leaveint30’. Yıldırımkemal is not an exceptional case; other towns and settlements in the area of the Great Offensive are also seeking to be recognised and visited by states people (see chapter ten). In several interviews with the locals of Dumlupınar, Allıören and Yıldırımkemal, I was told that the way that the 30 August celebrations were held was quite different up until the early 2000s. A large number of soldiers, veterans and government officials would hold ceremonies and parades on the premises of Zafertepe and in Dumlupınar town centre. No civilians would be allowed to enter the Victory Monument until the briefing about the Battle of Dumlupınar and the flag raising ceremony were over. According to the locals, the military and state’s reasoning behind this was that civilians were not capable of understanding the battle’s history. The locals remember this policy of segregation as a degrading experience: ‘They preferred to explain the history of the Battle to the VIP’s instead of the thousands waiting for them at the parade groundint31’. The parade ground was designated as an area where civilians could watch the parading soldiers and listen to statesmen delivering their speeches. As a backdrop to these official ceremonies, the locals would gather at a fairground set on the outskirts of Zafertepe. Here, vendors from nearby cities would open stands and the fairground would perform an important economic function. Back then, most locals did not have the means to shop at the large bazaars of nearby cities due to financial difficulties and the remoteness of their villages, so the fairground brought a wide range of goods and products to local people at a time when they received their harvest revenues. The

The Day of the Turk 107 men of the village would also spend part of their income on games of chance, such as three-card monte, kick and score, ring toss and various shooting games. Most middle-aged interviewees recalled the Victory Days of their childhood as an extraordinary event within the hardships of village life. In the morning, they would go shopping, and then watch the soldiers parading with gigantic tanks after which they headed back to their homes with the Afyon dairy cream delights their fathers had bought for them. According to local interviewees, commemoration ceremonies have changed considerably over the past 20 years; civilians are now allowed onto the parade ground and the role of the military in the ceremonies has gradually reduced since the 2016 coup attempt. The locals interviewed had mixed opinions about the ceremonies’ demilitarisation, one of the major significant changes that has taken place in Dumlupınar. In the past, the honour escorts of the army, navy and air force would parade with their equipment in front of the Dumlupınar First Goal Monument once the ceremonies were over in Zafertepe. Dumlupınar town centre was chosen as the more viable choice for public displays of weaponry, as there were not many facilities in Zafertepe to host a large number of visitors and soldiers under the blistering August sun. A large group of Dumlupınar’s locals interviewed on 30 August 2021 were looking towards the concert stage that was being set up in front of the First Goal Monument. The concert was Turkish pop music organised by the Dumlupınar Municipality. Some were disgruntled with this scene and said that the military ‘would shake the ground’ and they had been proud to see them in their town. But one of them also said that: ‘after the coup attempt, a considerable number of local folk felt discontented with the display of weapons in their town centreint32’. I view this statement as a clear reflection of the trauma and shock that the 2016 coup attempt generated across Turkey. The coup plotters deployed tanks in the streets of Istanbul and Ankara and bombed targets including The Grand National Assembly. Civilians stood against the plotters, and a large number either died or were injured in the streets. Some saw the lessening role of the military in the ceremonies as a pacification of the Turkish Armed Forces by the government: ‘the Russians display their entire military arsenal with ease on their Victory Day, I cannot understand why our government is troubled with our soldiers marching in publicint33’. The decline in the number of wreaths that are laid out in front of the First Goal Monument also caught their attention: ‘In the last few years, no other government representatives laid wreaths apart from the district government and the mayor of Dumlupınar int32’. They see these wreaths as a token of prominence given to their town by different institutions of the state and any decrease in their number is viewed as an omen towards the future of such ceremonies. The number of governmental attendees is also closely monitored by the locals: ‘Members of both the government in power and the opposition parties attend ceremonies at Söğüt and Domaniç where the Ottomans rose to

108  The Day of the Turk power, but they hardly attend the ceremonies in Dumlupınar where the foundations of the Turkish Republic were laidint33’. They said that the last time that they saw the top brass of the state in Dumlupınar town centre was in 1972 when President Cevdey Sunay, Prime Minister Ferit Melen and the chief of General Staff Semih Sancar attended the opening ceremony of the First Goal Monument. Local interviewees’ often made comparisons between the ways that the sites of the Great Offensive and the battlefields of Gallipoli are treated by the state. From their point of view, the battlefields of Gallipoli are much better maintained, and ceremonies held there are more highly regarded by the government. Locals of the conflict zone tend to give the Battle of Dumlupınar the highest regard amongst the various wars that the Turkish forces have fought: ‘They always say that Gallipoli is impassable, I do not deny that it was a victory for us but following the Ottoman surrender the British passed the Gallipoli straits. It was a war we fought for the Germans not for usint23’. The locals of Allırören and Çalköy had a different take on the military’s decreasing role in the ceremonies. On the one hand, they mentioned that there was overwhelming discipline on Zafertepe when the military was in charge: ‘Civilians were not allowed to walk freely, sit wherever they wanted or to have a picnic in the premises of Zafertepe. Now, visitors can wander freely and take photos of the aerobatic shows and parading soldiersint34’. On the other hand, almost all interviewees stated that the grandeur and dignity of the ceremonies were fading away as the military eased their rules. The locals see both the good and bad within this new status quo. On the bright side, they thought that civilians and soldiers are now more integrated. On the downside, they believed that commemorative ceremonies are losing their essence as the prominence of the Turkish Armed Forces continues to lose its ground in the ceremonies. What has instead replaced the role of the military in these ceremonies is puzzling to most of the locals I spoke to. Some believe that the Battle of Dumlupınar has become a mouthpiece for politicians, but there are no concrete steps being taken by the state on the ground: ‘The politicians are always talking about Dumlupınar but are not giving the necessary importance and pomp to its site. The slogans like “from Kocatepe to Dumlupınar” are being recited on each Victory Day but, in reality, the ceremonies are losing their grandeur and being undermined by the stateint35’. The politicians that attended the ceremonies in 2021 also came under fire during these debates. For instance, some interviewees from Allıören were disturbed by a Member of Parliament who sat and drank tea with them instead of sitting in the protocol area throughout the ceremonies. Such displays of sincerity were seen by the villagers as a neglectful act. Some believe that the elitist legacy of the ceremonies is still alive and that the present-day Victory Day ceremonies lack substance: ‘No one will return from future ceremonies with a knowledge of history, the ruling elite and officers are the only ones that are seen as worthy of such an effortint36’.

The Day of the Turk 109

Observations from the 2021 Victory Day Ceremonies The debates and conflicting views amongst the locals led Gizem KahramanAksoy and I to attend and observe the ceremonies in 2021. We sought to discover what has replaced the presence of the Turkish military during the ceremonies and, above all, to get an understanding of the most recent situation. Our journey started from the city of Afyon on the morning of 30 August. While driving through the villages, we encountered houses decorated with Turkish flags and pictures of Atatürk. We constantly came across army trucks rushing to the parade ground and tractors carrying locals. As we approached Zafertepe, our route was blocked by a fairground filled with vendor’ stands and cars parked in the middle of a newly harvested yellow plain. The smoke of Afyon’s renowned fermented sausage and the cries of many vendors filled the air. A wide variety of items, including shaking-head dog figurines, garments, kitchenware, Turkish flags, balloons in the form of cartoon characters and more, were being sold (Figure 8.1). Flags and hats that would appeal to customers with different political views were also on sale. Kalpaks1 bearing the signature of Atatürk were lined next to fez that bore the slogan: We are the grandchildren of the Ottomans. Handheld flags featuring the image of Atatürk hung alongside flags bearing the Ottoman coat of arms and the image of President Erdoğan. Local women were in their most ostentatious

Figure 8.1  The fairground on the outskirts of Zafertepe Source:  © Can Aksoy 2021.

110  The Day of the Turk attire, most wearing gleaming salwars and colourful head scarfs. Meanwhile, the local men were wearing shirts and dark trousers, often topped off by a cap bearing the name of various farming industry companies. As we walked towards the hilltop, we came across the stands of various state institutions, companies and societies lining the road leading to the parade ground. The company stands were distributing tea, soft drinks and ice cream to the visitors free of charge. The societies’ stands offered a number of activities such as target practice with traditional composite bows, games for kids, and a short play on the role of women in the War of Independence was enacted by a theatrical company. In the government stands, models of Turkish made satellites were on display and another was selling souvenirs of a Turkish solo aerobatic show to support the Turkish armed forces. These stands clearly reflected the civilian-centred approach to ceremonies and, perhaps, the adoption by state agents of some aspects of the local’s way of commemorating the battle. The hilltop of Zafertepe was where the conventional forms of commemoration would be carried out. A seated area was organised for the protocol, headed by the Industry and Technology Minister, Mustafa Varank. The locals we spoke with were largely dissatisfied with the representation of the government by only one minister. While we were there, the dignitaries had yet to arrive, and speeches were being delivered by some local politicians to a small audience. Meanwhile, two soldiers were doing final rehearsals for the parade under the shadow of the wreath-adorned Victory Monument. It was surprising to us to see visitors climbing over the blocks of the monument and taking photos inside the monument, as this was once considered the ‘inner sanctum’ of the ceremonies (Figure 8.2). As we made our way down the hill, we stopped by the exhibition area, which we had always found empty throughout the year. Soldiers in War of Independence era uniforms were guarding the entrance under the watchful eye of officers in full regalia. Photographs of the Great Offensive and Turkish commanders were on display in two halls of the exhibition area. Another hall was set aside for the display of War of Independence era cavalry lances, pistols, machine guns and rifles, which are in the custody of the Army headquarters in Kütahya. We noticed that most of the visitors were attracted to this particular exhibition and that they were bombarding the guarding officers with questions. The military officers were responsive and explained vividly how these weapons were used and how their garrison in Kütahya kept them in working condition. To us, this showed a genuine interest from the Turkish Armed Forces in engaging with the public. As we headed to the parade ground, we saw a huge crowd and the atmosphere was rather carnival like. The National Youth Centre groups in their white shirts were marching from the bus park waving signboards bearing the names of the cities they had come from. Veterans of past wars in Korea and Cyprus were wearing their medals and kalpaks, and as they marched together, the crowd applauded and cheered them loudly. Cyclists wearing

The Day of the Turk 111

Figure 8.2  Soldiers rehearsing for the parade under the shadow of Victory Monument Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2021.

shirts bearing the names of renowned male and female figures of the Turkish resistance showed up behind a truck playing Turkish marches through a megaphone. Meanwhile, Ottoman Military Band members in their ostentatious uniforms were heading to the ice cream stands before the ceremonies began. Within all this fanfare, some visitors were proudly riding horses that could be hired to take a short ride around the parade ground before the ceremonies began (Figure 8.3). The Youth Centre groups bearing the slogan ‘from Kocatepe to Zafertepe’ stood out in the crowd (Figure 8.4). This scene mirrored the transformation of the Victory Day Ceremony on Zafertepe from that of a local and militaristic event to a more diverse public event. The Youth Centres are state institutions sprawled across all Turkey’s provinces. They admit members aged 18 to 28 and offer a wide range of activities, including sports, arts and excursions, free of charge. Some of these excursions are organised to places and events that are expected to evoke a national feeling amongst its members. Kocatepe Hill, Zafertepe and Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery are amongst such sites. The chosen 99 youth group members were dispatched to Kocatepe Hill from Ankara by train. The intention of their particular excursion organisation was publicised as the re-enactment of Mustafa Kemal’s 1924 train journey to Dumlupınar (Yeni Şafak, 2021). They attended the Morning Prayer on Kocatepe and were served wheat soup that the Turkish

112  The Day of the Turk

Figure 8.3  The parade ground Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2021.

Figure 8.4  Afyon Youth Centre members marching in their soldier uniforms Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2021.

The Day of the Turk 113 soldiers had also eaten prior to the Offensive in 1922. On Zafertepe, the so-called Victory Camp was set up for attendees from the Kütahya Youth Centre. Buses packed with other Youth Centre members arrived on the hill around midday. All local interviewees viewed the Youth Centres’ participation as a positive and constructive act on the part of the government. Yet, they also claimed that these groups were ignorant and uninformed regarding the Great Offensive and its sites. According to some of the locals, they are a vulnerable audience for the ‘political propaganda’ of the speakers. The Youth Centre members with whom we spoke underlined that they had voluntarily attended the ceremonies and had not been indoctrinated with any particular political ideology. Some said that they have been attending the ceremonies for the past three years. Each Youth Centre seemingly followed a different plan. The Isparta Youth Centre members said that they had been given a guided tour of monuments in the vicinity of Dumlupınar. The Eskişehir Youth Centre members claimed that they had not been well-informed about the Battle of Dumlupınar and had not visited any other sites apart from Zafertepe: ‘We did not grasp anything about the battle or its monuments, we came here with an empty mind and will leave here with an empty mindint37’. Overwhelmed by the crowds and the speeches, Gizem and I encountered members of Eskişehir Youth Centre lying on the grass far away from the parade ground. They complained that their centres are always organising trips to the events like this: ‘They dismissed us after our parade was over, our centre has been dragging us from one ceremony to another int38’. The purpose of such excursions to these sites of national commemoration is publicised as engraining ‘the spirit of the Great Offensive’ into future generations, thus ensuring the future of these ceremonies. The continuous attendance of some of the Youth Centre members suggests that the programme seems to reach its aim to a certain degree, yet the complaints and dissatisfaction of some members suggest that some see it as an imposition and not as an inspiring act. The official ceremony started atop Zafertepe with a briefing given by a military officer to the protocol that sat in front of the marble tactical map of the battle. The briefing was televised to the audience on the parade ground. As the officer pointed out a location on the map, a smoke canister placed on that site was ignited. The stone numbers on the hills were also referred to in the briefing as a reference point for the audience. Some local interviewees from Allıören found this briefing to be elitist, confusing and one-sided: ‘Nothing was said about what our ancestors went through during the Greek invasion and the Battle of Dumlupınar int39’. They observed that most visitors struggled to understand why some hills were marked by numbers and asked them about it. One of the major aspects of the celebration that the locals criticised was the use of smoke canisters instead of artillery as was done in past ceremonies. They viewed this as proof that the dignity and splendour of the ceremonies were fading.

114  The Day of the Turk After the briefing, the highest-ranking state officials walked to the parade ground accompanied by the Ottoman military band and military officers. Meanwhile, the presenters called out to visitors to upload the photos they had taken during the ceremonies with the following hashtag: ‘write your name in history’ (i.e., tarihe adını yaz). Upon the arrival of state officials and politicians, the ceremonies commenced with a short theatre play about a Turkish family’s sacrifices and endurance during the war. The soldier uniforms worn by the actors were not of the period of the War of Independence but that of the First World War. Following the National Anthem and Quranic verses read by an award-winning hafiz, a short film produced by the Ministry of Youth and Sport was shown to the crowd. The video began with the commemoration of ‘martyrs from the Battle of Manzikert to the present day’ and Atatürk. At one point, images from the 2016 coup attempt, a stock exchange, US dollars, the Turkish natural gas drilling operations in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Hagia Sophia’s new interior as a mosque were shown in the film, while the narrator praised the Turkish people by saying that ‘they overcame games and plots played on the Turkish Republic for years. Even though the form of these plots has changed from time to time, they said that this flag will never be lowered, these adhans will never be silenced, and this nation will never kneel down …’. Subsequent speeches delivered by states people were in line with the video’s overall tone. Mustafa Varank compared the 2016 coup attempt with the Battle of Dumlupınar and said: ‘Dear guests, do not think that our struggle for independence and the future is over. On the contrary, its form has changed, and it has become more difficult’. He later referred to terror attacks, economic warfare and proxy wars and how the government had so far countered these attacks within ‘the perception of the Great Offensive’ by investing in the Turkish defence industry, in particular UAV’s. In the interviews, I noted that the minister’s speech was not received well by some of the locals. They suggested that the politicians were coming to the site of the battle with a political agenda and not for the memory of the Battle of Dumlupınar: ‘Each year the speeches are becoming more and more politically charged, they are imposing their own views on the 2016 coup attempt and Turkey’s struggles with foreign powers from a political standpoint, not from a solid historical ground like we have hereint40’. From this vantage point, such speeches are seen as diluting the importance of the Battle of Dumlupınar by linking it to the present government’s matters in and outside of Turkey: ‘He delivered a speech about national technology ventures and the 2016 coup attempt, but he did not talk about the Great Offensive in the location where the foundations of the Turkish Republic were laidint41’. The underlying reason behind the criticism of these speeches is ‘the matter of survival rhetoric’ of the government, which has been propagated in recent years (see chapter four). Award ceremonies for youth poetry, running contests and a short concert were held after these speeches. Such contests of poetry and running

The Day of the Turk 115 are generally seen as a progressive act by the local visitors with whom I spoke. They are seen as new ways of attracting the public’s attention to the ceremonies held in the conflict zone. Even though these contests were largely viewed in a positive light, they left some visitors with a feeling of absence: ‘Such contests are good, but there was nothing in the ceremonies that underline the meaning and significance of the 30 August. At least an acknowledged historian could enlighten the publicint42’. The parade of soldiers, veterans, oxcarts and youth centres then followed, after which the ceremonies concluded with an F-16 jet fighter Turkish solo aerobatic show. From the numerous questions about the time of the show, we inferred that this is what most visitors were waiting to see. The locals we talked to consider this show to be the only remaining highlight of the elaborate military parades of the past, and they are concerned that it will not be in the programme of future ceremonies.

In Search for the Spirit of Dumlupınar ‘The 30 August ceremonies have lost their spirit, we are not going forward, and we are just trying to stop the ceremonies from going downhillint33’. Thus said one of the local interviewees at Zafertepe on Victory Day 2021. Upon seeing such a wide variety of activities on Zafertepe, ranging from a marathon to the aerobatic show, we were puzzled about the so-called spirit of Dumlupınar. One wonders if the 30 August Ceremony is about the Battle of Dumlupınar or a different matter? It was hard to parse out whether the ceremonies were about entertainment, youth, the military or even free treats. Entertainment has always been an integral element of the 30 August holidays for the local community. When asked whether the free treats and the aerobatic shows are much needed to encourage people to attend, most found this question provocative and emphasised that they attended the ceremonies out of national feelings and to pay their respects to the fallen Turkish soldiers. The local interviewees pointed out that visitors are still flooding to Zafertepe each Victory Day despite the fact that there are no more gambling activities or pompous military parades being held there: ‘No one would come here from far away purely for entertainment and free treats. People come here willingly, as they all know that it is a site of a great victory and it is where the foundations of this country were laidint43’. The free treats are not seen as a motivating aspect at all: ‘We do not see the present activities as much of an entertainment, what we see is a bunch of private companies offering free treats under the persuasion of the governmentint44’. Despite these statements, it is obvious that there has always been an aspect of entertainment involved. As one of the local interviewees put it: ‘What the 30 August used to mean to me was gambling in the fairground and Afyon dairy delights in the houseint45’. The sharp divide that used to exist between the official ceremony and the fairground on the outskirts of Zafertepe is now more blurred. Our observations during this ceremony and

116  The Day of the Turk the programmes we reviewed of those that took place in the last decade suggest that state actors have adopted a more civilian-centred form of commemoration in recent years. In particular, the Youth Centres are seemingly chosen to fill the void left by the military. So, what is the essence of the 30 August Ceremonies in the twenty-first century? It seems to be evolving from a former militaristic commemoration into a recreational activity. There is a Turkish National Day and Youth and Sports Day, which commemorates the landing of Mustafa Kemal at Samsun on 19 May 1919. So why should the 30 August fall into the same line as the Youth and Sports Day? The Youth Centres attend most official ceremonies across Turkey; therefore, there is nothing exceptional in their attendance of the 30 August ceremonies. As the role of the Turkish Armed Forces in Turkish politics and the public view has been redefined dramatically since the 2016 coup attempt, the events on the ceremonial grounds are seemingly diversified and have become more fluid. The civilian and militaristic aspects of the ceremonies are now more intertwined with each other. In light of these observations, I believe the ceremonies are at the stage where the Battle of Dumlupınar is no longer considered to be the most prominent victory in the modern history of Turkey, and it is instead presented as a significant part of the history of Turks in Anatolia (see chapter three). The political rhetoric about the Battle of Dumlupınar is shifting as much as the ceremony itself. Politicians and states people have been linking the Great Offensive with events that have taken place since 1924. In 2021, the Great Offensive and the Battle of Dumlupınar were presented as an important phase in the Turkish people’s ‘struggle for survival’. Both politicians and locals alike talk about the spirit of the Great Offensive; however, their understanding of this spirit is apparently different. For the locals, it is about their ancestor’s role in the battle as much as it is about the splendour of the Turkish military parades. To their end, the spirit of the Great Offensive is fading away or, perhaps, is already long gone. For the politicians, the spirit is very much alive; it is about the future of Turkey in security matters and the indoctrination of future generations (Bahçeli, 2015). The locals’ soul searching for the ceremonies relies on their past experiences. In the case of states people and politicians, the Battle of Dumlupınar’s spirit can be found within their own rhetoric and aspirations.

Note

1 The kalpak is a high-crowned headgear originally made of lambswool; nowadays, it is mostly made of synthetic fibres. Kalpaks were worn by the officers of the GNA forces (Jowett and Walsh, 2015, pp. 40–41).

9

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor

‘Nations rise over the foundations of their historical assets, the more solid and definite the foundation is, insomuch that nation could look to its future with confidence’. (İnan, 2007)

Afet İnan proposed the first comprehensive action plan for the area of the Great Offensive in 1949. On the whole, this plan envisaged the erection of monuments and landscaping at Kocatepe, Zafertepe and Dumlupınar town centre; the establishment of museums in the Turkish Command Headquarters of Afyon city centre and on the outskirts of Zafertepe; the construction of a parade ground at Zafertepe and the establishment of a National Park around Zafertepe (İnan, 2007). From her perspective, history books and memories of the war are not nearly enough to keep the public’s interest in the Great Offensive alive, as societies tend to always be in a state of flux. She viewed the proposed monuments and museums in the area of the Great Offensive as an assurance for the future of the Turkish nation and a way of materialising the oral histories and writings of the nation. According to İnan, this is what ‘civilized nations’ do. Visualising the events of the Great Offensive would feed the visual memories of the people and lead new generations to express their gratitude to past generations. In İnan’s words, once people see these monuments and museums: ‘they would see material proof of the valuing of our national history’s events’ (İnan, 2007) and ‘they would be alone with the memories of the Turkish War of Independence and acquire knowledge of those days’ (İnan, 2007). Her plan was gradually realised in the following years by various state agents, and it formed the basis of the present-day visitor experience in the Commander in Chief National Park, which was established in 1981. Here, we scrutinise whether these objectives were ever met and reflect on how the decisions and actions of government bodies continue to shape the present-day visitor experience in the National Park.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-9

118  Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor

Two Different Worlds: The Past- and Present-Day Settings of the Great Offensive Before we investigate the impact of official policies on the visitor’s experience, we should briefly survey the Commander in Chief National Park. Covering an area of approximately 35,000 ha, the National Park is comprised of two main sectors: the Kocatepe Sector covering the area between Kocatepe and Çiğiltepe in the Afyon province, and the Dumlupınar Sector that roughly covers the entire area of the Battle of Dumlupınar, spreading across the Dumlupınar and Altıntaş districts of the Kütahya province. A management strategy was put forward and partially implemented for these sectors by the National Park authority (Orman Bakanlığı Milli Parklar Dairesi, 1990). Whether these strategies were successful or not is not the concern here; however, their impact on the local people living in these sectors was considerable and, as often claimed, devastating (see chapter ten). Here, the centre of focus is on the impact of the National Park’s policies and the existing landmarks on visitors. Visitors are discouraged from accessing a substantial proportion of the conflict zone on the grounds that the area is both a natural and historical reserve. Wandering far from the landmarks, the settlement and the main roads when not in the company of a local or authorised guide could place a regular visitor at risk of legal action. In such a restrictive environment, landmarks, including monuments, museums and cemeteries, are the only places left to visit. Even though no official trail is indicated in the maps disturbed by the national parks, the distribution of landmarks within the Kocatepe sector creates a visitor trail that roughly matches that of the main line of the Turkish Offensive between 26 and 27 August 1922 (Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Park Müdürlüğü, 2021). In the case of the Dumlupınar sector, most landmarks are concentrated around the road between Dumlupınar town and the Çalköy villages, an offshoot of the Izmir-Afyon main road-railway line. This area roughly matches the frontline between the Turkish and Greek forces on the night of 29 August. If one compares the distribution landmarks in the Dumlupınar sector to the battle maps, it becomes obvious that the present-day visitor experience in this sector is largely detached from what the Turkish and Greek soldiers went through on 30 August 1922. As a single-day field battle that started in the early hours of 30 August and continued until the late hours of the day, the Battle of Dumlupınar was a race against the clock. Five divisions of the Greek Army were surrounded by the Turkish Army in approximately 12 km2 of muddy terrain encompassing the villages of Çalköy, Allıören, Yüylük, Yeşildere and Saraycık. The only open route for the Greek forces was the narrow and forested river valley of Kızıltaş. The Turkish forces tried to defeat the entire Greek force in the area while all the Greek divisions were trying to retreat via the Kızıltaş Valley. More than 40,000 soldiers were on the battlefield on that day, coordinated through a

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor 119 complex network of communication (Niş, 1968). During the first stage, the divisions were directed to their scheduled positions at night with the help of locals and piles of stones placed on their route by vanguard units. When the battle started, division commanders were in constant contact with the commanders-in-chief through field telephones and wireless sets positioned on high observation points(Niş, 1968; Niş and Söker, 1995). In addition, messengers on horseback were also employed. Overall, this communication network banded together soldiers and commanders during the conflict and shaped the course of events. In its current condition, to a visitor who is unaware of the locations and sequence of the battle, it would be difficult to recognise that this place was once a battlefield, let alone comprehend any other details related to the war itself. The contrast between what the present-day landmarks present to visitors and the actual conditions of the conflict apparently do not pose a major issue in the eyes of state agents and local administrations, as ‘image development is a two-way process between the observer and the observed, it is possible to strengthen the image either by symbolic devices, by the retraining of the perceiver or by reshaping one’s surroundings’ (Lynch, 1960). Recalling the motives behind the construction of landmarks in the area since 1924, it is fair to state that the image development is at the very heart of the memory regime prevalent in the battlefields of Dumlupınar (Winter, 2017). First, not all landmarks are erected on locations related to the war; the symbolic Dumlupınar Martyr’s Cemetery at Cafer Ghazi tumulus is an example of this. Second, Turkish nationals visiting the sites have been educated about the War of Independence as part of the national history curriculum that is based on the official narratives of the conflict. Third, the landmarks in the area are landscaped to a level that conceals their original terrain, geographical features and historical significance. From the 1950s onwards, forestation campaigns were carried out, water was supplied to the landmarks and the surfaces of Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery and Zafertepe were covered with grass, flowers and pine trees.

Visiting the Battlefield of Dumlupınar What kinds of settings do these memorialisation practices generate to visitors of the battlefield? And how do the visitors perceive and experience these settings? To answer these questions, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 72 visitors at Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, the ‘First Goal’, ‘Dumlupınar Victory’ and ‘Martyr Flag Bearer’ monuments. Two of these visitors were foreign nationals, while the rest were from different parts of Turkey, most from the neighbouring provinces of Afyon and Izmir. No visitors were encountered either inside the Dumlupınar War of Independence Museum or at the remaining monuments and cemeteries, although two interviewees stated that they had visited the museum. The questions raised with visitors were focused on their knowledge of the battle

120  Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor and the battlefield and their awareness of the museum, monuments and cemeteries present in the Dumlupınar sector of the National Park. Their thoughts regarding the existing visitor route, wayfinding tools, information available in the area and their suggestions for enhancement were also asked. I will now summarise several issues that were raised by some of these visitors. Throughout the fieldwork, it was observed that Dumlupınar Martyr’s Cemetery is the most visited and crowded site year around. Most interviewees were encountered at the cemetery. Almost all were passers-by on the Izmir-Afyon road and had decided to pay a visit to the cemetery upon seeing the signboards on the main road. For some, it was not the first time that they had visited to pay their respects. They felt that this was the least they could do for the martyrs: prolonging their journey to pay their respects and pray for their souls. Commemorating the fallen is often a dramatic experience for visitors and reading the names and ages of soldiers on the gravestones was a sensitive experience for some. In this regard, it is worth noting that none of the interviewees were related to those commemorated in the cemetery; however, they stated that they were very touched to read the wide range of places that the soldiers were from. Without exception, all the Turkish interviewees addressed the fallen as ‘our martyrs’ (i.e., şehitlerimiz). In such a setting, those commemorated are largely detached from their personalities, deeds, families and are identified with martyrdom. Some interviewees stated that the whole Turkish nation owes its existence to them, and as such, they are conceived to be of national value. Such statements recall the official imaginings of Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery as a symbol of national unity (see chapter seven). One wonders whether the soldiers and civilians that were chosen to be commemorated in the cemetery were intentionally selected from different parts of Turkey to propagate the concept of national unity.1 Nevertheless, the booklet that is distributed by the National Park Authority to visitors describes those commemorated in the cemetery as: ‘Sons and daughters of Anatolia …. gathered around Commander in Chief Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha, villagers, urbanites, women, men, easterner, westerner, northerner, southerners went into the war of death and survival’ (Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Park Müdürlüğü, 2021). As in this official statement, Mustafa Kemal was often praised alongside the martyrs by interviewees: ‘The monument that we liked most in this cemetery is the statue of Mustafa Kemal, he saved our nation and left a bright Turkeyint46’. Even though they found the gravestones to be very touching, some found the information on the gravestones insufficient, wanting to know more about the life of those commemorated in the cemetery: ‘It would be really nice if more information was provided about the personal histories of these martyrs. Beyond their names and ages, I wished that their stories were told hereint47’. Lying beneath this desire to know more about the martyrs is the quest to sympathise with the deceased. Interviewees often draw parallels with their own ages and occupations to those commemorated in

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor 121 the cemetery: ‘Because I am a civil servant, I am sensitive about the martyrs. I drove here to pray for their souls and will continue on my wayint48’. In general, visitors’ main criticisms of the landmarks and battlefield centred on the lack of information as well as the misinformation found at the sites they visited. The disorderly placement of signage and information boards along the road and around the landmarks caught their attention. Alongside official brown signposts for Zafertepe and Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, the Izmir-Afyon road is surrounded by large boards featuring images of Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery and mottos about the martyrs and the Turkish nation. These were erected by the Dumlupınar municipality and private local firms such as Kütahya Ceramic, which erected boards made of renowned Kütahya tiles. This mixture and accumulation of road signage were puzzling to some; others viewed it as visual pollution. Since most of the boards are publicising Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, visitors often stop there and rarely visit any of the other landmarks of the Battle of Dumlupınar. Most first-time visitors interviewed in the cemetery were not even aware of the other landmarks present on the battlefield, apart from Zafertepe. A few interviewees, who wandered out of Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, were disappointed to see how empty the landmarks are: ‘We are saddened to see how empty and deserted the area is. We saw only a number of monuments and landscaped areas on our way, apart from these sites, nothing seemed to be done hereint49’. Given the depth of meaning attached to the Battle of Dumlupınar over the years, it was an upsetting scene for them. As such, suggestions on how to revive the area and increase the number of visitors came up in our conservations with them: ‘I wished that the road signs were placed in an orderly fashion and that there were professional guides to inform us about these sites; these developments would surely raise the awareness about these sitesint50’. They particularly pointed out the lack of facilities like hotels and restaurants that: ‘would create businesses for the locals and entice visitors to come, eat and stay in the areaint51’. The absence of signs and information in English and other languages was raised by the two foreign interviewees. They found the one-sided presentation of the Battle of Dumlupınar and commemoration of only Turkish losses problematic: ‘These monuments are only representing one side and they are not even accurately representing that one sideint52’. In comparison to Turkish visitors, they had a different take on the monuments and cemeteries and the messages that they convey: ‘These monuments present the war behind rose-coloured glasses, as if the Turks committed no wrong, they were perfect. The information boards and monuments should illustrate the horrors of war so that future generations do not repeat them int53’. Their points of reference while making these comments were Civil War sites in the United States and First World War memorials in Europe. In comparison to these sites, they found the glorification of the Battle of Dumlupınar and the fallen Turkish soldiers a rather ‘outdated’ approach. A closer look at recent trends and approaches in curating war museums and memorialisation at modern

122  Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor conflict sites across Europe offers a background to the views of these international visitors (Cornish, 2022b; Dendooven, 2022). As well as the problem with signage, the information boards do not sufficiently inform the visitors about the landmarks of the battle. For instance, most interviewees did not know that Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery is not an actual cemetery. This point brings us to the next criticism raised by interviewees: the symbolic presentation of the battle. The placement of cannons and planes from the 1960s on Zafertepe was regarded as ‘fake’ by some of the visitors: ‘All these pieces of artillery are quite new; this is like fooling the visitors. They must be honest with the visitors; it would be better to have no pieces of artillery around these monuments rather than placing these fake onesint54’. One visitor emphasised the potential role of material remains of war for conveying objective and accurate information about the battle. Yet, she found the Dumlupınar War of Independence Museum, at the centre of Dumlupınar town, insufficient: ‘That little museum offers a random collection of a lot of stuff. It doesn’t teach you anything int52’. Another visitor expressed her frustration with symbolic displays of war: ‘We always see the symbolic places in closed spaces through symbolic memorials and symbolic sounds. One would love to see directly where the battle took place, the trenches and war remains, and have a one-to-one experienceint55’. To summarise, what lies at the core of the positive or negative comments of interviewees about the landmarks is their desire to know more. They want to know more about the history of the war, the people who were involved in it, the geography of the place where it occurred, the weapons that were used and all the stories related to it. Along with paying their respects to the existing war monuments and cemeteries, they sought a more organised trail that would lead them through genuine places and a genuine representation based on historical facts and material finds. It is assumed that around 45,000 people visit the sites of the Great Offensive on a yearly basis (Alaeddinoğlu and Aliağaoğlu, 2007). Therefore, the number of interviewees is not enough to draw solid conclusions about the motives and requirements of its visitors. What these interviews do show, is that the mindset of visitors and the messages that are intended to be conveyed at these sites by the state do not always match. As one of the interviewees stated: Okay, statues are great, but we want to see what the soldiers went through, we want to see that conflict environment, we want to be at the location where he fought, where he died, and we want to pray there or remember them there. More information must be provided while you are guiding the person, and from the start to the end that person needs to follow that information and, finally, when they reached the end, the story would be complete. At the moment, you are done, and the story is not completeint56’.

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor 123

A Pilgrimage: Tourism and the Sites of the Great Offensive Tourism in the area of the Great Offensive is another point that must be tackled in order to understand the patterns that visitors move in within the present-day landscape of the battlefields and how the landmarks of the Great Offensive could be presented to visitors in an organised manner. The first thing that needs to be outlined is that tourism in the area of the Great Offensive is a new phenomenon. The visitors are not encouraged to visit the battlefield but memorials and visitor centres by the state agents. From the early years of the Turkish Republic until the early 2000s, we cannot speak of an organised tourism industry focusing purely on the sites of the Great Offensive. In the early years of the republic, visitations to Dumlupınar were encouraged in nationalist literature and newspapers of the period, in which visits to the site of the War of Independence were equated to that of hajj and Zafertepe compared with the Kaaba (Toros, 1937; Gençosman, 1942; Atalay, 2019). Such comparisons could be read as early attempts to sacralise the site and to instill republican values in the Turkish public. The state encouraged the attendance of the 30 August ceremonies by providing reduced rate train tickets to Dumlupınar. The period’s newspapers stated that school and scout trips were organised from cities for the 30 August ceremonies taking place at Zafertepe (Yeni Asır, 1940). Early attempts to develop facilities in the area of the Great Offensive can be traced back to the activities of The Victory Monument’s Beautification and Memorial Society in the 1950s; however, these actions were largely restricted to the areas of Zafertepe, Kocatepe and Afyon. The declaration of National Park Status in 1981, and the erection of numerous symbolic war cemeteries and monuments in the 1990s, laid the ground for battlefield tourism. Popular TV series, movies and novels about the Turkish War of Independence from the mid-1990s to the 2010s brought the sites of the Greek-Turkish war under the spotlight in Turkey. TRT’s mini-series Kurtuluş (Independence) was shot in the regions and towns where the conflicts took place and brought these sites into the living rooms of TV viewers (Türkeli, 2018). Turgut Özakman, who was the scriptwriter of Kurtuluş, published Those Crazy Turks, a novel about the Turkish War of Independence in 2005 (Özakman, 2005). Those Crazy Turks sold around 1,000,000 copies and it remains a best seller in Turkey. According to Serhat Güngör, who has been organising specialised tours to the region since 2006, Özakman’s novel drummed up the interest of Turkish tourists to visit the sites of the War of Independence (Akpolat, 2006; Güngör, 2010). Since 2008, guides specialising in the Great Offensive have been trained by the National Parks and Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Prior to this training programme, some local figures or National Park officials would give tours to visitors (Hasan Özpunar, pers. comm. 2020). The survey team encountered one of these guided tours delivered by a local of Dumlupınar in 2016. The tour covered the centre of Dumlupınar town and Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, and it was led by a retired primary

124  Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor school teacher who was also one of the trainers in the battlefield guide training programme. The information given to visitors largely relied on conventional military history and Mustafa Kemal’s role in the battle. The movements of each Greek and Turkish unit during the Battle of Dumlupınar were explained in detail. The monuments in the town centre and the war cemetery were described with largely unfounded anecdotes of war. The way that the war was presented was deeply one-sided. He left most of our questions about the Greek occupation unanswered, shifting the subject onto another anecdote of war or a detail in a monument. When we raised a question about the collaborator Memiş Efe gang, he refused to talk about them: ‘I will not speak about Memiş Efe, the traitor! I do not like him, and he is not worthy to discuss’. The guide described his work as humanitarian, doing his duty for Turkey. He told us that he gives voluntary tours for states people, soldiers and schools. In 1981, he and students from Çalköy and Dumlupınar planted pine trees on Berberçamı Hill, where the Martyr Flag Bearer Monument stands today. The local military garrison awarded them with three Atatürk busts made of bronze for their efforts in the region’s forestation. Such acts are viewed by the local population as a sign of respect to the memory of martyrs. With the same intentions, some professional guides are treating the landscape of the Great Offensive intrusively. In a video uploaded to an online sharing platform, a tour guide is piling stones around a possible grave of a Turkish soldier in order to demarcate it. He claims that he does it out of respect and in order to mark the location of the grave (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2019b). The survey team did not have a chance to observe any of the tours led by professional guides during the fieldwork seasons. Nevertheless, the tour programmes of various operators reflect which sites have been selected for their visits (Bora Turizim, 2019; Çamlıbel Vakfı, 2021; Günyol, 2021; El Destino Tur, 2022). Furthermore, two tour guides have been uploading detailed videos about their tours and testimonies of their clients to online video sharing platforms (serhantheguide, 2018; Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2020a; Özpunar, 2021a). I do not claim that these sources illustrate the situation on the ground in its entirety, but they do offer a glimpse into the ways that the battlefields and their landmarks are presented to visitors. In view of these sources, we can speak of at least two types of tours that are currently prevalent in the region: (1) conventional tours targeting large groups of visitors and (2) boutique tours appealing to visitors who are interested in military history and alternative destinations. Most tours seemingly fall into the first category. Their programmes vary slightly in respect to their time schedule and point of departure. These are mostly bus tours roughly following the trail of the main Turkish offensive from the south of Afyon towards Dumlupınar. These tours usually begin at Afyon, Kocatepe, where the offensive was launched by Mustafa Kemal on 26 August, and end in the Dumlupınar District of Kütahya,

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor 125 where the decisive battle of offensive took place on 30 August. The usual tour stops between these sites are; the war cemeteries of ‘Agah Efendi’, the ‘Great Offensive’ and ‘Yıldırım Kemal’, Zafertepe, the Martyr Flag Bearer Monument, Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, Dumlupınar First Goal Monument and the Dumlupınar War of Independence Museum (Bora Turizim, 2019; Hocaoğulları Turizm, 2021; El Destino Tur, 2022). It is worth noting that some of these tours are advertised as Martyrs’ Cemeteries Visits (Hocaoğulları Turizm, 2021). As this title speaks for itself, these are tours of monuments and cemeteries rather than battlefields. These conventional tours are mostly organised for schools, societies and sports groups. School trips are planned as educational tours for students to ‘witness the history of the War of Independence at its sites’ (Skola Travel, 2021) to ‘ignite national feeling amongst the students’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2018d) and to explain ‘how these lands became our nation’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2018d). The testimonies of attending students reflect the scope and nature of information provided during some of these tours: ‘we learned a lot today, ranging from Yıldırım Kemal to Sergeant Şekip and the killing of a two-year-old child, the cruelties that the Greeks committed … I am pleased to learn these facts and I am more attached to my country now’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2018c); ‘I am so touched by what I have seen here today, the Turks’ blood should never be spilled again …’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2018b, 2018d). As these videos were shot and edited by the guide, we cannot know if these are the genuine feelings of the students, but what these videos do illustrate is that these tours are fuelled by nationalist sentiment. A wide range of societies and NGOs are amongst the primary clients of these tours. Upon viewing the videos and adverts, I deduced that the Kemalist Thought Associations and various societies with Turkish and Kemalist tendencies are regular clients of these tours (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2018a, 2020a). Not all the tour groups are politically motivated; teacher’s associations, alumni groups, university societies, police morale groups are also amongst the clients (Özpunar, 2021a). It is interesting to see how much theatricality is involved in some of these tours. For instance, Habib Akalın, one of the most active guides in the region, often wears a Turkish uniform of the period while leading the tours. His tours involve a variety of participatory activities inspired by the monuments and events of the war. On Kocatepe Hill, he plays Turkish patriotic marches through a loudspeaker while students run towards the Atatürk Monument with Turkish flags in their hands. In front of the First Goal Monument, visitors are asked to pose as Mustafa Kemal’s statue and loudly repeat Mustafa Kemal’s order: ‘Armies, your first goal is the Mediterranean Sea – Forward!’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2018e). According to Akalın, this is a defining moment for visitors: ‘everyone transforms into Atatürk for one minute’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2020b). In front of the Martyr Flag Bearer Monument and the Kocatepe Atatürk statue, visitors are asked

126  Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor to shout ‘How happy is the one who says I am a Turk, a well-known phrase of Mustafa Kemal from his speech at the 10th Anniversary of the Republic of Turkey’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2018d). Akalın treats these moments almost as rituals; he encourages the visitors to shout this slogan loudly and sincerely in order to show the fallen soldiers that they were not martyred in vain (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2020d). International visitors are also encouraged to repeat this slogan (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2021). Akalın explains his reason for his choice of this particular motto as follows: ‘There is no guilt in being a Turk, being a Turk is pride … none of the nations on the face of earth would have such cemeteries, such monuments and such ancestors… here we will keep these values alive’ (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2020b). At Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery, some groups were filmed while holding a very large Turkish flag on the stairs heading to the top of the Cafer Ghazi tumulus. They sang marches or praised the fallen soldiers and Mustafa Kemal (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2020c). Depending on the political status quo of the day, the slogans and praises do vary. For instance, in one of the videos a primary school group declared their support for the Turkish soldiers carrying out the Operation Peace Spring in Syria in 2017 while holding the flag in front of the tumulus (Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın, 2019a). In comparison to these traditional tours, boutique versions are more flexible and have a wider geographical focus. They are generally advertised with the titles: ‘On the Trail of the War of Independence’, ‘The Geography of the War of Independence Tour’ and ‘The Battlefields of the War of Independence at its 100th Anniversary’ (Fest Travel, 2020; Çamlıbel Vakfı, 2021). What is meant by the War of Independence in these titles is actually the GreekTurkish War. The sites of the Eastern and Southern fronts of the Turkish War of Independence are not part of these tour programmes. They are usually scheduled to take place across the provinces of Ankara, Eskişehir, Afyon, Kütahya, Uşak and, occasionally, Izmir. The battlefields, monuments and cemeteries of the Battle of Sakarya, the Battles of İnönü and the Great Offensive are covered in these tour programmes. Most also involve train journeys: the Baghdad Railway line between Eskişehir and Akşehir and the connected lines of Afyon-Izmir and Eskişehir-Ankara are used for these tours (Akpolat, 2006; Çamlıbel Vakfı, 2021). Buses are mainly used to visit the battlefields and monuments between Afyon and Dumlupınar. According to tour operators, the train journeys add a special mood to these trips, and, recently, they are publicised as ‘The Train of Independence’ (Günyol, 2021). Most of these tours are headed and planned by professional guide Serhan Güngör (Figure 9.1). He summarises the incentive behind these tours as follows: ‘Today, what are we looking for in this stone and soil? A trace. A trace to learn, to feel and to understand the great sacrifices that were made a hundred years ago. We are travelling over the trail of our War of Independence, we are searching for a trace of war in places where

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor 127

Figure 9.1  The Train of Independence tour flyer Source:  Günyol, 2021.

the war took place’ (serhantheguide, 2018). To this end, the train trips are an important part of ‘the search for traces’ theme in these tours since the conflicts of the Greco-Turkish War revolved around these railway lines and most railway station buildings of the period are either still in use or have been turned into museums. The boutique tours do not differ greatly from the traditional tours when it comes to their coverage of the area of the Great Offensive. The area of the Commander in Chief National Park is usually visited over only one day, and the sites visited are predominantly the same monuments and cemeteries lying across the National Park. Few tours cover the sites that lie outside of the perimeters of the Commander in Chief National Park. These sites are associated with the events that took place from 31 August until 9 September 1922: Atatürk House in Uşak, the Martyrs Cemetery at Takmak Village, İnay

128  Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor Railway Station and the Belkahve mountain pass of Izmir. The sites of battle are explained with some of the main sources of information coming from The Turkish General Staff’s military history series and the memoirs of Halide Edip. Apart from these sources, Those Crazy Turks is read out to participants at sites mentioned in the novel (Akpolat, 2006). In line with Those Crazy Turks, the War of Independence is presented to participants as a story of the nation’s formation and its struggle for survival from the claws of imperialism (Özakman, 2005; serhantheguide, 2018). Tour participants are reported to range in age from 40 to 70 years (Akpolat, 2006). Footage of one of the tours suggests that participants’ motivations for attending the tour are quite varied (serhantheguide, 2018). Some came to see where their grandfathers fought, while others joined to experience the essence and feeling of those hard days that their grandparents used to talk about. Above all, visiting the sites and monuments is viewed as a duty, a pledge to fulfil the memory of those who founded the republic. Güngör praises the landscapes of the Great Offensive as monuments on which the Turkish Republic relies. During his tours, the geography of the battlefield is described as silent witnesses of the offensive. Visitors are informed about the course of events in the offensive by observing the landscapes around Mustafa Kemal’s command posts on the hills of Kocatepe and Zafertepe. One tour participant’s testimony echoes this commander’s view perspective: ‘Once I stood on Zafertepe and observed the surroundings, I came to know how much of a great sacrifice it was for an army to reach this point with its loads’ (serhantheguide, 2018). According to Güngör, the memory of war is embedded in its geography and ‘one can only follow the footsteps of Atatürk by tracing this geography’. Visitor motivations match with Güngör’s views: ‘Coming here is a pledge of fidelity to those who founded this republic for us’ (serhantheguide, 2018). Keeping with such meanings attested to these sites, visitors had high expectations. Some were apparently left disappointed with the state of affairs: ‘I have never been to these battlefields … I am angry to see these places so empty. We have a glorious history within the history of all humanity, and we do not recognise its value. When I wandered around here I relived their poverty, pains and beliefs’ (serhantheguide, 2018). As with the other guides discussed previously, Serhan Güngör points out that his tours serve a higher purpose: ‘The visited sites are where the Turkish Republic was founded, but they are deserted and forgotten. Our purpose is to present these sites of our history to all and appeal for their attention. The more it attracts attention, the better it would be protected. In addition, taking part in this journey is like reviving your faith in those who founded this republic’ (Akpolat, 2006).

The Visitors’ Great Offensive As discussed in chapter seven, the current landmarks on the sites of the Great Offensive are not just representations of martyrdom, sacrifice, national unity and Mustafa Kemal’s role in the battle; they also reflect different

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor 129 episodes in the socio-political history of Turkey since 1924. In other words, as Barbara Bender says, landscape is ‘not a record but a recording’ – it is ‘time materializing’, and ‘always subjective’ (Bender, 2002, p. 103). Today, the visitor experience in the Commander in Chief National Park is largely defined by the echoes of these periods rather than by the battle itself. The landmarks are filled with inscriptions of poetry and unfounded anecdotes of the war, as well as with the Turkish Army’s obsolete military equipment from the 1940s and 1960s (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). The only on-site information available about the Battle of Dumlupınar is a tactical battle plan engraved on a marble panel at Zafertepe. It is an edited copy of the Turkish General Staff’s plan that has been reproduced in various publications (Niş, 1968; Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, 1997). The plan contains military signs, which can be quite deceptive to visitors who have no knowledge of them. For example, the Turkish forces are shown in blue, signifying that they are a friendly force, while the Greek forces are highlighted in red, the colour for hostile forces in military symbolism. During interviews with visitors, I noticed that this was quite confusing to them, as the colours of the flags of Greece and Turkey are the opposite. The use of field guns and aircraft from the 1940s and 1960s as decorative features at Zafertepe and in Dumlupınar’s town centre adds further confusion to the representation of the battle (Aksoy and Bayar, 2016) (Figure 9.2). A prime example of this is

Figure 9.2  Aircraft and artillery pieces on Zafertepe Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2015.

130  Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor Zafertepe’s 1960s Dornier Do 28 aircraft,2 which the Çalköy municipality’s guidebook for children describes as having been deployed during the Battle of Dumlupınar (Atak, 2010). The only place where visitors can see authentic material remains of the war – which have almost entirely disappeared due to looting activities and the ploughing of fields – is in the Dumlupınar War of Independence Museum. The museum, located in Dumlupınar’s town centre, was established in 1997 with the intention of ‘educating future generations about the War of Independence and its heroes’ (Talipoğlu, 1998). Two floors have been set aside for the exhibition. The ground floor’s central highlight is an oxcart filled with artillery shells. On this same floor can be found rifles, artillery shells and two machine guns in wood-framed display cases. Additional material remains recovered from the battlefield, such as tin containers, bayonet pieces, cartridges, grenades and helmets, can be found on the second floor, most of which were donated by farmers living in the battle zone (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022). In my opinion, there is great potential for the Dumlupınar War of Independence Museum to present its collection of material remains in a much more informative way that would open to visitors the lesser-known aspects of the battle. As visitors interviewed state that they wish to really know and feel how the soldiers lived during this time, there is the opportunity for the remains to be used to give the visitors what they so long for. Examples of how this could be achieved are as follows: (1) tin containers could shed light on the diet of the soldiers; (2) stretchers bringing the role of medics to life and (3) the wide mix of old and new weapon technology used during the war in which cavalry units, swords, oxcarts and black powder were used alongside planes, radiotelephones, smokeless powder and motorised vehicles. However, the objects are currently not displayed with such a goal in mind. Each display case is clustered under broad typological groupings and object tags are only in Turkish. The reason behind this current narrow format of display could be that the museum is currently managed by the Afyon Directorate of Forestry and Water Management, which has no in-depth experience in the management or curation of museums. Oftentimes it is left to on-duty park rangers or a local guard to maintain the museum, which also makes it difficult to keep set opening hours during the winter season. Due to this, any major changes to how items are displayed would be difficult to achieve unless a high-ranking state official or politician deems it necessary. Also, a substantial part of the battlefield is not included in the official visitor trail that lies between the village of Çalköy and Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery. The only sign indicating that a large portion of the battle took place around Allıören, Yüylük and Çalköy, where the Greek forces were stationed on 30 August 1922, is a stone marker on Kızıltepe Hill that marks the presence of the 16th Turkish Division on this date (Aksoy and Kahraman, 2022).

Experiencing the Battlefield as a Visitor 131 The testimonies of Turkish visitors and the present scope of tourism in the region repeat the messages that these landmarks convey. As in the early years of the republic, visits to the landmarks are treated as a pilgrimage and revival of faith in those who founded this republic. The fallen Turkish soldiers and civilians are viewed as martyrs to who future generations owe their existence and freedom. The site of the Great Offensive is treated as a place where Mustafa Kemal became one with the Turkish nation. As the monuments personify victory and nation through the figure of Mustafa Kemal, visitors imitate his statue’s posture and repeat his first goal order. The main vantage points from which visitors can observe the battlefield are those of Mustafa Kemal on Kocatepe and Zafertepe. The very event of conflict holds no significant place within this new landscape of the Great Offensive. The one exception is Çiğiltepe, where the trenches on the hill were reconstructed in recent years. In comparison to the sheer scale of the Great Offensive, the limited area that the visitor route passes through is striking. Presently, the entire area of conflict is reduced to landscaped islands of monuments and cemeteries reached via a road surrounded by slogan billboards and signs. The following chapter will deal with that lies between the landmarks and the impact of memory regime over the local population.

Notes



1 I could not find any published source related to this issue. Further research on the documentation of the construction project in 1992 may reveal the criteria that were applied in the selection of names commemorated at Dumlupınar Martyr’s Cemetery. 2 Dornier Do 28 is a West German made utility aircraft that Turkish Army Aviation was one of its operators.

10 Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar

‘I am looking around from Zafertepe, Çalköy treeless, arid and tranquil under earth roofs, as if no single living being exists’. (Observations of Afet Inan from Zafertepe in 1948 – İnan, 2007) ‘While we were driving here from the main road, we realised that the whole area is like a desolate place where there is no sign of life’. (Interview with İsmail at Zafertepe in 2021)

The ‘emptiness’ and ‘lifelessness’ of the villages in the area of the Great Offensive are frequent of newspaper pieces and my interviews with visitors. Within these testimonies, the villages and sceneries in the Commanders in Chief National Park are often described from car windows or from the hills that Mustafa Kemal once stood upon and commanded the offensive. Since 1924, ‘barefoot villagers in their colourful attire’ were often acknowledged as a key component of the audience attending the Victory Day ceremonies held at Zafertepe; ‘Dear Ghazi, I am watching you amongst a colourful crowd of villagers, where would you find such a becoming frame for yourself?’ (Tanrıöver, 1924). Newspaper articles on the Victory Day ceremonies mention villagers delivering speeches and adorning the road between the Selkisaray train station and Zafertepe with a wooden arch bearing the image of Mustafa Kemal (Toros, 1937; Gençosman, 1942). The landscape of the battle is often identified with the fallen Turkish soldiers; it is awash and coloured with their blood, and their souls hover above in its skies. Spring sheds a colourful shroud over their bodies and the afterglow is a reminder of their blood. The very existence of the landscape and villages is esteemed to the fallen and Mustafa Kemal in various speeches. In the present day, what lies outside of the landscaped and controlled environments of monuments and cemeteries is far from these romantic rural sceneries that adorn speeches and newspaper articles (Tanrıöver, 1924; Cumhuriyet, 1931). The material remains of the war are diminishing, the populations of the towns and villages are decreasing and the region’s DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-10

Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar 133 economy does not offer a promising future for the locals. Ironically, the Great Offensive could be associated with both the ‘survival’ and the ‘illfate’ of these towns and villages. Extending between the provinces of Uşak, Afyon and Kütahya, the villages and towns that lie in the protected zone of the Commander in Chief National Park are literally trapped in their history. What this protected zone contains is roughly the area of the first seven days of the Great Offensive. In this chapter, the central focus is on Dumlupınar and the Altıntaş districts of the Kütahya Province, where our survey team carried out interviews with 87 locals from Çalköy, Allırören, Saraycık, Yüylük and Dumlupınar. In respect to these interviews, this chapter offers a glimpse into what kind of setting the Commander in Chief Park has created for its inhabitants and the locals’ projections for their homeland.

‘İll Fate of Dumlupınar’: A Population Trapped in History All local interviewees view the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar in its current state as an unattractive place for visitors. They largely attribute this situation to the lack of facilities to host visitors. No professional guides work in the region unless tours are pre-booked by visitors. The usual full guided tours take around four hours, and the groups have their breaks either in Dumlupınar or Çalköy. The locals of these towns find the current situation insufficient for the economy of the region: ‘Such visits contribute little to the local shops; they have coffee and tea in coffee houses and buy soft drinks from markets within their one-hour break timeint57’. Despite these grievances, I observed that household economies have been developing in Dumlupınar in response to the visits of such tourist groups. Families sell their farm products in front of their houses. The only place where local souvenirs could be found was in a small gallery annexed to a village house. Photographs of the Turkish commanders and the Great Offensive filled the walls of the gallery, and figurines of Atatürk and Kütahya tiles bearing the images of Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery are sold on a stand next to Dumlupınar’s main street. Local initiatives and politicians have been seeking ways to diversify their economy and develop the region’s infrastructure. The local administrations in Dumlupınar and the Altıntaş districts do not have the financial means to realise most of these projects. As such, they have been raising funds through donations and government reserves. They utilise tools of both conventional and social media in order to publicise the situation of their districts. These endeavours aim to address people of a variety of political views. For instance, Niyazi Tezcan, the mayor of Dumlupınar between 2016 and 2019, invited the well-known Turkish reporter Uğur Dündar to hold his political discussion programme, the People’s Arena, in Dumlupınar in 2016. Dündar hosted politicians from the main opposition party Republican People’s Party (CHP) and prominent Kemalist figures. The programme began with audience slogans such as ‘we are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal!’. Both the host and attendees were highly critical of the

134  Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar AKP government over the handling of the Battlefields of Dumlupınar and its local population: ‘This is where martyrs blood wells out from its soil. Weapons and bullets are still appearing out of this soil. The villagers are still exposing the traces of the battle while ploughing their fields. But the government did not bother to place a stop here for the high-speed train. Passing Dumlupınar in transit means that those days and those sacrifices are intended to be forgotten’ (Wake Up, 2017). Uğur Dündar called for investors and politicians to revive Dumlupınar’s economy and infrastructure by building hotels and factories in the region: ‘Turn this desolated and abandoned district into a picture that the whole world would envy. Dumlupınar deserves this! What is left to be proud of if we are not proud of Dumlupınar and Gallipoli’ (Wake Up, 2017). Dündar’s calls were not left unanswered, and a number of municipalities administrated by the CHP promised to aid the town. In 2018, the municipality of Yenimahalle in Ankara built a guest house and recreational facility in the town centre. Uğur Dündar presented these aids as the steps that will change ‘the ill fate of Dumlupınar’. This was an important step in the development of tourism in the region (Demirtaş, 2018; Dündar, 2018). In the past, the only place that visitors, including the survey team, could stay were the student dormitory in Dumlupınar or the Quran course dormitory in Çalköy. These places were only available when schools were on holiday and were the only options, as camping is not allowed on the premises of the National Park. The locals who were interviewed expressed that they were embarrassed by the previous state of affairs and that the construction of the guest house has brought some dignity into Dumlupınar. The status of the battlefield as both a natural and archaeological reserve is another factor that curbs the local administrations’ ambitions for economic development. According to the regulations of the National Park, no permanent structures like hotels, factories and barns are permitted to be built on the grounds of the historical park. Locals cannot repair or extend their houses without the consent of the National Parks and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Grazing could also be an issue, as the National Park is home to a number of endemic plants and local farmers are not entitled to apply for state development funds. To summarise, the conflict zone has been protected to such an extent that neither tourism nor any other economic development can flourish. Upon evaluation of the Turkish Military archives by National Park officials in 2016, some settlements within the National Park, including Dumlupınar and Çalköy, were excluded from the protection zone. This move met with mixed reactions from different parties. The village representatives and local municipalities were not satisfied and requested a further reduction of the Historical Park’s borders along with the removal of the archaeological site status. They believe that such an act will revive the economy and the region’s population would begin to thrive (Alp, 2016). However, Erhan Muhcu, the head of the Chamber of Architects of Turkey in 2016, viewed

Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar 135 this as ‘a populist move’ and ‘criminal activity’ on behalf of all political parties. He suggested that this decision would eradicate the symbols of the Turkish Republic and pave the way to a rentier economy, as the properties of the villagers would gain additional value. He believed the needs of the local population could have been met under the umbrella of the Historical Park. CHP representatives in the region and the National Park officials backed this decision openly in the national news. According to them, the Great Offensive and the War of Independence, in general, took place outside of the settlements and there are no remains of war in the settlements in question. In this respect, they viewed this decision as a non-destructive solution to the economic problems of the local people (Alp, 2016). It is too early to say whether the changes in the boundaries of the National Park have indeed paved the way for the economic development of the Dumlupınar district. The youth of Dumlupınar continue to emigrate to neighbouring cities and Germany due to the lack of job opportunities. They visit their hometown only when they are on leave and over national holidays, including 30 August. The present Mayor of Dumlupınar, Şemsettin Akağaç, links the ongoing emigration from the Dumlupınar district to the legacy of the old status quo: ‘Up to three years ago, our town and its surrounding area were under the responsibility of the National Parks, the Kütahya Directorate for the Protection of Cultural Assets and the Council of Monuments. We could not do anything without the approval of these government agencies. Because of them, we were unable to establish a factory or any other job opportunities … the reason why Dumlupınar is in its current state is its historical site status’ (Gezdikçe Bilelim, 2021).

Turning Dumlupınar into Gallipoli Following changes to the National Park’s borders, the Dumlupınar municipality gave weight to a number of publicity actions. New road signs for Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery were erected on main roads within a 30 km radius. Signboards sported the following mottos: ‘Welcome to the lands of independence’, ‘You are in Dumlupınar, you are where the flag did not fall!’ and ‘Your martyr grandfathers are waiting for you’ (Frigya Haber, 2019). The new signboards were erected to ‘arouse the excitement’ of drivers about visiting Dumlupınar (Gezdikçe Bilelim, 2021). According to Mayor Akağaç, there has been a 50% increase in the number of visitors due to these signboards. A short movie about the Battle and landmarks of the Dumlupınar district is another facet of this publicity campaign and is planned to be released via online video platforms. Alongside this publicity campaign, new construction projects are envisaged by the Dumlupınar municipality, such as a diorama gallery portraying various scenes of conflict and a viewing platform in the vicinity of Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery. Lastly, the Dumlupınar municipality is collaborating with the National Parks to

136  Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar identify Turkish burial grounds within the entire district. Through this collaborative work, they aim to landscape and open these sites to visitors (Gezdikçe Bilelim, 2021). There is not much new within these publicity and construction activities, as similar projects have been tried by both local administrations and local initiatives over the years. A large variety of signboards have been erected on the main roads over the past decade. The survey team recorded these over a span of ten years with the purpose of illustrating wayfinding strategies that had been applied to the battlefield. The official brown signboards simply display the name of sites and the distance to them. The other boards, erected by Kütahya Dumlupınar University, feature the photos of monuments against a red, painted background. The local administrations and local initiatives have always aspired to producing movies about the war and the place their district has in it. For instance, in 2010, Çalköy municipality commissioned a scriptwriter for a war movie scenario in which Mayor Arif Teke had a part as a Turkish officer fighting against Greek soldiers at Yıldırımkemal station (Arif Teke pers. comm.. 15 December 2011). More recently, the Kütahya War Veterans Society shot two short movies named ‘The Road to Victory’ (i.e., Zafere Giden Yol) about the Great Offensive (Kütahya Muharip, 2021). The cast of these movies largely comprised of locals, and the scenes were shot at locations where the actual conflict took place. Over the past decade, diorama galleries and watching platforms have also been built across different museums and modern conflict sites across Turkey such as the Çanakale Epic Promotion Centre at Gallipoli and Panorama 1453 Museum at Istanbul. By realising the above-mentioned projects, the ultimate aim of Dumlupınar municipality could be summarised as ‘transforming Dumlupınar into the state of Gallipoli’ (Gezdikçe Bilelim, 2021). This view is shared by most of the interviewees from both the Dumlupınar and the Altıntaş districts. Gallipoli is viewed as the ideal case for development and tourism in the region. Beyond its economic potential, the Gallipoli model represents the level of respect and attention that the local community has been seeking from both state actors and visitors. According to Mayor Akağaç: ‘Whoever comes to Dumlupınar feels disappointed’ (Gezdikçe Bilelim, 2021). The ways in which to overcome this disappointment are seen as the adding of new landmarks to the visitors’ trail, the developing of existing ones and the diversifying of publicity tools. Some locals pointed out the differences between Dumlupınar and Gallipoli and that they are aware that it would not be an easy task to turn Dumlupınar into a Gallipoli. The first issue concerns the international visitors and publicity that Gallipoli draws. They pointed out that because the Great Offensive is part of a regional conflict, its sites would not draw as many international visitors as those of Gallipoli. The locals are inclined towards having international visitors to the battlefield, although a few were unfavourable towards the hosting of Greek visitors in their settlements due to negative memories of the Greek

Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar 137 occupation of the region. Shopkeepers in Dumlupınar mentioned that a small number of Greek visitors pay visits to the town each year. Some of these visitors enquired about certain locations where their ancestors had fought. The shopkeepers approached these enquiries with suspicion as they thought that they were searching for the valuables their forefathers had buried. Another issue and point of difference that arose during the interviews is the existence of monuments and cemeteries for Commonwealth and French Forces on the Gallipoli Peninsula, while no monument or war cemetery has been built for the Greek soldiers within the area of the Great Offensive. Back in 2009, Cyprus Campaign veteran Ret. Colonel Ihsan Gürcan proposed a project to The Turkish General Staff for the erection of three Greek war monuments at Çalköy, Allıören and the Kızıltaş Valley, where the most violent clashes occurred between Turkish and Greek forces. He devised this idea while he was stationed in the Kütahya province and was responsible for the supervision of ceremonies held on Zafertepe. He believes that the building of these monuments would be a significant step in solidifying peace between Greece and Turkey. According to Gürcan, these monuments would draw at least 60,000 Greek visitors to the region and would bring in one billion dollars of revenue to Turkey on a yearly basis. He reached these numbers by assuming that Greek losses in the Great Offensive were around 100,000 and their living relatives would be around 500,000 by 2009 (Izmir Life, 2009). Few local interviewees were eager to see such a move, viewing the Greek forces as invaders which once threated the livelihood and honour of their ancestors (see chapter five). From this standpoint, it is unacceptable to commemorate the fallen Greek soldiers within the Dumlupınar district or elsewhere in the region. One interviewee from Dumlupınar linked this to the nature of the conflict at the Great Offensive: ‘In Gallipoli, the conflicts took place largely in the frontlines and soldiers fought against soldiers. But here our villages were set on fire and the villagers suffered a lot under the Greek occupation int58’. Some see no difference between the Entente soldiers in Gallipoli and the Greek soldiers in Anatolia. Influenced by the news about the return of the mummified skull of a Turkish solider by the relatives of an Anzac soldier (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2004), one interviewee from Saraycık village made the following statement: ‘Neither the Greeks nor the Anzacs were innocent. The Anzacs came to Gallipoli voluntarily, and some even collected the skulls of Turkish soldiers to take back home as a souvenir, the Greeks killed children and burned people aliveint13’. Only one interviewee described the construction of a Greek monument as a beneficial act for the district. He is a leading member of a local initiative named Dumlupınar Publicity Group and lobbied for a Greek monument to be erected in the vicinity of Dumlupınar: ‘For the past 15 years I have been trying to convince both the locals and local administrators to allocate at least a small piece of land for a Greek war memorial. In the end, I realised that the wounds are still open, and the community is not ready for thisint4’. Faced with these reactions, he tried to reframe the years of occupation within a

138  Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar different narrative: ‘Those who made Anzacs fight at Gallipoli were the same imperialists who encouraged the Greeks to invade Dumlupınar. The Greeks were victims of imperialism in this war. What I have been telling the people of Dumlupınar is that the imperialists drew the Greek soldiers here, so let’s tackle the Greek occupation from this angleint4’. When I queried what his reasoning was for lobbying this project, he replied that he considers the construction of a Greek monument purely from an economic perspective: ‘Our lands are barren and we have been waiting for investment for too long, the only option that we have to hand is war tourism’. He believes that there is a need for a different narrative to convince the local population: ‘I have been reading that the Greeks committed those atrocities under the supervision of British officers. Using this point, I tried to excuse the Greek soldiers’ acts, but it was not well received, it angered peopleint4’. Another point that interviewees found challenging in the turning of Dumlupınar into a Gallipoli-like site is the differences in the quantity and visibility of the material remains in Gallipoli and those of Dumlupınar. There is a common belief that the material remains of the Battle of Dumlupınar are not appealing and numerous enough for visitors, despite the fact that visitors do not have a chance to visit most of these sites: ‘How much revenue can a visitor bring in within a four-hour-long visit? It would be nothing int59’. The locals see the material remains in Gallipoli as being more visible and more accessible to visitors. This difference is attributed to the short time span of the Battle of Dumlupınar in comparison to the long draw out fighting of Gallipoli: ‘The conflict that took place here was around 24 hours and that is why there are not many places to show visitorsint60’. Neither local politicians nor local communities are locked on these differences between Gallipoli and Dumlupınar; the situation in Gallipoli represents an ideal to be reached in their eyes. They seek to draw large numbers of both Turkish and international visitors, increase their hours of stay in the region and eventually develop a battlefield tourism industry. Only time will show if these objectives can be met, but what can be said at this stage is that every step that has been taken so far to reach these goals heats up the local communities’ contest over the history and legacy of the war.

Locals’ Contest over the History and Legacy of the War In such an environment where there is no room for any economic development apart from farming and husbandry, battlefield tourism is seen as the only way forward. Accordingly, each local community tries to place its official narratives and its settlement onto the map of the battle by various means. Against this backdrop, it would be fair to describe the Battlefield of Dumlupınar as a graveyard of unrealised projects. Since 1954, mayors of the towns and communities have been putting forward various recreation projects; however, only a few of these projects, like the First Goal monuments in Dumlupınar and Çalköy, could be realised through donations (Özpunar, 2013). In hindsight,

Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar 139 the unrealised projects are illustrative of how the local administrations and people would like to shape the battlefield. The now abolished Çalköy municipality’s1 Zafertepe-Çalköy Battlefield Conception Project is an exemplary case study. Its target was to redefine the 30 August Victory Day ceremonies on Zafertepe Hill with the purpose of ‘gathering the government together with the public body’ (Zafertepe Çalköy Belediyesi, 2010) and drawing tour companies to the village. In pursuit of this goal, the construction of an exhibition area on the slopes of Zafertepe and a colossal monument complex showing 100 Greek soldiers encircled by 200 Turkish soldiers was proposed (Zafertepe Çalköy Belediyesi, 2010). In line with the local population’s belief that the Battlefield of Dumlupınar lacks material culture to be displayed to visitors, the local administrations see the monuments as a viable choice for attracting visitors and government investment into their towns. An interviewee from Allıören bluntly raised this point: ‘If a martyrs’ cemetery was located in our village, we would have a well-maintained road and our people would not have to emigrateint61’. In the past, locals were more reluctant to show the locations of soldiers’ burial places on their lands, as they were afraid that their lands would be expropriated by the state. Today, their attitude on this matter is completely opposite; almost all the locals we spoke to demand a cemetery or monument be erected in their village. Their requests were not left unanswered. A team of the National Parks Directorate has been recording these sites since 2019 as part of the Commander in Chief Historical National Park Development Project and aims to record the burials of Turkish soldiers and open these sites to visitors in the near future (Ihlas Haber Ajansı, 2019a). As new possibilities for investment and development arise, the disputes of village communities over the history of the Battle of Dumlupınar heat up. Each village community claims an important moment of the Battle of Dumlupınar and tries to form a basis for their requests of infrastructure and monuments to be erected. The naming of the battle is one of the major aspects of these disputes between the local settlements. On the one hand, interviewees from Dumlupınar claim that the Battle is named after their town upon the decision of Mustafa Kemal. They admit that the Turkish forces were led from Zafertepe, which lies next to Çalköy but, according to interviewees, Mustafa Kemal should be the ultimate authority in the naming of the battle: ‘The name of this Battle is Dumlupınar, this is undisputableint62’. On the other hand, the locals of Alliören point out that Greek sources named the Battle after their village: Ali Viran (Trikoupis, 1967): ‘In the Greek archives, the battle is named after Allıören village. However, the national history curriculum and official publications name this battle after Dumlupınar int63’. Interviewees from Allıören claim that the area encompassing their village and the Adatepe hills was the epicentre of the conflict and, accordingly, at least one monument should be erected in this area. From their point of view, no major conflict took place in the vicinity of Dumlupınar, and therefore it was not justifiable to set a cemetery for the Turkish soldiers there.

140  Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar The towns are not just contesting over the erection of monuments, but also for the determination of burial grounds of Turkish soldiers: ‘For over a decade the people of Dumlupınar and Çalköy have contested over burial grounds, they propose the locations for cemeteries to be erected and request the refurbishment of existing cemeteriesint64’. Some steps were taken in 2020 and 2021. A team of researchers from the 18th of March Çanakkale University carried out a geophysical survey at the possible and known localities of burial (T.C. Kütahya Valiliği, 2020). Upon their fieldwork, the burial ground around Captain Şekip Martyr’s Cemetery was recreated with the support of the Kütahya Province Governorship (T.C. Kütahya Valiliği, 2020). The burial ground of Captain Şekip and his soldiers on the western side of Çalköy was amongst these sites. A visitor trail built of wood and metal columns was installed around the marble obelisk that had been erected for the memory of Turkish soldiers in the 1920s (see chapter seven). There used to be competition between Çalköy and Dumlupınar over the issue of which settlement was going to be the centre of the Dumlupınar district. The underlying reason for this competition was the benefits that gaining official town status would bring to the settlement; it entitles the mayor to administer over a larger region and also brings in more government funds. In 1987, Dumlupınar was chosen to be the centre of the new district named after the town, and Çalköy remains a town of the Altıntaş district of the Kütahya province. Interviewees from Dumlupınar attribute the government’s choice to Cafer Pekmez’s efforts to erect the First Goal Monument in the centre of the town: ‘Either their town or our town will be chosen as the centre of this district, if the people of Çalköy managed to erect such a monument in their town centre their fate may have been differentint65’. The construction of the First Goal Monument complex in the centre of Dumlupınar was more suited to the practicalities of the 30 August Ceremonies, which are often held in hot weather. I have been told that Zafertepe was more barren in the 1980s, and the armed forces preferred to keep their programme here rather short and carry out the parades in the shaded square in front of the First Goal Monument. In other words, the First Goal Monument was used to draw the state protocol to the centre of Dumlupınar. Çalköy lies 2 km north of Zafertepe, and it is somewhat disconnected from the official ceremonies held there. Dissatisfied with this state of affairs, the locals of Çalköy requested the name of the town to be changed to Zafertepeçalköy (i.e., Victory HillÇalköy) in 1985, and since then, this has been the official name of the town. This does not seem to have contributed to the development of the town, but this decision illustrates how village identities are shaped by the landmarks and events of the Battle of Dumlupınar. One of these events is the First Goal Order of Mustafa Kemal, which was discussed in depth in chapter seven. Both communities reclaimed this event by erecting comparable monuments in their town centres, and their town emblems are also inspired by these

Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar 141 monuments. The Martyr Flag Bearer Monument was the symbol of Çalköy’s municipality, which was dissolved in 2014. The Dumlupınar municipality uses two different emblems, one featuring the First Goal Monument in the town centre and another featuring The Martyr Father and Son Monument in Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery. The locals of Dumlupınar and Çalköy link their requests for economic growth and investments back to Mustafa Kemal’s visit to Zafertepe for the Martyr Soldier Monument’s groundbreaking ceremony in 1924. There are several conflicting stories claiming that Mustafa Kemal envisioned plans for the development of Çalköy and Dumlupınar in 1924. In the case of Dumlupınar, the story is told as follows: When Mustafa Kemal arrived in Dumlupınar via train he assembled the prominent figures of Dumlupınar. He praised them for their support in the Battle and asked them if they have any wishes from him. In response, they asked for a school and a marketplace to be set in the town centre. The first primary school of the town was established after this meeting and Dumlupınar eventually became the economic hub of the regionint4. In contrast, a different story has been told in Çalköy: ‘Mustafa Kemal met with the prominent local figures of Çalköy in 1924 and promised to open factories and develop the economy of the region. His plans were not realised by his successors and Çalköy was left to its “ill-fate”int66’. Another version of this story claims that Mustafa Kemal wrote a will in which he addressed Çalköy as a district, not as village, and promised to build a city in its area. As the official narratives and landmarks of the Battle of Dumlupınar are largely formed around the figure of Mustafa Kemal, so apparently, too, is the case for the locals’ requests for investment and economic development. As one resident of Çalköy put it: ‘The situation that we are living in right now contradicts Atatürk’s will, his will has to be realised out of respect for his wishes by the politiciansint67’. Even though such statements are largely groundless, they suggest that some locals feel entitled to government support and investment by laying their claims over the legacy of the battle.

The Locals’ Battlefield To summarise, living in such a highly politicalised, romanticised and protected region such as the Commander in Chief Park is a weighty experience for the locals. Within this highly restricted environment, the only way forward for the development of the region is projected to be turning it into a hub for battlefield tourism. Each village is contesting over the legacy of the Battle of Dumlupınar in order to attract government projects for the erection of monuments and cemeteries in their area. Not all hopes of the local communities are pinned on state institutions. A small number

142  Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar of local initiatives have been formed to realise the dream of becoming a tourism hub and to transform the region. From the 1950s onwards, various local initiatives have been established, and campaigns have been organised in order to raise funds for monuments and publicise the heritage assets of Dumlupınar and its surrounding area. As discussed in chapter seven, the local movements could be traced back to The Dumlupınar Monument Construction Society. In recent years, these local initiatives have shifted their focus to publicity activities. For instance, a group named Dumlupınar Publicity Group was established in 2007 with the purpose of ‘explaining the whole process of war and the following path to victory with all its truth’ (Sipahi, 2008). The group members claimed that they neither receive any external financial support nor are they affiliated with any institution (Ihlas Haber Ajansı, 2007). They aim to draw a new direction in the 30 August Ceremonies held in Dumlupınar’s town centre: ‘The 30 August used to be all about gambling and shopping for the locals, we are trying to break this vicious cycle by organising wrestling and running contests amongst the youth int4’. As the role of the military in the ceremonies has been redefined since 2016, the group members said that they are trying to fill the military’s shoes by organising various sports and social activities, even though these do not attract a large number of spectators: ‘We do not get as much interest as the military used toint68’. Group members organised site trips to Dumlupınar for schools and Kemalist Thought Associations across Turkey. They pointed out that bringing in nationwide NGOs like the Kemalist Thought Associations was a particularly important step for tourism in the region, as they continue to pay visits to Dumlupınar. Alongside these publicity activities, group members wrote collective petitions to various state institutions requesting more war monuments and cemeteries across the district. Following these early examples of civil movements, other village communities in the district of Dumlupınar have founded village associations (Ihlas Haber Ajansı, 2019b). This trend marks a new era in relations between local communities and state institutions. On the one hand, the mukhtars and prominent figures of village communities used to request aid, funds and monuments from district governors. On the other hand, the funding and construction of monuments via local NGOs were not appreciated by local bureaucracy. The contrary is the case in the present day; funding associations are viewed as an essential step for receiving funds from government institutions and towards the construction of monuments: ‘In the past, we used to request for support and funds in person for the maintenance of our roads or the construction of fountains. Nowadays government officials are advising us to submit our petitions for construction of monuments and martyrs’ cemeteries via an association so that the allocated funds for the projects could be monitored by state agentsint69’. Even the outcome of current research is viewed to be a possible asset by some.

Living in the Battlefield of Dumlupınar 143 One of the interviewees who is involved in local politics and NGOs said that his motive to talk with me was that he believed publications and the publicity of my work would draw international visitors to the Dumlupınar district and, perhaps, open a door for European Union-funded projects to be implemented in the region.

Note

1 The Çalköy municipality was abolished due to unviable population numbers.

11 Conclusion Timelines, Spaces and Echoes of the Great Offensive

‘Time is not an abstract or independent container for events but is moulded by them as much as it moulds them’. (Lucas, 2005)

The Great Offensive is an idealised historical conflict in Turkey. Its landscapes are sacralised to the degree that affects the entire visitor experience and the daily life of people living in its area. As it is propagated to be at the core of the Turkish Republic’s foundation epic, the Great Offensive remains very much alive in the Turkish state’s institutional memory: it is a regular theme in state people’s speeches and has been commemorated nationwide for almost 100 years. In the international arena, the Great Offensive is a scarcely studied subject, often being discussed under the themes of the Greek-Turkish War or the Turkish War of Independence (Jensen, 1979; Smith, 1998; Jowett and Walsh, 2015; Erickson, 2020, 2021). The central focus of these publications is rather on its vast outcomes that shaped both nations’ populations, borders and political systems. Particularly in the case of Turkey, the Great Offensive and the Turkish War of Independence are so deeply seated a subject that any radical deviation from their official narratives, whether in the form of a publication or a statement, would very likely catch heat from different circles (see Chapter 3). The story of the War of Independence has been taught in such a schematised way for generations that it has reached a level of inalterable certainty. It turned into a historical conflict that has been largely detached from its earthly aspects as it became a key component of the foundation story of the Republic of Turkey. As such, the visitor experience of its conflict sites is largely defined by official ideologies rather than by the conflict itself. A substantial portion of the Great Offensive sites are off-limits, and the monuments and cemeteries are regulated environments, landscaped and filled with poems on marble slabs, statues and decommissioned artillery pieces from the 1940s. The material remains of the Greek-Turkish War are being wiped out by looting, farming activities and construction projects. DOI: 10.4324/9781003163664-11

Conclusion 145 Oral histories of the war, passed down over generations, are fading away, as a considerable proportion of locals have been migrating to different parts of Turkey and Europe over the past 60 years. Against this background and as much as the actual Great Offensive itself, the echoes of this historical conflict must be brought under the spotlight. From my point of view, one needs to unfold this historical conflict and its aftermath instead of wrapping it up with overarching conclusions. The chapters of this book have hopefully done just that, or at least have pointed the way: with the historical background study on the Great Offensive and the Turkish War of Independence (Chapter 2) laying the groundwork for further analyses of the material culture, landscape and memoryscapes of the Great Offensive (Chapters 4, 5 and 6). The second historical background study on various discourses about the Great Offensive opens a window into the evaluation of its memorialisation, commemoration and the experiences of those visiting and living in its landscapes (Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10). The survey of the conflict zone and the non-structured interviews with locals and visitors revealed previously unknown details about the war and its present-day echoes: complex earthworks, mass graves, the involvement of local gangs, spiritual beliefs, social rifts and political debates that have sparked out from the Great Offensive. These findings suggest that the Great Offensive is not a static subject with definite results but rather ‘a multitemporal field of pasts, presents and futures’ (Lucas, 2005). Since the phenomenon of war is more complex and different than what we read, see and hear in texts, photographs and oral histories, the same comment could be made for any historical conflict. However, the vast amount of recorded detail and the fact its events are much intertwined in the daily life of the local people makes the Great Offensive an exemplary case study to illustrate the relations between the temporalities and events of a historical conflict and its aftermath. To this end, it is a powerful case study contribution to interdisciplinary modern conflict archaeology.

Multiple Temporalities and Landscapes of the Great Offensive The Turkish victory in Western Anatolia was very sudden and unexpected. The entire Greek administration and military presence in Anatolia perished within 24 days, leading to the social, political and demographic transformation of both Turkey and Greece within a one-year period. Under such circumstances, multiple temporalities and narratives of the Great Offensive do exist and will continue to emerge in the future. Within the boundaries of my fieldwork and research in Turkey, I detected four major ways that the Great Offensive has been perceived, conceptualised and moulded over the past 100 years: (1) reflexive, (2) revivalist, (3) evolutionary and (4) mythical. Each of these approaches has had a stake in forming the present-day landscapes and narratives of the Great Offensive in Turkey.

146  Conclusion

The Reflexive Approach The Great Offensive is often portrayed as a succession of events and tactical choices in the memoirs of conflict and military history publications (Tümerden, 1940; Hellenic Army History Directorate, 1967; Niş, 1968; Çalışlar, 2009). The conflict’s landscapes and events are defined with a bird’s-eye view: they describe the movements of Turkish and Greek troops in time and illustrate changes in the zones of control. The landscape is viewed through the lenses of military geography; the conflicts on high grounds, mountain passes, riverbanks and railway tracks are often discussed in detail, while those in settlements and on low grounds are glanced over. The actions of troops and the ‘key locations’ are focal points. In the present day, we can see some impacts of this approach on the ground. The considerable number of monuments lie atop hills that were once Turkish positions. The command posts of Mustafa Kemal at Kocatepe and Zafertepe are the main venues for commemoration events. Information on the conflict is delivered to visitors via the Turkish General Staff’s tactical plans that have been erected on these hills. The plans illustrate the key positions and movements of hostile Greek Army forces highlighted in red and the friendly forces of the GNA Army highlighted in blue (Figure 11.1). Another major impact this reflexive approach has had on the landscapes of the Great Offensive is its role in determining the protected zones of the Commander in Chief Park. In Turkish military history publications, the recorded events of the conflict are usually divided into three phases: (1) the offensive (26–29 August), (2) the battle of annihilation at Dumlupınar (30 August) and (3) the pursuit between Turkish and Greek forces (31 August–15 September). This division has been partially applied in determining the protected zones of the Commander in Chief National Park, which is comprised of the Kocatepe and Dumlupınar sectors. The former sector covers the area of the first four days of the offensive, while the latter encompasses sites of conflicts that took place between 29 and 31 August. The villages and towns in these sectors are literally trapped in their history due to restrictions and rules set by the National Park leaving little room for economic development (see Chapter 10). The memoirs of witnesses and oral histories of the conflict zone’s locals offer a more vivid portrayal from the ground up, bringing the Greek-Turkish War’s scents, voices, images and violence to the foreground (Adıvar, 1928; Özgen, 1973; Umar, 2002; Neyzi, 2008). In comparison to the commanders’ top-down accounts and military history publications, the events of conflict and Greek occupation are often expressed as a succession of instances and reactions. One can barely encounter what the ordinary soldiers and civilians went through in the current landscape of the Great Offensive. The Yıldırımkemal Martyrs Cemetery, which lies next to an actual site of conflict where the buried soldiers were killed, is one of the few remaining sites that offer a glimpse into ordinary soldiers’ experiences of war (see Chapter 7).

Conclusion 147

Figure 11.1  Visitors inspecting the tactical map of the Great Offensive on Zafertepe Source:  © Gizem Kahraman-Aksoy 2021.

As there are no monuments or cemeteries commemorating the Greek losses in the region, the entire repertoire of monuments is concerned with Turkish deeds during the war. Within this one-sided official view, the soldiers and civilians’ side of events are often defined within the concepts of martyrdom and sacrifice. The only places that visitors can see the material remains of war are the Dumlupınar War of Independence and Afyon Victory museums, yet the way that objects are curated is far from expressing clear information about the soldiers and civilians’ experiences of this conflict. Chapters 4 and 5 on the material remains and oral histories of the Great Offensive, in particular, and the Greek-Turkish War, in general, address this void by merging the recorded timelines and accounts of the war with its physical and social settings. By doing so, it offers a space of movement where an interchange can take place between the tactical aspects of the offensive and the self-regulating nature of actual combat conditions.

148  Conclusion

The Revivalist Approach From the time of the war to the present day, the Greek-Turkish War has always been treated as a repetition of history and myths in the press and political rhetoric. Through the lenses of this revivalist approach, the Turks defended their country against the Greeks from the harsh plateaus of the Anatolian heartland; they re-enacted the 1071 AD Battle of Manzikert on the first day of the Great Offensive, took ‘the vengeance of Hector’ at Dumlupınar and ‘pushed the Greeks into the sea’ in Izmir. The Greeks, on the other hand, were settlers reviving the Ionian League, re-enacted victories of Alexander the Great in Kütahya and Eskişehir and withdrew as ‘the new ten thousand’ (see Chapter 3). Today, revivalist tendencies can be heard in speeches delivered at commemoration ceremonies and local political rallies across the Kütahya province (see Chapters 6, 8 and 10). Within this context, the Anatolian landscapes and settlements are presented as mythical and static places where history repeats itself, and the real-life figures have become one with mythical/ historical figures. Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery is a clear reflection of the revivalist interpretation of the Great Offensive on the ground. A shrine/ tomb dedicated to a Seljuq raider commander, who is believed to have been killed by the Byzantines, was landscaped and transformed into a symbolic war cemetery for Turkish soldiers and civilians who lost their lives in the Greek-Turkish War (see Chapter 7). Through such concrete expression, the Great Offensive has been made part of the history of the Turks in Anatolia.

The Evolutionary Approach The Great Offensive’s landscapes and narratives have been gradually shaped in line with Turkish government policies and the changing socio-political climate in Turkey. In 1924, the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar was described as the place where the foundations of the Turkish Republic were consolidated by Mustafa Kemal (see Chapter 8). In the early years of the Republic, the struggles of the Turkish people during the War of Independence were associated with the social, economic and political reforms that were being realised at the time. Within the heavy atmosphere of the 1930s, the Great Offensive was often exemplified as a deterrent and a lesson to potential enemies that might attempt to invade Turkey. From the 1950s until the present day, the Great Offensive has been linked with the Turkish military’s operations from Korea to Libya. Beyond this militaristic show of power and endurance, the Great Offensive has been propagated as one of the unifying symbols of the nation, particularly by the coup administrations of 1960, 1971 and 1980. A considerable number of landmarks within the area of the Great Offensive were built, and the national park status of the Dumlupınar and Kocatepe sectors was declared under these coup administrations. The 1960 military coup government, the National

Conclusion 149 Unity Committee, identified the Great Offensive as a symbol of national unity and replaced the Martyr Soldier Monument on Zafertepe with the much larger Victory Monument. As tensions had risen between left- and right-wing groups in the 1970s, the figure of Atatürk and his role in the Great Offensive were glorified as a nation unifying symbol. This glorification reached its peak with the 1980 group (see Chapters 7 and 8). Fibreglass statues featuring Atatürk on Kocatepe and those of him giving his ‘first goal order’ to the Turkish forces were erected not just in the zone of the offensive but across Turkey. These two gestures of Atatürk, the former in a thoughtful manner and the latter pointing his index finger with a straight arm, became an integral part of the Great Offensive’s iconography and its visual narrative. The 2016 coup attempt seemingly defined a new course in the memorialisation and commemoration of the Great Offensive. A more civilian-centred approach has started to be adopted during Victory Day ceremonies held at Zafertepe, and the military’s involvement in these ceremonies is scaling down. Along with these changes, a new way of defining the Great Offensive’s timeline has emerged. The Offensive has been closely identified with the present Turkish government’s ‘the matter of survival’ discourse. The Battle of Manzikert, Gallipoli, the Great Offensive, along with later Turkish military operations and economic struggles are now melted in the same pot and propagated as the Turkish state and people’s struggle for survival and independence in Anatolia from 1071 AD to the present day. Within this much longer timeline, the Great Offensive is identified as one of the exemplary events of ‘this history of struggle’. Multiple meanings have been bestowed on the Great Offensive by the Turkish state from the early years of the republic to the present day. Its commemoration reaches a point where its physical aspects are no longer considered important and are replaced by its supposed meanings and values. Within this evolutionary understanding of time, various parts of the conflict zone have been intensively altered, while a considerable proportion of the conflict zone remains off-limits and largely neglected. Monuments and cemeteries roughly located around the Izmir-Afyon main road set the course for the official visitors’ trail. I viewed this trail as a linear timeline drawn over Western Anatolia and the sites of visit as the anchor points of this timeline. It begins on 26 August on the outskirts of Afyon and ends on 9 September in Izmir. Neither the conflict sites of the Urla Peninsula nor the positions of the Greek forces have a place within this timeline. Even though the abovementioned visitor trail would seem to be a statement of the rigid understanding of history, the design and landscaping of the visitable sites suggest that the Turkish state’s approach to the events of the conflict is very dynamic and almost anachronistic in many ways. Artillery pieces from the 1940s and 1960s are placed at most visitor sites, and an ancient tumulus was chosen as the symbolic cemetery of the Turkish soldiers. Above all, the sites have been redefined and recreated depending on Turkey’s socio-political climate of the period. To these ends, I view the site of the Great Offensive not only as

150  Conclusion the foundation stone of the Turkish Republic but as a canvas that has been painted over and over again over the past 100 years. By recreating and redefining certain locations of the Great Offensive, the Turkish state has aimed to solidify and nourish the origin story of the Turkish Republic. The landscapes/settings that the Turkish state’s memorialisation practices have generated for the visitors and locals of the conflict zone are another story (see Chapters 9 and 10). The experiences of visitors and locals at the battlefield site are vastly different. While the visitors’ are controlled and confined within the aforementioned monuments and cemeteries, the locals’ are knotted in the oral histories and material remains of the war. One reason behind this is that the majority of the battlefield is off-limits due to its designation as a natural and archaeological reserve. Furthermore, the official memorialisation ignores the contribution of the local population, and local narratives contradict those propagated by governmental agents. Despite the state’s rhetoric of national unity, there exist differences amongst village populations about their respective roles during the Greek occupation, including claims of collaboration with the Greeks, and disagreements of this nature continue to influence local politics today. There is also competition amongst these villages to persuade government officials to construct landmarks in their communities as a token of their contribution to the struggle. Additionally, local myths and religious beliefs are intertwined with the battlefield landscapes, which contrast with the official memorialisation activities’ rather secular tone. To summarise, state and local war memorialisation approaches have resulted in two very different landscapes/settings. The first is extremely visible, landscaped and regulated, and disseminates the outcomes of the Battle of Dumlupınar. The latter is subtler, with oral histories, religious rituals, mythologies and local politics all playing a role.

The Mythical Approach As much as the Great Offensive is a historically and politically momentous event, it is heavily mythologised, particularly by people living in its area (see Chapter 6). The sense of time is rather vague within local narratives concerning the conflict and practices of memorialisation. Events are conceived and narrated according to the places and individuals who are believed to have taken part in the conflict. During interviews with locals of the conflict zone, they often referred to the timeline of the historical event they were discussing as being: ‘when the Greeks were fleeing’, ‘the first harvest after the Greeks left Dumlupınar’ and ‘when Atatürk was here for 15 days’. The temporalities of the War differ from generation to generation. Third-generation interviewees often mentioned their grandparents as ‘living history’. They are referred to as the source of the war narratives circulating amongst the village communities, and, apparently, the element of time did not hold a significant place in their stories: ‘The elders would discuss the war fiercely

Conclusion 151 as if they were living it all over again. They did not mention any dates of the events but rather discussed them based on their locationsint64’. As such, the concept of time in the local lore is generally touched upon rather than measured (Lucas, 2005). The ways that the conflict zone’s locals engage with the material culture and landscapes of the conflict open the doors of a mythical world intertwined with religious beliefs, local politics and looting of the battlefields. Within this perception of time, the Battlefield of Dumlupınar is divided into sacred and non-sacred ground. This division determines which areas of the battlefield could be transformed and how they should be altered in the local tradition. The sacred areas are often identified as burial grounds of saints and village ancestors, areas often defined by hills and trees that are believed to be conscious living beings. Carrying out intrusive activities like ploughing, felling and the gathering of stone and wood in these areas are believed to cause dire consequences to the perpetrator. According to local tradition, the trees, earth, hills and stones of these sacred grounds will resist those who have bad intentions and would protect those who have good intentions. Under such parameters, the Greek occupation is regarded as an intrusion, while the arrival of Turkish soldiers is viewed as a blessing. The areas that lie outside the sacred ground are not considered untouchable by the locals. They plough the land, graze their flocks and search for remains of war. As the large number of looting holes and interviews with the locals’ attest, looters are lured into the most distant parts of the conflict zone in the hopes of finding ‘the missing gold of the Greek Army’ and other finds that might be of value on the antique market. Beyond the economic aspirations of looters, I propose that there is a much larger background behind such activities. The population exchange and the exodus of the Greek Orthodox population are often linked with treasure hunting across Anatolia. Abandoned Greek houses are usually associated with supposed hoards left by their previous owners and churches with ‘the treasures of priests’ in local communities. Therefore, the sites of the Great Offensive are no exception: one of the ways that the locals continue to engage with the legacy of Greek occupation and population in Western Anatolia is through treasure hunting. Within this mythical temporality of the Great Offensive, the divine and earthly are often intertwined. While Greek soldiers would face divine punishment, such as an attack of ‘men wearing turbans’ rising from their graves, the trees in the sacred grounds would conceal the Turkish soldiers from Greek artillery. In essence, such legends suggest that there is a spiritual dimension to the Greek-Turkish War within the local narratives. Within this spiritual world, trees, stones, hills, saints and ancestors resisted the Greek occupation and fought alongside Turkish soldiers against Greek soldiers. In a similar way, local politicians of the Kütahya province tend to identify the landscapes and events of the Great Offensive beyond the human scale: the sites of the Great Offensive are often described as sacred grounds washed by the blood of martyrs.

152  Conclusion

Towards a More Progress-Driven Study of the War of Independence In examining the temporalities and landscapes of the Great Offensive, the following points come to the fore. The reflexive temporalities consist of measurable units closely related to landscapes and decisive events of the conflict. The revivalist temporalities are comprised of non-linear timescales that draw parallels with the events, figures and landscapes of ancient Anatolia with those of the Great Offensive. The evolutionary temporalities draw a linear timeline of conflict that is not primarily related to the events and landscapes of the conflict but its echoes from 1924 to the present day. The mythical temporalities rely on an imprecise concept of time that is embedded in the landscape and local figures of the conflict rather than its dates and official key moments and places. By discussing multiple temporalities of the Great Offensive, I have endeavoured to create a body of work that has a depth greater than one dimension and, therefore, capable of illustrating the complexity of the conflict and its aftermath. In this respect, I describe my approach towards the theme of the Great Offensive as progress-driven rather than result-oriented. It is hoped that this book will spark further research into the Great Offensive and the Turkish War of Independence.

Future Prospects The Battle of Dumlupınar Survey incorporated a wide range of data gathered from non-intrusive surveys, semi-structured interviews with locals, archive research and literature review. In other words, a modern interdisciplinary approach rather than a traditional battlefield archaeology one. Although this research revealed material remains and oral histories of the battle, it could not offer detailed information about the characteristics and distribution of material remains over the entire battlefield due to poor preservation, dense vegetation and a lack of financial means to apply further landscape archaeology methods to the field.1 Most of the locations and remains of war that were shown by the locals are yet to be confirmed with further fieldwork. In conclusion, the complexity of the Battle of Dumlupınar requires a more hybrid approach incorporating a larger set of methodological tools than those I employed between 2012 and 2016. Leaving aside the Battlefields of Dumlupınar, there are more temporalities and landscapes of the Great Offensive and the Turkish War of Independence waiting to be explored and studied across Western Anatolia. As the Great Offensive roughly followed the trail of the 330 km-long railway between the cities of Afyonkarahisar and Izmir, I believe future research should set its sights on at least two zones of the conflict: (1) the Greek defence line and Turkish positions around Afyonkarahisar where the offensive was initiated and (2) the towns of Alaşehir, Salihli and Turgutlu that were razed during the withdrawal of the Greek Army. As no place was spared in this conflict, I have

Conclusion 153 chosen these regions in order to represent the different phases and different arenas of the conflict: namely, high grounds (Afyonkarahisar) and settlements (Turgutlu, Salihli and Alaşehir). Considering battlefield photographs from 1922 and my experience from the Battle of Dumlupınar Project, I anticipate finding a series of earthworks and stone parapets, particularly in the surroundings of Afyon. I expect that the degree of preservation would be better in the surroundings of Afyon than that of the open fields of Dumlupınar, as the terrain is too rugged and mountainous for farming activities. Alongside material remains, the monuments and key terrains of conflict, such as hills, bridges, mountain passages, railway stations and neighbourhoods that were burnt down, should be examined, as these areas hold a significant place in both written and oral narratives of the Great Offensive. Particularly, surveys of Salihli, Alaşehir and Turgutlu would tackle the post-conflict presence of absence in the burnt-down neighbourhoods and their reconstruction and planning, which resonate different engagements with the conflict and its enduring aftermath. The recording of key locations of fire and events will illustrate how the Greek-Turkish War altered the built environment and socio-cultural landscape of Western Anatolia. Relations between the Greek occupation forces and the Turkish population are another subject that must be explored further. Newspapers of the period and memoirs of the war remain the only major sources in our understanding of this relationship. Here, my contribution to this subject is limited to the oral historical research on the site of the Battle of Dumlupınar. A study covering not just rural areas but the towns and cities in Western Anatolia would likely offer a more comprehensive picture. To conclude, the material and intangible legacies of the Great Offensive have great potential to offer a field of study which is both rich and relevant to present-day life in Western Anatolia, and it would open a new window into the understanding of its present-day built environment, landscapes and demography, as well contribute to the emerging sub-discipline of modern conflict archaeology.

Note

1 The Battle of Dumlupınar Project received very little funding, being largely realised at my own expense.

References

Acıpayam Belediyesi (2021) 26 Ağustos Malazgirt Zaferi’nin ve Büyük Taaruz’un Yıldönümü Kutlu Olsun. Available at: https://acipayam.bel.tr/haberler/26-agustosmalazgirtzaferinin-ve-buyuk-taarruzun-yildonumu-kutlu-olsun/4651/. Aday, E. (2013) Kütahya İli Türbe ve Yatırlı Etrafında Oluşan İnanç ve Uygulamalar. Balıkesir: T. C. Balıkesir Üniversitesi. Adıvar, H. E. (1928) The Turkish Ordeal. New York: The Century Co. Akçasulu, Z. (2019) Hakimiyet-i Milliye ve Peyam-ı Sabah Gazetelerine Göre Büyük Taarruz. Denizli: Pamukale University. Akın, R. (2014) TBMM Devleti (1920–1923) Birinci Meclis Döneminde Devlet Erkleri ve İdare. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Akpolat, B. (2006) Kurtuluş Savaşı cephelerine yolculuk, Hurriyet Seyahat. Available at: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/kurtulus-savasi-cephelerine-yolculuk-5367104. Akşam (1939) ‘30 Ağustos Zaferi’, Akşam, 30 August, p. 5. Akşam (1941) ‘Afyonda İnönü Günü’, Akşam, 10 November, p. 5. Akşam (1951) ‘30 Ağustos Zafer Bayramı’, Akşam, 30 August, p. 1. Akşam (1955) ‘30 Ağustostan Hala Ders Almadınız mı ?’, Akşam, 30 August, p. 1. Akşin, S. (2010) İç Savaş Ve Sevr’de Ölüm. Istanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Aksoy, Ö. C. (2021) ‘Revisiting the Battle of Dumlupınar: An archaeological and ethnographical exploration of the Turkish War of Independence’, Post-Medieval Archaeology, 55(1), pp. 109–136. Aksoy, O. C. and Bayar, Z. (2016) ‘Archaeological ethnography of the Battle of Aslıhanlar (29–30 August 1922): A case study of public archaeology, visual storytelling, and interactive map Design’, European Journal of Archaeology, 19, pp. 68–94. Aksoy, Ö. C. and Kahraman, G. (2022) ‘Monuments, Narratives and Commemoration at the Battlegrounds of Dumlupınar’, War and Society, 41(3), pp. 220–246. Alaeddinoğlu, F. and Aliağaoğlu, A. (2007) ‘Savaş Alanları Turizmine Tipik Bir Örnek: Büyük Taarruz ve Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Parkı’, Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(2), pp. 215–225. Albert Kahn, M. (2021) Les Archives de la Planète. Available at: https://albertkahn.hauts-de-seine.fr/les-collections/presentation/photographies-et-films/ les-archives-de-la-planete. Alp, A. (2016) Başkomutanlık Milli Parkı küçülüyor, Hurriyet. Available at: https:// www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/baskomutanlik-milli-parki-kuculuyor-40319423. Altay, F. (1925) Türkiye İstiklâl Muharebatında süvari kolordusunun harekâtı. Konya: Vilâyet Matbaası. Altay, F. (1970) 10 Yıl Savaş ve Sonrası 1912–1922. Istanbul: İnsel Yayınları.

References 155 Ambelas, D. T. (1943) Yeni Onbinlerin İnişi. Istanbul: Istanbul Askeri Matbaa. Ambelas, D. T. (1997) Ανεξάρτητος Μεραρχία – Η Κάθοδος των νεωτέρων Μυρίων, 16–31 Αυγούστου 1922. Athens: Tourikis Editions. Anadolu Ajansı (2018) 30 Ağustos Zaferi’yle Anadolu’nun bir Türk yurdu olduğu tescillendi. Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/30-agustos-zaferiyleanadolunun-bir-turk-yurdu-oldugu-tescillendi/1243016. Anapalı, A. (2013) 30 Ağustos’ta Biz Kaybettik ! Available at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=n KrAEIrXi2M. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2018a) Add Dumlupınar Şehitliğinde Habib Akalın Rüyamda Vatanı Gördüm. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= wkpOYPzSRBs. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2018b) Afyon Tek Koleji Ikiz Öğrencilerin Gezi Değerlendirmesi. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmXpRttjBfo. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2018c) Afyon tek koleji öğrencilerin gezi değerlendirmesi habib akalın. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAYHzicVTT8. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2018d) Kütahya Boğaziçi Koleji Müdürü Dumlupınar Şehitlikleri Değelendirmesi. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=k3TUZj1FQmM. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2018e) Türkiyat araştırmaları topluluğu ordular ilk hedefiniz Akdeniz ileri emri verdi. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=yadnaorKabg. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2019a) Barış Pınarı Harekatına Selam Habib Akalın. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d9p1gWddW0. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2019b) Dumlupınar ikipınar mevki gerçek şehit mezarı Habib akalın yeni. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUTy1HyKSgk. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2020a) Afyon MHP Grubu Kocatepe’de Habib Akalın Anlatıyor Kocatepe’de Yaşananlar. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=XBNjkmDktnA. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2020b) Dumlupınar Şehitliği Anlatımı. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKL-l-oxKF8. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2020c) Gündoğdu Halk Konseyi Dumlupınar Şehitliğinde Dev Türk Bayrağı Açtı. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= OpgQRvBhwkA&t=359s. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2020d) Kocatepe’de Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene Demek Ne Güzel Bir Şey Konya Grubu ve Habib Akalın. Available at: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=ey5t_jq8j4Y. Araştırmacı Yazar Habib Akalın (2021) Bir Alman Misafire Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene Haykırışı Yaptırdık. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUrXc473DbQ. Arı, K. (2011) ‘Kurtuluş Savaşı Karpostalları “Mehmed’in Hikayesi”’, Journal of Modern Turkish History Studies, 11(23), pp. 187–232. Artuç, İ (1986) Başkomutan Meydan Muharabesi:Büyük Taarruz. Istanbul: Kastas. Asal, U. (2014) Ahmet Asal’ın torunundan çağrı, Şebin Gündem. Available at: https:// www.sebingundem.com/haber/ahmet-asalin-torunundan-cagri-1868.html. Asal (2016) Giresun’lar Sehitligi ve Oglunun dilinden Ahmet Halis Asal. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo9p2eNuBKk&t=2037s&ab_channel=Asal. Ashplant, T. G., Dawson, G. and Roper, M. (2000) ‘The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration: Contexts, Structures and Dynamics’, in Ashplant, T. G., Dawson, G. and Roper, M. (eds.) The Politics of War Memory and Commemoration. London: Routledge, pp. 3–85. Atak, B. (2010) Küçük Gezgin Zafertepeçalköyde. Kütahya: Zafertepeçalköy Belediyesi.

156  References Atalay, O. (2019) Türk’e Tapmak Seküler Din ve İki Savaş Arası Kemalizm. Istanbul: İletişim. Atam (1933) Atatürk’ün Onuncu Yıl Nutku’nun Son Şekli. Available at: https://www. atam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/Onuncu-Yıl-Nutkunun-Son-Şekli.pdf. Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi (2006) Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri I-III. Ankara: Divan Yayıncılık. Atatürk, M. K. (1995) Nutuk. Istanbul: Süryay. Atay, Ç. (1997) 19. yy İzmir Fotoğrafları. Istanbul: Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü. Aydoğan, E. (2005) Oltu Şura Hükümeti’nin Ermeni Mücadelesi  : Yasin Haşimoğlu’nun Hatıraları. Istanbul: Salkım Söğüt Yayınları. Aygen, M. S. and Görktan, M. (1982) Atatürk Afyonda: (Atatürkʼün Afyonʼa gelişleri). Afyon: Türkeli Matbaası. Âyine (1922) ‘Balıkçı: Tatlı Suda Köpekbalığı Bulunmaz Diyen Kim?’, Âyine, p. 1. Bahçeli, D. (2015) Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi Genel Başkanı Sayın Devlet BAHÇELİ’nin, “Kütahya Mitingi”nde yapmış oldukları konuşma. Available at: https://www.mhp.org.tr/htmldocs/mhp/3848/mhp/Milliyetci_Hareket_Partisi_ Genel_Baskani_Sayin_Devlet_BAHCELI__nin___Kutahya_Mitingi__nde_ yapmis_olduklari_konusma_21_Mayis.html. Bakanlar Kurulu (2016) Şehitlik Yönetmeliği, Yönetmelikler ek 96. Available at: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/3.5.20169430.pdf. Baran, T. A. (2020) Tarihe Tanıklık Eden Bir Objektiften Kurtuluş Savaşı: Etem Tem’in Hatıraları. Istanbul: Yeditepe Üniversitesi Yayınevi. Bender, B. (2002) ‘Time and landscape’, Current Anthropology, 43, pp. 103–112. Bardakçı, M. (2006) Şahbaba – Osmanoğulları’nın Son Hükümdarı VI. Mehmed Vahideddin’in Hayatı, Hatıraları ve Özel Mektupları Murat Bardakçı Şahbaba – Osmanoğulları’nın Son Hükümdarı VI. Mehmed Vahideddin’in Hayatı, Hatıraları ve Özel Mektupları. Istanbul: İnkılap Yayınevi. Bardakçı, M. (2015) Bir Devlet Operasyonu, 19 Mayıs. Istanbul: Turkuvaz Kitap. Barnes, F. (1972) Cartridges of the World. London: Digest Books. Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Park Müdürlüğü (2021) Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Parkı. Afyonkarahisar: T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü 5. Bölge Müdürlüğü. BBC Türkçe (2019) Erdoğan: Ağustos’ta zaferler halkasına bir yenisini daha ekleyeceğiz, BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-49304836. Belen, F. (1999) Büyük Türk Zaferi (Afyon’dan İzmir’e Kadar). Istanbul: Yeni Gün Haber Ajansı Basın ve Yayıncılık A.Ş. Benlisoy, F. (2010) ‘Eski Yunanistan’dan Sizi Kurtarmaya Geldik Aşağılık Köpekler!’, Toplumsal Tarih, 198, pp. 77–85. Benlisoy, F. (2014) Kahramanlar Kurbanlar Direnişçiler Trakya ve Anadolu’daki Yunan Ordusunda Propaganda, Grev ve isyan (1919–1922). Istanbul: Istos. Benlisoy, F. (2016) Trikupis’i esir eden asker isyanı ve denize dökülenler kim? Fotibenlisoy. Available at: https://fotibenlisoy.tumblr.com/post/150162089214/ trikupisi-esir-eden-asker-isyanı-ve-denize. Berber, E. (1998) İzmir 1920 Yunanistan Rehberinden İşgal Altındaki Bir Kentin Öyküsü. İzmir: Akademi Kitabevi. Berber, E. (1999) İzmir, Yeni Onbinlerin Gölgesinde Bir Sancak. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. Berber, E. (2009) ‘Yunan İşgali: Geldikleri gibi Gidemediler’, NTV Tarih, 4, pp. 28–36.

References 157 Bierstadt, E. H. (2008) The Great Betrayal: Economic Imperialism and the Destruction of Christian Communities in Asia Minor. Chicago: Pontian Greek Society of Chicago. Bora Turizim (2019) Adım Adım Kurtuluş Savaşı Turu. Available at: https://www. begtour.com/index.php?goster=ADIM-ADIM-KURTULUS-SAVASI-TURU— 25-27-HAZIRAN-2019—2-GECE-3-GUN-&tur=tur. Bozdoğan, S. (2001) Modernism and Nation Building Turkish Architectural Culture in The Early Republic. Singapore: University of Washington Press. Çağlar, B. K. (1938) ‘30 Ağustos Bayramından İntıbalar’, Ulus Gazetesi, 7 September, p. 6. Çalışlar, İ (2009) Gün Gün, Saat Saat İstiklâl Harbi’nde Batı Cephesi: Org. İzzetin Çalışlar’ın Anılarıyla. Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Çamlıbel Vakfı (2021) Kültürel Tur/100. Yılında Kurtuluş Savaşı Cepheleri. Available at: https://camlibelvakfi.com/kurtulus-savasi-turu/. Cebesoy, A. F. (1953) Milli Mücadele Hatırları. Istanbul: Vatan Neşriyatı. Çelebi, M. S. (2019) ‘Batı Anadolu Efsanelerindeki Millî Mücadeleyi Kült Merkezli Okumak’, Söylem Filoloji Dergisi, 4(2), pp. 374–396. Çetin, N. (2014) ‘Lozan Barış Konferansı Arifesinde Istanbul-Nakar Münasebetleri ve Istanbul Hükümeti’nin İstifası’, Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(7), pp. 87–113. Cornish, P. (2022a) ‘Introduction Challenging Perspectives on Museums and the Great War’, in Saunders, N. J. and Cornish, P. (eds) Curating the Great War. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–18. Cornish, P. (2022b) Introduction Challenging Perspectives on Museums and the Great War. Edited by N. J. Saunders and P. Cornish. London and New York: Routledge. Çoruk, A. Ş. (2008) Mizah Penceresinden Milli Mücadele. Istanbul: Kitabevi. Cumhurbaşkanlığı, T. C. (2020) Cumhuriyetin 97. Yılında Milli Mücadele Sergisi Hakimiyet Milletindir. Ankara: Cumhurbaşkanlığı Yayınları. Cumhuriyet (1931) ‘Şehit Mehmetçiğin Huzurunda’, Cumhuriyet, 31 August, pp. 1–4. Cumhuriyet (1935) ‘Kükremiş Bir Aslan Gibi!’, Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, 21 December, p. 1. Cumhuriyet (1941) ‘İnönü Günü’, Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, 10 November. Cumhuriyet (2008) Uluslararası Atatürk ve Zafer Yolu Bisiklet Turu, Cumhuriyet. Available at: http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/diger/6316/Uluslararasi_Ataturk_ ve_Zafer_Yolu_Bisiklet_Turu.html (Accessed: 18 April 2019). Demirel, A. (2003) Birinci Meclis’te Muhalefet İkinci Grup. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Demirel, A. (2018) “Tek Partinin İktidarı” (Türkiye’de Seçimler ve Siyaset: 1923–1946). Istanbul: Iletişim. Demirtaş, H. (2018) ‘Dağarcık’ Dumlupınar’ın Makus Talihi Değişiyor mu? Haber274. Available at: http://www.haber274.net/yazar-dagarcIk-dumlupInar-In-mak-s-talihidegisiyor-mu-53.html. Dendooven, D. (2022) ‘Afterword Commemorating the First World War Today: In Flanders Fields Museum, Ypres, Belgium’, in Cornish, P. and Saunders, N. J. (eds) Curating the Great War. London and New York: Routledge. DHA (2015) Izmir’in İşgali Ardından Atılan Yunan Ordusunun Kupaları Antikacıda, Ege’nin Sesi. Available at: http://www.egeninsesi.com/haber/150574yunan_ordusunun_kupalari_antikacida. Dobkin Housepian, M. (1998) Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of a City. New York: Newmark Press.

158  References Drozdzewski, D., De Nardi, S. and Waterton, E. (2016) ‘Geographies of memory, place and identity: Intersections in Remembering War and Conflict’, Geography Compass, 10(11), pp. 447–456. Dumlupınar Kaymakamlığı (2009) İlçemizin Kısa Bir Tarihçesi. Available at: http:// www.dumlupinar.gov.tr/ilcemizin-kisa-bir-tarihcesi (Accessed: 25 March 2019). Dündar, O. (1999) Yıldırım Kemal Akköy Cephaneliği. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları. Dündar, U. (2018) Ey Dumlupınar’da Şehit Düşmüş Analar, Babalar, 8 Yaşında Çocuklar, Sözcü. Available at: https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2018/yazarlar/ugur-dundar/eydumlupinarda-sehit-dusmus-analar-babalar-8-yasindaki-cocuklar-2172790/ (Accessed: 1 April 2019). Dündar, O. and Dündar, E. (2012) Milli Mücadele’nin Gerçek Bir Kahramanı Yıldırım Kemal – İzmir Kan Ağlıyor. Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi. El Destino Tur (2022) Afyon Kocatepe-Kütahya Dumlupınar Şehitliği Aizonai Antik Kenti. Available at: https://www.eldestino.com.tr/Tur.aspx?ID=304 (Accessed: 20 March 2022). Ercan, T. (1999) Türk İstiklal Harbi Batı Cephesi: Sivas Kongresi ve Heyet-i Temsiliye Devri İstanbul’un İtilâf Devletleri Tarafından Resmen İşgali Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Hükümeti’nin Kurulması Batı Anadolu ve Trakya Cephelerinde Yunan İleri Hai’ekâtı (4 Eylül 1919-. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi. Erdem, N. (2010) Yunan Tarihçiliğinin Gözüyle Anadolu Harekatı (1919–1923). Istanbul: Derlem Yayınları. Erdem, N. (2014) ‘Yunan Kaynaklarına Göre 1922 Yılında Batı Anadolu’da Otonom Devlet Kurmaya Yönelik Faaliyetler’, Journal Of Modern Turkish History Studies, 29, pp. 97–140. Erdem, N. (2018) Mizah Penceresinden Yunanistan’da Halk, Savaş ve Siyaset. Istanbul: Ötüken. Ergül, T. (2013) ‘Ege’de İşgal Bölgesinin Ortasında Düşmana Direnen “Akıncılar”’, Kekibeç, 35, pp. 113–134. Erickson, E. (2020) ‘Decisive Battles of the Asia Minor Campaign 1921–1922’, in Travlos, C. (ed.) Salvation and Catastrophe: The Greek-Turkish War 1919–1922. London: Lexington Books, pp. 173–194. Erickson, E. (2021) The Turkish War of Independence: a Military History, 1919–1923. Santa Barbara and Denver: Praeger. Erol, M. (2020) ‘Between Memories of Persecution and Refugee Experience: The Armenians in Greece in the Aftermath of the Greek-Turkish War’, in Travlos, K. (ed.) Salvation and Catastrophe: The Greek-Turkish War 1919–1922. London: Lexington Books, pp. 341–350. Ersin, M. (2013) Kurtuluş Savaşın’da Uşak Anıları. İzmir: Meta Yayınları. ERT (2019) Archive of The Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT S.A.). Available at: https://archive.ert.gr/3062/ (Accessed: 9 September 2019). Eyüboğlu, S. (1994) Mavi ve Kara. Istanbul: Çağdaş Yayınları. Fenik, M. F. (1950) ‘30 Ağustos’un Verdiği Ders’, Zafer, 30 August, pp. 1–6. Fest Travel (2020) Kurtuluş Svaşı Coğrafyası Gezisi. Available at: https://www.festtravel. com/kurtulus-savasi-cografyasi. Frigya Haber (2019) Dumlupınar’da şehitlere vefa. Available at: https://www.frigyahaber. com/haber/dumlupinar-da-sehitlere-vefa/7744. Gaste Arşivi. (2021) Gaste Arşivi. Available at: https://www.gastearsivi.com/. Gençosman, K. (1942) ‘Meçhul Ölülerin Yattığı Yer Zafertepe’, Ulus Gazetesi, 8 September, p. 2.

References 159 Genelkurmay Başkanlığı (1997) Büyük Taarruz Harp Tarihi Broşürü. Ankara: ATASE Yayınları. Gezdikçe Bilelim (2021) Şemsettin AKAĞAÇ (Dumlupınar ilçe Belediye başkanı). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF0bDSDUwFQ. Goularas-Bayındır, G. (2012) ‘1923 Türk-Yunan Nüfus Mübadelesi Ve Günümüzde Mübadil Kimlik Ve Kültürlerinin Yaşatılması’, Alternatif Politika, 4(2), pp. 129–146. Güçler, A. and Gür, F. (2021) ‘More than a sovereign symbol? The public reception of the early monumental statues of Atatürk in Turkey’, Nations and Nationalism, 27, pp. 1149–1164. Güler, A. (2017) ‘No Title’, Yeni Düşünce, February, pp. 29–34. Gündoğmuş, Y. N. (2018) Türk tarihinin altın sayfaları ağustosta yazıldı, Anadolu Ajansı. Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/turk-tarihinin-altin-sayfalariagustosta-yazildi/1239299. Günek, H. T. (2021) ‘Büyük Utku (Zafer) Anıtının Hikâyesi’, Taşpınar, 25, pp. 23–41. Güngör, A. S. (2010) Kurtuluş Savaşı Alanlarının Turizim Coğrafyası. T.C. Istanbul Universitesi. Günhan, A. (2010) Anadolu’da Yunan Zulmü Raporlarında Kütahya. Ankara: Dönmez Basımevi. Günyol, A. (2021) Setur İstiklal Treni Turu, 100. yılında Kurtuluş Savaşı’nın izinde. Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/sirkethaberleri/turizm/setur-istiklal-trenituru-100-yilinda-kurtulus-savasi-nin-izinde/667529. Gür, F. (2013) ‘Sculpting the nation in early republican Turkey’, Historical Research, 86, pp. 342–372. Hackwill, R. (2017) Old song revived in Turkey as anthem of a modern nation opposed to Erdogan, Euronews. Available at: https://www.euronews.com/2017/04/12/oldsong-revived-in-turkey-as-anthem-of-a-modern-nation-opposed-to-erdogan. Hamilakis, Y. and Anagnostopoulos, A. (2009) ‘What is archaeological ethnography?’, Public Archaeology, 8(2–3), pp. 65–86. Hellenic Army History Directorate (1967) Ἐπίτομος ἱστορία τῆς εἰς Μικράν Ἀσίαν Ἐκστρατείας 1919–1922. Athens: Hellenic Army History Directorate. Heller, D. A. (1950) ‘Greeks Have Threatened by Blight Tough Chief’, Reading Eagle, 25 May, p. 45. Herva, V.-P. et al. (2016) ‘“I have better stuff at home”: Treasure hunting and private collecting of World War II artefacts in Finnish Lapland’, World Archaeology, 48, pp. 267–281. Hocaoğulları, T. (2021) Kocatepe ve Dumlupınar Şehitlikler Turu. Available at: https:// www.hocaogullari.com.tr/tur/kocatepe-ve-dumlupinar-sehitlikler-turu-206. Hofmann, T., Brjornlund, M. and Meichanestidis, V. (2012) The Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks: Studies on the State-Sponsored Campaign of Extermination of the Christians of Asia Minor (1912–1922) and Its Aftermath: History, Law, Memory. Athens: Aristide D. Caratzas. Hülagü, M. (1994) ‘Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Dönemi Türkiye İslam Ülkeleri Münasebetleri’, Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, 4(13), pp. 11–25. Hülagü, M. (2008) İngiliz Gizli Belgelerine Göre Milli Mücadelede İslamcılık ve Turancılık İslam Birliği ve Mustafa Kemal. Istanbul: Timaş. Hurriyet (1960) ‘30 Ağustos Zafer Bayramını Kutluyoruz-Bugün Her Yılkinden Daha Parlak Törenler Yapılacak’, Hurriyet, 30 August, p. 1. IHA (2015) Direniş, Diriliş, Kurtuluş, Metristepe’den Kocatepe’ye, Milliyet. Available at: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/direnis-dirilis-kurtulus-metristepe-eskisehiryerelhaber-952095/ (Accessed: 15 March 2019).

160  References IHA (2018) Seçim Startını Şehitler Diyarı Dumlupınar’dan Verdiler. Available at: https:// www.sondakika.com/haber/haber-secim-startini-sehitler-diyari-dumlupinardan-10878726/. Ihlas Haber Ajansı (2007) Dumlupınar’ın Tanıtılması İçin Grup Oluşturuldu, Haberler. com. Available at: https://www.haberler.com/dumlupinar-in-tanitilmasi-icin-gru p-olusturuldu-haberi/. Ihlas Haber Ajansı (2019a) Dumlupınar’da yerleri belli olmayan şehitler tespit ediliyor, Haberler.com. Available at: https://www.haberler.com/dumlupinar-da-yerleri-belliolmayan-sehitler-12300866-haberi/. Ihlas Haber Ajansı (2019b) Köylerini Kalkındırmak İçin Dernek Kurdular, Haberler. com. Available at: https://www.haberler.com/koylerini-kalkindirmak-icin-dernekkurdular-11931387-haberi/. Ihvan, E. (2020) Yurtsever Bilge Cafer Pekmez Öğretmen 1 Bölüm. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3vCKk8XWqQ&t=3s. İnan, A. (1957) Istiklal Savaşı Dumlupınar Zafer Abidesi ve Tesisleri İçin Proje ve Planlar Kitabı. İnan, A. (2007) Atatürk Hakkında Hatıralar ve Belgeler. Istanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. İncedayı, C. K. (2007) Istiklal Harbi (Garp Cephesi). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. İnönü, İ (1985) Hatıralarım. Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Yayınları. İnsel, A. (2009) ‘Sunuş’, in İnsel, A. (ed.) Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce Cilt 2 Kemalizm. Istanbul: İletişim, pp. 12–17. İşçi, H. (2011) İnönü Döneminde Atatürk İmajı (1938–1950). Istanbul: T.C. Marmara Universitesi. Işık, A. (2010) Biz Neyiz ve Kimiz? Bir Kütahya Sevdalısı Anlatıyor (Prof.Dr.Alim IŞIK). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEi_6VHF5z4&t=308s. Işık, A. (2014) Yörük Dede: ‘Sayın Genel Başkan İyi ki Geldin, Bu Alim IŞIK’ı Bize Verin!’. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ttf4-oe40Q. Izmir Life (2009) ‘Emekli Albayın Yunan Şehitliği Projesi’, Izmir Life, 96, pp. 22–25. Jensen, P. K. (1979) ‘The Greco-Turkish War 1920–1922’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 10(4), pp. 553–565. Jowett, P. and Walsh, S. (2015) Men-at-Arms Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919–22. Oxford: Osprey. Kahraman, İ. (2014) 1. Dünya Savaşı’ndan Kurtuluş Savaşı’na Giden Giresun: Gönüllü Şehit Oldular. Gebze: Belgesel Yayınevi. Kanellopulos, K. D. (1936) I Mikrasiatiki Itta, Avgustos 1922. Athens: Anesti Oralli. Karabekir, K. (1960) İstiklal Harbimiz. Istanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi. Karabekir, K. (2020) Paşaların Kavgası. Istanbul: Truva Yayınları. Karagöz (1922a) ‘Karagöz İzmir Rıhtımında’, Karagöz, p. 1. Karagöz (1922b) ‘Papulas Cızlanı Çekince’, Karagöz, July, p. 1. Kılıç, M. (1964) ‘Ordular İlk Hedefiniz Akdenizdir İleri…’, Tarih Konuşuyor, 8(1), pp. 593–597. Kılıç, B. and Akyurt, H. (2011) ‘Destinasyon İmajı Oluşturmada Hüzün Turizmi: Afyonkarahisar ve Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Parkı’, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), pp. 209–232. Kinross, L. (1965) Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation. London: William Morris. Kocabıyık, A. (2004) Tazlar Köyü’nden Borusan’a. Istanbul: Doğan Kitapçılık. Köker, L. (2009) ‘Kemalizm/Atatürkçülük: Modernleşme, Devlet ve Demokrasi’, in İnsel, A. (ed.) Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce Cilt 2 Kemalizm. Istanbul: İletişim, pp. 97–112.

References 161 Koliopoulos, J. S. and Veremis, T. (2010) Modern Greece: A History since 1821. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Koundoura, M. (2007) The Greek Idea. London: Tauris Academic Studies. Koyunoğlu, A. H. (2008) Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e bir mimar: Arif Hikmet Koyunoğlu: anılar, yazılar, mektuplar, belgeler. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Kütahya Belediyesi (2019) Kuruluştan Kurtuluşa Anıtı Belediye Binası Önüne Dikiliyor. Available at: https://www.kutahya.bel.tr/haber.asp?id=3234. Kütahya Muharip (2021) Zafere Giden Yol 2. Available at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=FgG2Ycf9lOc&ab_channel=KütahyaMuharip. Kütahya Net Haber (2015) Dumlupınar’a Sahip Çıkalım, Kütahya Net Haber. Available at: www.kutahyanethaber.com (Accessed: 15 March 2019). Lowry, H. W. (1988) ‘Turkish history: On whose sources will it be based?’, Osmanlı Araştırmaları, 9, pp. 1–29. Lucas, G. (2005) The Archaeology of Time. London and New York: Routledge. Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mamarelis, A. (2003) The Rise and Fall of the 5/42 Regiment of Evzones: A Study on National Resistance and Civil War in Greece 1941–1944. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Mango, A. (2002) Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey. New York: Overlook. Marmara Universitesi Mehmet Genç Kulliyesi (2013) Cultural Studies – 7/Faik Gür. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATYkhnc1pKM. Marulyalı, Y. and Aksüt, L. (2007) Umo Mimarlık, Mimdap. Available at: http:// www.mimdap.org/w/?p=616 (Accessed: 18 March 2019). Mason, D. (2002) ‘Reading Greece’, The Hudson Review, 5(3), pp. 4–32. Matbuat ve İstihbarat Müdüriyet-i Umumiyesi (1922) Anadolu’da Yunan Zulüm ve Vahşeti. Ankara: Matbuat ve İstihbarat Matbaası. Maurice, F. (1943) The Armistices of 1918. London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press. Medya Ege (2019) “İşgalden Kurtuluşa Bir Milletin Mucizevi Yolculuğu” sergisi İzmir Sanat’ta açıldı!, Medya Ege. Available at: https://www.medyaege.com.tr/isgaldenkurtulusa-bir-milletin-mucizevi-yolculugu-sergisi-izmir-sanatta-acildi-123028h.htm. Meydan, S. (2018) ‘Bu Toprakları Yeniden Vatan Yapan Zafer Büyük Taarruz’, Sözcü, 27 August. Available at: https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2018/yazarlar/sinan-meydan/ bu-topraklari-yeniden-vatan-yapan-zafer-buyuk-taarruz-2592872/. Miles, S. (2016) The Western Front Landscape, Tourism and Heritage. Barnsley: Pen&Sword Archaeology. Milli Birlik Komitesi (1961) ‘Dumlupınar Zafer Âbidesinin inşası hakkındaki kanun tasarısı’, Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Tutanak Dergisi, 5, pp. 8–144. Ministry of Interior Department of Refugees (1921) Greek Atrocities in Turkey. Istanbul: Ahmed Ihsan. Mısırlıoğlu, K. (2017) Kadir Mısıroğlu: Keşke Yunan Galip Gelseydi. Mısırlıoğlu, K. (2020) Yunan?! – Kadir Mısıroğlu | Atatürk Olmasaydı?! Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCDHyomvRTA. Moshenska, G. (2010) ‘Working with memory in the archaeology of modern Conflict’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 20(1), pp. 33–48. Müjdeci, M. (2014) ‘Hakimiyet-i Milliye Gazetesinde Büyük Taarruz’, Turkish Studies, 9(1), pp. 387–408.

162  References Neyzi, L. (2008) ‘The Burning of Smyrna/Izmir (1922) Revisited: Coming to Terms with the Past in the Present’, in Beller-Hann, I. (ed.) The Past as Resource in the Turkic Speaking World (Istanbuler Texte Und Studien). Würzburg: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 23–42. Nioutsikos, I. (2020) ‘The Greek Military Strategy in the Asia Minor Campaign, 1919–1922: An Application of Clausewitz’s Theory on Culmination’, in Travlos, K. (ed.) Salvation and Catastrophe: The Greek-Turkish War 1919–1922. London: Lexington Books, pp. 143–171. Niş, K. (1968) Türk İstiklal Harbi, Batı Cephesi: Büyük Taarruz (1–31 Ağustos 1922) C 2, Ks. 6, 2. Kitap. Ankara: Genelkurmay Başkanlığı Harb Tarihi Dairesi Resmi Yayınları Seri No: 1. Niş, K. and Söker, R. (1995) Türk İstiklâl Harbi, Batı Cephesi, Büyük Taarruz’da Takip Harekâtı (31 Ağustos–18 Eylül 1922), Cilt 2, Kısım. 6, 3. Kitap. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi. Okay, C. (2004) Dönemin Mizah Dergilerinde Milli Mücadele Karikatürleri: 1919–1922. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları. Orbay, R. (1993a) Cehennem Değimeni Siyasi Hatıralarım-1. Istanbul: Emre Yayınları. Orbay, R. (1993b) Cehennem Değimeni Siyasi Hatıralarım-2. Istanbul: Emre Yayınları. Orman Bakanlığı Milli Parklar Dairesi (1990) Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Parkı Uzun Vadeli Gelişme Planı. Ankara: Gelişim Matbaası. Osma, K. (2003) Cumhuriyet Dönemi Anıt Heykelleri 1923–1946. Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi. Otyam, F. (1960) ‘Etem Tem Röportajı’, Ulus Gazetesi, 4 December, p. 4. Özakman, T. (2005) Şu Çılgın Türkler. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi. Özgen, A. (1973) Milli Mücadelede Türk Akıncıları. Ankara: Tekin Yayınevi. Özpunar, H. (2013) ‘Büyük Zaferin 91. Yıldönümü’nde Dumlupınar ve Afyonkarahisar’, Taşpınar, 10, pp. 64–66. Özpunar, H. (2021a) Afyon Gezi Rehberi-Kocatepe-Dumlupınar Şehitlik Gezileri. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/Afyon-Gezi-Rehberi-Kocatepe-Dumlupınar-ŞehitlikGezileri-1375854099142698/?ref=page_internal. Özpunar, H. (2021b) ‘Bir Fotoğrafın Hikayesi’, Taşpınar, 25, p. 41. Özyıldıran, G. (2020) ‘Monumental sculptures and architecture: Yavuz Görey’s Burdur Monuments’, Akdeniz Sanat, 27(15), pp. 39–62. Pavli, K. (2013) ‘For the benefit of the Greek “Great Idea”: The excavations during the Asia Minor campaign (1919–22)’, International Journal of Science Culture and Sport, 1(3), pp. 5–10. Pullukçuoğlu Yapucu, O. (2020) ‘Bir Çetenin Anatomisi’, in Pullukçuoğlu Yapucu, O., Özgün, C., and Özçelik, A. (eds) Batı Anadolu Eşkıyalık Tarihi. Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 73–94. Pulur, H. (2000) Muhafızı Atatürk’ü Anlatıyor Emekli General İsmail Hakkı Tekçe’nin Anıları. Istanbul: Kaynak Yayınları. Radstone, S. (2005) ‘Reconceiving binaries: The limits of memory’, History Workshop Journal, 59, pp. 134–150. Raşit Yüzbaşı (2012) ‘Belge Nu. 60 Rapor 3-191’, Askeri Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, 129, pp. 200–201. Rechad, N. (1920) Les Grecs a Smyrne Nouveaux Temoignages sur leurs atrocites. Paris: Imperimerie Kossuth. Rençberler, Ö. (2014) Küçük Asya Felaketi’nin Yunan Siyasetine Etkisi (1919–1922). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi. Şabanoğlu, M. (2015) ‘Unutulmuş Savaş; Afyon-Kütahya’, Atlas, 271, pp. 2–10.

References 163 Sabis, A. İ. (1993) Harp Hatıralarım İstiklal Harbi ve Gizli Cihetleri 6. Cilt. Istanbul: Nehir Yayınları. Sağlam, S. (2012) ‘Son Şahitlerin Dilinden Kurtuluş Savaşı’, Zaman, 30 August, p. 4. Saklıca, A. et al. (2007) Afyonkarahisar’daki Anıt ıçin Heinrik Krippel’i E-Postalarımızda Anmak. Afyon: Aytam Yayınları. Saunders, N. J. (2000) ‘Bodies of metal, shells of memory: “Trench Art”, and the great War re-cycled’, Journal of Material Culture, 5, pp. 43–67. Saunders, N. J. (2003) Trench Art Materialities and Memories of War. London: Routledge. Saunders, N. J. (2004) ‘Material Culture and Conflict The Great War, 1914–2003’, in Matters of Conflict Material Culture, Memory and the First World War. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 5–25. Saunders, N. J. (2014) ‘Bodies in Trees a Matter of Being in Great War Landscapes’, in Bodies in Conflict Corporeality, Materiality and Transformation. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 22–38. Saunders, N. J. (2020) Desert Insurgency Archaeology, T. E. Lawrence, and the Arab Revolt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sayılır, B. (2014) ‘30 Ağustos Zafer Bayramı Kanunu, İlk Zafer Kutlaması ve Büyük Taarruz İle İlgili Bazı Bilgiler’, Çanakkale Araştırmaları Türk Yıllığı, 16, pp. 89–114. Seitsonen, O. (2021) Archaeologies of Hitler’s Arctic War Heritage of the Second World War German Military Presence in Finnish Lapland. London and New York: Routledge. serhantheguide (2018) Kurtuluş Rotası. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=f0bf16fhLIE&t=1364s. Sert, D. Ş. and Türkmen, F. F. (2020) ‘The Greek-Turkish War and the Waves of Migration: Redemption or Devastation?’, in Travlos, K. (ed.) Salvation and Catastrophe: The Greek-Turkish War 1919–1922. London: Lexington Books, pp. 295–310. Simavi, S. (1921) ‘Konstantin’nin Yediği Son Tekme’, Güleryüz, September, p. 4. Simavi, S. (1922) ‘Yunan Ordunun Anadolu’dan Avdeti’, Güleryüz, September, p. 5. Sipahi, S. (2008) ‘Zafere giden son yol Dumlupınar’, Cumhuriyet, 27 August, p. 13. Sivas Tüfekçi, T. and Sivas, H. (2016) ‘Tumulus Tombs in Western Phrygia’, in Henry, O. and Kelp, U. (eds) Tumulus as Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 613–626. Sjöberg, E. (2017) The Making of Greek Genocide Contested Memories of the Ottoman Greek Catastrophe. New York: Berghahn. Skola Travel (2021) Kronolojik Kurtuluş Savaşı Okul Gezisi. Available at: https:// skolatravel.com/okul-gezileri/kronolojik-kurtulus-savasi-okul-gezisi/. Smith, M. L. (1998) Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919–1922. New York: Martin’s Press. Solomonidis, V. (1984) Greece in Asia Minor: the Greek Administration of the Vilayet of Aidin, 1919–1922. London: King’s College, University of London. Son Posta (1941) ‘Zafer Bayramı Kutlu Olsun!’, Son Posta, 30 August. Son Telgraf (1942) ‘Büyük Zaferin 20. Yıldönümü’, Son Telgraf, 30 August, p. 1. Soyak, H. R. (1973) Atatürk’ten Hatıralar 1. Cilt. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Sözcü (2020) ‘MSB’den Malazgirt ve Büyük Taarruz paylaşımı’, Sözcü, 26 August. T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (2010) Kültür ve Turizm Bakalığı’nca Yapılan Şehitlikler. Available at: www.kultur.gov.tr. T. C. Kütahya Valiliği (2020) Vali Ali Çelik: Yüzbaşı Şekip Efendi Şehitliği projesinde ihale aşamasına geldik. Available at: http://www.kutahya.gov.tr/vali-ali-celik-altintasve-dumlupinarda-sehitlikleri-inceledi.

164  References Talipoğlu, İ. (1998) Büyük Taaruz ve Başkomutan Tarihi Milli Parkı. Afyonkarahisar: T.C. Orman Bakanlığı Milli Parklar ve Av Yaban Hayatı Genel Müdürlüğü. Tamer Gülsevin, A. (2020) The Greek – Turkish War of 1919–1922 in Greek Historiography: The Megali Idea in Action. Istanbul: Libra. Tanör, B. (1998) Türkiye’de Yerel Kongreler İktidarları (1918–1920). Istanbul: Yeni Gün Haber Ajansı Basın ve Yayıncılık A.Ş. Tanrıöver, H. S. (1924) 30 Ağustos 1924’de Dumlupınar’da Yapılan Ilk Anma Töreninde Hamdullah Suphi Tanrıöver’in, Atatürk ve eşi Latife Hanım, Afyonlular, Köylü Hanımlar, Çiftçiler, Erlerimiz ve Subaylarımıza Hitabı, Taha Toros Arşivi. Available at: http://openaccess.marmara.edu.tr/handle/11424/158356. TBMM (1961) ‘Dumlupınar Zafer Âbidesinin inşası hakkında Kanun’, Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Kanunlar Dergisi, 43, p. 696. Tekiner, A. (2010) Atatürk Heykelleri Kült Estetik Siyaset. Istanbul: İletişim. The Sydney Morning Herald (2004) Gallipoli soldier’s skull returned, The Sydney Mor­ ning Herald. Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/national/gallipoli-soldiersskull-returned-20030308-gdge1d.html (Accessed: 15 March 2019). Toros, T. (1937) Dumlupınar Intibaları: Meçhul Asker Abidesi, Taha Toros Arşivi. Available at: http://earsiv.sehir.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11498/7099/ 001504768006.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed: 9 April 2019). Toynbee, A. J. (1922) The Western Question in Greece and Turkey. London: Constable and Company LTD. Trikoupis, N. (1967) General Trikupis’in Hatıraları. Istanbul: Kitapçılık Ticaret Limited Şirketi Yayınları. Tümerden, İ. H. (1940) Türk İstiklal Harbi Yunan Cephesi Operalit ve Tabiye Bakımından İnceleme. Istanbul: Çeltut Matbaası. Tunçoğlu, İ. (2020) Atıntaş/Saraycık Köyünde Kurtuluş Savaşında Yaşanan Gerçek Bir Kahramanlık Destanı, Haber274. Available at: http://haber274.net/haberaltIntas-saraycIk-koyunde-kurtulus-savasInda-yasanan-gercek-bir-kahramanlIkdestanI-5570.html (Accessed: 20 April 2021). Turan, Ş. (1998) Türk Devrim Tarihi II Ulusal Direnişten Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne. Istanbul: Bilgi Yayınevi. Turan, Ş. (2003) ‘Lozan Antlaşması’, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 27, pp. 214–217. Türkeli, H. (2018) Bir Film Setinde: Kurtuluş Belgeseli (TRT). Available at: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMnfm9awp3g. Türkiye Kültür Portalı (2013) Şehit Sancaktar Mehmetcik Anıtı – Kütahya. Available at: https://www.kulturportali.gov.tr/turkiye/kutahya/gezilecekyer/seht–sancaktar– mehmetck–aniti (Accessed: 30 April 2021). Tüzel, A. and Cebecioğlu, G. (1995) Türk İstiklal Harbi II nci Cilt Batı Cephesi 6 nci Kısım 4 ncü Kitap İstiklal Harbi’nin Son Safhası. Ankara: Genelkurmay Basımevi. Uğurlu, N. et al. (2014) 30 Ağustos Hatıraları. Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Gazetesi Yayınları. Umar, B. (1974) Izmir’de Yunanlıların Son Günleri. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi. Umar, B. (2002) Yunanlıların ve Anadolu Rumlarının Anlatımıyla İzmir Savaşı. Istanbul: Inkilap. UMO (2013) ‘Dumlupınar Zafer Anıtı’ Umo Mimarlık. Available at: http://www.umo. com.tr/tr/projeler.html (Accessed: 18 March 2019). Uyanık, E. (2014) ‘Çakırcalı Mehmet Efe Kronolojisi’, in Tül, Ş. (ed.) Ege Defterleri 4: Çakıcı Efe. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, pp. 4–15.

References 165 Vatan (1942) ‘Dumlupınardaki Büyük Tören Meçhul Askerin Manevi Huzurunda’, Vatan, 31 August, pp. 1–3. Volki16 (2008) Kocatepe1922.jpg, Wikimedia Commons. Available at: https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kocatepe1922.jpg. Wake Up (2017) Uğur Dündar’la Halk Arenası 137 Bin Sehidin Ebedi Mekani DUMLUPINAR’DA Part 1- 07 10 2016. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=0X48yGWROAM&t=1497s&ab_channel=Wakeup. Walder, D. (1969) The Chanak Affair. London: Hutchinson & Co Ltd. Webster, D. E. (1973) The Turkey of Atatürk; Social Process in the Turkish Refor­ mation. New York: AMS Press. Winter, J. (1995) Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winter, J. (2017) ‘Commemorating catastrophe: 100 years on’, War and Society, 36, pp. 239–255. Yalçın, A. (2021) Kütahya yüğlük köyü adını nereden alıyor yüğlüklüler bilemedi. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NIkL9-FevA. Yanık, L. and Hisarlıoğlu, F. (2019) ‘“They Wrote History with Their Bodies”: Necrogeopolitics, Necropolitical Spaces and the Everyday Spatial Politics of Death in Turkey’, in Bargu, B. (ed.) Turkey’ Necropolitical Laboratory: Democracy, Violence and Resistance. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; Yeditepe Üniversitesi (2020) Milli Mücadele’nin Fotoğrafçısı Etem Tem’in Anıları Kitap Oldu. Available at: https://yeditepe.edu.tr/tr/milli-mucadelenin-fotografcisietem-temin-anilari-kitap-oldu#:~:text=Etem Hamdi Tem%2C Milli Mücadele, 800 metre sinema filmi çekti. Yeldemez, Z. and Soylu, U. (2015) Kurtuluşun Diyarı Şehitlik ve Anıtlarıyla Kütahya. Kütahya: Kütahya Valiliği. Yellice, G. (2018) ‘Megali İdea mı Mare Nostrum mu? Mondros Mütakeresi’nden İzmir’in İşgaline İtalyan-Yunan İlişkileri ve Propaganda Savaşı, 1918–1919’, Tarih Okulu Dergisi, 36, pp. 177–228. Yeni Asır (1940) ‘Bugün Dumlupınarda, Şehrimizde, Memleketin Her Yerinde Büyük Merasim Yapılıyor’, Yeni Asır, 30 August. Yeni Gün (1960) ‘27 Mayıs’tan 30 Ağustos’a’, Yeni Gün, 30 August, p. 1. Yeni Şafak (2021) Zafer Treni yolcuları Büyük Taarruz’un başladığı yerde: Gençler sabah namazı kılıp dua etti, Yeni Şafak. Available at: https://www.yenisafak.com/fotogaleri/gundem/zafer-treni-yolculari-buyuk-taarruzun-basladigi-yerde-genclersabah-namazi-kilip-dua-etti-2052680?page=1 (Accessed: 18 May 2022). Yeniçağ (2019) ‘‘AKP’li tarihçiden skandal 30 Ağustos çıkışı!’, Yeniçağ, 30 August. Yıldırım, R. (2017) Aleviliğin Doğuşu Kızılbaş Sufiliğinin Toplumsal ve Siyasal Temelleri (1300–1501). Istanbul: İletişim. Yılmaz, I. and Ertürk, Ö (2021) ‘Authoritarianism and necropolitical creation of martyr icons by Kemalists and Erdoganists in Turkey’, Turkish Studies, 22, pp. 1–18. YKY (1998) Cumhuriyetin 75 Yılı 1923–1953. Edited by F. Aksın et al. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Zafer (1950) ‘Zafer Bayramı Kutlu Olsun’, Zafer, 30 August, p. 1. Zafertepe Çalköy Belediyesi (2010) Zafer Tepe Savaş Alanı Kavram Projesi Başlatıldı. Available at: http://zafertepe.bel.tr/haberdetay.asp?ID=42 (Accessed: 18 May 2011). Ze’evi, D. and Morris, B. (2019) Thirty Year Genocide Turkey’s Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924. London: Harvard University Press.

Appendix: List of Interviewees

Code

Interviewee

Location of interview

Int1 Int2 Int3 Int4 Int5 Int6 Int7 Int8 Int9 Int10 Int11 Int12 Int13 Int14 Int15 Int16 Int17 Int18 Int19 Int20 Int21 Int22 Int23 Int24 Int25 Int26 Int27 Int28 Int29 Int30 Int31 Int32 Int33 Int34 Int35 Int36

Cengiz Metin Harun Cafer Esma Çınar Murat Ahmet Serkan Kenan Cemil Yasin Harun Ayşe Derya Sema Evrim Orhan Anıl Yaşar Veli Mahir Osman Enver Veli Faruk SA Mehmet Ahmet Deniz Anıl Kazım Selim Derya Mehmet Veli

Yıldırımkemal Yıldırımkemal Saraycık Dumlupınar Yüylük Dumlupınar Yıldırımkemal Yıldırımkemal Dumlupınar Selkisaray Yıldırımkemal Saraycık Saraycık Allıören Allıören Allıören Allıören Selkisaray Allıören Allıören Allıören Çalköy Çalköy Allıören Allıören Allıören Dumlupınar Allıören Selkisaray Yıldırımkemal Allıören Dumlupınar Dumlupınar Allıören Çalköy Allıören

Year of interview 2020 2020 2020 2019 2014 2016 2020 2020 2019 2021 2020 2016 2016 2020 2016 2020 2015 2020 2016 2015 2015 2020 2015 2020 2020 2020 2021 2016 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021

Appendix: List of Interviewees 167 Code

Interviewee

Location of interview

Year of interview

Int37 Int38 Int39 Int40 Int41 Int42 Int43 Int44 Int45 Int46 Int47 Int48 Int49 Int50 Int51 Int52 Int53 Int54 Int55 Int56 Int57 Int58 Int59 Int60 Int61 Int62 Int63 Int64 Int65 Int66 Int67 Int68 Int69

Cafer Sedat Evrim Ahmet Fahri Deniz Mahmut Ibrahim Mehmet Fatma Nezahat İsmet Erkan Gamze Ayşe Hannah Nadia Cemil Berna Ali Dursun Yener Fevzi Kemal Anıl Serhan Derya Yener Melih Murat Ferdi Selim Semih

Zafertepe Zafertepe Allıören Dumlupınar Çalköy Zafertepe Zafertepe Allıören Dumlupınar Dumlupınar MC Dumlupınar MC Dumlupınar MC Martyr Flag Bearer Dumlupınar VM Dumlupınar FG Dumlupınar MC Dumlupınar MC Dumlupınar FG Dumlupınar MC Dumlupınar MC Yüylük Dumlupınar Allıören Çalköy Allıören Dumlupınar Allıören Çalköy Dumlupınar Çalköy Çalköy Dumlupınar Allıören

2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2021 2019 2020 2020 2020 2015 2015 2020 2019 2019 2020 2019 2021

Dumlupınar MC = Dumlupınar Martry’s Cemetery. Dumlupınar VM = Dumlupınar Victory Monument. Dumlupınar FG = Dumlupınar First Goal Monument.

Index

Note: Page references in italics denote figure and with “n” endnotes. Adıvar, Halide Edip 26, 29, 60–61, 74, 104 Afyon Museum 83, 147 Afyon Victory Monument 86–89, 87, 104 Akağaç, Şemsetin 76, 135 Akalın, Habib 125–126 Akpirim Hill 44, 44 Aksoy, O. C. 34 Aksoy, Süha 3 Aksüt, Levent 84 Albert Kahn Museum 4 Alevism 55n1 Alexander the Great 25 Ali Fuad Pasha 13 Altay, Fahrettin 95 Amasya Circular 13 Ambelas, D. T. 25 American Civil War 121 Anabasis (Xenophon) 25 Anatolia 1; Greek occupied regions of 25; and Greek press 27; occupation by Allies 28; and Turkish press 27; Western (see Western Anatolia) Antalya (Turkey) 12 Armistice of Mudros 11 Asal, Ahmet Halis 96 Association for the Defense of National Rights of Anatolia and Rumelia (DNRAR) 13–14 Associations for the Defence of Rights (Müdafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyetleri) 12 Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal Pasha 13–14, 17, 22, 28–29, 75–77, 80, 83, 84, 90, 103, 120; appointed as Commander in Chief by GNA 15; embodiment of Great Offensive with 86–94;

execution 23n3; Mausoleum 91; Nureddin Pasha appointed as governor of Izmir 20; as president of Turkey 23, 42; war trophies 26 Baban, Hüseyin 84 Bahçeli, Devlet 75 Balkan Wars 28, 99, 100 banditry 57; see also looting Battlefield of Dumlupınar 99, 103; looting of 78; visiting 119–122 battlefield tourism 123, 138, 141 Battle of Ali Viran 42 Battle of Dumlupınar 1, 3–5, 7, 19, 29, 31–32, 33n5, 56, 61, 71, 78, 80, 129; battlefields of Çalköy-Allıören line 41–49, 43, 44, 47, 48; battlefields of Dumlupınar 35–41, 36, 37, 39; Greco-Turkish wars 57; ‘ill fate of Dumlupınar’ 133–135; and local politics 74–78; locals’ battlefield 141–143; locals’ contest over history and legacy of War 138–141; nature of conflict in 53–55; overview 34; population trapped in history 133–135; site and threat of looting 8; Troy Museum exhibition 26; turning Dumlupınar into Gallipoli 135–138 Battle of Dumlupınar Project 153, 153n1 Battle of Dumlupınar Survey 4–7, 6, 66, 78, 152 Battle of İnönü 35, 103, 126 Battle of Kütahya-Eskişehir 35 Battle of Manzikert 31–32, 33n6, 114, 148–149 Battle of Sakarya 15, 17, 25, 126

Index 169 Battles of Inönü 15, 35 Bayar, Celal 91 Bayar, Z. 34, 66 Beg, Utman 77 beliefs 67–70 Bender, Barbara 129 Berber, Engin 32n2 Bey, Ali Şükrü 22 Bey, Rauf 13 Bozkurt, Mustafa Hüsnü 75 Broken Oxcart Monument 94, 95 Byzantine Empire 24 Byzantine material culture 25 Byzantines 31, 69, 148 Çakmak, Fevzi 86, 94, 103, 104 Çalköy-Allıören line, battlefields of 41–49, 43, 44, 47, 48 Çalköy municipality 139, 143n1 Captain Şekip Martyrs Cemetery 95, 140 Çavuş, Mehmet 38 Cemal Pasha 11 ceremonies: changing patterns in 106–108; Victory Day 10, 86, 102, 109–115, 132, 139, 149 Chrysostomos 20 Çırçır Fountain 50, 50 Clemenceau, Georges 12 collaboration, and Greek occupation 53 Commander in Chief National Park 73, 91, 97, 117–118, 127, 129, 133, 146 Conqueror of Izmir, the Victor of Karahisar and Dumlupınar Battles Ghazi Nurettin Pash (Nurettin Pasha) 29 Constantine I, King of Greece 21 Cretan Revolt 23n2 Cretan Turks 15–16 Cyprus Question 31 Dana Kale Hill 51–52 Dede, Ali 67, 79n1 Dede, Kamil 67 discourses: local 103–105; national 103–105 Dornier Do 28 131n2 Dumlupınar First Goal Monument 107, 125 Dumlupınar Martyrs Cemetery 5, 92, 94, 97, 97, 98, 99, 119, 120, 121, 148 Dumlupınar Monument Construction Society 92, 142 Dumlupınar Publicity Group 137, 142

Dumlupınar Victory Monument 5, 82, 84, 85; Beautification and Memorial Society 84, 123; soldiers rehearsing for parade under shadow of 111 Dumlupınar War of Independence Museum 4, 122, 130, 147 Dündar, Uğur 133–134 early Turkish Republic 29 Entente (Allied) powers 23n1; and GNA 21–22; and Ottoman Empire 11–12 Enver Pasha 11 Erdoğan, Recep Tayyip 109 Eskişehir Youth Centre 113 Eyüboğlu, Sabahattin 25–26 First Goal Monument 5, 92, 93, 94, 107, 125, 140 First National Architectural Movement 80 First World War 11, 13, 28, 99, 114, 121; memorials 101n7, 121 The Forgotten War 64 Frangou, Athanasios 18 Gallipoli: Anzacs 137–138; battlefields in 66, 86, 100, 105, 108; development and tourism in 136; Entente soldiers in 137; material remains in 138; turning Dumlupınar into 135–138 George, Lloyd 12 George II, King of Greece 21 Ghazi, Cafer 69 Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha see Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal Pasha Gonatas, Stylianos 21 ‘Gordian Knot’ 25 Gounaris, Dimitrios 15, 21 Grand National Assembly (GNA) 1, 14–15; abolishment of Ottoman Sultanate 22; Army manpower 17; and British forces 21–22 Great Fire of Izmir 20–21, 64, 100n3 Great Idea 14 Great Offensive 1, 7, 17–21, 28, 56; and Battle of Dumlupınar 19; changing patterns in ceremonies 106–108; embodiment of, with Atatürk 86–94; and Erdoğan’s speeches 31; evolutionary approach 148–150; foundation stone of new regime 80–84; future prospects 152–153; imaginings of 80–100; Islamist

170  Index discourses on 30; Kemalist discourses of 27–30; landscapes of 145; literature on 8; local lore about 64; material remains of 34–55; memorialisation practices of 29, 100; and multiple temporalities 145; mythical approach 150–151; national and local discourses 103–105; overview 9; pastand present-day settings of 118–119; perception of 24; reflexive approach 146–147; revivalist approach 148; spirit of Dumlupınar 115–116; symbol of national unity 84–86; timeline of 2; tourism and sites of 123–128; trophies of war 26; and Turkish media 25–26; Victory Day ceremonies (2021) 109–115; visitors’ 128–131; and War of Independence 152; in war-time literature 24–27; washed with martyrs blood 94–99; see also Greek-Turkish War Great Offensive Martyrs Cemetery 91 Great War see First World War Greece: Asia Minor Campaign 1; expansion of territory (1910-1920) 15; Muslims in 1; plan to occupy Anatolia’s western coast 12; population exchange protocol 22–23, 56; Royalists vs. Venizelists 15; Treaty of Lausanne 22–23 ‘the Greek gold’ 72 Greek High Commission 24–25 Greek occupation: of Dumlupınar 58– 59; Greek Orthodox and Armenian communities 15; Otlukçu Hill 67–69; and violence 63–65; of Western Anatolia 15–17, 63 Greek-Turkish War 1, 5, 8–9, 14–15, 123, 126, 127, 144, 146, 147, 148, 151, 153; in Greek historiography 32n1; local women and children during 59–61; memoryscapes of 56–65; Turkish language literature on 24; see also Great Offensive Günek, Hasan Tahsin 88 Güngör, Serhat 123, 128 Gür, Faik 89 Gürcan, Ihsan 137 Gürey, Yavuz 92 Habib, Sergeant 77 Hakimiyet-i Milliye 18 Haşimoğlu, Yasin 3 Hatzianestis, Georgios 21, 38

Hejaz Railway 79n5 Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation 4 Hellenistic material culture 25 heritage management 10 HMS Agamemnon 11, 24 imperialism 128; Greeks as victims of 138; Western 30 İnan, Afet 84, 100n1, 100n2, 117 İnönü, İsmet 22, 85, 86, 91, 94, 103, 104–105 Ionian League 24 Ionian material culture 25 Ionian University 24–25 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) 62 Isparta Youth Centre 113 Istanbul (Turkey): government and GNA 22 Izmir (Turkey): Christian population 12; fire 20–21; and Greek Army 13, 19; Greek occupation of 12, 14 Justice and Development Party (AKP) 75 Kahraman-Aksoy, Gizem 7, 102, 109 Kaletepe Hill 50–51, 51 kalpaks 109–110, 116n1 Kanlı Köprü (‘Bloody Bridge’) 3, 45, 48–49, 49 Karabekir, Kazım 103–104 Karagöz 26, 27 Karoly, Zizek 88 Kazım Karabekir Pasha 13 Kemalism 27, 29, 33n4, 88 Kemalist Thought Associations 125, 142 Kılıçdaroğlu, Kemal 75 Kızıltaş valley, battlefields of 52–53 Kocatepe Memorial 89, 89, 91 Korean War 31, 105 Koyunoğlu, Hikmet 83 Krippel, Heinrich 86–88 Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) 62 Kurtuluş 123 Kütahya Ceramic 121 Kütahya War Veterans Society 136 Kütahya Youth Centre 113 landscape 67–68; of Great Offensive 74–78 legends 67–70 Levent, Haluk 105 looting 70–74; of Battlefield of Dumlupınar 78

Index 171 The March of the Modern Ten Thousand (Ambelas) 25 martyrdom 94, 100–101n4 Martyr Flag Bearer Monument 5, 80, 82, 84, 106, 124, 125, 141 martyrs blood 94–99 Martyr Soldier Monument 83, 94, 103, 141, 149; see also ‘Monument of the Unknown Soldier’ Marulyalı, Yaşar 84 material culture 25; Byzantine 25; Hellenistic 25; Ionian 25 material culture of Great Offensive 66–78; legends and beliefs 67–70; looting 70–74; repurposing 70–74; salvaging 70–74 material remains of Great Offensive 34–55; battlefields of Çalköy-Allıören line 41–49, 43, 44, 47, 48; battlefields of Dumlupınar 35–41, 36, 37, 39; battlefields of Kızıltaş valley 52–53; Çırçır Fountain 50, 50; Dana Kale Hill 51–52; Kaletepe Hill 50–51, 51; Kanlı Köprü 49, 49 Melen, Ferit 94, 108 Memiş Efe 40–41, 57, 65, 77 memorialisation of Great Offensive 100 memorials/memorialisation of war 7, 9–10, 28–29, 32 memoryscapes 1, 9, 24, 32; of Greco-Turkish War 56–65 Menderes, Adnan 91 Militias Monument 99 Mısıroğlu, Kadir 30 ‘Monument of the Unknown Soldier’ 83; see also Martyr Soldier Monument Moshenska, Gabriel 3 Mudros Armistice 14 Muhcu, Erhan 134 multiple temporalities, and Great Offensive 145 Museum of Dumlupınar 3, 35 Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) 75–76 National Pact Decisions 14 National Pact Decisions of 1920 22 National Park 73, 91, 97, 117–118, 127, 129, 133, 146 national unity, symbol of 84–86

National Unity Commission 85 NGOs 125, 142–143 Nureddin Pasha 20 Nurettin Pasha 29 Okyar, Fethi 103 Oltu Council Administration (Oltu Şura Hükümeti) 12 Operation Euphrates Shield 31 Operation Peace Spring (Syria) 126 Osman, Topal 23n4, 101n5 Otlukçu Hill 67–70 Ottoman Barracks 12 Ottoman Empire 1, 17, 27, 80, 99; defeated by Entente (Allied) powers 11–12; partitioning of 12; Turkish nationalists of 80 Ottoman imperial regime 80; in Kemalist circles 28; Turkish Republic, consolidation of 80 The Ottomans Science and Knowledge Foundation 30 Ottoman-Turkish decorative elements 82 Özakman, Turgut 123 Özgen, Abdulrahman 27 Özpunar, Hasan 88 Özveren, Ali 83 Papoulas, Anastasios 15 Paris Peace Conference 12 Pasha, Ali İhsan 104 Pasha, Nurettin 87 Pekmez, Cafer 92, 94, 140 Phokas, Dimitrios 21 Phrygian burial mounds 98 Phrygian kingdom 101n6 pilgrimage 123–128 Plastiras, Nikolaos 21, 38 Refet Pasha 22 Republican People’s Party (CHP) 22, 28, 75, 86, 133–135 repurposing material culture of conflict 70–74 resistance 5; against Allied occupations 12; and Greek occupation 53; Turkish 9, 12, 15, 30, 40 Rizopatsis 26 Şabanoğlu, Melih 64 sacralised, Battlefields of Dumlupınar 78 ‘Safeguard Dumlupınar’ campaign 105

172  Index salvaging material culture of conflict 70–74 Sancar, Semih 108 Second World War 31 Sever, Sadık 84 Sharia Law 16, 30 social relations 66 Soyak, Hasan Rıza 83 spiritual beliefs 66 Stergiadis, Aristeidis 16 Struggle of the Pashas (Karabekir) 103 Süer, Erturul 92 Sunay, Cevdey 108 Talat Pasha 11 Taşpınar 64 Tavşantepe Hill 44–45, 46, 47 Teke, Arif 3, 72, 76, 136 Tekeli, Doğan 92 Tem, Etem 90, 91 Tezcan, Niyazi 133 Those Crazy Turks (Özakman) 123, 128 Three Commanders Monument 94, 99 tourism: battlefield 123, 138, 141; in Gallipoli 136; and sites of Great Offensive 123–128 Toynbee, Arnold 25 The Train of Independence 126; tour flyer 127 treasure hunting 9, 72–73 Treaty of Lausanne 22–23 Trial of Six 21 Trikoupis, Nikolaos 18, 42 Trikoupis group 18–19, 38, 41–43, 52 Turkey 1; Army Corps 17; foundation myth of modern 32; population exchange protocol 22–23, 56; as sovereign state 23; Treaty of Lausanne 22–23; see also specific cities of Turkey Turkish Armed Forces 102, 104, 105, 107, 116 Turkish Army Aviation 131n2 Turkish Military Junta 82 Turkish Nationalist Movement 1, 13 Turkish nationalists 15–16, 80 Turkish National TV (TRT) 7 Turkish Parliament 7, 103, 104 Turkish Republic 80, 148 Turkish War of Independence 3, 7, 11, 14, 23, 25, 27–28, 80, 84, 91, 98–99,

117, 144; and Erdoğan’s speeches 31; memorialisation of 100; movies about 123; novels about 123; overview 34; popular TV series about 123; progress-driven study of 152; role of women in 110; Turkish-Islamic history-centred approach 30–32; Turkish willpower and sacrifice during 80 Turkish women: and Greek-Turkish War of 1919-1922 59–61; treatment by Greek soldiers 60 Varank, Mustafa 110, 114 Venizelos, Eleftherios 12, 15, 21 Veysel Efe 40, 41 Victory Day: celebrations 105; ceremonies 10, 86, 102, 109–115, 132, 139, 149 violence: Greco-Turkish wars 56–58; by Greek forces on Turkish villagers 61–63; and Greek occupation 63–65 war cemeteries 3, 5, 7 war memorials 7, 9–10, 28–29, 32 war memories 9, 25–26, 40 war monuments 3, 5, 7, 25, 29, 41; see also specific monuments Western Anatolia 14; Greek occupation 15–17; Greek occupation of 15–17, 63; Muslims in 15–16; Ottoman local administration in 16; Turkish refugees in 16; Turkish resistance in 15 Western Imperialism 30 Western style sculpture 82 Wilson, Woodrow 12 Xenophon 25 Yıldırım Kemal Martyrs Cemetery 106, 146 Youth Centres 116; Eskişehir 113; Isparta 113; Kütahya 113 Zafertepe-Çalköy Battlefield Conception Project 139 Zafertepe Hill 28; aircraft and artillery pieces on 129; tactical map of Great Offensive on 147 zeibeks 58