Aaron Haines and Dr. James Swensen, Art History

Many countries throughout the world do not have adequate museum facilities to store and protect their antiquities. This is especially true of the Republic of Turkey which has a vast collection of antiquities, but outdated museum facilities and security. This has come to the attention of the international community because of Turkey’s aggressive efforts to recover antiquities from foreign museums. Turkey claims that these museums obtained these artifacts illegally and has demanded for their return. Turkey has been successful in recovering many of these antiquities from renowned international museums, but the preservation and security of these recovered antiquities is jeopardized once the artifacts are returned to museums in Turkey.

I traveled to Turkey during the summer of 2013 to assess the security of its museums to understand if these concerns were valid. I evaluated the security of four museums: the Istanbul Archaeology Museum, the Ankara Museum of Anatolia Civilizations, the Uşak Archaeological Museum, and the Boğazkale Archaeology Museum. I chose these four museums so that I could assess the security at two large major museums (Istanbul and Ankara) and two smaller regional museums (Uşak and Boğazkale). I also chose these four specific museums because each one contained a collection or artifact that was recently repatriated from a foreign major museum.

I assessed the security of these museums by observing the security measures that they had in place. This included the checking of the security of the display cases, the presence and functionality of security cameras, the number of security guards, and the amount of light and humidity exposure to the artifacts.

The Istanbul Archaeology Museum is an older building that was undergoing extensive renovations when I visited it in August. The amount of cameras seemed adequate, but there were very few guards in relation to the amount of patrons in the museum. The display cases appeared to only have simple locks and no seals. The lighting was sufficient, but only a few of the display cases had individual lights. Due to the renovations, patrons had to use the restrooms in the administration building. This required them to walk down a narrow hallway and turn a couple of corners before reaching the restroom. This would have been insignificant had it not been for the archaeological artifacts haphazardly lining the walls. There were no cameras in this area of the building, but guards frequently came in and out of the hall providing the artifacts with a reasonable amount of security.

The Ankara Museum of Anatolia Civilizations was a sizeable building, but when I visited it, only two of the galleries were open due to extensive renovations that were taking place in the museum’s other galleries. The interior of the main gallery was dark with dramatic lighting illuminating the artifacts on display. There were many security guards throughout the galleries monitoring the few museum patrons who were there at the time. The crowning piece of the main gallery was the “Troy Gold”, a collection of jewelry recently sent to Turkey on indefinite loan by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. The jewelry was well displayed and the necklace and earrings had been placed on a stylized head to give the viewer an idea of how they would have looked when worn. The only other part of the museum that was open was a small gallery displaying various Roman artifacts.

The Uşak Archaeological Museum was a small building situated surrounded by a low wrought iron fence that was about three to four feet in height. The building’s small yard was littered with archaeological artifacts from various civilizations and time periods; Byzantine, Hittite, Roman, and others. The placement of these objects was haphazard, but it was clear that every square inch of the yard could be surveyed by the small army of security cameras that pointed in every direction. Also, none of the objects were small enough to be lifted by hand and would have required either machinery or several people to move them. There was an abundance of exterior lighting indicating that the museum and archaeological artifacts could be sufficiently monitored at night. The windows were single paned and old, but all well protected by the iron bars covering them. The lighting and presentation of the museum’s collection were excellent and there were many text panels explaining the significance of the objects as well as where they had been found in the surrounding countryside.

Boğazkale Archaeology Museum had a sizeable lawn and pavement area with a tall wrought iron fence surrounding the lot. Various archaeological artifacts were in the yard, but unlike the Uşak museum, these pieces were carefully displayed and labeled. The museum consisted of a couple of small rooms preceding a much larger central gallery. There were fewer cameras than at Uşak, but the display cases appeared to be much more modern and secure than those at Uşak. Also, the visibility in the main gallery was excellent since it was just one main room and the guard had complete visibility of both the ground floor and the balcony level. The guard told me that a guard was present at the museum 24/7 and that the cameras monitored both the interior of the museum as well as the surrounding yard. Each night, the fence gate as well as the main door’s outer iron grate are locked. There were also powerful motion detection lights on the exterior of the building that would turn on if a person approached the building at night.

After visiting all four museums, it appears that they are all providing their collections with reasonable security except for the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. However, it can be assumed that the minor security concerns at this museum will be resolved once renovations on the building are completed. In the other three museums, most of the display cases appeared to have been installed recently, the camera coverage in every gallery was sufficient, and there was an adequate amount of security guards. The study of these four museums indicates that Turkey is currently handling the security of its repatriated cultural heritage more seriously than it did in the past