It is not by chance that in the debate on identity issues, the construction of a shared heritage becomes crucial.  Heritage, as Mason remind us, provides legitimacy to identities? claims, by recalling a common past, which in the case of a Nation State, streses the homogeneity of the nation?s members, generally hiding histories different from those of the dominant groups. Museums are sites where this discourse of a shared past could be physically displayed. Recalling again Mason?s discourse on national museum, we should remember that:

?A national museum built along the lines of cultural or ethnic nationalism can be understood as a move of both consolidation and perform activity in that the nation?s members are supposedly presented with the national story as a celebration affirmation but also as instruction for how to locate themselves with the national history. Viewed in this light, the relationship between nationalism, heritage and museums seems straightforward? (Mason, 2005: 19).[4]

The danger, in national museums, is that while the dominant group?s identity and history would be over-represented; social, ethnic and religious minority groups? identities could be under represented or misrepresented (Zedde, 1988).[5]

Keeping in mind this warning, we could then proceed to analyze the case of the Turkish museums, where, especially in the early stage of the Republic, museums were instruments of the Kemalist nation-building project.

?Who are the Turks? What is their historical allegiance and geographical orientation? Are they an East European or West Asiatic people? Asiatic or European? Is their?s a Muslim secular (laique) state? Are they natives of Asia Minor or ?nomadic hordes?    from Turanian steppes of Asia? Are they despotic rulers or innocent bystanders    despotically ruled? Are they descendents of ancient people from Hittites to Romans or the last surviving mercenaries of Genghis Khan, trying to conquer the world on a   divine mission Are the Turks wandering orphans of the Ottoman Dynasty, defending the Muslim faith against the neo-Crusaders?? (B. Güvenç, 1996)

The issue of a ?Turkish identity? has been largely debated among scholars from different fields and origins. Nevertheless, it is commonly stated that ?Turks,? with the meaning we use today, is a construct of the late Ottoman Empire, when the issue of an Ottoman /Turkish identity became relevant.  The Ottoman Empire, for centuries, had been composed by a heterogeneous population; while its capital, Istanbul, became the symbol, in all the Mediterranean area, of a cosmopolitan city (Braude and Lewis, 1988).  The Turkish element coexisted ?side by side? with other religious and ethnic groups, each of them playing its role inside the decentralized ruling system of the Ottoman governors.  Under the Ottoman rule, non-Muslim people, like Christians and Jews, were granted the status of dhimmi (?protected?) or tributary people. These populations were organized in local communities (millet),[6] under the surveillance of religious leaders, who acted also as their representatives in dealing with the ruling class (Braude and Lewis, 1982: 1-34).  Millet communities enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy in the management of their own affairs and administrations; as Kemal Karpat noted, the millet system:

?was a socio-cultural and communal framework based, firstly on religion and, secondly, on ethnicity which in turn often reflected linguistic differences. Religion supplied to each millet a universal belief system while ethnic and linguistic differences provided for divisions and subdivision within each one of the two Christian millets? (Karpat, 2002: 612).

The pattern of coexistence among different communities began to change in the 18^th century, when internal and external factors ?as the growing interference of Foreign Powers into the Ottoman?s affairs- caused the slow decline of the Ottoman Empire.

Since the second half of the 18^th century, a long process of reforms was promoted by the Ottoman ruling elite, in order to cope with the difficult situation in which the Empire versed. This process affected the political and social life of the Empire and started with the renewal of the military army, realized by the Sultan Selim III (1789-1807),[7] and culminated with the ?Reform Period? (Tanzimat), which took places between the years 1893-1908.  The ?age of reforms? began with the proclamation of the Edict of Gülhane (1839), which affirmed the adoption of European models of government, the introduction of a parliamentary system and  resulted in several administrative changes (Zürcher, 2004).

[4]However, as the author states, this connection is only apparent; in fact, the processes of portraying national identity in museums is complicated when it comes to the point of creating collections and displays (Mason, 2005: 19).

[5]According to Zedde: ?In state museum representing the dominant view of a nation?s identity, therefore, the museum is in danger of disinheriting non-participating social, religious, and ethnic groups outside the mainstream. In doing so, the dominant group overtakes the agenda and ignores or distorts other views or historical experiences? (Zedde, 1988).

[6]According to Braude, Lewis and Karpat, the first millet was established at the time of the Sultan Mehmed II, after the Conquest of Constantinople, with the appointment of  Gennadios Scholarios II  as head of the Greek Patriarchate (Braude, 1982: 13; Karpat, 2002: 615).

[7]Further and more incisive measures, where taken Selim III?s son, Mahmud II (1809-1839), who tried to centralize the power in his hands, diminishing the role of religious authorities. Among his innovations, there was the institution of the Imperial Ministry for Religious Foundations (Evkaf-ıHumayün), in order to exert direct control over the administrative system of the evkaf (pious foundations) on which many religious institutions relied for their financial incomes.