As a consequence of the ruling elite?s interest in promoting a national culture, during the first years of the Republic, public institutions flourished.  The institution of a national museum in Republican Turkey served two purposes: promoting the identity of the new Republic and promoting Kemalism as public ideology. This was also supported by a variety of ?public rituals,? constituting a ?civic? religion; which was not completely able to erase the traditional values of Islam. Ultimately, the creation of a Turkish heritage and settlements of museums responded to the common view of museums as both cultural and political institutions, which reflected the spirit of the dominant ruling class.

Carol Duncan?s brilliant analysis on the birth of Louvre (1793), symbol of the fall of the ancienne régime, illustrates the political nature of museums, which since the French revolution were used as ?agent of social change, political and ethical education.? As the author shows, according to the post-Enlightenment common view, museums are expression of secularity, which is ?objective? and publicly displayed in State institutions. Secularity is in direct opposition with religion, displayed in churches, mosques and temples. Nevertheless, according to the author:

?(?) museums resemble older ritual sites not so much because of their specific architectural references but because they too are settings for rituals. Like most ritual spaces, museum space is carefully marked off and culturally designed and reserved for special quality attention ?in this case for contemplation and learning? (Duncan, 1995: 10).

During Atatürk?s time, the creation of a national heritage and the foundation of national museums followed a path similar to the one established during the French Revolution. In fact, the Civil Constitution of  July 12, 1790, provided the basis for the nationalization of Church properties and the institution of Republican Monuments. Similarly, in the Turkish case, buildings and objects belonging to the Imperial family and religious communities were confiscated by the Turkish State.[17]

An active role in this ?patrimonialization? process was played by the ?General Directorate for Culture,?[18] which was established during the War of Independence (1921), became part of the Ministry  for Public Education and had as it principal function to survey antiquities, direct libraries and provide to registration of historical monuments, collection of ethnographical materials. The first ?Commission for the Conservation of Historical Monuments? was indeed created in the year 1924. At the same time, dismissed mausoleums, convents, medreses, and hospitals were turned in museums, as: ?il ne suffisait pas sauver les monument historiques. Il fallait aussi les faire perpétuer. Pour cette fin, nous avon dote chaucun d?eux d?une function sociale? (Arik, 1953: 26-27).

Regarding the content, museum collections aimed at displaying the past of Turkish people that, according to Atatürk?s theories, was mainly the past of Anatolia itself, with all its civilizations. As Copeaux affirmed, this new past was a consequence of the new Th?ses d?historie, promoted during the Kemalist era, to which was the relevant the creation of the Turkish History Society and the Institute for Research on Turkish Language (Copeaux, 1991 : 195).[19]

It is worth nothing that the use of museums as vector for promoting a shared identity was not an innovation introduced in Republican times. Some scholars, especially Wendy Shaw, have already noticed that during the end of the Ottoman Empire, the display of museum collections, could serve the political purposes of the ruling class. In particular, the creation of the collection of Muslim Antiquities, in the Imperial Museum of Antiquities, established in Hamidian time, served for promoting a common perception of Ottoman identity.

At the same time, referring to Ottoman and Byzantine heritages, it was possible to preserve their material culture into the Turkish museums, through a double process of decontextualization of buildings and objects, which were removed from their contexts, and subsequent re-contextualization ?within the Republican ethical value system.? As Yenişehiroğlu affirms, this double process has been enacted in both the cases of S. Sophia and Topkapı (Yenişehiroğlu, 1999).

[17]In principle, every building that was not a vakıf - deed - had to be nationalized, while objects and movable goods were included in national treasures for their artistic, historical and ethnographical value.

[18]As Önder reported, historical cultural heritage: remains task of the General Directorate of Monuments and Museums of the Ministry of Culture. This General Directorate was attached to the Ministry of Education till 1971, under the name of General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums and then to the Undersecretaries of Culture of Prime Ministry, before being attached to the Ministry of Culture, in 1975 (Önder, 1999).

[19]During the early stage of the Republic Turkey, not only museums but also research institutes were opened for researching on Turkish origins and pre-historical roots of Anatolia.