The interest in historical artifacts in Europe, in spite of having emerged earlier in the Renaissance era, considerably increased in mid-1700s upon the release of Winkelmann’s works and the Grand Tour; and in Western Europe, being under the prevailing influence of historism, the political actors were even ready to venture wars for the sake of historical artifacts. The possession of historical artifacts symbolized the sovereignty of the states and the antiques were utilized as the means of nationalist propagandas. The establishment of new style galleries and museums, where antiques were exhibited, in Europe dates to the said period. The main competitors of the antique acquisition race were France, Britain and Germany. In the early 19th century, almost all collections exhibited in European museums consisted of Roman copy of Greek antiques. Upon the acquisition by Glyptothek and British Museum of Aegina sculptures and Elgin marbles, respectively; the Roman copies, which had until then been the most popular and eminent items of museums, marginalized and lost favor over time. On the other hand, the territories of Ottoman Empire, which had been going through a disintegration process, became new grounds for archaeological purposes (Dyson 2006, 133). As a consequence of these developments, the presence of foreign archaeologists in Ottoman territory in the early 1800s was a usual and common phenomenon. The Ottoman Empire was the first and, for a considerable time, the only non-European state to meet the initial wave of European explorers and archaeologists (Ozdogan 1998, 114). The Even though there were no legislations enacted in the Ottoman Empire, which authorized official archaeological excavations in the year 1840, to restrict the excavated historical artifacts out of the Ottoman territory, the moving of the antiques required an official permit. In the cases such permit could not be obtained, the excavations could be performed and the found antiques could seamlessly be moved from the Ottoman territory under the sultan’s firman (Mumcu 1969; Shaw  2004, 77-80).

Once Greece enacted laws in 1835 to restrict the moving of historical artifacts outside the national territories following its declaration of independence (1830), the European states and scholars directed their entire attention regarding the antiques of Classical Greek period to the Ottoman territory, where any legislation governing antiques had not yet been brought to force. The antiques were frequently made subject to the political negotiations between Europe and Ottoman Empire, and to policies aimed to be excavated in and moved outside the Ottoman Territory. In that context, the European states paid exclusive attention for the appointing effective ambassadors with classical education and archaeological interests in their diplomatic missions in Ottoman Empire (Dyson 2006, 134-137). Especially the British ambassadors in Ottoman Empire were systematically active in the discovery and transportation to Britain of antiques. Nearly 30 years after the transportation to Britain and the addition to the British Museum’s collection of the marbles dismounted from Parthenon in 1816 by Lord Elgin, the Ambassador in Istanbul of Britain; Stafford Canning, another British diplomat, ensured the antiques in the Ottoman territory to be transported to Britain via diplomatic pressure (Dyson 2006, 137-138). Ottoman Empire authorized excavations on the condition that ‘one of each double items excavated should be delivered to the museum’ as of 1863 (Mumcu 1969, 68). The state took action to protect the historical artifacts by abstaining from issuing excavation permits in the cases where the said requirement was not satisfied (Shaw 2006, 83). Newton, the Consul in Lesbos, applied to the authorities for excavation permit for numerous times, was eventually granted the permit and considerably contributed to the collection of British Museum by the historical artifacts he moved from Bodrum, Didim and Knidos (Dyson 2006, 137-138;). The Europeans did not consider the Ottomans as the possessors and protectors of the historical heritage on their territory and advocate to be saving the historical artifacts by carrying them off to their countries (Meskell 1998, 114-115; Su 1965, 16-21). Therefore, the initial historical artifacts protection regulations were regarding only to ‘movable assets/items’.

Within the said context, the Imperial Museum (Muze-i Humayun) was established in 1869, at a time when the Ottoman Empire suffered from the loss of political and economic power both as a reaction to the smuggling of historical artifacts outside the Ottoman territory and as a consequence of modernization of the state (Westernization process), which had been gradually weakening in the political arena.Archaeology was considered as a significant indicator of modernity in the 19th century by the Western societies as well, having been deemed one of the fundamental elements of a modern society such as capitalism, industrialization, urbanization, control of violence by the state and mercantilism, and the museum were, similarly, considered as an essential institutions of a modern state (Bennett 1995, 76). Thus, the establishment of the Imperial Museum double-confirms the modernization of Ottoman Empire (Cezar 1995, Cilt II 411-412).

 The ideological backgrounds and concerns of the statesmen played an important role in the development of Turkish museology. The statesmen such as Fethi Ahmed Pasha, Saffet Pasha, Ahmet Vefik Pasha who had knowledge regarding the western culture contributed to the improvement of the museum. The art was considered as a part of the modernization movements during the reign of Abdulmecid.  Although the earliest museology activities was laid during the reign of Abdulmecid by the organization of initial art exhibitions and the collection of antiques in Saint Irene Church (Cezar 1995, Volume I 126-127), the Imperial Museum was established during the reign of Abdulaziz, who was a pro-west sultan. Along with the museum, the first private academy, first painting exhibitions and the opening of Fine Arts were all realized during the reign of Sultan Abdulaziz (Cezar 1995, Volume I 154). The line of progress is similar to the west. The traditional duties of the state such as serving justice to the people in its territory and protecting its borders were re-discussed and re-considered during the reign of Abdulmecid, and a perspective suggesting that the state should render school, road, hospital and etc. for the peace and wealth of the people and should observe economic development was adopted. The reactions of the radical conservatives against the efforts of modernization continued throughout the 19th century refusing to adopt anything related to Western culture (İnalcık 2010, 244; Berkes 2002, 244-248).

Zhenjiang municipal government in 2009 launched the “Urban Renewal Area Shuangjing Road” project, the construction project covers an area of 20 hectares, is located along the Grand Canal into the estuary of the East Coast area, an ancient river, the river confluence, and is what history and culture of Zhenjiang buried heritage rich areas. To rescue and preserve valuable historical and cultural heritage, from August 2009 to January 2010, Zhenjiang Museum archaeologists with the region of the archaeological exploration and excavation work. Have found the Song, Yuan and storage sites, the Yuan Dynasty stone arch bridge. Now explore the situation given below:

One stone arch bridge remains of the Yuan Dynasty

Single-arched stone bridge, generally from south to north, bridge length 38 meters wide, 8 to 9 meters, arch span of 8.7 meters. Arch collapsed early years, the only remaining north and south sides of bridge piers and the stone arch incomplete. Existing pier is 6 meters, bridge piers junction with the narrow, both ends of the bridge width from 0.5 to 1.6 m long, 0.25 wide and 0.5 meters, 0.3 meters thick, ranging from 0.25 to puzzle made of flat stone. Pier bottom rows of wood piles, 10 to 12 cm in diameter to support the pier wall; piers inside the lower stone laying the basis on which to consolidate the use of broken bricks and loess, arch is made with blocks of stone Its size is about 1.5 to 2.2 meters, 0.3 meters wide, 0.3 meters thick. Stone arch between the upper and lower tenon connecting with horizontal stone arch between? Cast butterfly lock connected to reinforcement. Deck the middle of things to be paved stone bridge north-south edge of the stone section. Part of the stone bridge noodles with square holes and ruts groove marks.

Dollars “to the town of Jiang Zhi Shun” contains: “drag Panchiao army in this position before, the old name pontoon. Day of calendar year (1329) waste. To shun years (1331) reconstruction.” And later rebuilt by the Ming Dynasty on many occasions, to the late Qing has almost become a “dry bridge”, “product such as the mound of soil underneath Fu carry on.” Dust after being buried, only a “drag Itabashi” only. The archaeological remains of the Yuan Dynasty stone arch bridge, built in the Yuan and Ming begin, Li Ming and Qing dynasties, to the modern waste, consistent with the basic literature, should be documented in the drag Itabashi.

2, Song, Yuan storage remains Song, Yuan and storage remains of archaeological excavations since November 14, 2009 to January 8, 2010. Excavation trenches 16, pit 2, to explore an area of about 600 square meters, find the Song, Yuan storage remains 13 (which position No. 12,13, archaeological survey in 2006 found that rammed earth steps and the brick wall, was considered houses, granaries after the archaeological discovery, recognized as a granary) seat, one way.

Storage remains in the archaeological discoveries of the drag Itabashi north, the total length of about 200 meters north-south, things are less than 200 meters wide, covers an area of about 40,000 square meters. Storage remains divided Northern and Southern Sung and Yuan three periods, layout is very neat. Song barn 2, that is 1,2 barns, stone arch bridge in the north of the Yuan Dynasty. North-south arrangement. The construction method is to first carry out pounding the accumulation of soil units to form a warehouse floor, surrounded by masonry brick wall to form a warehouse with an internal wooden posts separated between the formation of different positions (the AO). Song barn 10, the 3 ~ 7,9 ~ 13 barns, granaries located in the northern Song Dynasty, the middle is a north-south, about 200 meters of the road separating the Song and Yuan Dynasties to the Song and Yuan road for the symmetry axis distribution, from north to south in order of priority. The construction methods and Northern same difference is found on the ground inside the barn brick paving, ground stone was found a large number of column bases, and Song granary, as well as the separation into different positions, the room also found in some positions be useful brick masonry of the warehouse for easy access between the ramp. Yuan granary 1, that is, on the 8th position, laminated 2 positions in the northern part of the Northern Song, the same construction methods and the Northern Song Dynasty. Also found in the barn to the east there is a north-south brick wall of the building (corridors) sites, suggesting that the granary should be surrounded by closed.

Song granary, that 1,2 positions (F1, F2): Archaeological Discoveries in the stone arch bridge north of the Yuan Dynasty, this storage remains found in the southern most. Direction of 204 °, the two 4-meter spacing, the formation of its station base as a whole Ben Zhu. 2 positions save more comprehensive, so focus on anatomy was carried out.