The period between the publication of "Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani" (1873) which is the first architectural history of the Ottoman era and the formulation of the Turkish History Thesis in 1930's which indicates a radical break in historiography, constitute the early phase of the architectural history in Turkey. Considering the lack of an established tradition of architectural theory or art history, the pioneering role, in this early phase, was accomplished not by architects or art historians, but by a general cultural elite motivated mainly by the nationalist concerns. During this period, Islamism, Ottomanism and Turkism appear to be the three main nationalist/protonationalist ideologies. Among these, Islamism hardly had any interest in architecture, nor architectural history. During the Tanzimat era in which Ottomanism appeared and had a considerable effect among the intellectuals, architectural history and Ottomanism came together only in the agendas of those who were already interested in the arts, archeology or conservation matters. However Turkism who introduced a new concept of identity had to construct its cultural basement. Therefore architectural history took an important position in their agenda and became a practical tool to illustrate the nation's glorious past. This study aims to discuss the impact of Turkism oriented nationalism on the architectural history through the examination of the activities of some nationalist, antiquarian and scientific societies and the works of some authors of the era. Conferences, free courses, excursions constitute the main activity areas of the nationalist societies. Preparation of the photography and drawing collections of the main buildings of the past were also part of their program. Important figures of the architectural historiography of the era such as Celal Esad, Kemaleddin, Mehmed Ziya, Halil Edhem or Hamdulah Subhi were among the members of these societies and took part in their activities by giving lectures, preparing reports, or publishing in their journals. Even though they were not nationalist in their explicit aims Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni and Bilgi Derneği were also among the societies whose interest area covers architectural history. However their activities were restricted with the publication of journals and the organization of some discussions forums on the subject. Antiquarian societies, -among them Istanbul Muhibleri Cemiyeti is the earliest and the most known one-, were also organizing conferences, but were mainly concerned with the conservation problems. However, Istanbul Muhibleri Cemiyeti's publications on the Bereketzade Fountain and the Yali of Köprülü were important works of the era whose texts and drawings were prepared by architects and western art historians. The texts produced in this era are mainly articles published in the journals or periodicals of popular character. Books usually written in foreign languages and pamphlets are also among the publication genres even though they are not abundant in number. Inventories and texts which treat architecture as a rhetorical tool, constitute the two main group of works of the era. Among the authors, Celal Esad can be defined as the most illustrious and the most "professional" one. A part from his numerous publications, he also taught architectural history at the Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi. Ahmed Refik was a historian with a colorful style in which he uses architecture as the décor of the past events. Hamdullah Subhi was an amateur of art/architectural history and the "national orator" who worked as an activist for raising awareness on the subject. He also taught art history at Darülfünun. Mübarek Galib was the director of cultural affairs in the early republic and his publications are examples of inventorial works. The nature of nationalism is characterized by a dual action: Deconstructing every kind of attachment produced in the pre-modern societies and the building up of new loyalty mechanism. This dual attitude can also be observed in the texts dealing with architectural history of the era. Consequently while a tendency aims to homogenize and standardize the subject of study, the other appears to underline the differences in order to formulate new forms of belonging. In this paper Celal Esad, Mübarek Galib, Ahmed Refik and Hamdullah Subhi are studied as examples of these two attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]