1HL BALKANS IN AN AGL OI BAROQUL?

1RANSIORMA1IONS IN ARCHI1LC1URL,
DLCORA1ION, AND PA11LRNS OI
PA1RONAGL AND CUL1URAL
PRODUC1ION IN O11OMAN LUROPL,
J7J8-J8S6

by

MAXIMILIAN HAR1MU1H


A 1hesis Submitted to the
Graduate School o Social Sciences
in Partial lulillment o the Requirements or
the Degree o

Master o Arts
in
Anatolian Ciilizations and Cultural leritage Management

Ko Uniersity
December 2006
Ko Uniersity
Graduate School o Social Sciences


1his is to certiy that I hae examined this copy o a master`s thesis by

Maximilian lartmuth

and hae ound that it is complete and satisactory in all respects,
and that any and all reisions required by the inal
examining committee hae been made.







Committee Members:














Date:
Gnsel Renda, Ph. D. ,Adisor,
Alicia Simpson, Ph. D. ,Adisor,
Machiel Kiel, Ph. D.
Lucienne 1hys-Senocak, Ph. D.
\onca Koksal, Ph. D.
iii
Abstract

1his study aims to shed light on transormations in architecture and architectural
decoration in the Ottoman Balkans during the eighteenth and the irst hal o the
nineteenth century. 1hat this is a period linked to imperial decline on one hand, and to
national reials` on the other, has had a considerable impact on the interpretation and
assessment o the art o this period in modern historiography. It is the aim o this thesis
to challenge some o these interpretations and analyze this art primarily within its socio-
cultural context. Lxplanations will also be sought as to why Baroque orms exerted such
a strong inluence in the region when they had already aded out in \estern Lurope.
Rather than westernization`, decline, or national reial`, alternatie causes and
moties will be sought or the deelopment o the art o this period. As the agents o
change, actors such as merchants, notables, builders, decorators, bandits, and
guildspeople will be explored instead o the more traditional empires or nations. Rather
than mere descriptions o buildings, trends, and deelopments embedded in established
historical narraties, the art and architecture o this period will be analyzed in the
ramework o changing dynamics and patterns o patronage and cultural production,
centres and peripheries, the construction system, and mechanisms o exchange with the
non-Ottoman world.
i
zet

Bu alisma, onsekizinci yzyil e ondokuzuncu yzyilin ilk yarisinda Osmanli Donemi
Balkan topraklarinda mimarlik e mimari dekorasyon alanlarinda gorlen degisimlere
isik tutmayi amalamaktadir. Bu donemin, bir yandan imparatorlugun oksyle, diger
yandan ulusal canlanmalarla baglantili olmasi, soz konusu sanatin modern tarih
yaziminda yorumlanmasi e degerlendirilmesinde olduka etkili olmustur. Bu yorumlarin
bazilarinin sorgulanmasi e bu sanatin kendi sosyokltrel baglaminda analiz edilmesi
hedelenmektedir. Bununla beraber, Barok ormlarinin, Arupa`da oktan sona ermis
olmalarina ragmen, neden bu kadar kuetli bir etkiye sahip olduklari sorusuna ceaplar
aranacaktir. Bu donem sanatinin gelisimini ortaya koymak iin Batililasma`, oks ya da
ulusal canlanma` gibi tanimlamalar yerine, alternati nedenler e drtler
arastirilacaktir. Degisimin temsilcileri olarak imparatorluklar ya da uluslar yerine,
tccarlar, ayanlar, dlgerler, nakkaslar, eskiyalar e loncalar incelenecektir. \erlesmis
tarihi anlatimlarda gorlen yapilarin, akimlarin e gelisimin salt tanimlari yerine, donemin
sanat e mimarisi, degisen dinamikler e himaye modelleri, kltrel retim, birincil e
ikincil merkezler, insa sistemi e Arupa ile olan degisim mekanizmalari ereesinde
analiz edilecektir.





1able of Contents




PRLIACL..........................................................................................................................................VII
IN1RODUC1ION...............................................................................................................................1
J. A WINDOW 1O 1HL WLS1....................................................................................................10
1.1. 1lL POLI1ICAL PRLLUDL 1O CUL1URAL ClANGL: 1683-118......................................................10
1.2. 1lL 1ULIP LRA` ,118-130, AND I1S RLPLRCUSSIONS IN 1lL PROVINCLS...............................15
1.2.1. 1be .tavbvt of .bvet ava Davat brabiv Pa.ba15
1.2.2. 1be /vtti,e of atit erif Pa.ba at vvev 20
1.2.. 1be Davvbe Privciatitie. vvaer Pbavariote rvte 24
1.3. DLVLLOPMLN1S ON 1lL LDGL Ol 1lL O11OMAN \ORLD........................................................30
1..1. etgraae 111: frov Ottovav to aroqve cit, ava bac/30
1..2. Dvbrorvi/ ava tbe eregoriva34
1.4. RLCAPI1ULA1ION .......................................................................................................................38
2. O11OMAN BAROQUL AND BLYOND...............................................................................40
2.1. lIS1ORICAL lRAML\ORK...........................................................................................................40
2.2. 1lL O11OMAN BAROQUL`.......................................................................................................43
2.2.1. t. cbaracteri.tic. ava tace iv bi.toriograb, 43
2.2.2. 1be ivact of tbe Ottovav aroqve ov vovMv.tiv.` ava rorivciat arcbitectvre 48
2.3. ON OR1lODOX ClRIS1IAN CUL1URL IN 1lL LIGl1LLN1l CLN1UR\........................................52
2..1. 1be erbiav aroqve ava tbe icovo.ta.i. a. er.atfaaae 52
2..2. 1be ri.e ava fatt of Mo.cbooti.57
2.4. RLCAPI1ULA1ION .......................................................................................................................60
2.5. A NO1L ON 1lL O11OMAN lOUSL`.........................................................................................62
3. BANDI1RY, AYANLIK, AND A PRO1O-BOURGLOISIL: 1HL BALKANS BLIORL 1HL
RLIORMS...........................................................................................................................................66
3.1. 1lL K.RDZ.]11O AND 1lL lOR1IlILD lOUSL: D\LLLINGS AROUND 1800 AND 1lL PLACL Ol
AR1 IN AN AGL Ol INSLCURI1\..........................................................................................................66
3.2. PROVINCIAL NO1ABLLS AND MLRClAN1S AS NL\` PA1RONS Ol RLPRLSLN1A1IVL
ARClI1LC1URL..................................................................................................................................73
3.2.1. ARClI1LC1URAL PA1RONAGL Ol 1lL A\AN AND I1S PLACL IN O11OMAN AR1 .......................79
.2.1.1. oavviva vvaer .ti Pa.ba79
.2.1.2. 1iaiv vvaer O.vav Paravtogtv 85
.2.1... b/oaer ava Prirev vvaer tbe v.batti ava Rotvtta 88
.2.1.1. Pretivivar, covctv.iov ava a vote ov Mebvet .ti`. /vtti,e iv Karata 91
3.2.2. 1lL 1lLSSALO-LPIRO1L-MACLDONIAN RLGION IN 1lL LAS1 QUAR1LR Ol 1lL LIGl1LLN1l
CLN1UR\...........................................................................................................................................96
3.3. NL\ 1RLNDS IN ARClI1LC1URAL DLCORA1ION.......................................................................102
..1. 1rav.forvatiov. iv Ottovav art ava it. ai..evivatiov to tbe rorivce. 102
..2. 1be .tbaviav tava. at tbe ea/ of .tavic cvttvre iv tbe ovtbre.t at/av.110
3.4. ON 1lL ARClI1LC1S` AND PAIN1LRS` Ol MANSIONS AND MOSQULS IN 1lL LA1L O11OMAN
BALKAN PROVINCLS........................................................................................................................120
3.5. RLCAPI1ULA1ION .....................................................................................................................131
4. RLORGANIZA1ION (1ANZIMA1) AND RLBIR1H (VAZRAZDANL) ...........................135
4.1. 1lL BULGARIAN NA1IONAL RLVIVAL` AND I1S ARClI1LC1URAL MANIlLS1A1IONS ..............137
4.2. SLRBIA UNDLR MILOS OBRLNOVIC...........................................................................................157
4.3. 1lL BOSNIAN LXCLP1ION........................................................................................................164
4.4. 1lL RL1URN` Ol 1lL MONUMLN1AL ClURCl .......................................................................171
4.5. RLCAPI1ULA1ION .....................................................................................................................178
i
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................182
ILLUS1RA1IONS............................................................................................................................188
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................226
MAP WI1H PLACLS MLN1IONLD IN 1HL 1LX1................................................................244
ii
Preface

1he prehistory o the idea or taking up this speciic topic as subject or a later thesis
began a ew years ago on a trip around Bulgaria. \ith a riend rom Soia insisting on
showing us her hometown, Sumen, haing arried there she directed us towards two
monuments she ound representatie o her town. One was a communist-period
memorial generously oerlooking the town, the other was the mosque o Seri lalil
Pasha, the only surior o more than 40 mosques still only a century ago. Now I had
been amiliar with the general characteristics o Ottoman mosques in the Balkans due to
a year-long stay in post-war Sarajeo and, admittedly, had ound them all to be airly
alike, but what I saw in the interior o the mosque at Sumen was dissimilar rom what I
had preiously come to know. Some o the decoration and motis elt oddly amiliar,
and in the concise lealet the keeper had proided us with upon entering, a preliminarily
satisactory answer was obtained in the classiication o the style as Islamic Baroque`.
Dierent rom the plain exteriors o 1urkish houses` I had preiously come across in
Bosnia and Serbia were then also some o the residences on the next stop on the
itinerary, Plodi. Lager to learn more about what I had seen back home, I stumbled
upon publications mentioning not only a Bulgarian Baroque`, but a 1urkish Baroque`
and Serbian Baroque` as well, all terms I had ell upon at some earlier point, but neer
had suspected a real correlation, them maybe orming part o a general, regional trend in
a speciic period. 1his, ater all, would also hae meant that what is so oten, i
indirectly, suggested in the histories o Southeast Lurope, namely an isolation o the
peoples o Ottoman Lurope rom the art and architecture o Lurope so as to explain
why the Balkans townscapes look so unamiliar to us`, would not be entirely accurate.
Beginning my research on this Baroque inluence`, soon came the realization that there
is much more to it than merely an occidentalist ad, akin to the 1urquerie in the west.
iii

In regional and national histories the Balkan societies` changeoer rom oriental` to
Luropean` is more oten than not portrayed as a reasonably clear break, as could be
expected rom someone supposedly breaking away rom the bondage o domination by
an alien ciilization, into reedom. Other than as an early stage in the liberation`
moements o subjected peoples, little space has been laished on the cultural history o
the eighteenth century Balkans. 1o declare nationalist-secessionist sentiment as the
deining entity in the eeryday lies o indiiduals at that period, howeer, is in all
probability delusional. labitually, as i requiring no urther periodization, the whole
hal-millennial period o Ottoman-Balkans culture is presented as a monolith.
lortunately, also a ast body o more enlightened literature exists, ew o which,
howeer, speciically dealing with the post-classical, pre-1anzimat cultural history o
Ottoman Lurope. Much o this thesis thus consists o piecemeal inormation, oten
rom quite unrelated sources, collected oer a period o three years. Only towards the
end o this research I could grasp the larger picture, the interrelation between dierent
actors ,and not only in terms o culture, art and architecture,, and eentually had to
reise many truths` that I had held or such through preious readings. It is the
purpose o this thesis to communicate and share these insights, and I am let to hope
that the arguments brought orward throughout this discussion will be conincing or
the reader.

1he necessary prerequisites or this enterprise I ound during my two-year residence at
Ko Uniersity in Istanbul. 1hat Gnsel Renda, an internationally renowned art
historian o the late Ottoman period came to be irst one o my proessors and
eentually one o my adisors proed a ortunate instance. Continuing the study o
established areas o interest in a preiously unamiliar enironment has also proided
ix
me with a new and dierent, maybe more Ottoman`, perspectie, which many works
on the Balkans produced in the region` or in the \est` perhaps lack. Occasional
stays in Vienna, on the other hand, hae enabled me to access an oten ery dierent
body o literature rom that ound in collections in Istanbul. It should also be noted that
throughout my research I hae, without exception, only made ery positie experiences
with the sta o libraries the collections o which proided the essentials or my work:
in Vienna these were the Austrian National Library, the main library o the Uniersity o
Vienna, the libraries at the departments or Art listory, Last- and Southeast Luropean
listory, 1urkology, Byzantine Studies, and een the city-run Public Library proided or
some surprising discoeries. In Istanbul, these were the libraries o the Ko, Bogazii,
Sabanci, Bilgi, and Mimar Sinan uniersities as well as that o the American Research
Institute in 1urkey ,ARI1, and the Institut lranais d`Ltudes Anatoliennes ,IlLA,.
Resources that otherwise could hae been located only with enormous eorts hae been
made aailable to me through the article- and inter-library loan request system at Ko
Uniersity`s Suna Kira Library, personiied by Ayla 1ekibasi, whose support and
switness, despite my seemingly neer-ending requests, must be commended. I am
urthermore indebted to Alicia Simpson, my second adisor, or giing this work a
thorough reading and making constructie suggestions or improements, and Ayse
Dilsiz or help with translations rom 1urkish and all other kinds o support during the
writing-process.

Next to publications in Lnglish, German, and lrench, considerable use has been made
o sources in the 1urkish, Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian
languages. 1here exist a ew interesting sources in Italian and a ast amount in Greek
x
which, regrettably, could not be accessed.
1
In the case o Greek publications, howeer,
now and then substantial summaries in Lnglish or lrench are included.
2
Gien the
inolement o such number o languages and scripts, a consistent transliteration or
consistent use o region-speciic terms in one o the releant languages is almost
impossible. lor much related to the Ottoman period, modern 1urkish terms hae been
gien preerence. In the transliteration o Bulgarian Cyrillic, which, unlike Serbian
Cyrillic, does not hae a generally accepted Latin equialent, the mode more accepted
among linguists o Slaic languages has been chosen oer the international` option
,much like Russian transliterated into Lnglish,. \here applicable, Bulgarian letters hae
been reproduced as what they would look like in other Slaic languages written in the
Latin alphabet ,m ~ s, u ~ c, ~ z,. 1he problematic` + ,equialent to the 1urkish t,
has been transliterated as , and not as u, a, i, or y, in order to be clear which original
character is being reerred to.

lor those not amiliar with the pronunciation o special characters ,diacritics, in the
Latin,ized, alphabets o the 1urks, Albanians, Romanians, and the south Slas, a small
,and simpliied, chart should proide guidance or the correct reading or reproduction
o words requently used in this work:



1
Among the works in Italian are studies o mosques in 1etoo, Samoko, and Kaala. lor reerence,
these can be ound in the bibliography as articles by Scarcia ,1981, and Curatola ,1981,, and the book by
Bruni ,2003,. Also Roskoska's concise book` ,46 pages, on the mosque at Samoko ,19,, although
published in German, lrench, and Lnglish, could not be located in libraries accessible to me. \hile all
these are key monuments on which inormation can be ound in greater detail also in the other sources I
used, the reader should keep in mind that the aorementioned works may include additional inormation.
2
1his was, or example, the case with Moutsopoulos ,196,. 1he citations rom this book thus reer to
the chapter-length Lnglish summary.
xi
Slaic languages 1urkish Lnglish
s sh
c ch or tch
c ,serb., - similar to the ch-sound in uture`
d ,serb., - similar to the dj-sound in orge`
,bulg., t ery short or other owel
- g not pronounced, lengthens preceding owel
Dz c dj as in jungle`
long a ,not used anymore,

1he Romanian is pronounced like the 1urkish t, the Albanian like a short German
, the gj like the Lnglish dj. In the case o Albanian place-names there exist two
simultaneously used ersions ,e.g. Kor ~ Kora,, which, i he,she is used to another,
should not surprise the reader. In the case o Gjirokastr, this ersion has been
preerred oer Gjirokastra`. In the case o 1irana, howeer, the internationally
accepted 1irana rather than 1iran` has been used. \here places hae accepted
equialents in Lnglish, such as Belgrade ,serb. Beograd, or Bucharest ,rom. Bucuresti,,
these orms hae been gien preerence. I will use both Istanbul and Constantinople,
gien that there neer was one name used by eeryone, and in rare occasions
Constantinople` seems more adequate. Mistakes and inconsistencies in transliterations
and translations, or any mistakes this work might possibly suer rom, are the sole
responsibility o the author.
1
Introduction

1his study aims to shed light on deelopments in architecture and architectural
decoration in the Ottoman Balkans in the pre-modern era. 1he period coered is
roughly the eighteenth and irst hal o the nineteenth century. As this thesis aims to
demonstrate, this is not a random choice but indeed a period o a reasonably distinct
isuality and dierent dynamics, and with a airly clear beginning and closing stage. As
the endpoint has been determined the year 1856, the year o the proclamation o the
Islahat edict, ater which the art and architecture o the Ottoman Christian subjects
reolutionarily change. In this age o already institutionalized westernization in the
Ottoman Lmpire, howeer, also in the architecture o mosques, residences, and
administratie buildings there are perceptibly new directions. At the beginning o the
narratie stands the year 118, the start o the 1ulip Lra`, in which among rulers and
administrators a noel approach to the non-Ottoman world deelops as a result o
incisie changes in Ottoman realities ater the ailed siege o Vienna in 1683, ultimately
resulting in a loss o substantial territory to a strengthened enemy in the north.

Both Kiel ,1985, and Bouras ,1991, justiy the year 100 as the chronological termini o
their respectie sureys arguing that it makes little sense to go beyond this date which,
taken symbolically, witnesses drastic breaches. \hile Kiel ,1985:1, assesses the
Ottoman iteenth, sixteenth, and seenteenth centuries as a period that stands out as
more or less homogenous`, the eighteenth century is stated to mark the beginning o
proound changes in society, thinking and art`. It is interesting that Kiel ,1990a:289-90,
urther seems to dierentiate between Ottoman art in the Balkans and art in the late
Ottoman Balkans: 1he ormer is said to witness a slow but steady decline` beginning
2
in the seenteenth century, while, writing more speciically o Albania, where only ater
that century a massie need or Islamic inrastructure arises, he explains the
subsequently dierent spirit o Albanian-Ottoman art by inerring that the imperial
centre could no longer guide the work in the proince` since Ottoman ciilization
had declined`.
3
\hat or whose art was it then \as it a genuinely Balkan art with its
own dynamics or simply a proincial relection o general post-classical Ottoman
trends

\hat concerns Christian architecture and art ,which otherwise will not be the at the
centre o this study,, Vryonis ,1991:30, similarly conirms a a certain decline in the
quality o the art` ater 100, which he explains by reerring to a rapid increase in the
number o artists, most o who were rom rural origins. In contrast to both the Muslim
and Christian religious art and architecture o this period, the residential structures
,traditional housing` or ernacular`,, usually receie a rather enthusiastic ealuation.
1his is, on one hand, certainly due to their classiication as traditional` ,whose tradition
notwithstanding,, and, on the other hand, likely also due to the act that we are simply
let with ery ew suriing examples predating the late eighteenth century, whereby a
comparatie assessment would not really be easible. Scholars, howeer, seem to agree
that the houses built in the century ater 150 show the most deeloped orm o this
type, while the mass o earlier dwellings are belieed to hae been much humbler ,as
conirmed in depreciatie accounts o western traellers,. But also in the late period
these buildings, while in almost all cases a ersion o what has come to be known as

3
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most buildings, including mosques, were indeed not anymore
built by architects sent rom Istanbul but by Christian masters rom the wider region. 1he preiously
highly centralized process, which accounts or the region-wide uniormity o classical-period mosques in
the Balkans, is described by Kiel ,1990c:xi-xii,, based on the analysis o detailed registers, as ollows:
Architects and workleaders, trained in the capital, were dispatched to the proince. Models o what to
build were sent with them . \ith the help o these models the indiidual patrons, or the state
commission, could decide what kind o mosque or ortress they wanted.`
3
the Ottoman house` ,a concept which will later be explained, show not one but a
ariety o styles, some are more traditional`, some more Baroque`.

Nonetheless, in these two assessments by Kiel and Vryonis, and without een yet citing
the much more dismissie ealuations o 1urkish architectural historians about their`
architecture in the late period, we can already discern a common indication that the
study o the art o this period is somewhat less rewarding. 1o demonstrate that such a
conception is erroneous, aside rom not ery helpul, will be one o the objects o this
study. \e are dealing with a dierent kind o art, less classical` than its predecessor
and sometimes more a olk art` than an academic` one. Less stale and codiied, more
secular and personal, it also attests to the itality o its age, particularly ater the 10s.
Remarkable works o creatiity are patronized by increasing segments o society and
produced by a steadily increasing number o non-ormally trained builders-decorators,
whose role and histories hae, I beliee, not been ully appreciated. Instead,
historiography has eery so oten interpreted their works as the artistic component o a
nationalist renewal among the Balkan Christian societies, a notion which will be
challenged in the last two chapters o this study.

1he same authors hae endeaoured to explain a seemingly low leel o productiity in
Christian architecture or much o the period o Ottoman rule in the Balkans -
stretching oer hal a millennium hardly to be considered an occupation`, as is still the
paradigm - with two reasons: 1, the annihilation o a local ,Christian, class to patronize
their` art,s,, and 2, seere Ottoman-Islamic laws that orbade the building o new
churches and made een the repair o older churches ery diicult. Both claims are,
admittedly, not entirely alse, but we will also see that realities sometimes diered. 1his
also includes the conception o the Ottomans purposeully isolating their subjects rom
4
the achieements contemporary Lurope made in culture, the arts, and sciences, whereby
the 1urks hae been made the scapegoats or the modern Balkan nations`
backwardness`. It is true that major artistic moements in Lurope, like the
Renaissance, pass the Ottoman Christians` isual culture largely unnoticed, but we will
see that in some parts o the Ottoman Balkans, at dierent times, iid exchange with
the \est, not only in commerce but in cultural ocabulary as well, was indeed possible.
In no instance more than in the Age o Baroque is this noticeably in the Balkans, or
really in Ottoman culture as a whole. Baroque motis can not only be ound in the
decoration o Christian merchants` houses or paintings and iconostases o Orthodox
churches, but in Muslim ,and Jewish, residences and houses o worship as well. \hat
we see there is an Ottomanized` relection o Baroque ideas. But, then, is the Ottoman
art o that period to be considered part o a wider Baroque sphere, which would include
other exports to non-Luropean destinations, like the Mexican Baroque` which, despite
Spanish origins, takes ery indiidual orms in the process o dislocation
4
I yes, why
then does this Ottoman Baroque` ,or the Bulgarian Baroque`, or that matter, only
show at a point in time when the Baroque in much o Lurope has already come to and
end

1his study`s prime objectie will not be to discern western inluences on architecture in
the Ottoman Balkans, or to locate and position the Baroque in the region`s eidently
changing isual culture ater 100. Rather, it will be concerned with mechanisms o
exchange, not only between Last` and \est` but within the Balkans and between
centres` and proinces` in the Ottoman world. 1he aim is to describe, interpret,
and,or explain why, when, and how changes occur and materialize in the toci o public

4
On the surprising aterlie o Baroque beyond its natural boundaries`, see larbison ,2003, cit. x,, esp.
chapters VII and VIII.
5
and eeryday lies o Ottoman subjects in the way they did. 1his will mean to try to
understand the society that produced these works o art and architecture, and not
merely to point out to amiliar eatures in certain trends and sweepingly attribute them
to an increasing western inluence emerging rom an imbalance o power between two
societies, whereby one eentually begins to culturally dominate the other.

In such an endeaour, much o the historiography generated in the region under
discussion - a region which the outside world mainly associates with conlict and
contesting nationalisms - is not a natural ally. Next to the works o art and architecture
to be treated herein, historiography and its readings o the cultural past must thus take a
prominent place. listoriographically, one crucial problem seems that our knowledge o
the Ottoman Balkans in the eighteenth century is ery limited, particularly i compared
to the ast amount o scholarship produced on the nineteenth century. Much o what
has been written on the period oten ocuses on the resurgence ,or emergence, o
national sentiments among the Balkan peoples, and certainly much more than on their
eeryday lies. In this sense, it is more a history o nations rather than a cultural history.
But also rom the other, Ottomanist iewpoint, laroqhi ,1995:29-30, had identiied
particular diiculties` in the expansion o our knowledge o the cultural history o the
eighteenth century, a paradox being that it is ery well documented but at the same time
relatiely little research has been made, particularly or the period ater 130. She
attributes this in part to that the oreign-inluenced art o that century had been
dismissed in the writings o nationalist Republican-period art historians, who classiied
that style as an alien import by a court orgetting national` traditions and borne by a
society whose liestyle was rowned upon by many contemporaries. Luropean
historians, on the other hand, were too much concerned with national-cultural
peculiarities to really appreciate this cosmopolitan style`. Not anymore solely identiied
6
with cultural decline, more recent research eentually began to appreciate this age
representing, in laroqhi`s words, the itality and elegance o a late period.`

Particularly in the last two-three decades a considerable amount o studies hae ocused
on Ottoman eighteenth-century culture. Scholars such as Maurice Cerasi, Shirine
lamadeh, Gnsel Renda, or Dogan Kuban hae contributed a great deal to our
knowledge o the art and architecture o this period which now appears to ascinate a
growing number o people.
5
Regrettably, the same can not be said or contemporary
deelopments in the proinces. In act, and aside rom a ew case studies, close to
nothing has been published on late Ottoman mosques in the Balkans. \ere it not or
the many publications by Machiel Kiel, the works o some \ugosla scholars like Andrej
Andrejeic, or the inentory o Ottoman monuments in Lurope prepared by the
1urkish researcher Lkrem lakki Ayerdi, we would not know much about the classical-
period mosques either.
6
Despite these essential contributions, still no comprehensie,
synthetic, and critical work, coering the whole region, that is, the region that it was
when this architecture deeloped, has been created to coney to us the history and the
character o Ottoman architecture in the Balkans. In 1urkish works on Ottoman

5
\hile noting that the recent surge o interest in the artistic and architectural production o the
eighteenth century has rescued this period rom its earlier characterization as an era o decline`, lamadeh
,2004:33-4, also criticizes that the emphasis placed on the inluence o Luropean culture and aesthetics
and on the role o the Ottomans' westernizing aspirations in inorming architectural change has
considerably eclipsed the extensie and multiarious nature o the century's deelopments ... 1o regard the
eighteenth century as a turning point in Ottoman interaction with Lurope is to ignore oer two centuries
o irtually continuous cultural and artistic contact.`
6
Admittedly, there hae been a couple o books published in 1urkey on the 1urkish` cultural heritage in
the Balkans ,e.g. \enisehirlioglu 1989, 1uran and Ibrahimgil 2001, (am 2000,, but these are rather
photographic essays with only ery little inormation on the buildings. A prominent exception, on
Ottoman architecture in the Balkans, Ayerdi`s our-olume inentory rom around 1980 remains the
basic source. Despite its age and his obious dislike o anything produced ater the seenteenth century,
sometimes expressed in open disgust, it is still much more inormatie and contains ar less mistakes than
the more popularly written works written ater it. In deence o these well-meant attempts, it must be
noted that during the Socialist period in Southeast Lurope the research possibilities or sureying these
countries` suspicious Ottoman architectural heritage were limited. Len the Dutchman Kiel ,1990c:x,
reported o haing been arrested and conined` and haing had his notes or ilms coniscated` in each
o the Balkan countries, or no other reason than taking photographs o Ottoman buildings.`

architecture examples rom the Balkans are conspicuously absent, implicitly suggesting
that this region did not play a signiicant role in its deelopment, a iew with which Kiel
,1990c:x, would sharply disagree.

Less or political reasons, also the church architecture o the eighteenth century remains
airly little studied, although much has been done in this ield in the last ew decades as
well. In contrast, traditional` dwellings are extraordinarily well researched, whereby we
were able to rely on extensie studies by the likes o Nikolaos Moutsopoulos, \iannis
Kizis, Sedad lakki Lldem, lalk Sezgin, Christo Pew ,Pee,, Georgi Arbalie, Pejo
Berbenlie, Anna Roskoska, Dusan Grabrijan, or Aleksandar Deroko. \hile consulted,
not all o them needed to be cited in this study, as the dwellings they speak o, although
in their readings they are Serbian, Bosnian, 1urkish, Greek, Albanian etc.
traditional,ernacular architecture, really constitute one main type with minor regional
dierences, which ,Cerasi 1998:149, explains as due to epoch and social class rather
than to region, climate, or ethnicity. A useul proision has been the olume .rcbitectvre
traaitiovvette ae. a,. bat/aviqve. ,1993,, to which many o the aorementioned contributed
a well-researched piece. Indicatie o the questionably productie approach o studying
these structures in the context o modern nation states` borders, which appeared where
they had been none at the time when these houses were built, howeer, is that each
country is represented by a chapter, but no synthesis rom these cases has been
attempted by way o a concluding chapter. 1he readers o many works like this will also
notice that only seldom exact ,or any, dates are gien or the houses coered, which
brings us to the next problem: dating. Inscriptions indicating the construction dates o
houses are rare, and in many places seem to become common only toward the mid-
nineteenth century. Inescapably, this poses an obstacle or tracing the deelopment o
residential architecture and its regional ariations. But also in terms o both Muslim and
8
Christian religious architecture, where we typically ind inscriptions with dates, dating is
sometimes problematic. 1hey can reer to the ounding date o the institution as well as
to later re-building ,repair`,, but are seldom clear on when the building acquired a
characteristic shape.

A repair` can mean in some cases that only minor changes hae
been made to the structure, in others that it was completely built anew. 1he same is
alid or the decorations o interiors. Many iteenth century mosques hae been
redecorated in the early nineteenth century and thereby in the contemporary style. In
some cases we know the dates o these redecorations with certainty, i mentioned in
chronicles or inscriptions, in others we can only guess.
8
In such cases one is let to
compare the decoratie eatures with similar designs in Istanbul or other parts o the
southern Balkans where exact dates are aailable. But also the interest in interior
decoration is a more recent deelopment, whereby only ew more comprehensie
studies hae been produced, mostly by 1urkish scholars and hence oten only partly
accessible to academics in the rest o the region. An additional problem is that we can
only guess how widespread such elaborately painted interiors were, or so many
buildings hae been lost either through wanton destruction ,mosques, or requent ires,
which hae let us only with a small sample o the residences which, to a large extent,
were built rom wood and thereore highly ulnerable. 1hese and other inescapable
problems accounting or the proisional disposition o many eentual conclusions must
be kept in mind by the reader.

1he act that some Ottoman inscriptions only proide dates encoded as chronograms adds a degree o
obscurity, as they are not always easy to decipher and are thereore occasionally misconstrued.
8
In the case o the 1ombul mosque at Sumen ,Bulgaria,, or example, we know that the structure dates
rom the 140s. But the interior decoration, eaturing some baroque motis and patterns as well as painted
landscape-panels, apparently dates rom a later point, possibly rom the early nineteenth century. And
although this is one o the ew mosques in Bulgaria which hae attracted considerable attention, there was
ound no hint to this decoration haing taken place at a later date in the literature consulted.
9
laing so presented the topics to be coered in the present study, it may appear to
some that, in the context o the limitations o a Master`s thesis ,time aailable or
research, capacity o researcher, etc.,, both the period - one and a hal centuries - and
the ast region coered were an exaggerated, i not pretentious rame i the aim is to
produce a really conclusie architectural surey, whereby more wisely a speciic case or
sub-region would hae been chosen. loweer, both the actors erioa and regiov, as must
lastly be stressed, are key hypotheses o this study, which will be less concerned with
descriptions o indiidual structures than with the aim o understanding the cultural-
historical context in which the works in question materialized.
10
J. A Window to the West
J.J. 1he political prelude to cultural change: J683-J7J8

\ith the treaty o Karlowitz ,1699, a new phase in Ottoman history begins. lor the irst
time an Ottoman Sultan ormally acknowledged his deeat and the permanent loss o
lands conquered by his ancestors rather than temporary withdrawal rom them. In the
negotiations at Karlowitz, and again in 130, the Ottomans, urthermore, or the irst
time accepted the mediation o a Luropean power, namely lrance, an almost permanent
ally o the sultans, on their behal. 1he borders emerging rom this treaty - the Saa-
Danube-Carpathians line - proed to be exceptionally long-lied. \ith the exception o
some Austrian gains
9
and the creation o a Neo-lellenic state in 1830 - long conined to
the southern portion o modern Greece - and notwithstanding internal autonomies, the
borders drawn at Karlowitz suried until the 1reaty o Berlin in 188. Not incidentally,
it is exactly this area which is routinely thought o as culturally Balkans`. 1he
Ottomanization` to take place in these last two centuries o 1urkish presence in the
Balkans was a process aided not least by the Balkan Christians trying to emulate the
Muslim upper classes, their houses and liestyle, as soon as economic potency permitted.

As a result or the deastation caused by the Austrian army penetrating deep into the
Balkan peninsula ater the second Ottoman siege o Vienna ,1683, had ailed, eminent
cities like Sarajeo or Skopje did not recoer or one and a hal centuries.
10
It is thus not

9
1he Banat o 1emesar in 118 and the northern Moldaian region henceorth known as Bukoina
were lost to the labsburgs in 15.
10
Classical-period Skopje had enjoyed oer-regional importance due to the good reputation o its Isakiye
veare.e. Ater those in Istanbul, Bursa, and Ldirne, it was reported to be the best in the empire ,Adanir
1994:155,. But laroqhi ,1995:88, notes that by the eighteenth century also Bursa and Ldirne had lost their
11
in these centres o the classical Ottoman period in the western Balkans that the most
noteworthy expressions in art and architecture o the eighteenth century are to be
expected. Instead, new ocal points emerged, and urban hierarchies began to shit. But
the Austrian adances in the Balkans also triggered signiicant eents whose cultural
implications still echo today. \hen the labsburg army was orced to retreat to north o
the Danube-Saa border ater a lrench attack on the western borders o the loly
Roman Lmpire, it was ollowed by many Balkan Christians leeing their homes out o
ear o retaliation or collaboration with the oreign intruders. In what became known as
the great migration` ,reti/a .eoba, some 30,000
11
Serbs let the core territories o their
medieal states, most prominently Kosoo, to settle in the newly labsburg territories
north o the 1699 border.
12
1here they were integrated into a dierent cultural and
social mainstream than their kinsmen remaining under Ottoman rule or almost two
more decades, accounting or an intra-Serbian cultural diision which still reerberates
today. But also Romanians and Croats were henceorth ound on both sides o the long-
lied Austrian-Ottoman border.

As a consequence o the treaty o Karlowitz, eighteenth century Southeast Lurope came
to be diided between two multiethnic empires. But although the two empires shared
many similar problems, to the outside obserer at the time the dierences were
proound` noted Jelaich ,1983:166-,. She continued by drawing a undamentally
polarized picture, which became the paradigm o modern historiography`s imagery:


role as centres o theological and juridical education. On the signiicance o classical-period Skopje, see
also Kiel ,2002,, esp. the concluding remarks ,p.41,.
11
Lxaggerated estimates claim a migration o up to 500,000 people. See Malcolm ,1998:140,156,.
12
1he depopulated areas in the central Balkans are then repopulated by montagnards rom surrounding
areas, mostly Albanians gradually conerting to Islam, constituting a demographic shit which was to
become the core problem o iolent conlicts three centuries later.
12
Most obious were the outward orms o two contrasting ciilizations. In the eyes o
educated Luropeans the Ottoman Lmpire was a backward, een barbarous, state ... 1he
custom o collecting heads and o staking out bodies and heads in public places reolted
citizens o countries where such actiities belonged to the past. Moreoer, Ottoman
cities were dirty, congested, and primitie in comparison with those o the \est.
Conspicuous display o wealth could be dangerous, luxury and wealth were conined to
the homes, where they could not be iewed by oreign eyes. In comparison, in
questions o style the labsburg Lmpire was one o the great centers o Lurope. In an
age o baroque culture, labsburg ciilization was splendid. 1he nobility could aord to
maintain magniicent residences and to endow the arts. 1here was also a comortable
middle class. Law and order were assured, bands o robbers did not roam at will. Public
oicials were supposed to uphold certain standards. Although corruption exists in all
societies, the Austrian serice was relatiely honest and eicient. General standards or
sanitation, cleanliness, and order were maintained at a high leel. In contrast, corruption
was blatant and open in Constantinople.`

Ortayli ,1994:9, predictably only partly subscribes to the totality o such assessment:

Briely put, in the late seenteenth century the Ottoman Lmpire was in social and
economic chaos, and there is no doubt that practically all its institutions were moing
towards collapse. But on the other hand, the rulers o the empire were able to come up
with brilliant and interesting examples o bureaucratic manipulation to cope with this
imminent threat. 1he decline o the state did not mean cultural decline, o course.
Ottoman society was in search o a new lie-style, and a new art and social culture was
emerging, which would come down through successie changes and eolutions to the
present day.`

1he political decline emanating in this period is routinely linked to the decay o old
Ottoman institutions that had accompanied the empire during its expansie period,
which - ater a seenteenth century o stagnation without signiicant territorial losses or
gains, except or Crete - really comes to an end with Karlowitz. 1he aer,irve system o
recruitment o able boys rom the Balkans countryside - many o which had become
some o the most capable and respected Ottoman oicials ater being brought up as
13
Muslims - had already been abandoned under Murat IV. In the eighteenth century
iziers and military commanders were mostly o 1urkish extraction. At the beginning o
this century Mustaa II also somewhat shockingly` ,Quataert 2000:43, conirmed
hereditary rights to the tivar. ,ie-holders,, the inancial backbone o a caalry that was
already militarily obsolete. \hile the tivar-system had been a pragmatic solution
encouraging and rewarding indiiduals` commitment in military campaigns, once the
empire ceased to expand it became obsolete.

\hereas sultans o the classical period had looked towards Rome, Paris now became a
reerence or things western. \hile Petersburg was not yet to play a signiicant role in
the region, another centre in the north became a ital point o reerence or the Balkan
Christians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Despite the eentual retreat rom
territories already conquered by Austria in the late seenteenth century. 1his was
Baroque Vienna, mythiied as a Christian bulwark against the Muslim threat, and gaining
immense attraction or the Christians under Ottoman rule, or whom it became a major
intellectual centre in the course o the century.

lor a perspectie on the architecture o the irst hal o the eighteenth century we will
start with the Istanbul o Ahmet III as a centre o dissemination o trends then relected
in buildings in three cities in the east o the region: Sumen in northeast Bulgaria, and
Bucharest and Iasi in the Danubian Principalities ,the later Romania,. 1hat almost no
new building rom the western hal o the peninsula merits inclusion in this chapter
must be explained with that ater the deastations in the late seenteenth century the
minds may hae been set on rebuilding rather than on the construction o new icons.
13


13
One remarkably large rebuilding` project in Lepanto ,Inebahti, has been brought to our knowledge by
Kiel ,1991b,. During the Venetian occupation o the town ,168-100, apparently all Ottoman buildings
were either totally demolished or ruined. \hen it was then regained by the Ottomans a new start had to
14
loweer, a short section will be deoted to the architectural interactions between the
Adriatic coast and its Ottoman hinterland, which also continued in this period. Cultural
impulses rom a dierent geographical direction will be treated at the end o this
chapter. lor two decades the ery north o the region in question is temporarily
annexed by labsburg orces, and the Ottoman Belgrade was redesigned as an Austrian
Baroque city until returned to Ottoman soereignty in 139. Despite large-scale
demolitions, the empire therewith inherited an actually Baroque tradition in monuments
that were to remain part o the Ottoman possessions or another century and a hal.


made, and the sultan and his grand izier Koprl Amcazade lseyin Pasha laid the oundations or the
reial o Islamic lie in the town by erecting a number o schools mosques, baths, and other public
works, ruins o the buildings o the lseyin Pasha complex surie.
15
J.2. 1he 1ulip Lra (J7J8-J730) and its repercussions in the provinces
J.2.J. 1he Istanbul of Ahmet III and Damat Ibrahim Pasha

1he so-called 1ulip Lra` ,Lale Deri, gained notoriety or its extraagant pleasure-
loing liestyle and disinterest in war. It is not the accession o Ahmet III ,103,, a ruler
usually portrayed as rather passie and romantic, that is considered the beginning o this
period, but the assumption o oice o the liberalist Grand Vizier ,Nesehirli, Damat
Ibrahim Pasha in 118. 1o claim this era as the beginning o westernization in the
Ottoman Lmpire would not only be an oerstatement but would also ignore the
contacts that well existed already in the classical period. Indubitably, howeer, it is in the
1ulip Lra during which the cultural exchange is considerably accelerated, not least
through an embassy sent to lrance in 121. 1he mission o the enoy, \irmisekiz
Mehmet (elebi, was not only purely diplomatic, he was also entrusted to obsere the
ways and technologies o the lranks. \ith a similar curiosity to that which he was
greeted with in Paris, his .efaretvve, a detailed documentation o his obserations, was
receied back in Istanbul. Next to noting the dissimilarities in dining manners and the
attitudes to women, he was also greatly impressed by the streets, buildings, and palaces
,and their interiors,, some o which he had had the opportunity to enter as a priileged
guest.

\ith the readiness to accept and absorb new ideas a characteristic o the 1ulip Lra, a
time o extraordinary experimentation in Ottoman history` ,Quataert 2000:44,, the
court o Ahmet III becomes a meeting place or artists, poets, and intellectuals. In 126
the irst printing press in Ottoman script is introduced by Ibrahim Mteerrika, a
lungarian-born conert. Reportedly commissioned in the style o Versailles, Ibrahim
16
Pasha had a leisure palace ,Sa`dabad`, |Ill.1.1| built by or his Sultan on the other`
side o the Golden lorn, in contrast to preious Sultanic projects ar rom the walled
city. Unortunately, nothing has suried o this monument so central or modern
historiography`s thesis o a gradual westernization complementing imperial decline. Our
present knowledge o this structure owes much to the attempted reconstruction by
Lldem ,19, and painted illustrations by oreigners isiting the Istanbul o Ahmet III.
\e note that the exterior o the palace looks typically Ottoman, and it is in the interior
that the supposed Luropean inluence must hae been more apparent. More reealing,
we ind geometrical garden arrangements with planned lower beds, a noelty in
Ottoman conduct, or which Luropean models seem apparent.
14
lor Goodwin
,19:33,, still, the complex was only a clumsy imitation o only partially understood
ideas.`

1hanks to pictorial and textual eidence that we can re-enact that the palace consisted
o harem and .etavti/ ,male quarters,, around which were grouped a mosque, a garden
pailion, a large pool, a small ountain, as well as some 10 residences and gardens or
state oicials, built in a hitherto unseen style`, as a contemporary source ,in lamadeh
2004:38, attests. Luropean traellers o the period reported that the palace was
modelled ater a contemporary lrench palace, a set o whose plans had been brought
back rom Paris by Mehmet (elebi in 121, nine months beore the construction o
Sa`dabad ,Abode o lappiness`, began. Depending on the author, the supposed
model was Versailles, lontainebleau, or Marley-le-Roi. But historians or poets o the
Ottoman court, deoting more space to Sa`dabad than to any other building o the time,

14
I we look at an engraing o the Moldaian prince Cantemir`s palace |Ill. 1.1|, built beore 111, we
notice that garden arrangements in Istanbul must actually hae predated Sa`dabad. On this engraing we
een see a classicistic garden portal with a triangular pediment. On the history o this palace, see also
Goek ,198:126, or, directly, Cantemir ,134,.
1
neither oer any clue that a western prototype had sered as model, nor that it may
hae been related in some way to the architectural knowledge Mehmet brought back
rom his embassy to lrance ,lamadeh 2004:38-40,. Goodwin ,19:33,, in act,
asserts that |n|othing was arther rom the ideas o permanence and oerwhelming
pomp that created Versailles`, as he identiies the Kagithane area as really no more
than a ield o 13 tents since the kiosks were built o lathe and plaster, their railty
adding to the delight.`

Despite an indubitably increased interest in things western, Cerasi ,199:42, reminds
that - despite wars and dynastic hostility - it was really Persia that was regarded by the
aerage Ottoman, educated or not, as the symbol o enjoyment o nature and literature
and o reinement, and became the real point o reerence or the innoatie imagery o
the irst hal o the century.` Also in terms o the building o the 1ulip Lra, lamadeh
,2004, is not the irst to juxtapose the westernization` thesis with the suggestion not to
disregard ostensible eastern` reerences, notably Saaid Persia. 1he noticeably altering
reception o Lurope in this period should also not lead to the conclusion that the
attitude towards Christians in the empire would considerably change. Ahmet III issued
fervav. that limited the height o non-Muslims` houses so as to not be higher than
Muslims` houses and orbade Muslims to sell their houses to Christians ,Karaca
1995:33,. le also prohibited Christian Ottoman subjects rom conerting to
Catholicism ,Girardelli 2005:242, and, noting that some good-or-nothing` women
had also adopted arious innoations in their clothing, imitating Christians in the
deliberate eort to lead the public astray on Istanbul`s streets`, the Sultan issued a
decree speciying the precise widths and measurements o the items used or coats and
headgear ,Quataert 199:409,.

18
1he 1ulip Lra`s most isible legacy in the ormer capital`s cityscape are not the palaces,
o which none has suried into the present, but the ountains |Ill.1.2|.
15
In principle a
utilitarian building type, it was the ountain in which creatie minds discoered an ideal
object or experimentation. Deoid o religious connotation, it is thus the ountains and
not ,yet, the mosques where outside inluence irst become most apparent. \hile the
interest in water and ountains itsel is a quality o the Baroque age, an important
transormation o the type in Ottoman architecture is that, rather than as preiously
typically integrated into a wall, the now oten ree-standing ountains increasingly
created their own public space, as quasi-monuments. Goodwin ,19:34, already noted
the contrast between the curular and the straight` in the 120s ountains, but not yet
the low essential to truly baroque monuments. |Only| one o the patterns is new to
Ottoman architecture: it is the quantity which contrasts with the sober lack o ornament
o sixteenth-century ideal.` Nonetheless, not only the gradual swell in noel decoratie
elements, including increasingly sculptured suraces, but also the sheer inlation o new
ountains and their locations attest to a certain change during the 1ulip Lra. Cerasi
,199:41, reports o 216 new ountains alone built during the reign o Ahmet III in the
newly popular suburbs, whereto the well-to-do had relocated, permanently or not.

In the perspectie o the social historian Quataert ,2000:44,, the court society`s
suburban pleasure palaces ,the building o which the court had encouraged, were not
primarily a matter o changed preerences but o new methods. Also he points to a
lrench parallel, yet not in style but in the means o propping up legitimacy employing
the weapon o consumption:

15
1he habitual translation o the 1urkish .ebit into the Lnglish ountain` is in act a misnomer. 1ypically,
a .ebit is a small kiosk with grilles, rom behind which an attendant dispensed water. 1he proper term or
an actual ountain or tap that proides drinking water is e,ve. \ater house` may be a more appropriate
translation o .ebit, but since ountain` is so incontestably established in the literature it has been used
here as well.
19

Like the court o King Louis XIV at Versailles, that o the 1ulip period was one o
sumptuous consumption - in the Ottoman case not only o tulips but also art, cooking,
luxury goods, clothing, and the building o pleasure palace. \ith this new tool - the
consumption o goods - the sultan and grand izier sought to control the izier and
pasha households in the manner o King Louis, who compelled nobles to lie at the
Versailles seat o power and join in inancially ruinous balls and banquets. Sultan Ahmet
and Ibrahim Pasha tried to lead the Istanbul elites in consumption, establishing
themseles at the social center as models or emulation.`

Almost predictably, the lamboyance o the 1ulip Lra` was not to last long. Giing
oice to the resentment long elt by the clergy and the lower classes at the waste, the
launted wealth and the innoations regarded as contrary to morality and religious
precepts` ,Cerasi 199:44,, the junk dealer lalil instituted an uprising which ultimately
succeeded in its goal to dethrone Ahmet III and hae his Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha
decapitated.

20
J.2.2. 1he klliye of Halil erif Pasha at Sumen

1he short-lied 1ulip Lra` had ew repercussions in the Balkans. Not only due to the
deastations caused in the wars o the late seenteenth century, the time o really
monumental endowments in the Luropean proinces was more or less oer.
16
An
exception is the /vtti,e o lalil Seri Pasha ,1ombul Mosque`, at Sumen
1
in northeast
Bulgaria |Ills.1.4-6|, the largest Ottoman religious building in Bulgaria ,and the only o
ormerly more than 40 mosques in Sumen spared demolition,. Built where the two main
lines o communication in the town crossed, and according to the designs o an
unknown architect ,Ianoa 2004a:503,, the ensemble comprises a mosque, a veare.e
,religious high school,, a library, and a ve/teb ,primary school,.
18
1he 40m high minaret
rises rom the centre o the complex enclosed by walls. In addition to the date o
construction generally gien as ,140-,144, which would be too early or the maturity
o some o the occidentalizing wall paintings dominated by loral and egetal moties
,including tulips,, in which Kiel ,1989:42, beliees to identiy a Central Luropean

16
Kreiser ,199:61, had generally noted that, sae or a ew exceptions, the endowments o the late
period are o small dimension, and een a sultan with a relatiely long and relatiely successul reign, like
Mahmut I ,130-154, endowed little, according to a ra/fi,e transcript only a ew schools and libraries
with limited ollow-up costs.
1
Sumen, while presently hardly amiliar to anyone outside Bulgaria, should briely be credited with its
historical role as a leading Islamic city in the Luropean proinces o the Ottoman Lmpire. Particularly in
the eighteenth century it emerged as an important urban centre or the region and expanded north- and
eastward. 1he town acquired strategic importance during the Russian-1urkish wars between 168 and
188, when it was part o the ortiied quadrangle o Ruse-Varna-Silistra-Sumen. As a consequence o
these wars and the /araati conlict, many illages around Sumen were ruined, whereby the Christian
population, preiously restricted to the eastern part o town, increased and ormed new quarters. 1owards
the end o the nineteenth century, and into the period o Bulgarian independence, Sumen became one o
the centres o 1urkish education and o the 1urkish intelligentsia in Bulgaria ,Ianoa 2004a,. It is due to
the patronage o Seri lalil Pasha, who endowed a post or a calligraphy teacher in his eighteenth century
religious complex, that Stanley ,2003:135, attributes the subsequent emergence o an important school o
Qur`an production. Between the seenteenth and nineteenth centuries Sumen also was a centre o Suism
in northeast Bulgaria, which Georgiea and Sabe ,2003:322, explain as due to the city haing been the
winter camp o Ottoman troops in the course o the wars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At
that period it was unsuccessully attacked by Russian orces thrice, in 14, 1810, and 1828.
18
1he oundation deed or lalil Seri Pasha`s complex has been published by Duda ,1949:115-126,.
21
inluence haing reached this proince ia Istanbul.
19
Most elaborate around the
windows |Ill.1.6| and especially around the vibrab |Ill.1.5.|, or these works also a much
later date could be suggested.

In terms o the architecture, Stajnoa ,1990,, or good reasons, has linked the 1ombul
mosque to the Lale style` o Ahmet III, although, completed in 144, it appears more
than a decade ater that period ended` in Istanbul. \hile irst explaining the belated
appearance o such mosque with that architectural trends rom Istanbul reached the
proinces usually a bit later, more plausible is her suggestion o seeing the style as a
preerence o its patron. lalil Seri Pasha - born either in the illage o Madara or in
Sumen proper at an unknown date, died in 152 ,Ianoa 2004a:503, - had been part o
the court society during the 1ulip Lra as one o the most erent participants in all the
innoations o the period` ,Stajnoa 1990:22,. \hen he became the /etbvaa ,high-
ranking assistant, o the Grand Vizier or the second time he constructed the 1ombul
complex as well as an ensemble o buildings around it. It was said that columns and
blocks o stone had been brought rom the nearby ruins o the medieal Bulgarian
capitals Pliska and Presla as well as rom the Sumen ortress. lrom the 140s also date
the clock tower, a stone prism with a built-in drinking-ountain with rich ornamentation,
but not the Kursum cesma ,trk. /vr,vvtv e,ve.i, |Ill.1.|, a drinking ountain ,so called
or its original aade coered with leaden plates,, which with its low-relie Baroque
ornament dates rom 14.

lalil Seri Pasha was an outspoken admirer o Damat Ibrahim Pasha, to whom he een
dedicated some odes ,Stajnoa 1990:229,. It thus may not be all that coincidentally that

19
Ianoa ,2004a:503, also mentions a new inscription rom 12, composed by the local poet Ni`met.
Could this also be the date or the painted decoration on the interior, or or at least a part o which
22
probably the closest relatie to his mosque at Sumen is the one the same Ibrahim Pasha
built in 126, in his hometown Nesehir ,preiously Muskara, |Ill.1.3|,
20
and not in
Istanbul, where the 1ulip Lra has let ew noteworthy religious buildings. \hile both
mosques still eoke the spirit o classical Ottoman mosque architecture in most aspects
- Goodwin ,191:30-1, also declares that it were diicult to deine why the building is
o its own period and not classical` and that |o|nly certain details point to change` - it
is the slender corner turrets that appear a remarkable eature.
21
Much o what Kuran
,19:305,, writes o the mosque at Nesehir is thus equally releant or our building at
Sumen, while he urther elaborates on the dilemma o mosque architecture in the irst
hal o the eighteenth century:

\hat attracts the attention in Ibrahim Pasha Mosque is not so much an innoatie
eature or the absence o some essential classical element as a weakening o style. 1he
corner towers, which isually hold the mosque together in classical architecture, seem to
be unrelated to the whole structure, and rather than exerting weight rom the top, they
spring up like acroterions marking the corners. 1he eight domed-turrets holding the
corners o the octagonal drum likewise seem ornamental, not because they do not
perorm a structural unction, but because they rise aboe the cornice o the drum,
beyond the line o the dome`s lateral thrust. A similar process o elongation takes place
with the minaret, which is ar too tall compared with minarets o the classical era. 1his
type o change cannot be attributed to Luropean inluence. Beore all else, it is a
maniestation o boredom with a style which has gone on too long. 1he Mosque o
Ibrahim Pasha shows that its architect is not reacting against the classical style, yet he

20
lollowing laroqhi ,2004a:11,, Ibrahim, in act, had his /vtti,e modelled ater the mosques o sixteenth-
century Grand Viziers. Among the architects we know a Sargis Kala, apparently a Greek. Ibrahim also
inoled the Chie Architect Mehmet Aga, ordering him to send some o his co-workers ,laroqhi writes
junior colleagues`, to isit and study the Mustaa Pasha Mosque at Gebze ,not ar rom Istanbul, and
other mosques in western Anatolia. 1he architects were enjoined to study the aesthetic appearance o the
buildings and also construction details, bringing back drawings or the Grand Vizier's inspection. 1he
latter apparently resered or himsel the ultimate decision, and, taking an eclectic approach, consciously
modelled his oundation on the buildings put up by 10th,16th century Grand Viziers.` 1he mosque o
Mustaa Pasha at Gebze ,1519 or 1525-6, would, howeer, been quite a curious choice, as this was the
commission o an oicial rom Lgypt who had the decoration or this mosque carried out in the Mamluk
style ,c. 1aeschner 2004:982,.
21
It is probably these turrets Kuran ,19:304, had in mind when lamenting that the clarity o structural
expression slowly disintegrated because o the inclusion o superluous elements`.
23
does not possess the bold strokes o his predecessors. In a changing era he eels the
need or innoation. Inentieness, howeer, requires imagination and sel-conidence.
Lacking these, he resorts to distortion and his work becomes mannered.`

24
J.2.3. 1he Danube Principalities under Phanariote rule

In no case more than in the Romanian one, it is argued that really the eighteenth century
had brought about an Ottomanization` o Balkan territories. Beore 111 both
principalities had merely been Ottoman assals, attached to the Sultan`s domain but
retaining large autonomies. But when the relations between the \allachian and
Moldaian princes and the neighbouring Russian and Austrian empires became too
riendly or the Sultan`s taste, the preiously wide-reaching autonomies were abolished.
In 111 the untrustworthy Moldaian prince Dimitrie Cantemir, allied with Peter the
Great, was replaced with a man the Sultan could trust, Nicholas Marocordatos, son o
the Sultan`s chie interpreter ,aragovav,. In 115 the \allachian prince Stephan
Cantacuzino was executed on suspicion o league with Vienna. Both these actions led
Castellan ,1992:206, to the conclusion that the Sultan considered the rulers o the
principalities as no more than proincial goernors whom he could appoint, displace
and remoe wheneer he wished.` lenceorth the princes were appointed by the Sultan
himsel and usually recruited among the Greeks o Constantinople`s Phanari ,lener,
quarter. Between 111 and 1821 a ew mostly Constantinopolitan amilies proided no
less than 31 princes ,now called hospodars`, in 80 periods o rule, which lasted on
aerage only two and a hal years ,c. McGowan 1994:60,. laing to disburse a heay
bribe to enter this prestigious i dangerous oice, they became not hereditary rulers but
temporary Ottoman oicials. As such, as pictorial eidence o the time shows, they
dressed in the Ottoman manner, with large turbans, wearing Ottoman dress and
insignia, and a beard ,Plemmenos 2003:183,. Castellan ,1992: 20, appends that
|a|mong the lospodar`s entourage there emerged a court nobility which lied and
dressed according to the ashions o the palace o Istanbul.`
25

1he condemnation o the Phanariot era ,111-1829, has been a ocus o Romanian
nationalism and has come to be portrayed as the dark ages` o Romanian history. In
cultural terms, this is partly due to enthusiastic assessment o the preceding period, the
rule o \allachian prince Constantin Brancoeanu ,1688-114,, under which \allachian
architecture had reached its creatie peak. Brancoeanu had gien his name to a style
too eclectic to be properly categorized. It is maybe this incomprehensie hybridism -
with Baroque, Renaissance, Persian, Byzantine, Serbian, and Armenian some o the
inluences customarily mentioned - that made modern Romanians consider the
Brancoeanesque to be the only genuinely Romanian style ,c. Popescu 2004,. \ith
eidence o constant and close contact with \estern culture during the seenteenth
century ,Jelaich 1983:69,, the genesis o this style distinguished by an almost classical
equilibrium in the compositions, and by an extremely rich decoration o a baroque
taste` ,Popescu 2004:28, is oten linked to an Italian inluence. 1he Brancoeanesque,
howeer, also showed some decidedly non-\estern eatures, which Jelaich ,1983:69,
identiied as a combination o Lastern opulence with \estern reinement.` 1o Ulea
,1966:9, the principal palaces at Potlogi ,1699, and Mogosoaia ,102, |Ill.1.8|
combined 1urkish and Italian elements with traditional Rumanian orms`, with their
graceully aulted interiors . richly decorated with stucco ornament o an oriental
kind.`

O the Romanian lands \allachia had always been the region most open to eastern
inluences`, but the act that this decided orientality` is also oten linked to an actual
Ottoman inluence is debatable. 1he lobed and ogee arches o windows and arcades so
characteristic o the Brancoeanesque and post-Brancoeanesque |Ill.1.8-10|, accounting
or its exotic appearance, do generally not igure on contemporary Ottoman exteriors o
26
this period, and are most oten ound on ountains or interiors. But next to the
sumptuous palaces, the pre-Phanariote area also saw the boyars aording luxurious
mansions, a general improement o liing conditions, the blooming o monasteries and
great accomplishments in historiography ,Jelaich 1983:69,. 1hat the Phanariotes then
sought a isual continuation o this tradition in the style o religious ediices they
sponsored leads 1heodorescu ,2002:9, to suggest this as part o an attempt to make
the shit rom being an Ottoman-imposed oreign goerning lite to that o quasi-
national and dynastic ruling amilies.`
22
1he Vacaresti Monastery in Bucharest ,116-
22, and the church o the Pantelimon Monastery ,150, in the suburbs o the \alachian
capital consciously make reerences to those erected under Brancoeanu,
23
at times and
in details heaily baroquiied`, as the portal o Pantelimon ,1heodorescu 2002:80,.

1he best-known suriing monument rom this early period o Phanariote rule in the
Danube Principalities is the Staropoleos church |Ill.1.10|, erected by the Greek
Archimandrite Ioannikos ,rom. Ioanichie, between 124 and 130 in Bucharest. lor
Plemmenos ,2003:181, an epitome o Greek-Romanian co-operation during the
Phanariote era`, the right-hand choir sung in Greek while the let-hand one answered in
Romanian using the same melody. In structure otherwise not untypical or the post-
Byzantine centuries, it is the oriental` multi-lobed arches o the portico as well as the
painted exterior that makes this monument a airly unusual one. \e ind circular
recesses with painted igural representations as a belt around the monument, embedded

22
An exclusiely Christian Ottoman territory ruled by Christian Ottoman oicials, it is not too surprising
that we ind almost no mosques in present-day Romania, sae or the Dobrudja region on the Black Sea,
which ormed an integral part o Ottoman Rumelia.
23
Ulea ,1966:9, sees Vacaresti, built by the Phanariote Marocordatos as the largest eighteenth century
monastery in Southeast Lurope, and the Staropoleos church as the last important examples o the
Brancoeanan style . 1he rest o the eighteenth century is a period o decline in religious architecture.`
2
in rich egetal ornament. 1he monastery to which it belonged, sustained rom the
incomes o an inn run by the archimandrite, is not extant.

In contrast to the churches, the Phanariotes` country estates relected, according to
1heodorescu ,2002:5,, both the orientalism o Istanbul and the inluence o the
\estern rococo, just as their owners were authentic examples o western-oriental
gentlemen.` In seeral instances 1heodorescu suggests a Phanariote orientation ater
Istanbul trends o the 1ulip period. 1he lrumoasa ,the Beautiul`, complex at Iasi, or
example, was supposedly modelled ater Constantinopolitan prototypes, whereby master
builders were speciically called into the country. 1he closest analogy or the palace o
\allachia`s Gregory II, a mid-eighteenth century two-storied structure next to his
monastery, 1heodorescu beliees to hae ound in an illustration o Ahmet III`s
Sa`dabad ,122,.
24
But an eastern impact also inluenced spatial considerations, as he
suggests to hae been the case with the Moldaian prince Gregory`s palace, rebuilt twice
as large ater destruction by the Russian soldateska in 140, and with a separation o
male and emale quarters ,selamlac` and harem`,. \hile exceptionally ew structures
rom the Phanariote period suried until today, the ountains at the churches o St
Spiridon |Ill.1.11| and the Golia Monastery at Iasi, dating rom 165-6, remain as rare
materializations to inluence rom Ottoman eighteenth century modes. ,1heodorescu
2002:80-3,

Gien the insecurity o the period and the patrons` position, caught between the dream
o Byzantium and the executioner o Stambul` ,1heodorescu 2002:5,, it is still
remarkable how luxury and pleasure came to be pronounced in Phanariote \allachia

24
Disappointlingy, howeer, 1heodorescu neither proides pictorial eidence nor source material as basis
or this comparison.
28
and Moldaia, especially under two quasi-dynastic amilies, the Marocordatos and the
Ghika, arguably under the impact o the liestyle o the 1ulip Lra. Neertheless, when
the lrench traeller llachat isited the Bucharest estates o Constantine
Marocordatos
25
in 141, his assessment was as ollows:

I went to the leisure palace o the prince, which, like the prince`s |city| palace, still
reminds one o its main purposes. 1hey used to be monasteries, somewhat beautiied by
his predecessor princes. Most o our second-hand priate residences are ar better
looking and there are none in our country where the urniture is worse than here ... Just
by seeing what his residence looked like, I could hae gotten an excellent impression
about his alour, but I was able also to treasure his intelligence and heart: I was able to
discoer the artist and the man o good taste eerywhere. lis book collection was rich
and exquisite, he owned some aluable paintings, some wonderul sculptures, a lot o
deices o all kinds and seeral parts o ery unusual mechanisms brought by him rom
Germany or Lngland. I think he deseres me to praise him by saying that he was a
saant without preconceied ideas and completely impartial. le would speak all
Luropean languages and was amiliar with the most important writers whom he tried to
know as well as possible.` ,cit. in Berktay and Murgescu 2005:106,

Ottoman oicials, the Phanariote princes in Romania attempted to project the proile o
enlightened rulers. laing themseles haing been exposed to western Luropean
culture through the education which they had receied in western uniersities, it was as
early as 114 that the Moldaian prince Marocordatos ounded an Academy o Letters
in his capital Iasi, with a curriculum copying that o renowned Luropean uniersities,
but with Greek as oicial language ,Plemmenos 2003:186,. At the same time, howeer,
the Phanariotes hae been accused o not haing taken the opportunity to proide
patronage or art and learning o a kind not aailable to non-Muslims in the core
territories` o the empire, and urthermore hampering local cultural deelopment

25
One o the most enlightened Phanariote rulers, Marocordatos ,111-169, reigned six times in
\allachia and our times in Moldaia. Among the reorms he undertook was the abolishment o serdom.
29
through imposing heay taxes on their subjects to inance the appointments o the
rapidly changing hospodars ,c. Adanir and laroqhi 2002:26,. Gradea ,1994:25,,
howeer, mentions a case where a \allachian prince had acted as beneactor
transcending his own territory into an Ottoman core territory`: \ithout notiication
o, or permission rom, the Sultan he had restored and enlarged a church in Silistra ,on
the Danube, the border between \allachia and Bulgaria, in 141. Runciman ,1991:13-4,
also disagrees, and asks that credit be gien too to the much maligned Phanariots, who
stimulated a renascence o lellenism in the eighteenth century, making a ar more solid
contribution to it than did that oerpraised anticlerical Korais.`


30
J.3. Developments on the edge of the Ottoman world
J.3.J. Belgrade J7J8-J739: from Ottoman to Baroque city and back

Between 1688 and 191 Belgrade was occupied by Austria thrice. Considering the
drastic transormations the city underwent rom the late seenteenth to the mid-
eighteenth century - rom an Ottoman regional centre o some 50,000 ,Kienitz
192:21,
26
to a border town, to ruins, to a prospering little Vienna` - it is somewhat
surprising that this subject has so ar been gien not much scholarly attention.
2


\hen Lugene o Saoy took Belgrade again in 11 it was to last, at least or two
decades. 1he destroyed ortress was restored with great eort according to plans o the
Swiss-born General Nicholas Doxat de Morez to shield the city rom urther attacks.
lrom the ruins o the Ottoman city rose an orderly, characteristically Austrian town
with burgher houses, army barracks, churches, and een monasteries in the styles o
contemporary Central Lurope. 1here is also eidence o a large palatial building,
reportedly reminiscent o lischer on Lrlach`s works, which came to be known as the
Palace o Prince Lugene`, the ruins o which could still be seen in the early twentieth
century. German-speaking settlers were liing inside the walls, along with a number o
Greeks, Armenians, and the wealthier Serbs, who had their houses around the Serbian
cathedral.
28
1he ast majority o Serbs, howeer, dwelled outside the walls on the Saa-

26
Kienitz ,192:21, also mentions that, among the population consisting o 1urks, Jews, Armenians,
Greeks, and Serbs, the latter were een a minority among Belgrade`s Christians.
2
Lxceptions are a book by the military oicer Steanoic-Vilosky ,1908,, in German, and the Serbian-
language works o Popoic ,1935, 1950, and 1958,.
28
Destroyed when the Ottomans returned, it was rebuilt on the same spot ,the present aborva cr/ra, a
century later.
31
side in the Raizenstadt` ,Serb town,, as opposed to the German town` ivtra vvro..
1his separation into two municipalities ollowed a ,neer truly working, regulation that
the town proper should be Catholic and German. Already by 121 the German town`
housed 400 amilies, mostly settlers rom the German Rhineland as well as ormer
soldiers, and selected its own mayor. 1he Serb town, howeer, was equipped with
seeral trade priileges, that enabled quite a many o its inhabitants, most o which
inoled in commerce, to gain comortable wealth. \hen the question o the city`s coat
o arms came up, the administration, somewhat bizarrely, decided on a design depicting
three 1urkish minarets, the emperor`s eagle, and the slogan Alba graeca recuperata`
29
.
,Steanoic-Vilosky 1908:26-34,

Sae or a modest house without, the only suriing example o residential architecture
rom that time, all o the noteworthy architectural remains o this period are located
within the ortress area ,Kalemegdan,. 1he Baroque clock tower |Ill.1.13| - an octagonal
tower sitting on a square socket, complete with a bulbous dome - had been spared by
the Ottomans upon their re-conquest o Belgrade and was used as watchtower as it
enjoyed a iew oer the whole town. 1he triumphal gate o Charles VI |Ill.1.12|, oten
also called Lugene o Saoy gate`, was erected in 136 as an entrance to the lower city
on the Danube side. On both sides, in the tympana o the pediment we see a sculpture
depicting Austrian coat o arms o the kingdom o Serbia ,as well as the initials o the
emperor, that seems not to hae bothered the 1urks when they re-entered the town in
139. 1he other curiosity surrounding the Charles gate, customarily portrayed as the
most important Baroque creation south o Danube and Saa, is that it is reported to
hae been the design o Balthasar Neumann. 1he amed Baroque architect, whose best-

29
1o the Germans Belgrade ,white city`, was then known as Griechisch |read Orthodox Christian`|
\eissenburg`, hence alba graeca` in Latin.
32
known work is the \rzburg Palace, had indeed entered Belgrade in 11 when
participating in Prince Lugene`s Serbian campaign.
30


Ater the treaty o Belgrade placed Serbia under Ottoman control again, in 139 and
140 the Germans and Serbs o Belgrade ,as well as Serbs and Albanians rom the
central and western Balkans, were resettled to the nearby Austrian towns o
Petroaradin,Noi Sad, Osijek, Szeged, and 1emesar ,1imisoara,. Also Zemun, just
across rom Belgrade, had a large increase in population ollowing the labsburg
withdrawal. Receiing mostly German artisans but also Serb and Greek merchants,
Zemun remained under labsburg rule, equipped with seeral priileges, and ollows
another path in the century to come. Already by the mid-eighteenth century we ind
seeral stately mansions, churches, and a primary school. ,Steanoic-Vilosky 1908:60,
lor more than another century Zemun thus became an Austrian town just at the
doorstep o the Ottoman Lmpire, and subsequently the main reerence or the
Belgradians or emulating Luropean ways.

1hat so little o the Austrian Baroque Belgrade has suried into the twentieth century
has sometimes led to the misleading conclusion that this town had been completely
demolished upon return o the Ottomans. A century ater the takeoer, howeer, an
Lnglish traeller still stumbled into

a singular looking street, composed o the ruins o ornamented houses in the
imposing, but too elaborate style o architecture, which was in ogue in Vienna, during
the lie o Charles the Sixth, and which was a corruption o the style de Louis Quatorze.
1hese buildings were hal-way up concealed rom iew by common old bazaar shops.

30
Also Johann Lukas on lildebrandt, architect o the prince`s Beledere Palace ,11-124, at Vienna,
had started his career as ortiication engineer in the serice o Prince Lugene o Saoy ,c. Uzelac 2004,.
33
1his was the Lange Gasse,` or main street o the German town during the Austrian
occupation o twenty-two years, rom 11 to 139. Most o these houses were built
with great solidity, and many still hae the stucco ornaments that distinguish this style.
1he walls o the palace o Prince Lugene are still standing complete, but the court-yard
is illed up with rubbish, at least six eet high, and what were ormerly the rooms o the
ground-loor hae become almost cellars. 1he ediice is called to this day, Princeps
Konak.` 1his mixture o the coarse, but picturesque eatures o oriental lie, with the
dilapidated stateliness o palaces in the style o the ull-bottom-wigged Vanbrughs o
Austria, has the oddest eect imaginable.` ,Paton 1845:59-60,

Another interesting account is that o the Ottoman chronicler Mehmet Subhi, who
recorded that the palace` o the ciil and military administrator Prince Alexander o
\rttemberg was handed oer to the Ottoman goernor, and that this residence later
burned down ,see translation by lauptmann et al. 198:140,159-60,20,. 1his building
identiied by Paton and others as the palace o the Prince Lugene was really the military
barracks built during \rttemberg`s goernment ,Alexander-Kaserne`,, which, as
another eyewitness conirms, indeed sered as the Ottoman pasha`s residence when
Gudenus ,195:21, isited the town in 140.


34
J.3.2. Dubrovnik and the Herzegovina

1he connection between Dubronik ,Ragusa, and the Porte was based on economic
and political interests rom which both sides proited much more than i the commune
were an actual Ottoman possession in the strict sense. 1he Ottoman impact on culture
and architecture o the quasi-Republic ruled by its Patrician class, which did not mind
paying regular tributes to the Ottomans or protection` as long as it sered the
commune`s interests toward rial Venice, was thus negligible. Dubronik, surrounded
by Ottoman territories on all sides, remained within an Italianate-Adriatic cultural orbit,
becoming the main window o Bosnia and lercegoina towards \estern Luropean
culture` ,Pasic 1994:190,. \hen a deastating earthquake shattered the proud commune
in 166, Italians were called in to redesign the city, whereby it acquired some Baroque
characteristics.
31
It was at this time that the broad main street with its uniorm burgher
houses emerged, and the cathedral receied its characteristic dome.
32


\hile treating the Ragusan merchant colonies in the Ottoman cities would exceed the
scope o this study, it must howeer be noted that masters rom the coast played a not
unimportant role in Balkans architecture since the middle ages.
33
Particularly in Bosnia
and een more so in lerzegoina we see that the skilled masters rom the nearby coast
were also sought ater in the Ottoman period.
34
1heir impact on Ottoman-Bosnian

31
1he three great Baroque churches rom ater the earthquake - St Vlaho, the Cathedral, and the Jesuit
Church - were, or example, all designed by Italians ,c. 1riunoic 1981:XXXV,.
32
lor a comprehensie account on the history o Dubronik, including occasional perspecties on
architecture, see larris ,2003,.
33
1his accounts, or instance, or the Romanesque rather than Byzantine appearance or some o the
medieal Orthodox monasteries in the old Serbian territories.
34
Under the leadership o Ramadan Aga, a close aid to the celebrated Mimar Sinan, and next to a delicate
decoration possibly attributable to Persian artists, masters rom Dubronik, or example, proed
35
architecture can be discerned not only in the dierent building techniques employed or
many mosques in Bosnia, but also in that some lerzegoinian mosques` minarets
intriguingly look like church-towers.
35
In terms o ornament a particularly curious
example o this interaction is the mosque o Nesuh-aga Vucijakoic at Mostar ,1568,,
which displays seeral elements o Renaissance and Gothic architecture, a mixture
characteristic or Dubronik. More than in the mosques, the Dalmatian inluence is
isible in one particular building type: the clock-towers o the seenteenth and
eighteenth centuries which, with their quadrangular body and pyramidal roos, reminded
many an obserer o the Adriatic campanile.
36


\ith those o Sarajeo and Banja Luka probably the best known, it is in the
lerzegoina in the Dalmatian hinterland that we ind the largest concentration. One
particularly interesting example is the clock-tower ,.abat /vta, rom trk. .aat /vte.i) at
1rebinje |Ill.1.13|,
3
only a ew kilometres rom the Ottoman border with Dubronik.
Commissioned when the local Osman Pasha Resulbegoic ortiied 1rebinje, whereto
many Muslim amilies rom the now Venetian coast had resettled in the irst three
decades o the eighteenth century,
38
it had been built by a master rom the nearby coast

responsible or the construction o the Aladza ,colored`, mosque at loca ,1550-1,. In an act o barbary,
this mosque sometimes reputed to be the most beautiul Ottoman mosque in the Balkans, was blown up
in 1992. lor the inolement o builders rom Dubronik in other monuments in Bosnia-lerzegoina,
see also Pasic ,1994:153, and Zlatar ,2003,.
35
But also Ottoman orms had an impact o Christian religious architecture. See, or example, Andrejeic
,1963, on Islamic` eatures in Serbian monasteries o the Ottoman period. Bouras ,1991:118, also
mentions examples rom Athens where Ottoman construction and orms hae inluenced churches in
Athens.
36
lor pictures and a ew notes, see Pasic ,1994:64-5,89-90, and 191-3,.
3
lollowing lasandedic ,1990:240, and the sources he quotes, the Sahat kula in 1rebinje was built at the
beginning o the eighteenth century, probably by the Dizdareic amily, a branch o the Resulbegoici,
who in winters resided below the tower.
38
Another settlement in lerzegoina that grew as a result o deelopments in this period is Stolac. A irst
mosque ,Selimiye, at the Vidos ortress ,o which Stolac later emerged as a suburb, had been built in 1519
by masters rom the Dalmatian island o Korcula. 1he ortress was destroyed in 1593, and only renoated
36
at the beginning o the century. 1he decidedly western appearance o the ediice rom
the irst hal o the eighteenth century - with semicircular window openings, the
cornice, and protruding pieces o stone - has led the 1urkish architect Ayerdi
,198:469, to erroneously date the rococo-rocaille` structure into the nineteenth
century.

Unortunately, the mosques built in this period, the Sultanahmet Mosque ,119-20,,
named in honour o the Sultan, and the Osman-pasa Resulbegoic mosque ,around
126, - both built by masters rom the coast and showing some coastal characteristics -
were wantonly destroyed in the 1990s war.
39
A Council o Lurope report ,1994,,
howeer, attests the latter decoratie ittings in the style o 1urkish baroque`. 1hat this
decoration, so ar rom the imperial centre and so close to the Adriatic, would hae
really relected the style o the post-150s phenomenon later coined Ottoman
Baroque` o course appears somewhat questionable. lollowing the dates proided by
lasandedic ,1990:232,236,, the act that the irst mosque ,ater one destroyed by the
Uskoks in the seenteenth century, was built only in 119-20, thirteen years ater
Resulbegoic was made pasha and moed to 1rebinje, and allegedly with the stones o
the older ruined mosque, is also somewhat surprising. Is it in the act that his amilies

starting rom the beginning o the eighteenth century because o bandit incursions o Dalmatian Uskoks.
In this period our new mosques were built. It should be mentioned that the rather indiidualist
Podgradska dzamija ,mosque o Ali Rizanbegoic, dates, in its present orm, not rom its oundation in
the 130s ,as habitually stated,, but rom a renoation in 1812-3, and then again in 1888-9. ,c.
lasandedic 1990:-9,15,18-9,23,30,
39
An interesting anecdote, narrated by lasandedic ,1990:238,, is that ater the second mosque was built,
the Sultan accused Osman o building a new mosque in his own name that was more beautiul than the
one preiously built in honor o the Sultan. Ahmed III then issued a fervav that ordered Osman and his
nine sons to death. le hurried to Istanbul to deend himsel, but was still executed in 129.
3
were recent conerts that we hae to look or an apparent lack o zeal in religious
patronage
40


1he Resulbegoici are also our connection to some monuments built in the coastal city
o Ulcinj ,now Montenegro,, which then remained under Ottoman control. 1here, a
dierent part o the same amily had resettled ater the all o their natie lerceg Noi
in 168, and held leading positions into the twentieth century.
41
Also there, the main
Ottoman monuments - ie mosques, a bavav, and a clocktower - all date rom the
century ater 1689. A curious example o a ountain is that named ater Sinan Pasha.
Built probably around 119 ,when also the mosque o Sinan Pasha was erected,, it looks
more like a Renaissance work than an Ottoman e,ve. |Ill. 1.16|

40
1he Resulbegoici had settled in today`s lerzegoina only ater the coastal city o lerceg Noi they
hailed rom ell to the Venetians in 168. Osman's ather was born a Buroic, and had changed his
Christian name Miso or the Muslim Resul when he conerted. lis sons thereater continued the
patronymic Resulbegoic ,descendents o Resul Bey`,. Beore they came to 1rebinje in 10 when
Osman was made /aetav, they had irst settled in the nearby Stari Slan, where they also built a castle and
some /ova/s. ,lasandedic 1990:232, Osman was in act the irst .avca/be, o lerzegoina residing at
1rebinje. Preious administrators had resided at Draceo, which was destroyed in the uprising o Bajo
Piljanin. See also liguric ,1930,.
41
1he Russian historian,consul Aleksandar Giljerding ,lilerding, called the Resulbegoici a local
Muslim aristocracy` in 1859 ,c. Zirojeic 2001,.
38
J.4. Recapitulation

O all the periods dealt with here, the irst hal o the eighteenth century has probably
attracted least attention in the literature, sae or the 1ulip Lra`. Its powerul imagery
directing the eyes toward the capital, little has been written about the proinces in this
period. It can be suggested that, at least in the western hal o the Balkans, construction
projects mainly consisted o repair and reconstructions. An exception to this is the
complex at Sumen, probably the most monumental ,suriing, example o Ottoman
architecture in the Balkans rom the entire eighteenth century, and closely ollowing
trends emanating rom the capital. lere, an analysis o this building in comparison with
the mosque o Damat Ibrahim Pasha in the Anatolian Nesehir, with which it is
eidently stylistically related, may also yield additional inormation. Gien lalil Seri
Pasha`s admiration or this Grand Vizier, it should also not be completely impossible
that he had commissioned the same architect that had built the Grand Vizier`s complex
at Nesehir, but this has to remain a speculation. As with the 1ulip Lra` in general, a
wish or westernization` is certainly not suicient alone to explain the creations o this
period.

Another interesting ospring o the 1ulip Lra` has been noted in the designs o the
Phanariote princes in the Danubian Principalities, and should be inestigated urther
through analysis o isual materials, which the article by 1heodorescu ,2002, regrettably
did not oer, as well as descriptions by isitors. 1hat such cultural export rom Istanbul
through the Constantinopolitan Greeks seems to not hae been noted beore, at least in
the Ottomanist context, has perhaps to do with the historiographical traditions: with the
Romanian lands neer orming a core territory` o the Ottoman state, not integrated
39
into many mainstream Ottoman institutions ,and thus Ottoman history,, the generally
negatie assessment o the oreign Phanariote reign by Romanian historians, and on a
ocus on the lellenic rather than the Ottoman element by Greek historians, who hae
also displayed great interest in their` role in eighteenth-century Romania.

Another region not studied well in the Ottoman context is the Ottoman hinterland o
the Adriatic. lere, the conclusion was that a western inluence - with the main ehicle
being the builders rom the coast working or Ottoman clients - was nothing new to the
eighteenth century, but essentially a continuation o practices necessitated by
proessional geography. 1he rather indiidualistic monuments o this region suggest that
urther inestigation into the speciicities o the culture and society o this micro-region
may yield interesting results as well.

1he redesign o Ottoman Belgrade under Austrian occupations alls out o the scope o
this study, but is neertheless an interesting chapter in the history o the eighteenth
century Balkans. 1his is in part because, when the Ottomans re-conquered the city, they
inherited ,and, as we hae seen, also came to inhabit at least one o seeral, actual
Baroque buildings.
40

2. Ottoman Baroque and beyond
2.J. Historical framework

Ater the iolent close o the 1ulip Lra`, and the restoration o Ottoman rule oer
Serbia, the period 139-168 ,the long peace`, was characterized by the total absence
o military conlicts. It was in this period that the phenomenon later called Ottoman
Baroque` deelops, largely in parallel ,though unrelated, with a Serbian Baroque`
among the Serbs who had led to Austrian soil. lrom the opposite direction, and on
Ottoman territory, a Baroque inluence began to be elt in the interior o the Orthodox
churches. At the same time anti-Greek eelings among the Sla subjects o the empire
begin to mount, next to an eident mistrust o their Muslim oerlords. Larly
nationalist` writers warned o a cultural domination by their Orthodox co-religionists,
a process only urther aggraated by the closure o the Sla bishophorics o Ohrid
,Ahrida, and Pec ,Ipek, in the 160s, whereupon their responsibilities are henceorth
controlled by the Greek patriarch at Constantinople.
42
In 162 the Bulgarian clergyman
Paisij lilendarski ,o lilendar monastery, concluded his Slao-Bulgarian listory`,
seen as the starting point o the Bulgarian National Reial`, and containing seeral
passages warning o Greek cultural imperialism.

1he term Balkan Renaissance` is occasionally more generally used or the cultural
emancipation` o the peoples o the south and central Balkans ater 150. An early
maniestation to a new sel-understanding o the Christians in the empire, the city o

42
Another interpretation is that the suppression o the Slaic patriarchates was really not aimed at
strengthening Greek predominance oer the Balkan peoples but intended to reliee their acute inancial
embarrassment` ,McGowan 1994:669,.
41
Moschopolis saw its peak by the mid-eighteenth century, only to be soon thereater
deastated in seeral incursions, heralding an age o instability, o banditry and the a,av,
which was to dominate lie in much o the Balkans toward the end o the eighteenth
century ,to be treated in greater detail in Ch.3,. 1he long peace` between the
Ottomans and neighboring powers ended in 168 with the Russo-1urkish war and the
consequent 1reaty o Kk Kaynarca ,14,, which both proed to be crucial turning
points in the history o the Ottoman Lmpire. lor the irst time a traditionally Muslim
and 1urkic-speaking territory, the Crimea, was permanently lost to a Christian power,
Russia, which had become a threat to the Ottomans in the north and increasingly comes
to assume a sel-proclaimed role as a protector o the Ottomans` Orthodox subjects.
1he treaty, howeer, was in part also responsible or increasing wealth generated among
an Orthodox Balkans merchant class in the period thereater. 1he Black Sea and the
Dardanelles were now opened to ships lying a Russian lag, a proision o which many
Greeks took adantage. Another stipulation o the treaty allowed the Russians to build a
church in Istanbul.
43
Ater these deeats the minds o the sultans began to be set on
reorm, peaking a hal-century later in the 1anzimat Ldict ,1839,.

But also a new era o relationships with western powers commenced. In gratitude or
diplomatic aid, lrance was gien the priilege o a permanent capitulation` in 140.
1his meant that within the empire lrench ,and soon thereater other western powers`,
citizens were not subject to the Sultan`s legal and iscal jurisdiction, remaining under the
laws o their own king ,or republic, and exempted rom Ottoman taxes. \hile such
preiously temporary measures were harmless in the sixteenth century, they proed to

43
Since this church was neer built, Dawson ,1990:56, suspects that the intention behind such demand
was solely or Russia to be eleated to a leel o theoretical equality with the Catholic powers.
42
be dangerously undermining Ottoman soereignty in the last decades o the empire.
,Quataert 2000:,

43
2.2. 1he Ottoman Baroque
2.2.J. Its characteristics and place in historiography

1o be clear, the phenomenon termed Ottoman ,or 1urkish, Baroque ,and,or
Rococo,` was neither a contemporary label or this style, nor did western isitors
identiy it as an Ottoman ariant o the Luropean art and architecture o the
seenteenth and eighteenth centuries. Rather, it is a product o modern historiography.
1herein, its deelopment is unquestionably linked with the thesis o a gradual imperial
decline accompanied ,i not caused, by a westernization o Ottoman traditions.

In an important piece ,Nationalism and Art`, 1934,, the young republican architect
Aptullah Ziya ,cit. in Bozdogan 2001:50, identiied the period since the 1ulip Lra as that
in which the historical process o contamination` o 1urkish architecture began. 1hat
Celal Lsad |Arseen| in his L`art turc` ,1939, irst reerred to the post-classical period
in the writing o 1urkish art history at all attested to this publication`s pioneering role`.
Signiicantly, he classiied the post-classical period into Baroque`, Lmpire`, and
Neoclassical`, in sequential order, as Luropean styles which hae entered into 1urkish
art ,Odekan 2000:56,. Dogan Kuban`s thesis rom the mid-twentieth century
,superised by an Italian proessor, was the irst more comprehensie work on this
speciic subject, and really the work that put the 1urkish Baroque` on the map. Only in
the 1980s the preiously accepted terminology regarding styles was opened to
discussion.

Most authors, nonetheless, agree on the building with which Ottoman Baroque`
began, namely the Nuruosmaniye mosque ,149-55, |Ill. 2.1-5|. 1hough next to the
44
Sa`dabad Palace probably the most oten mentioned single monument o Ottoman
eighteenth century architecture, much o its history remains a mystery. It begins with
identiying the person to whose creatie energies the lamboyance o this structure
without precedent ,and, arguably, without successor, can be attributed. \hile a certain
Simeon Kala is generally assumed to be credited as architect, his career beore and ater
the Nuruosmaniye project remains obscure. \hether he was an Ottoman carpenter-
architect, like Sinan, or a man with experience in Luropean countries, one cannot say`,
writes Kuban ,1996:350,, but that Nur-u Osmaniye and the buildings around it do not
imitate, in their planning an decoration, any known Baroque building and decoration .
might indicate that the architect had had a certain isual experience with the Baroque
but not much experience in a Luropean country.` 1o Goodwin ,191:38, there is a
possibility that oreign adice, lrench in particular, was sought but some elements o
the complex remain traditional, or a possible logical deelopment rom the past. Other
elements in its design are alien although assimilated to an extent which makes it most
improbable that it was the work o a man inexperienced in \estern baroque and
rococo.` Kuran ,19:313-5,, while irst rightully pointing out to that it was obiously
inspired` by the much earlier mosque o Mihrimah Sultan at Ldirnekapi ,1560s,, a work
o Sinan, does discern a break with the past, ar beyond the normal processes o
eolution. 1he use o Luropean motis clearly points to outside inluence and possibly
the hand o a oreign architect. \et curiously, the Nuruosmaniye does not inoke the
spirit o the baroque, or that which is baroque does not penetrate the skin but merely
scratches the surace`, or, in the words o Kuban ,1954:36,, simply old tunes sung with
new lyrics`.

Kuran ,19:313, thus inds the signiicance o the monument in the treatment o
certain decoratie eatures: the classical stalactite ,or cheron, pattern is replaced by a
45
simpliied orm o the Ionic capital. Although the great arches are slightly pointed,
others are round or multi-oil. Portals are taller than customary and their niches are
crowned by tiers o diminishing semicircles instead o the classical stalactites. lamadeh
,2004:36, pronounces the uniqueness o the Nuruosmaniye in that it was the irst
Ottoman religious building to exhibit a panoply o western, particularly lrench
Baroque and Neoclassical, details like scrolls, shells, cable and round moldings,
undulating and heaily molded cornices, concae and conex aades, round arches,
engaged pillars, and luted capitals`.
44
In addition, it was the only Ottoman mosque to
hae a courtyard shaped in the orm o a horseshoe.
45


In Luropean traellers` accounts the curious tale` was recounted that or the building
o this mosque the Sultan had procured the plans o Lurope`s greatest to churches to
orm his own perect model, and that then the vteva, the class o Islamic scholars,
opposed it, whereupon the design was made less oensie`.
46
\hile admitting that it
also cannot be proen that this story was entirely abricated, lamadeh still noted it as

44
Again, we should not conclude misleadingly that this mosque`s obious stylistic reerences to Lurope
already meant that all western imports were henceorth welcomed or accepted. Goek ,1996:93, reports
that Sultan Mustaa III ,r. 15-4, had been irritated with his subjects dressing in the lrankish` way,
whereupon he issued an imperial decree in 158 limiting lrankish clothing` to oreign embassies`
employees.
45
lamadeh also mentions it to hae been the irst Istanbul mosque to hae a generously enestrated
aade and a royal ramp, but this seems not to be correct i we consider the ery similar enestration o
the sixteenth-century mosque o Mihrimah Sultan, and the ramps at the Sultanahmet and \eni Valide
mosques rom the seenteenth century.
46
1his story has then also entered the writings o 1urkish scholars. 1o which extent shows a paragraph in
Goek`s well known work on westernization in the Ottoman Lmpire ,1996:41,, where, in reerence to
Denel ,1982:28,, the ollowing is recounted: lor the construction o this mosque, the sultan had pictures
and models o the most amous religious buildings brought rom Italy, Lngland, and lrance, and he had a
mosque plan drawn accordingly. \et this plan was neer applied because Ottoman religious scholars,
upon seeing the plan, stated that the building looked more like a Christian temple than a mosque - they
suggested that a more Islamic shape be adopted to preent unrest among the populace. Another plan that
united \estern and Ottoman styles more to the liking o the religious scholars was drawn up.` Cerasi
,1999:130,, picking up on the selectie rejection o certain alien orm, comments as ollows: \e do not
know how near those irst designs were to \estern religious architecture, nor which particular elements
had been perceied as alien or non-Islamic. \e do know that there had been no speciic protest when the
portals were decorated with Rococo modanatures which only aguely recalled the traditional muqarnas.`
But would the Muslim religious scholars hae really had the trained eye to identiy as Rococo` ,and thus
to protest, one eature in a design, that looked, on the whole, ery amiliar
46
odd that that not een a hint o such intentions on the part o Mahmud I should be
dropped by the usually well inormed court chroniclers`. Also as to the style no
reerences to an intended Luropeanness o the monument can be ound, unlike earlier
examples, such as Mehmed II`s gate at the 1opkapi complex, which iteenth-century
historians had described as haing lrankish towers`.
4
1his does, howeer, not mean
that the unusual style was not noticed by the contemporaries. 1he assistant comptroller
o the mosque`s construction, a certain Ahmed Lendi, reerred to the building as the
honorable mosque in the new style`. ,lamadeh 2004:36-8,

lor Cerasi ,2000:36-38,, already the completion o the Nuruosmaniye marked the end
o a phase that can justly be called Baroque or its outstanding ornament on projects o
the 140s and 50s clearly reerring to Luropean Baroque. 1he period ater 155,
though still deined as Ottoman Baroque by most scholars, actually brought a sort o
decantation o the Baroque spirit in which the ornamental aspects are not determinant.`
Already in 15 the construction o the Ayazma mosque in Uskdar |Ill. 2.6-| began, to
Goodwin ,191:38, a small ersion o the Nuruosmaniye`, where seeral details
ollow the style o the Nuruosmaniye so closely that it would seem either that the
architect was the same man or that he had worked extensiely on the ormer building.`
Completed in 160, it is only one o Sultan Mahmut III`s three important mosques. 1he
process o elongation and sense o height continues at the Laleli mosque ,159-163,,
based on a podium whose height Kuran ,19:30, already inds exaggerated`.
Lxcluding the ,airly conseratie, almost e voro reconstruction o the latih mosque,
destroyed in an earthquake in 166, the Laleli mosque was to be the last Sultan`s
mosque in the old town. A noelty with two o his successor Abdlhamit`s mosques

4
Indeed, latih`s gate was modelled ater the Byzantine gate o Saint Barbara and may hae inoled
some Luropean artists.` ,lamadeh 2004:35,
4
was their placement on the shoreline o the Bosphorus. Unlike preious projects, the
Beylerbeyi mosque ,18, did not ignore the sea but opened its garden-like courtyard to
it, indubitably an expression o a newly acquired sense o theatricality. lis other mosque
on the Bosphorus, in the newly ounded quarter o Lmirgan, aces the water with a
timber aade typical or the Bosphorus mansions.
48
Next to perceptibly changed
approaches in ornamentation, placement and height in the mosques o the second hal
o the eighteenth century, Cerasi ,2000:39, has noted the rear-aades ,the vibrab walls,
are exceptionally elaborate in some mosques rom this period, while entrance aades
are conentional. le thence deducts that

vibrab acades were subject to ewer inhibitions |where| architects could experiment
creatie orms or their own satisaction. In certain moments o architectural history,
when innoation is in the air and yet patrons or public opinion still demand that
traditional conentions be respected, architects hae experimented with innoation in
the less isible parts o their designs .\e might then deduce that the architect`s
perception o his own role had changed, that he was aware o the distinction between
what he was required to express and what he was capable to do in his own ield i he
was let alone to do so.`



48
linished in 181, Goodwin ,191:398-9, inds it already so \estern in atmosphere that it is diicult
not to beliee that the architect was a oreigner.` Suitably, he also notes that the reign o Abdlhamit I
,14-89, had seen the arrial o increasing numbers o oreigners in all the creatie ields, oten men o
indierent caliber who could not ind lucratie appointments at home.`
48
2.2.2. 1he impact of the Ottoman Baroque on non-Muslims' and
provincial architecture

In the Balkan proinces large mosques rom the second hal o the eighteenth century
are again rare, and no building comparable to contemporary ones in the capital are
known.
49
More than on the aades, the new style` becomes isible in the interiors,
whose decoratie programs had also undergone changes in the irst hal o the
eighteenth century, an early example being the mosque o Grand Vizier lekimoglu Ali
Pasha completed in 134 |Ill.2.8. see also 2.4,,10-12|, but it also transcended the
boundaries o Muslim religious architecture. In the lener quarter, the
Constantinopolitan Greeks, many o who were able to accumulate some wealth in that
period, constructed houses built o stone rather than the traditionally employed wood.
50

\hile only a dozen o these hae suried into the twenty-irst century, pictorial
eidence shows that in the interiors Baroque-inluence decoratie programs not
dissimilar to those in the mosques were used |Ill. 2.9.| ,c. Sezgin 1990 and 1993:349-
351,.


49
McGowan ,1994:639-40, sees the eighteenth century changes in architectural production and typology
as a direct result o changed expectations: 1he unprecedented program o ortress building during the
irst decades o the century gae perect architectural expression to a more deensie outlook upon the
world. 1he act that ew great mosques were built in the eighteenth century relects not so much a lack o
means as a lack o conidence. It is arguable whether the Ottoman elites became more or less worldly. But
their expectation o worldly success, as deined by their oreathers, was in decline. 1he architectural
expression o this shit in attitude can also be seen in the characteristic ciic structures o the century:
libraries, schools, baths, ountains, and shoreline pailions - embellishments to ease lie in a transient and
unsteady world.` Cerasi ,1999:131, similarly wants to explain the architectural production o this period
with that the late Ottomans lied in an emotional world. 1he Islamic unierse had long lost its
intellectual domain o social and artistic lie. Aesthetics and eeling rather than ethics and rational
relection gae orm to daily lie and cultural production.`
50
Stephanidou ,199, has noted that these houses in lener, as well as some in Pera, were in act the only
ones to respond to the sultans` repeated decrees prescribing the use o stone in residential construction to
counteract the requent ires.
49
In the western Balkans, ollowing the destruction caused by Lugene o Saoy at the end
o the seenteenth century, seeral mosques were repaired and also repainted in the
ollowing century.
51
In Sarajeo, greatly deastated in 169, Mutapcic ,199:459, already
identiied two dierent styles in the redecorations taking place between the 150s and
10s: the classical Islamic arabesque` and other interiors stylistically approaching the
decoratie painting o the 1urkish Baroque` |e.g. Ill. 2.10|. Among the new motis in
painting are naturalistic orms ,leaes, lowers, trees,, but also architectural elements
,capitals, oculi, stalactites, and marble and stone suraces,.

A signiicant exception to the stagnation o mosque-building in the eighteenth century
Balkans are the Albanian lands, much o the southwest Balkans including areas in
present-day Greece, Macedonia, and Serbia,Kosoo. 1he reason is simple: \hile most
o the other parts o the Balkans had acquired large Muslim populations due to
immigration ,Macedonia, 1hrace, eastern Bulgaria, or large-scale conersions ,Bosnia,
already by the sixteenth century, it is only ater the seenteenth century that the majority
o the population o Albania - till then little more than a neglected mountainous buer
territory on the edge o Ottoman Lurope - conerted to Islam in order to improe their
social and economic status. 1his naturally generated a new demand or Muslim religious
architecture. Most o the buildings o releance to our surey, howeer, date only rom
the last quarter o that century, and are thereore included in the next chapter. 1here
they also belong or another reason, namely that the architectural inluences rom
Istanbul o the period treated so ar remain rather limited or a ariety o reasons, one
being that the builders responsible came not rom the distant capital but - as in preious

51
In Prizren, inaded and deastated by the Austrians in 1689,90 and then again in 13, many schools
and mosques were repaired by a certain Salih rom a illage near Prizren. 1hereupon awarded the title o
Pasha, he had earlier exerted himsel in the expulsion o the Austrians, and eentually became the ounder
o a hereditary dynasty, the Albanian Rotullu amily o Pashas, which ruled Prizren well into the
nineteenth century. ,Kiel 2004:339,
50
times - were locals ,in a regional sense,. Much more than in the classical period,
geography became an important actor in the characteristics o late Ottoman
architecture. At the opposite end o the peninsula, and thus airly close to the capital,
the best example o the impact o trends rom the capital transported to the proinces
remains the mosque at Sumen, |Ill. 2.11| or which we also must consider the likelihood
that the painted decoration in the interior at least partly dates rom maybe as much as a
century ater its construction in the 140s.

Back in Istanbul, another curious inluence o the Ottoman Baroque` should be
mentioned, as it can be ound where least expected: in a Latin Catholic church.
52
1he
altar and chancel area o Pera`s Saint Mary Draperis ,16-12, were truly late
,Luropean, Baroque, an imposition o the Austrian ambassador |who paid or it| rather
than a choice o the local riars`, as Girardelli remarked. But whereas this prayer hall
was an architectural symbol o Roman allegiance` shaped by an Italian artist, Girardelli
supposes that the space o the reectory, built later and with an unmistakable Ottoman
Baroque` appearance,
53
was probably the work o an Armenian /atfa with experience
in the construction o Islamic buildings o the new, post-classical style.` 1he choice or
this style, howeer, was not purely incidental, i we ollow Girardelli. 1he language o
Armenian Catholicism ,to which the majority o Pera`s Armenian community adhered,
was not Armenian but 1urkish, used by missionaries and in masses and ceremonies.
Girardelli thus interprets the Ottoman elements in the reectory as a decision to

52
Ottoman inluence on Christian architecture arose rom the sensibilities to Muslim enironments and
was also noticeable in the structural layout o churches. 1he Church o Saint lrancis ,1660s, destroyed in
1696,, or example, sering the Catholics o Galata, had women`s galleries in the prayer hall, an anomaly
explained to surprised isitors rom Italy as a relection o local habits`. Catholic churches o Istanbul
would continue to adopt this eature until the late nineteenth century. ,Girardelli 2005:236,256,
53
1his is most eident in the characteristic multi-centered arches and capitals o the arcade in the parish
oice. 1he Ottoman structures Girardelli ,2005:241-2, chose or the establishment o this analogy are the
Nuruosmaniye mosque, the veare.e o Seyyid lasan Pasha, and the /vtti,e o Besir Aga, all rom the mid-
eighteenth century.
51
architecturally speak 1urkish` as well, according to what an Armenian audience, largely
responsible or the growth o Catholicism in Pera in the eighteenth century, could
perceie as a pleasant, noel image o its own culture and city.` Going een urther he
speaks o a Catholic Ottoman-ness` in the eighteenth century, which is gradually
replaced by estrangement and conormity to nationally deined standards and cultural
identity.` ,Girardelli 2005:23,248,25,
52
2.3. On Orthodox Christian culture in the eighteenth century
2.3.J. 1he Serbian Baroque and the iconostasis as ersatz-faade

1he second hal o the eighteenth century saw a considerable stimulation in the crats o
painting and woodcaring. In the irst hal o the nineteenth century this deelopment
was increasingly elt in the interiors and exteriors o both secular and religious
architectural and decoratie programs particularly. Already in the eighteenth century a
Baroque inluence is noticeable in the transormation the Orthodox church iconostasis
undergoes. As an object o releance or this study, whose target is mainly architecture
not artisanship, it may appear questionable.
54
loweer, as the restrictions on Christian
architecture in the eighteenth century still preented the aades rom assuming an all
too expressie character, we could consider the concentration o creatie energies on
this particular element as a kind o er.at-architecture.
55
Maybe not so incidentally, some
o these iconostases are reminiscent o the aades o Renaissance or Baroque
churches.
56


54
\hile we note its existence, the inluence o Central Luropean and Russian-Ukrainian Baroque on the
painting o icons in the Balkan churches clearly transcends the scope o the study and is an entirely
dierent subject.
55
Interesting in this respect are also obserations o an Lnglish traeller, who on two occasions noticed
local Serbs` limited interest in the church exteriors ,which, o course, is also not enough or a
generalization,. Visiting the medieal Studenica monastery, he remarked: 1hose who accompanied us
paid little attention to the architecture o the church, but burst into raptures at the sight o the cared
wood o the screen, which had been most minutely and elaborately cut by 1sinsars |sic|, ,as the
Macedonian Latins are called to this day,.` Proceeding to the church o king Lazar at Kruseac, he
lamented: 1he late Serian |sic| goernor had the Vandalism to whitewash the exterior, so that at a
distance it looks like a ulgar parish church. \ithin is a great deal o gilding and bad painting, pity that the
late goernor did not whitewash the inside instead o the out.` ,Paton 1845:192,218,
56
Koea ,2005, tries to explain this with that iconostasis orms ollow the architectonics and
composition o those stylistic genres that architecture would most likely aour in the respectie period ...
In terms o orm, they resemble the outer walls o a building, with their window-like ents hosting the
images o heaenly creatures to mediate the communion o Lord and the aithul congregation. . During
the 18
th
and 19
th
centuries, Bulgarian iconostases were composed in reproduction o the architectural
acades o Renaissance and Baroque buildings, obiously taking the eort to conorm to the speciic
relations and proportions o the latter styles in the architectonic structure, and to reproduce the number
and orm o elements characteristic o classical order systems.`
53

1he iconostasis in the Balkans is or the most part a eature o the Ottoman period and
in particular a trend emerging rom the monasteries o Mount Athos in the seenteenth
century. \hile in the preious centuries there had been a strong drie to cling on to the
old traditions, it is in this century that the preiously marble or stone screen ,used to
separate the altar rom the public parts o the church, was increasingly replaced by the
wooden iconostasis, then spreading oer the Balkans and consolidating itsel in the
eighteenth century. 1hat the relie, on the screens still ery low, gradually gets deeper on
the wooden iconostasis is usually linked to a western inluence, Venetian in origin, as the
Athonite monks had called on the cratsmen o Crete
5
to produce their iconostases
,and paintings as well,. ,c. Nikonanos 199, Koea 2005,

\hile loddinott ,1954:28, writes o a igorous tradition o |Macedonian| wood
caring that, ater our centuries o 1urkish domination, exhibits not a single trace o
Oriental inluence`, Nikonanos ,199:261-2, sees in the Athonite eighteenth century
iconostases - next to Byzantine and Renaissance motis - also elements o Luropean and
oriental Baroque`. Greek olk Baroque` is the term he then uses to describe or an
Athonite iconostasis o the 140s, but it is with modern Greek Baroque` that he
categorizes the century ater it: lretwork dominated and the relie was high, almost
sculpturesque. lorms tended to be eliptical, the arrangement diagonal, the whole surace
was gilded, there was a strong impression o depth, and the thematic repertory was
enriched with resh motis and new combinations o old ones.` 1he gradual increase o
plasticity can be traced. 1he iconostasis o the Seti Naum monastery ,111, near Ohrid
|Ill. 2.13|, one o the earliest examples, still eatured caring in low relie, displaying

5
1he island, a possession o Venice since the lourth Crusade ,1204,, became an Ottoman possession
only ater 1669.
54
loral designs and animals, but no human igures. lollowing loddinott ,1954:28,281,
high relie had been barred on the grounds that they were too reminiscent o idolatry,
an objection subsequently reinorced by the popularity o the style, in particular
ollowing the deelopment o Baroque, in the Roman Catholic \est.` le then
maintains that the trend or high relie with ree human orm had particularly spread
rom the Serbian monastery o lilandar at Athos, and claims that an original and
distinctie Macedonian style` can be identiied, whose

principal oreign inluence appears to hae been the once rejected Baroque, iltering
across the mountains rom the Adriatic |!| coast. As during the Middle Ages, the artists,
who regarded themseles rather as cratsmen, ceased to be drawn chiely rom the ranks
o monasteries. 1he leading wood carers, in act, were a pastoral tribe, the Mijaks,
who had their centre at Galicnik near Debar, close to the present Albanian border.
|1hey| produced much o the best work o the irst hal o the nineteenth century,
which can still be seen today ... in Skopje |Ill. 2.14|, Pristina, Prilep, Bitolj, Stip,
Kruseo, and in many other places.`

lor Stele ,192:356,, these iconostases were, howeer, more reminiscent o the art o
woodcaring o the seenteenth century Larly Baroque, than with the more
contemporary Late Baroque in Lurope. In his chapter in the surey Kunstschtze in
Jugoslawien`, our iconostases o the Debar School
58
, created between 1811 and 1840 in
present-day Macedonia, are the only works created on Ottoman territories that he
qualiied or inclusion under the label Baroque`. It is only second to those in
Macedonia, that he sees the artistic signiicance o iconostases created by the Serbs on
Austrian territory in the eighteenth century, thereby largely contemporary with those in

58
Debar school`, as should be noted, is a bit o a misnomer, as the cratsmen hailed not rom this town
in the Albanian-Macedonian border region, but rom the outlying illages. Vasilie ,1965:14, alternatiely
suggests the wording Galicnik-Reka school`, ater the Reka region ,east o Debar, and the major
settlement Galicnik.
55
the Ottoman Balkans. A dierence, howeer, is that outside the Sultan`s domain the
Baroque also let its impact on the exteriors o Orthodox churches.

\hile already the Serbian churches in Szentendre near Budapest rom the 1690s had
been stylistically assimilated into a Central Luropean mainstream, the most important
example o the phenomenon later termed Serbian Baroque` is the synodal church |Ill.
2.1-8| at Karlowitz ,Sremski Karloci,, the real Serbian capital o the 18
th
century`
according to Castellan ,1992:201,.
59
Built between 158 and 162 by German masters
and represented by its aade typical or the Danube monarchy`s architecture o its time,
Medakoic ,1991:42, remarked that as a pale and aded memory to the old architecture
there had initially been a small cupola in the centre o the nae, which today is not
extant.` O the monastery churches at the nearby lruska Gora ,the Serbian Athos`,,
where some existing medieal,post-Byzantine churches were baroquiied` mostly
through construction o a belry or through enlargement o window openings,
60
some
new structures had been sponsored by Serbian merchants, signiying the emergence o a
Serb bourgeoisie on Austrian soil as patrons o ,religious, art. 1his, howeer, did not
mean that all o this emerging bourgeoisie were erent upholders o Serbian religiosity.
Spokesman o a generation educated in the age o Joseph II, the later national hero
Dositej Obradoic, or instance, had expressed that it were

much better to translate and print in our language one intelligent and useul book,
regardless o the cost inoled, than to build twele belrys |sic| and to hang a large bell

59
In 113 it was in Sremski Karloci that a Serbian Orthodox metropolitanate on Austrian soil was
established, including the necessary inrastructure. It was promoted to a patriarchate in 1848, ater the
Serbs had supported Austria in the lungarian reolt.
60
1he odd mixture o Byzantine cupolas and Baroque belries, which we see or example at the originally
sixteenth century monastery church o Jazak ,lruska Gora,, to which in 153 a Baroque belry was added,
later gains acceptance and is purposeully built, as we see or example in the Upper Church` o Sremski
Karloci rom 146, and as late as the Serbian Cathedral o Sarajeo rom the 1860s.
56
in each o them: our children would not gain a grain o intelligence i the bells were to
ring or a century.` ,quoted in Jelaich 1954:149-150,

In any case, the skills deeloped in the eighteenth century also beneited the reinement
o interior ornamentation in residential architecture. By the nineteenth century oten the
same masters were responsible or the painting and woodcaring in churches, houses,
and mosques. Unsurprisingly, we thus ind similar decoratie elements and techniques.
\hile not all this can be used to establish Baroque analogies, we shall note that the
eighteenth century iconostasis conormed to a truly Baroque code: the uniication o
architecture, plastic, and painting on a single work.

5
2.3.2. 1he rise and fall of Moschopolis

\hile only o secondary releance or a discussion o Baroque inluence in this period,
61

the mysterious rise and all o the city o Moschopolis ,alb. Voskopoj, cannot be
excluded rom any architectural surey o the eighteenth century Balkans, be it to
demonstrate what was in act possible in that period. Stoianoich ,1992:1, narrates the
genesis and disappearance o this once large and lourishing centre o trade and urban
culture as ollows:

lidden in a mountain astness |1115m aboe sea leel!| and thus long secure rom the
eny o outlaws and Ottoman oicials, the residents o Moschopolis grew rich through
the sale o the products o their locks - wool, hides, and cheese - to Jewish buyers o
Salonika and to Italian merchants. Ater the treaty o Passarowitz they extended their
trade to lungary. In the war years o 169 and 188, howeer, rude Albanian bandit
raiders
62
. ell upon and deastated Moschopolis. At the head o the band in 188 was
the ather o Ali pasha |o Ioannina|, Ali Pasha himsel later completed the destruction,
and soon, it is said, the town was reduced to two hundred shepherd huts.`
63


61
In the art history timeline o the Metropolitan Museum o New \ork |http:,,www.metmuseum.org,
toah,ht,09,eusb,ht09eusb.htm|, the Church o Saint Nicholas ,121,, whose porch and interior is
almost completely illed with portraits o saints, emperors, and warriors, is mentioned as one o inest
examples o the surge in Christian church-building that occurs during this century with the introduction
o Baroque and Neoclassical structural deelopments and decoratie motis.` Peyu| ,1996:33, notes that
the rescoes in the interior are indeed rom the 120s, but the murals in the porch date rom 150, and
inds it worth noticing that the depictions include the donor o the church, Georgios Gyra. lor an
account ,in Greek, o the churches o Moschopolis, see Konstandinou ,1999,.
62
In Koch`s ersion ,1989:194, the 1urks`, in 169 and 189, sent penitentiary exhibitions to
Moschopolis, which burnt down the houses o the Christians, but respected the churches. 1he
explanation oered by Konstandinou ,1999:13, is that the prosperity o Moschopolis aroused the greed
o the 1urks and Albanians, who destroyed it in 169.` lor Peyu| ,1996:30, the 1urks` were in part
responsible or the success o Moschopolis in the irst place. As eidence, he points to the settlement
haing receied priileges rom the Valide Sultan, rather than haing deeloped ae.ite the Ottomans.
63
Peyu| ,1996:12-3,30,, howeer, reminds that the present inaccessibility conceals that in preious times
the city was well connected rom a caraan road rom Berat, and to the region`s main centres ,Kora,
Llbasan, Ohrid, Kastoria, etc.,. le also does not attribute the decline o Moschopolis ater mid-century
solely to the unquestionably destructie raids, but to that as a result o the 1reaty o Belgrade ,139, the
deeloping inland commerce depried the city o its position as centre and distributor or the Adriatic
trade. 1he suriors o the raids led to the nearby town o Kor or eastward to Macedonia, where they
ounded Kruseo as a successor to Moschopolis in 10. A century later this city was a rich merchant
town and centre o reolutionary actiity.
58

1he act that, except or some churches, little has remained rom this exclusiely
Christian settlement
64
in the Albanian-Greek-Macedonian border region has ostered
romantic exaggerations about its golden age in the mid-eighteenth century ,c. Peyu|
1996:8-46,. \hile sometimes claimed to hae had up to 0,000 inhabitants in its heyday,
in Ottoman Lurope thereby theoretically only surpassed by Constantinople, Stoianoich
,1992:1, beliees that een 40,000 around 150 would hae been much too high`, and
suggests that in this number the surrounding rural district may hae been included.
Peyu| ,1996:36, een deems a calculation o around 3,500 possible, and concludes that
Moschopolis was certainly not one o the largest cities in the Balkans. Undisputed,
howeer, is the existence o a higher school, seeral monumental churches, and a
amous printing press, which eleated the settlement to a metropolis o Orthodox
Christian culture` ,Kiel 1990a:25,. In the educational acility that by the mid-eighteenth
century een bore the name o academy` ,sometimes een called uniersity`,, next to
theology also history and philosophy were taught ,Koch 1989:194,. 1he city`s amous
printing press produced at least 21 works between 131 and 169. O great importance
to the neighbouring archdiocese o Ohrid ,Ahrida,, the majority o the publications
were hagiographies and religious texts ,in Greek,, but also a dictionary or all our
languages used in the region - simple Rhomaic` ,~modern Greek,, Moesian Vlach`,
Albanian, and Bulgarian,-Macedonian, - was published in 162. \ith their number also
sometimes put at three times that quantity, Koch ,1989:194-4, also attests to the
existence o 26 churches - Konstandinou ,1999:13, speaks o 22 - and remarks that
alone between 121 and 124 three unusually big basilicas were built, each holding
around 1,000 worshippers. \hile many had interior domes hidden under pitched roos

64
1hereby it naturally enjoyed a larger degree o autonomy than Christian quarters in Ottoman towns
with Muslim populations ,Peyu| 1996:32,.
59
,conorming to Ottoman law,, the monastery church o St John the Baptist outside the
city had a reely projecting cupola. Peyu| ,1996:33-4, also mentions two churches
haing a belltower.

Mythiied as a quasi sunken Atlantis` o Orthodox Christian Balkan culture, the case o
Moschopolis proides yet another example o a pre-national society hardly deinable in
modern national categories, yet typical or Ottoman Lurope. Located in present-day
Albania, its Vlach inhabitants were speakers o a language close to Romanian, but
identiied with their Greek religion and high culture. As such it does not surprise that
there is more than one modern claimant to Moschopolis` cultural heritage.

60
2.4. Recapitulation

Both the Serbian Baroque` and the 1urkish Baroque` are modern concepts. 1he
ormer, where the western inluence is direct, deinite, and traceable is, howeer, a less
problematic designation than is the latter, in part, because the Baroque` inluence on
Istanbul architecture was, as we hae seen, not a linear process. A detailed critique,
howeer, cannot be the subject o this work, but a basic acquaintance with its
deelopment and character ,as in Ch.2.2.1, was still necessary as a ramework or
comparison with contemporary and successie deelopments in the Balkans. 1he
excursus on Catholic churches in Istanbul may appear somewhat unrelated, but, and i
we accept Girardelli`s theory, it is still interesting to see that a western patron would
hae commissioned some parts o a church in a stylistically 1urkish` ocabulary to
cater to the cultural sensibilities o Ottoman Christians. low ar we can apply this to
other examples, perhaps in the Balkans, remains to be established.

loweer problematic the label Ottoman Baroque` may be, it is indisputable that it
embraces some o Istanbul`s most emblematic monuments. In the proinces, howeer,
the new style` o architecture again has ew repercussions ,as ar, o course, as such
absolute statement can be made in the context o the drastic decimation o the Ottoman
architectural record in the Balkans,. New directions in decoratie painting, howeer,
seem to spread rather quickly, which will also be explored in Ch.3.

It may be too daring to say that the Orthodox Church iconostasis deeloped as a kind
o er.at-aade, essentially as a reaction to the restriction that the church exteriors could
not be properly embellished. 1hat the ocus o creatie energies is re-directed towards
61
the interior, lessening the importance o architecture at the expense o graphic and
plastic arts now combined towards the perection o one element, the iconostasis, is still
eident. Paton`s obserations on the relatie indierence o his local companions
toward the church exteriors, and notably toward those o medieal monuments ,to
which these restrictions not yet applied,, is ery interesting, but also not enough or a
generalization ,changed preerences according to changed realities,. 1he consolidation
and deelopment o the iconostasis goes hand in hand with the adance o the crat o
wood-caring and the expansion o decoratie painting, orming one part o a general
drie in the Balkan proinces ater 150 later termed Balkan Renaissance`. 1his
expansion o the minor arts`, as will be discussed later in greater detail, cannot be
analyzed solely in the context o art history but must be supported by indings in the
area o economic history, whereby it will be possible to more concretely determine
where, when, and why the preconditions or the commissioning and deelopment o
such art were gien.
62
2.S. A note on the Ottoman House

1hat so ar little space has been deoted to dwellings is decidedly not a preerence o
the author but due to the act that our knowledge o residential architecture prior to the
late eighteenth century remains ery limited as only ew suriing examples predate the
nineteenth century. Dating, in general, has been a problem as well, since only in
exceptional cases houses eature an inscription o their date o construction, in contrast
to public buildings, where we mostly ind such. Other than that, older examples are
likely to hae been considerably altered in the course o time. Another reason or the
non-surial o many houses are the construction materials used, predominantly wood.
Stone was a scarce material resered or public ediices whose inspiring grandeur
ormed a striking contrast to the simplicity o the unpretentious habitations o the
citizens.` ,Goodwin 191:449, Gien the requent ires in Ottoman towns, only
aggraated by this construction material, only samples o nineteenth century townscapes
are presered. 1he nature o the houses in the Balkan-Anatolian region has thus oten
been described as ephemeral dwellings` ,Bammer 1982,. 1his transitoriness` is
explained by Goodwin ,191:450, as due to the Moslem respect only or the
permanence o God, which had inbred habits o building aresh instead o
maintenance.`
65
\hile this only relects a tendency among many western scholars to
explain all materialized otherness` in the Muslim world as grounded in the other
religion, at least to some extent, others sought to explain these phenomena with the
characteristics o Ottoman society as a whole. Jezernik ,1998:213-4,, or example, had
concluded the ollowing on the perception o houses in the ,mostly late, Ottoman
Balkans by western traellers:

65
In this context, Bammer ,1982:116, reminds us that nineteenth-century Moscow was also still a city
largely built o wood.
63

Some supposed that the custom deried rom the ancestors o the 1urkish population
- being a people gien to camp-discipline they did not care or building great houses,
but looked upon their towns only as temporary settlements which were to be acated at
short notice. 1hey were o the opinion that it was a sign o pride to coet sumptuous
houses, such as i rail creatures as humans could achiee a kind o immortality and an
eerlasting habitation in this lie, when they were but pilgrims on this earth and
thereore ought to use their dwellings as traellers do their inns, merely to be secure
rom thiees, cold, heat and rain. Some argued that the Ottomans did not dare to make
a display o wealth, and i someone was so ortunate as to accumulate a large sum o
money, their irst care was to conceal it rom iew. 1he chie Dragoman o the Porte in
Istanbul at the beginning o the nineteenth century, or example, had his large house
painted three colours in order to make it look like three houses, so that no one passing
would be struck by the size o his mansion. \hateer the reason, it remained true that
all oer the Ottoman Lmpire, whereer Luropean traellers went they could barely ind
a stately home, whateer the wealth o the inhabitants, most lied in huts and cottages,
and while the nobles aoured handsome orchards, gardens and baths, their houses had
no gatehouses or porches, no courtyards or anything else magniicent or worthy o any
admiration, despite the numerousness o their amilies.`

1he reason or such unenthusiastic assessment was certainly less a lower` leel o
ciilization than a dissimilar ambition or representation in urban space. 1he Ottoman
louse` had simply not shared the deelopment o the aade cult` emerging in
medieal Lurope, when burgher houses - in contrast to the courtyard houses o antique
urban cultures - came to be oriented towards the street with an ornamented eleation
representatie o the owner`s social status ,c. Lichtenberger 2002:23-4,. In the 1urkish
house decoration is a programme o the interior`, the dierence is made clear by Renda
,1998:103,:
66



66
Renda appends that it is oten the decoration itsel, much more than the architectural design, that
reeals the dierent phases o artistic currents within the Ottoman Lmpire and relects the social and
cultural changes that occured, especially in the later centuries.` ,Renda 1998:103,
64
Lery 1urkish house has a ba,oaa, the main room that seres as the guest room and
which is always decorated with much care ... 1he room has two leels, the .e/i v.tv,
which is a platorm usually raised one step aboe the entrance and the .e/i atti which is
on the same leel as the entrance. On the entrance wall there is usually a built-in
cupboard and niches placed on the two sides or lamps or other articles. 1his wall and
the ceiling usually display elaborate woodwork, sometimes painted or een gilded.
Painted decoration or wall paintings are ound as narrow riezes or panels on the upper
sections o the wall between the cupboards or wooden panelling and the ceiling.`

In describing so, Renda certainly speaks o the upper-class houses o the late period.
1his type o larger house ,/ova/, had, according to Goodwin ,191:433-5,, only
appeared in the proinces in the seenteenth century, while it was only in the eighteenth
century that it rapidly spread. 1hat only ew approach a \estern country house in size`
leads him to the conclusion that buildings on a large scale must hae seemed
impersonal and comortless to the Ottomans`. \hile it is most oten these wealthier
houses that hae been presered, they are not indicatie o what the ast majority o
dwellings in Ottoman towns should hae looked like. Goodwin ,191:44, suggests that
these must hae resembled the gecekondu o the present day. 1hese are humble
dwellings based on a primitie law o squatters` rights which enables anyone who can
put up a roo in one night to hold the grounds that he has taken.` 1his is well in line
with many western obserers` accounts on dwellings outside the ery town centres, but
also Paton`s ,1845:198-9, description o Noi Pazar ,southwest Serbia,, which he isited
in the 1840s: On entering, I perceied the houses to be o a most orbidding aspect,
being built o mud, with only a base o bricks, extending about three eet rom the
ground. None o the windows were glazed`. At the same he noted that this had been
the irst town o this part o 1urkey in Lurope that I had seen in such a plight.`

65
Inariably, the introersion o the Ottoman house suraces as the major diergence
rom its western counterparts. More than a eature conditioned by Muslim religion and
tradition, this appears to be a result o social conditions in Ottoman Balkans. Leon
1rotsky ,1981:123,, who had traelled Kosoo and Macedonia in 1912, thereby late
enough to be outside the period in which the religion o the conqueror may hae played
a decisie role in the eeryday designs o non-Muslim Ottoman subjects, had been gien
the ollowing explanation or the lack o ornament on the Ottoman louse`:

1he Serbs don`t keep a lot o liestock since they would only be carried o by the
Albanian bandits. 1he Serbs, een the rich ones, don`t build ine houses, either, in the
illages where there are Albanians. I a Serb has a two-story house, he rerains rom
painting it, so that it shan`t look better than the Albanians` houses. Later on, ater the
capture o Bitolj, I happened to spend the night at Resen, in the house o a Greek
doctor. A splendid house, with eery comort, yet the outside was unplastered. \hy I
asked. le didn`t want this to be done, he said: i it had been, his house would be one o
the best in town`.

66
3. Banditry, ayanltk, and a proto-bourgeoisie: the Balkans before the
reforms
3.J. 1he krdzalijstvo and the fortified house: dwellings around J800 and
the place of art in an age of insecurity

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century the Balkans were not dominated
anymore by decisions made by the sultans in Constantinople, but by local ,or localized,
groups: the autonomously-minded proincial notables, the prospering merchants, and
roaming brigands ,oten ormer janissaries,. All these were, o course, not completely
new to the scene, but while in earlier centuries the Ottoman rulers had been able to
guarantee sae passage more eectiely, it is in the last third o the eighteenth century,
when banditry seems to escalate. 1he eects o this time o supreme anarchy`,
howeer, went beyond seere conditions or those aected by it at that time, i we
ollow Kiel ,1985:44,: As this was the last historical memory` Bulgarians still had in the
late nineteenth century when the country became ,de-acto, independent, the
destructions o this sad epoch were projected backward into the past |and in| historical
thinking all the centuries o the 1urkish period hae been as gloomy as the last one`,
which essentially accounted or the undamentally negatie assessment o the whole
Ottoman period by modern Bulgarian historiography.

At the beginning, howeer, most o the brigandage had beallen not the Bulgarian lands
in the east, but the western parts o the peninsula. In the 10s much o it centred on
central and eastern Macedonia ,McGowan 1994:666,, but banditry and disorders had
brought ruin to almost the entire countryside o the Peloponnesus as well ,Stoianoich
1992:18,. Len in Kosoo, as the archbishop o Skopje ,cit. in Malcolm 1998:18,
6
reported to the Vatican in 12, all the illages, Catholic and Orthodox and Muslim,
hae indeed been exterminated and depopulated.` Crampton ,199:54, maintains that
the beginnings o the /araati;.tro or /araati;./o rreve ,as the age o banditry came to be
called among the Slas, could be seen already in by that time, but reached their
culmination in the 190s and 1800s.
6
Centred on eastern 1hrace, noticeably close to the
capital, McGowan ,1994:666, identiied many o the bandits as Muslim smallholders
rom the laskoo region`. In the 1800s the disorders partly shited to north o the
Balkan mountains ,Danube Bulgaria`,, but were still disturbing much o 1hrace, and
een as late as 1816 much o the Adrianople area was beyond the reach o the central
goernment and around Burgas the only eectie authority was a band o brigands
some 300 strong.` ,Crampton 199:54,

Naturally, these deelopments in the hal-century ater 168 also had let their trace on
the architecture o the region. On one hand, as Kiel ,1985:49, noted or Bulgaria,
countless medieal and post-medieal churches and monasteries disappeared, thereby
signiicantly reducing the architectural record o the past. On the other hand, as
eidenced by many examples all oer the south Balkans ,and beyond,, dwellings
assumed a more ortiied appearance. Some eatures typical or the Ottoman Balkans,
such as the wood-built residential loor with projections, remained unaltered. But while
preiously only the ground loor was built o stone, a considerable eleation o the
dwelling`s main rooms took place, whereby we came to know this architectural type as
tower houses`. Oten also completely built o stone, on the lower parts o the building
only ew window openings can be ound. 1hat such structures appear in an age o
disorder and banditry - and notably, outside larger urban centres - is certainly no
coincidence, rather a necessity.

6
lor a more comprehensie account on the /araati period in Bulgaria, see Mutaciea ,1993,.
68

Kizis ,199, see also 2000,, in act, traces the tower house in 1hessaly, where many
examples hae suried, back to the residences built by Ottoman landlords in the
seenteenth century, to be imitated a century later by an emerging Christian middle
class. Greek scholars hae oten insisted on the reial a pre-Ottoman Byzantine model,
which Arel ,1993, also beliees to hae identiied in contemporary examples o such
tower houses` in western Anatolia.
68
But also in the Luropean middle ages such
residential towers could be ound ,see Lichtenberger 2002:29,, oremost in Italy ,e.g.
Segoia,, but also in Vienna, Prague, or Regensburg. Built to surpass and oertop
surrounding medieal burgher houses they, howeer, did not surie into the modern
period, as increasing communal autonomy orced the patrician classes to tear them
down. More than other scholars, who aim to explain the emergence ,or reial, o this
type as due to general lack o security, laroqhi ,1995:262-3, sees them as intended
demonstrations o power by the a,av. 1hese were directed toward the area`s peasant and
nomad population, as they would certainly not hae suried a siege by a larger army.

One ersion o this building type ound mainly in the Albanian lands is the Kvtta
bqitare, the Albanian tower|-house|`. It is this also one o the better-studied types, as
many examples are well-presered, at least until the recent Kosoo-conlict, in which
many were damaged. Lqually linked to Albanians more than to others, its orbidding
appearance is oten explained as a response o recurrent blood euds. 1he monolithic
Kulla ,rom trk. /vte, are usually built o stone, less oten o brick, and display ew

68
Moutsopoulos ,2005:19,, or example, holds that such dwellings deeloped in the Byzantine period due
to the insecurity in the mountain areas in the Balkans, and that tower-like habitations were predominant.
le names as examples buildings in Melnik, Lpirus, and the Peloponnesus. Cerasi ,1998:12,, howeer,
beliees the compact tower-like, two-or-more-story stone masonry, ireplace-centered fogo houses` to be
a regional phenomenon o the wider Adriatic hinterland, the /vtta only being a ariant o which. le
urther maintains this to be an older orm then gradually superseded by the Ottoman house concepts
and timber-and-inill techniques`.
69
architectural elements. I at all, it is typically only on the portal that decoration in the
orm o carings o loral elements can be ound. 1hese kind o dwellings had
supposedly already been built 500 years ago in central northern Albania ,Gra 2003:46,,
but their peak period clearly was the nineteenth century.
69
|Ill. 3.1|

A more elaborate orm o a ortiied house-type we ind in Gjirokastr, north o the
Greek-Albanian border. It was this not primarily a centre o crats and trade, but
residence o landlords and administration, whereby the need or such buildings on the
part o the here concentrated land-owning upper social strata is oten explained,
particularly by Marxist authors, as due to class conlict, next to the omnipresent blood
euds. Lawless ,199:9, situates the appearance and ull deelopment o the ortiied
house - the most characteristic house-type ound at Gjirokaster` already in the
seenteenth century, prior to which only ew had more than one storey. It is in this
century that the settlement sees its major phase o urban deelopment, and next to the
citadel a proper raro, with 8 vabatte had emerged, but it is only in the eighteenth and irst
hal o the nineteenth century that Gjirokastr reaches its zenith ,Shkodra 1988:162,.
Alone in the eighteenth century our mosques were built, three o which, probably rom
between the 120s and 155, surie ,c. Kiel 1990b:138,141-3,. But more noteworthy
than the religious architecture o this period are the residences. Described by Lawless
,199:9-11,, these impressie dwellings are constructed almost entirely o stone and
consist o three, our, and sometimes ie storeys. \hile some hae a simple square or
rectangular plan, the more complex examples hae one or two projecting wings. lor
reasons o deence, only the top storeys possessed large windows, while openings on the
lower leels are small and grilled casements or merely loopholes. 1he external walls o
the upper storeys are oten plastered, occasionally also painted. Most elaborate in the

69
On the /vttas, see also Riza ,2005,, one o the authorities in that subject.
0
interiors, the cared ceilings, cupboards, and ireplaces in the upper rooms are the work
o builders and cratsmen, who Lawless identiies as Albanians rom nearby illages.

1he one building most oten depicted must be the one described by Shkodra ,1988:163,
and identiied as the house o the Bakiraj in the Palorto quarter |Ill. 3.2.|, showing mural
paintings on the aade where loral motis, landscapes, and hunting scenes - curiously
also depicting a lion - are represented. \hile the date or the building is usually gien as
the late eighteenth century, only Shkodra mentions that the paintings actually date rom
a later period, namely 1853. Next to decoratie semi-circular arches, we also ind
examples o oal top windows betraying a Baroque inluence.

It is interesting that also in \allachia at this period ortiied rural mansions appear.
Len more interesting is that these houses, built to shield the boyar class rom bandit
incursions rom south o the Danube ,see also later section on banditry under Osman
Pazantoglu,, are also named ater a deriation o the 1urkish /vte ,tower,: cvta.
0
\hile
most o these are located in Oltenia, the western portion o \allachia bordering central
Serbia and the western section o Danube Bulgaria, and many rom the late eighteenth
century, an interesting example or comparison is the Cula Duca |Ill. 3.3.| at Maldarasti
rom 1812. \hile the character o the exterior is equally orbidding, we note the steeper
roos ,typical or the more northern parts o the peninsula, including Bosnia,, and more
architectural eatures, such as semi-circular arched arcades. A more western inluence
betray the stucco ceilings as a later addition rom 182
1
.

0
In the discussion whether to include Romania in a Balkans` deinition, it is sometimes suggested to
include \allachia, the southernmost o three large historical regions orming today`s Romania ,the others
being Moldaia and 1ransylania,, on the grounds that it had been the region most open to eastern`
inluences. 1hat the ortiied house around 1800 is known by the same ,1urkish, term as its Albanian
counterpart on the other end o the peninsula would be a case in point to support the perspectie on
\allachia in a Balkans` scope.
1
Inormation at the website o the Museum o Valcea City
1

As we can deduct rom the examples gien, dwellings assumed a more ortiied
character not only in rural areas ,as the boyars` or a,av`s residences in \allachia or
Anatolia,, mountain towns ,as the classical examples o industrious settlements in
1hessaly and Macedonia, which will be discussed later in this chapter,, but also in actual
urban centres ,as in Gjirokastr,. But realities o the /araati period had not only an
impact on the architecture but on cities as well. \hile town growth in this period was
irst a result o the expansion o trade and crats, the light rom the insecure plains to
the saer urban centres, or to remote mountain towns, was only speeding up this
process. But while urban populations increased, the Ottoman Lmpire had ailed to
participate perceptibly in the general Luropean demographic expansion o the
eighteenth century ,Stoianoich 1992:18,. McGowan ,1994:646,652, cites an estimate o
the population o the Balkans haing allen rom a sixteenth century high o eight
million to a mid-eighteenth century low o three million. At the same time he noted the
paradox that the Ottoman territories were strikingly urbanized, when compared with
Lurope`, and cites a contemporary estimate o two-thirds o the population o
Macedonia and 1hessaly liing in towns instead o on the land. But also the towns had
changed. According to Stoianoich ,1992:61,14-5, the number o cities had grown while
at the same time the 1urkish-Muslim population declined in the period 1660-1800.
Gradually and almost imperceptibly, Balkan towns became less Jewish, less Armenian
and sometimes een less 1urkish, and more Greek, more Slaic, and more Albanian.`

Another noticeable dierence in this period is the regional hierarchy between cities,
which is not the urban balance ,in terms o population and importance, we know today.
Some older centres lost their prominence to younger` towns, the best example being

|http:,,www.muzee-alcea.ro,index.php~muzee&m~5|.
2
1irana. Belgrade or Skopje, which only a little more than a century earlier may hae
attained populations o 40-50,000, by 1800 still only numbered around 25,000 and
6,000, respectiely ,Stoianoich 1992:14-5,. On the other hand, unamiliar towns like
1yrnaos in the mountains o 1hessaly were reported to boast a population o 20,000-
35,000 at their peak ,c. Lawless 19:522, Kienitz 192:260,. Soia, since the middle o
the iteenth century the seat o the be,terbe,i o Rumeli and thus practically the capital o
the Ottomans` Luropean possessions, also entered a period o decline. \hile the
number o costly houses in the city had still doubled in the second hal o the eighteenth
century ,1odoro 19:61,, Soia suered harshly rom a,av warare and /araati
attacks. In 1836, eentually, the be,terbe,i o Rumeli oicially moed his seat to Bitola,
where he had already resided in the eighteenth century. In terms o its economy, Ianea
,2000, suspects that by the 1850s Soia may hae become a reseroir o ree artisan
labour`, with cratsmen emigrating to other centres with a higher demand or their
work. 1he downward spiral continues when Soia decays ater the Crimean \ar ,1853-
6,, whereupon the ormer capital o Ottoman Lurope` was urther degraded to only a
.avca/ o the Danube rita,et a decade later ,Ianoa 2004c:03,. Ridiculed as merely a
large illage, in 189 Soia ,not 1arnoo, was surprisingly elected to be the capital o the
Bulgarian principality. 1hessaloniki`s crisis at the end o the eighteenth century was not
as dramatic but, still, its role as an international port declined, partly due to established
trade routes being interrupted by the reolutionary and Napoleonic wars, partly
probably also as a result o the general downturn in the Ottoman economy in that
period ,laroqhi 2004b:125,.
3

3.2. Provincial notables and merchants as new patrons of representative
architecture

1he most important changes in Ottoman society and goernment since the sixteenth
century had been gradual, unintended, usually unrecorded and thereore poorly
understood`, judged McGowan ,1994:658,. 1he eighteenth-century Ottoman
leadership was unable either to deend eectiely what was let o the empire, or to
reorm the system in a manner which took account o the changing world order.` 1he
centre`s weakness had become ery obious to the proincial elites ater the Russian-
1urkish war o 168-4, and McGowan ,1994:645, noted it as an irony that the climax
o conusion and misrule in this century coincides with the reign o the irst real
reormer, Sultan Selim III ,189-180, |harbinger o a new line o sultans raised to
goern outside the cage system`|. 1his well-meaning but irresolute sultan proed unable
to master the spiral o iolence and disorder in his most important proinces and
instead allowed rising proincial warlords and Mamluk elites to ind their own
solutions.` 1he a,av were no longer simply serants o the empire, but instead quite
ready to take a role in deciding its ate.` ,McGowan 1994: 666,

1he origins o the a,avti/ remain obscure. 1he word itsel is an Arabic plural reerring
to eminent personalities, and originally the riends o the prophet Muhammad. 1he
Ottoman-1urkish use o the term, reerring to the most distinguished inhabitant o a
district or quarter, is usually translated as a notable`. \hile a,av are noted in numerous
towns and illages already during the seenteenth century, it is only at the time o the
Austro-1urkish war o 1683-99 that the term acquired a more speciic connotation. It
4
came to be used to reer to certain wealthy indiiduals elected by the people to act as
intermediaries between the local populace and oicials o the Porte, especially in
matters o inance, taxation, and military recruitment, as well as to shield them rom the
consequences o corruption. Neither their precise unctions nor the nature o these
elections are known, but it is clear that the a,av was an urban unctionary not ormally
recognized by the goernment, but reluctantly accepted. Oten powerul enough to
secure the remoal o a pasha who ignored their adice, they constituted an element o
municipal goernment. 1hroughout the eighteenth century, howeer, the a,av gradually
eoled into a powerul landed quasi-aristocracy. ,Sadat 192:346-,
2


1he outbreak o the war with Russia in 168 had orced the Porte to eentually grant
the a,av oicial status in exchange or otherwise unobtainable men and supplies. 1he
goernor ,rati, o the proince in which the a,av administered oer a township ,/aa,
conirmed the election by the award o a document upon payment o a ee, selling the
a,avti/ as a source o reenue. 1he /aai, preiously responsible or such duties as local
security, proisioning o towns and troops, and the collecting o taxes, was now
restricted to matters o Muslim law. 1he a,av had purchased tax-arming leases,
gradually conerted tax reenues into personal income, and eentually turned the land
itsel into an extralegal orm o priate property through the acquisition o deeds and
titles rom the peasants. \ith an increase in power, they resorted to armed mercenaries,
largely Albanians. 1he iftti/ ,arms, were conerted to commercial agriculture with the
introduction o new cash crops - principally cotton, wool, corn, tobacco, and wheat -
and it was on the basis o this economy that the export trade lourished, much o it
illegal, as the exportation o grain was generally orbidden by the Ottoman goernment.
,Sadat 192:349-52,

2
lor more comprehensie treatises on the a,av, see also Suceska ,1965, and Ozkaya ,1994,.
5

O course, all a,av were Muslims, but their backgrounds diered. Quataert ,2000:46-,
categorized the proincial notables into three groups, only two o which are releant or
the Balkans: 1, descendents o persons who had come to the area as centrally appointed
oicials, put down local roots,
3
and through negotiations with the central goernment
gained the legal right to stay, or 2, prominent notables whose amilies had been among
the local elites o an area beore the Ottoman period. In some cases the sultans had
recognized their status and power at the moment o incorporation, or example, as they
did with many great landholding amilies in Bosnia.`

Besides the a,av, McGowan ,1994:669, identiies a second elite, the by-product o
increased trade, as more consequential`: natie men o inluence appearing in more
than one guise - as merchants, as money-lenders, and sometimes as tax-collectors, and
landholders.` An interesting coalition between the Muslim a,av and the mostly Christian
merchants eoled. Comparing Ismail Pasha o Seres and Osman Pazantoglu at Vidin,
McGowan ,1994:666, notes that both were on good terms with the merchants and
tradesmen o their respectie towns, to whom they oered the best chance or security
and peace.` As long as the a,av were able to ulil their unction o supply and
protection, they and the merchants shared what Sadat ,192:355, called a communality
o ested interests`. I the peasants were the ictims o the a,av, the merchants were
their natural allies.
4


3
Quataert ,2000:46-, notes this as a marked iolation o central state regulations to the contrary` but
appends that central control indeed had neer been as extensie or thorough as the state`s own
declarations had suggested. Oicials did circulate rom appointment to appointment, but . not as oten
or regularly as the state would hae preerred. Nonetheless, such appointees to positions o proincial
authority, whether goernors or timar holders, remained in oice or shorter periods in the sixteenth and
seenteenth centuries and longer periods during the eighteenth century.`
4
Sadat ,192:356-, also noted another coalition, a strange triangle o Janissary-guild-ayan`, which
eoled |i|nused with the Bektashi mystique` when Muslim artisans enrolled in the Janissary corps,
proiding them with status and the right to bear arms, and the decay and corruption o the religious
6

It was a characteristic o the eoling Ottoman bourgeoisie that it came to be split along
religious lines: a non-Muslim commercial bourgeoisie and an Ottoman Muslim
bureaucratic bourgeoisie. Goek ,1996:34,3,44-45,, howeer, maintains that the social
status o both groups diered, that o the Ottoman merchants was signiicantly lower
than that o the administrators, who had the sultans` delegated authority or two
reasons. lirst, the Islamic religious attitude toward making large ortunes through usury
was negatie. Second, compared to the skilled labor o the artisans, the merchants`
proits rom charging interest were regarded as unearned gain, proiteering.` She urther
explains this with the Ottoman perception o material culture haing been

embedded in the Islamic maxims, which saw goods as a means to an end, as a means
to support onesel and one`s dependents without burdening others. It was not the social
art o procuring goods or the number o goods so procured that the Qur`an objected to.
Rather, it was the use to which these goods were put, the interpretations attached to
them, that the Qur`an oten took issue with: the goods had to be used piously, with
modesty. lor the beneit o society.`

Lewis ,1961:35,, on the other hand, explained this split less on religious grounds than
with the structure o the empire inherited:

In the military empire, at once eudal and bureaucratic, which they had created, the
Muslims knew only our proessions - goernment, war, religion, and agriculture.
Industry and trade were let in large measure to the non-Muslim subjects, who
continued to practise their inherited crats.
5
1hus the stigma o the inidel became

institution` did not lead to a secularization o Muslim society, as among the Christians, but to a more
oert expression o religious heterodoxy, the traditional Islamic orm o social protest.` She thus remarks
it as a contradiction that while the Bektashi and Janissaries were consolidating their reactionary coalition
with orthodoxy, the same Derish order was experiencing a reolutionary, interconessional reial in
Albania and northern Bulgaria.`
5
It should be mentioned that this statement certainly represents a iew which, in its total claim, has been
largely deconstructed in more recent scholarship successully demonstrating that considerable numbers o

attached to the proessions which the inidels ollowed, and remained so attached een
ater many o the cratsmen had become Muslim.`

1he Balkan merchant is o course not a phenomenon that appeared oernight.
Stoianoich ,1992:1, reminds us that the origins o an Orthodox Christian merchant
class in the Balkans can in act be traced back to the ourteenth and iteenth centuries,
but it was not until the eighteenth century that such a group became suiciently strong
in wealth and number to capture a good part o the trade o lungary, southern Russia,
and the eastern Mediterranean.` 1he commercial reolution o the seenteenth and
eighteenth centuries` ,Sadat 192:34, is een more astonishing as it deied the general
downward trend in the Ottoman economy. 1he turn rom prosperity to economic
depression had occurred between the 160s and 0s, and naturally also had a negatie
impact on construction and cultural actiity. Among the aected were the pious
oundations, which sustained not only mosques but schools, conents, and libraries, and
thereore were one o the pillars o cultural lie in the Ottoman Lmpire. In the
eighteenth century the state oten minimized payments or sometimes coniscated
properties to inance wars. 1he only solution let to the oundations to keep generating
income was to raise the rents o shops ,which oten ormed part o endowments,, but
this only bewildered the shop-leasing cratsmen, who were equally aected by the
economic crisis. As a consequence many endowments were not able to keep up serices,
some een ell into ruins, as there were no unds or repairs. But this also does not
mean that the Ottoman dynasty and the notables rerained rom endowing monumental
complexes ater 10, these just assumed more modest dimensions. ,laroqhi
1995:31,255-6, In the proinces the most signiicant building projects o this period are

Muslim merchants traded in Venice ,Kaadar 1986,, 1hessaloniki ,Ginio 2000,, and many other cities.
Dimitriadis ,2006:13, reports the 1urkish element` in mid-nineteenth century 1hessaloniki to hae
controlled as much as one third o the commercial actiity o the city.
8
not anymore patronized by centrally-appointed goernment oicials, but by sel-
appointed notables erecting monuments not in the praise o god or the Sultan but to
themseles.
9

3.2.J. Architectural patronage of the ayan and its place in Ottoman art
3.2.J.J. Ioannina under Ali Pasha

It is around 1800 and under the amously rebellious Ali Pasha that the city o Ioannina
in Lpirus achiees unprecedented prosperity. Goerned since the iteenth century by a
succession o pashas chosen rom same loyal local 1urkish amily, under Ali Pasha the
city was eleated to the most important town in Albania, i not in the whole o Greece,
with a population o about thirty thousand, mostly Greek and mostly engaged in trade`,
wrote Plomer ,190:48-9, in his 1be iov of ]avviva o 1936. Ali could not hae chosen
a more suitable place to establish himsel in than Jannina, its appearance being hal
splendid and hal squalid, its climate subject to sudden changes and iolent extremes, its
situation o great strategic alue, and its history consisting largely o acts o tyranny and
cruelty.` Ali was no exception, roasting personal enemies on the spit and burning to the
ground entire illages. \et, Skiotis ,191:223, appends, he was also inariably presented
as an enlightened and progressie ruler with a capacity, rare among his caste, to learn
and adapt rom the modernizing \est. Most oten mentioned are his achieements in
the ields o public order and security, justice, trade and commerce, transportation, and
education.` As most studies, howeer, hae concentrated on Ali the man, considerably
less inormation is aailable on the quasi-state he created.

At the peak o his power in 1812 he ruled oer a population o one and a hal million in
a large area north o Attica and south o the line Durrs-Bitola-1hessaloniki, and could,
in case o a crisis, ield 40,000 hardy mountaineers, generally considered among the
best troops in the Lmpire.` ,Skiotis 191:220, Aiming to be classed as a true world
80
ruler worthy o the accolades o a Napoleon`, he also set about to leae a physical mark
on his lands, as lleming ,1999:44-5, narrates:

Upon assuming the title o pasha o Ioannina |in 18|, he embarked on an ambitious
program o public works, building roads and lodges, improing communications routes,
and encouraging trade. |le| was clearly interested to some extent in portraying himsel
as a beneolent and protectie ruler who improed the lot o his people by opening
their lands and decorating them with architectural splendors ... Summer homes and
secondary residences were built or him in all major towns or tactical reasons and in
smaller illages or sentimental reasons. lor example, Ali built one o his most
sumptuous secondary residences in his natie illage o 1ebelen. In addition to
acilitating his |requent| traels, such structures proided the local population with a
physical reminder o its oerlord`s power oer them . Ali had tea-houses and lodges
established along the primary trael routes and paed the prime road rom Ioannina to
Preeza on the Adriatic coast. In 1804 Leake reported that the route between Ioannina
and 1rikkala had khans along its entirety, at interals o about one hour`s traeling time
. 1hese public works projects, along with the dramatic reduction in brigandry in the
area, made Ali`s territories accessible to oreign and domestic mercantilism.`

Conspicuously absent rom this account o Ali`s building projects are mosques, and Kiel
,198:548, sees the works o Ali Pasha as largely restricted to a number o castles
,Jannina, Preeza, Porto Palermo, Butrint, Gjirokastr, 1epelene, etc.` But we know
that, at least, Ali restored the late sixteenth-century lethiye mosque in 195 |Ill. 3..|,
located right next to his .ara,.
6
1he exterior is not particularly elaborate, but an
elongation must hae taken place during this rebuilding. 1he portal is a ery simple
recess raming a double-arched door ,the original portico has not been presered,. 1he

6
I not great palaces or mosques, seeral minor and utilitarian works are, howeer, indeed presered
rom Ali`s rule in Ioannina. 1hese include the huge caalry school ,Souari Sarai`, presently renoated to
house the city archies,, the power-magazine building, a ruined veare.e kitchen, and the building usually
identiied as treasury` and a stone-built kitchen house, both belieed to hae ormed party o Ali`s
palace. 1he mosque, veare.es, and tvrbes named ater a ounder Aslan ,Lion`, Pasha, howeer, do not
reer to Ali ,the Lion o Jannina`,, but date to a seenteeth century ruler. lrom Ali`s time urthermore
surie two commissions o his son Veli Pasha: the restoration o a mosque and the construction o a
medrese, both bearing his name.
81
octagonal drum ,supporting an eight-sided roo, a later replacement o a dome, is
especially high, and the windows are not anymore pointed but circular, as with other
proincial mosques o the period, and particularly in the wider Albanian region.
Noteworthy in this respect, howeer, are the slightly double-S cured oussoirs o the
windows on the ground loor. \e can thus notice some eatures known rom the
Ottoman Baroque` period in the capital, although generally the lethiye at Ioannina
bears little resemblance with the mosques built at Istanbul at the same time.

lor
someone like Ali Pasha, who challenged the Sultan`s soereignty, the dimensions o this
prominently located ediice are surprisingly modest.

On the other hand, his palace or rather palace complex` was anything but modest.
Destroyed in 1822, when Ali was oerthrown and beheaded by the Sultan`s orces,
illustrations and descriptions o this structure ortunately suried in the accounts o the
numerous westerners ,including Lord Byron, who isited the capital o this intriguing
ruler.
8
On these engraings |Ill. 3.4. & 3.5| we can see the extent o this complex,
unortunately, howeer, we cannot conirm what Cambridge`s Reerend lughes ,cit. in
Stoianoich 1992:35, noted in 1814, namely that the palaces o Ali and his two sons
were not only in the best style o 1urkish architecture` but, ar more interestingly, that
these were also painted in the most gaudy colours`.
9
\e also know the name o Ali`s

In the ile or this monument at the Cultural Library o Lpirus and Southern Albania`
,www.epcon.gr,interreg, we are inormed not only that two marble pillars in the lethiye mosque
probably came rom the Byzantine church o Archangel Michael, but also read o internal plastered or
painted decoration`, illustrations o which could, howeer, not be obtained or this study.
8
On western isitors at the court o Ali Pasha, see also Marinescu ,1998,.
9
Also Pouqueille ,1820:56, noted the palaces o Ali`s sons to be in the general mode o 1urkey` but
with the peculiarity o haing been adorned with paintings in resco, executed by Armenians,
productions perectly adapted by their absurdity to the taste o the princes their admirers. One, or
example, oer the entrance o Mouctar's palace, represents him surrounded by his guards, assisting at the
execution o a man suspended on a gibbet. 1his piece is not, howeer, held in such estimation by the
connoisseurs as another, exhibiting a landscape, in which his excellency appears in the midst o a groupe
o horses, oxen, mules, and asses - the usual society o that illustrious personage. In the palace o his
younger brother, Veli Pasha, the scenes are o a dierent character, camps, piles o human heads, colours,
82
chie architect, Petro Korari ,o Kor,, who is credited with many building projects,
including that o the .ara,s, seeral ortresses, and a mosque at Souli castle near Parga
,see Shuteriqi 198,.

Next to Ali, also Ioannina`s Greeks assumed a remarkably actie role in the patronage o
public commodities. lleming ,1999:48, gies the example o the prominent Zosimas
brothers who ounded institutions or higher education, endowed schools, and
underwrote the local priesthood. As a result, Ioannina came to gain such a reputation as
a place o letters that it attracted students rom throughout Greece. Virtually all
contemporary accounts agree with Miller`s assessment that to Ioannina Greece owes
the resurrection o education . All Greek authors were either naties o Ioannina or
pupils o the Ioannina school.`` Promer ,190:2, highlights the local Argyri amily,
whose head Anastasi had made a lot o money in trade and had used it well in arious
charitable and public serices: he had ounded a hospital, established a und or poor
prisoners, to whom he sent a hot dinner eery Sunday, and built roads and bridges. le
had been on excellent terms with Ali, who had treated him as a riend.` Llaborating on
Ali`s relationship with the local Christians, Promer ,190:55, writes: Unlike his
predecessors, he surrounded himsel with Albanians and Greeks. le liked the Greeks

sieges in which the bombs are larger than the houses. 1he cieling o his sleeping apartment exhibits at
once the sun, the moon, the stars, a comet with its blazing tail, and the thunderbolt darting athwart the
heaens. Aly's own palace is adorned in a much better style, with arabesques in good taste.` lrashri
,2006,, extrapolating rom Shuteriqi ,198, and traellers` accounts, describes the complex as ollows:
|1|he architectural ensemble at Ioannina Castle ,1805, destr. 1822,, consist|ed| o ie palaces ,seraglios,,
o which the Litharici and the Qoshk |~/,/| were recorded as the most beautiul. As in all his palaces,
the ground loors had ery high and thick stone walls, characteristic o the Albanian tower` type o house
... 1he upper storeys, which were lit by many big windows, contained: a hall o ceremonies, 49 m long in
the palace o Litharici, halls or entertaining Muslim guests, special pailions o octagonal design with
alcoes in the corners, as at the Qoshk, or entertaining non-Muslims, a hall or the ruler and the
members o his amily urnished in the local taste, rooms or the exhibition o trophies, and serants`
rooms. Marble was prealent in the interior, while the upper storey was painted on the exterior.
Stylistically the Ioannina ensemble combined Islamic and western Baroque elements, with orms rom the
18th-century Albanian town house. Ioannina was his |Korari`s| most representatie work, but the palace
,1806, destr. 1821, at Preeza, built with marble rom the ancient city o Nicopolis, was considered the
most beautiul o his palaces.`
83
because many o them were rich, and he appreciated their adaptability and suppleness o
character.`
80
A contemporary depiction o the Argyri amily`s mansion at Ioannina |Ill.
3.6.| illustrates how the residence o a wealthy local Greek must hae looked like. It
must also be due to the patronage o Ioannina`s well-to-do that, mentioned by
ladjimihali ,1949:32,, in 1800 also a cathedral` was built. laeyrial ,see Llsie
2001:23, urther mentions that in 1813 Ali himsel ordered a church to be built in
Calicoudsi` in honour o the Vlach-origin monk Cosmas who, beore being impaled
by Kurd Ahmet Pasha o Berat in 19, had predicted Ali`s great career which must
hae secure him Ali`s deotion.

Luropean traellers had recorded Ali Pasha`s Ioannina as a city o between 30,000-
50,000 inhabitants, with 16-19 mosques ,three o which surie,, 6-8 churches, 2
synagogues, and 5 te//es ,Araat 198:1,. Due to the deastating ire o 1869 we are
unortunately let with little insight on the urban architecture o Ioannina o this period
,c. Dimitriadis 199,, sae or what remains on depictions on engraings and
descriptions.
81
Cambridge`s Reerend lughes ,in Stoianoich 1992:25,, or example,
had in 1814 not noticed much diergence rom other Ottoman towns:

1he interior o the city, like all others in 1urkey, disappointed our expectations: its
houses are not built or external show: that part o them which is turned towards the
street consists almost entirely o bare wall . |S|till howeer a much greater degree o

80
It is also oten mentioned that Ali Pasha used Greek as the language o his court. According to one
traeller, Ali himsel could both read and speak Greek, while, next to his mother-tongue Albanian ,then
only a spoken language,, could read Ottoman. Greek was also the mother tongue o most local Muslims
,1urkoyaniots`,, probably or descending rom Christian .iabis conerted towards the mid-seenteenth
century. ,Anastassiadou 2004:282, Araat 198:18, Skiotis 191:22,
81
Nonetheless we know o at least one presered example o residential architecture rom Ali`s period:
the louse o the Despot`, the residence o a 1urkish amily, eaturing an arched stone-staircase entrance
so typical or Albania. 1his eature can also be seen at the equally well-presered Ottoman-period library-
building.
84
neatness and stability was isible in the habitations o Ioannina than in those o any
other city we hae yet isited.`

Comparing western traellers` descriptions o places in 1hessaly and neighbouring
Lpirus rom around 1800, McGowan ,1994:00, comes to conclude that the degree o
oreign inluence upon these merchants was uneen`. 1he isitor to a Vlach illage o
1hessaly had reported that |t|he wealthier inhabitants are merchants, who resided
abroad many years ... and who, ater a long absence, return with the ruits o their
industry to their natie towns, which they thus enrich, and in some degree, ciilize.` A
contemporary isitor to Ioannina, howeer, judged that |t|he domestic manners o the
Greeks o Ionnina |sic| hae in general been little aected by the long residence o
many o the merchants in oreign countries. 1hey are almost identical with those o the
1urks`. Lpirus, in act, already had a long history o international trade, with nearby
Italy in particular, and Venice as the primary link. Many wealthy Ioannite amilies
maintained residences both in Ioannina and abroad. As a result o the proisions rom
the Kk Kaynarca treaty with Russia, the Greeks shipping magnates prospering in
Black Sea trade maintained Ioannina as a natural hub, which made the city share in their
increased wealth. I lleming ,1999:46, then writes that its trade reoled to a good
extent around the import o luxury items rom the west, it would be sae to assume that
some o the items remained in the salons o Ioannina`s merchants. Ali`s strategy to keep
the commercial connections rom being transerred elsewhere through emigration was,
reportedly, to not allow a whole amily to leae the area. In that way the remaining
members ,and their property, would guarantee return ,Araat 198:18,.
85

3.2.J.2. Vidin under Osman Pazvantoglu

1he second most oten mentioned a,av o the Balkans is Osman Pazantoglu ,also
Pasanoglu, o Vidin.
82
By the mid-190s he had established himsel as the leading
power in the northern Balkans, controlling much o the area between Belgrade and
Ldirne. Zens, who holds that Pazantoglu prepared the ground or the Serbian uprising
in the same way that 1epedelenli Ali Pasha laid the oundation or the Greek reolution
o 1820, sees the dierence to other a,av in the Balkans in the strategic alue o
Pazantoglu`s land and capital`, Vidin. Not only did it enjoy easy access to
neighbouring \allachia, Serbia, and the Austrian border, it was also central to many o
the trade and communication routes o the region. \hen Ottoman orces besieged
Osman`s ortress on the Danube in 198, he could hold out or eight months,
undeeated, as the ailing siege was unable to preent supplies and ood rom crossing
the Danube into the city. le continued to ortiy Vidin and ormed a militia o 12,000
loyal and well-trained soldiers o arious backgrounds - Albanians, Bulgarians,
Bosnians, 1urks, allegedly een lrench oicers and soldiers, as the British belieed -
and paid them himsel rom the taxes he leied. 1he promise o lower taxes was chie
reason he enjoyed the support o the rea,a, whereby he also collected additional
reenues by continually raiding \allachia and eastern Serbia. lor many ormer
janissaries the lie o brigandage he oered was more appealing than arming or liing
o a meagre salary. Not only because o his enormous wealth and prestige, he came to
see himsel as the greatest o the a,av in the Balkans, but also on account o the arious

82
As Bajraktareic ,2004:284, stresses, not Osman but in act his ather was an a,av. Osman himsel
became the de-acto ruler o the Vidin a,ati/ not by appointment but by orce. 1he use o the term a,av
remains ambiguous, as must be stressed, but there is no place or a more detailed discussion here. lor
brie discussions on terminology, see also Skiotis ,191, and Sadat ,192,.
86
communications he had with oreign enoys. Both lrance and Russia sought to
establish a consulate in his city. ,Zens 2002:83,93-4,99,103,

Although, as Zens ,2002:96, reeals, in 194 alone the ,e,bvti.tav in Istanbul had issued
our fetra calling or his capture and annihilation o this rebel and godless traitor` who
had no respect or any authority or Islam, it is to the Bosnian-origin Osman that
Ianoa ,2004b:20, relates the lorescence o Vidin as a centre o Islamic culture`.
83

But next to the construction o a mosque, a veare.e, and a library, Ianoa also mentions
that he repaired the our main roads going out o Vidin and regulated the city street
network, proided the town with cbe,ve. or ountains, as well as a vo.tv/ and Sebil with
an ice-house |and built| a stone tomb o the local hero o 1urkish olklore, Salaheddin
Baba.` 1he most unusual o his building projects, howeer, were probably the barracks
constructed in cruciorm shape between 198-1801 by lrench and Polish builders
,Ugrino 2004:35, or Pazantoglu`s garrison.
84


1he mosque |Ill. 3.8.|, built by ,and named ater, him in 1800-1, has a dedication to his
ather Omer and an inscription or which the poet Mahir was commissioned ,Ianoa
2004b:20, as well as a ew other noteworthy eatures. Instead o the more slender
Ottoman porticoes, Osman`s mosque is entered through a massie arcade with square

83
At the same time he is not unpopular among the Greeks, or he irst saed the Greek reolutionary and
poet Rigas leraias ,Velestenlis,, with whom he had riendly and close relations, rom the engeance o the
\allachian prince ,in whose domain Osman plundered,, and later, this time unsuccessully, tried to sae
him rom being strangled by the Ottoman authorities in Belgrade. Rigas had come to know lrench
reolutionary ideas among the Greeks o Vienna, and maybe it is thus due to his inluence that Punde
,1994:104, writes o Osman issuing maniestoes in the phraseology o the lrench Reolution to win
popular support`. Oddly, he adds: Pazantoglu helped to spread the message o liberty, equality, and
raternity.`
84
1he /ova/ at Vidin, most probably the one identiied by Mijate ,198:22, as the /ova/ o Inceli
Ahmet Bey Zogu` ,now the municipal museum,, also dates rom the second hal o the eighteenth
century, but rom beore Osman`s time. 1hat it, howeer, looks as dating rom the mid-nineteenth
century is reportedly due to a late nineteenth century reconstruction in which it acquired some elements
rom Bulgarian National Reial architecture. ,c. http:,,dutch.discoer-bulgaria.com,Articles.aspx
ProductID~281,
8
columns, oer which we see not a dome but a our-sided roo. Although the oerall
appearance o the structure is rather bulky and modest, ceilings and doors are adorned
with wood-carings. Lckert ,1989:25, also mentions that the minaret is not topped by
a crescent but with a heart, and relates this with the will to pronounce independence
rom the Sultan. Stajnoa ,199:61, also mentions that the Ak Cami` was repaired by
Osman in 199-1800, as an inscription on the building ,presumably demolished in the
1980s, reealed.

1he library |Ill. 3.9.|, built in compound with the mosque and, according to Stajnoa
,199:60,, close to his /ova/, is also a ery simple building holding a domed square
room entered through a stone-made porch, topped by a small dome and resting on two
columns. 1he inscription, ramed with stylized loral ornaments consisting o tulips and
patterns o interlaced leaes and also composed by Mahir, who mentions the building as
one o the useul works accomplished` by Osman ,transl. in Stajnoa 199:64,, gies
the building date as 1802-3, but more interesting is that the library was in act a public
library bringing together all books accumulated in the town, with the donation o the
Pazantoglu amily as core collection ,Ianoa 2004b:20,. Stajnoa ,199:66-, stresses
that it in act was a court library`, as Osman wished it to be known in the inscription,
and moreoer comes to call it a amily` monument, as Osman dedicated the library to
his ather, so that his soul may rest in peace`, not in his |own| praise, as was customary
in Ottoman building practice.`
88

3.2.J.3.. Shkodr and Prizren under the Bushatli and Rotulla

In the Albanian lands, seeral powerul local amilies came to the oreground as well
between the 150s and 1830s. 1he Rotullu dynasty ruled Prizren, while Prishtina and
Gjilan ,Gnjilane, were ruled by the Gjinolli, who became so powerul in the early
nineteenth century that they were called the second rulers o Kosoo ater the Sultan.
But only one local dynasty could ,and did, rial and challenge the power o the Sultan,
the Bushatli, who ruled rom 15 to 1831. Mehmed Bushatli came to power as
goernor o the Shkodr sancak ,incl. areas in western Kosoo, in 15. An
independent-minded indiidual, his plans were subsequently resumed by his son
Mahmut upon his death in 15. 1he latter succeeded in conquering parts o southern
Albania and Kosoo a decade beore he died in 196. 1hat |p|opular history in the
\est has taken too little interest in this extraordinary man, compared with the attention
it has laished on his southern counterpart, Ali Pasha`, Malcolm explains with the act
that he was neer isited by Romantic Lnglish traellers.` ,Malcolm1998:15-6,

lis main architectural legacy is the Kursunlu Camii ,alb. `bavia e Ptvvbit, |Ill. 3.10.|, the
largest mosque o Albania, and an exceptional building also in other respects. Built in
13,4 by Bushatli Mehmed Pasha Plaku, the ounder o the inamous Bushatli amily,
it was clearly inspired by the Sultanic mosques o Istanbul, as the otherwise rare
courtyard layout suggests.
85
Kiel ,1990a:231, suggests that such orms were chosen by
Mehmed to demonstrate his power, the vibrab was inspired by Sinan`s works, and the

85
More speciically about the inspiration is the In your pocket instant guide` or Shkodr ,2006:23,,
which claims the model to hae been the Sultanahmet mosque. Gien the relatiely modest dimensions o
the mosque at Shkodr, this is o course a brae comparison.
89
conseratie, sharply pointed Ottoman arches are in contrast to that o most mosques
built in this period which returned` to semi-circular arch orms.
86
But the mosque was
not to be the only embellishment Mehmed commissioned or his town. le also
established a large ar,i complete with veare.e and library ,Lyice 196:6, see also Luzati
1998,, but the location was not wisely chosen. llooded eery year, the town eentually
had to be moed to where the modern city stands at present. Kiel ,1990a:231, also dates
the walls o the Shkodr ortress to the same period, the last quarter o the eighteenth
century, and notes that the decoratie niches aboe each centre arch o the gates,
eaturing tulips and an accolade arch reminding us o the works o the Lale Deri` but
preiously thought to be Venetian, are also really the eighteenth century work o the
Bushatli dynasty.

In Prizren, despite intererences by the Bushatli o Shkodr, the Rotulla amily had
remained in power since the 10s. lrom 1809-36 the town was ruled by Mahmut
Pasha, the most important o this dynasty, who erected a large mosque, a ve/teb, a
veare.e, and also rebuilt the mosque in the Prizren castle. le ought in the suppression
o the Serbian and Greek reolts, but then sided with Mustaa Bushatli and was deeated
by Ottoman orces. lis brother Lmin Pasha Rotulla succeeded him and remained in
charge till his death in 1843, without heir, and the rule o the amily ended. In 1831
Lmin constructed the last great mosque o Prizren, named ater himsel, and a ourth
veare.e.
8
,Kiel 2004:339, Interestingly, the architecture o the ormer ollows the model
o the local Sou Sinan Pasha mosque rom 1614,5. In the interior we ind painted

86
Kiel ,1990a:204-5, also noted dierent construction techniques in north Albania rom those used by
the masters rom the Pindos mountains in the middle and south o the country. In the north, and the
examples he gies are the 10s Kursunlu at Shkodr and the 1830s mosque o Abdurrahman at Peqin,
these appear more Dalmatian.
8
\hen the e,atets were reorganized in the 1840s, Prizren then replaced Skopje as the .avca/ capital,
whereby the town grew considerably, and was considered by some to be the capital o Albania.` ,see
Kiel 2004:339, and 1990a,
90
landscapes ,including a mosque, trees, curtains, etc., stretching around the lower parts
o the domes and semi-domes. 1he Sou Sinan Pasha mosque, on which that o Lmin
Pasha was modelled, is painted in a ery similar mode, and must hae been decorated at
the same time and probably by the same artist |Ill. 3.32-3|. 1he paintings already display
a ery realistic mode o depiction, and are rather dierent rom the interiors o other
mosques in Kosoo or Albania ,which will be discussed in greater detail in the next
section,. Blue takes a much more important place, while elsewhere black, yellow, and
red appear to predominate.
91

3.2.J.4. Preliminary conclusion and a note on Mehmet Ali's klliye in
Kavala

In conclusion, we note that there was no thing as a typical a,av mosque`, as the greatly
diering designs herein discussed show. Closest to contemporary trends in Istanbul, and
this only due to some rather minor eatures ,arches on ground loor, elongation,, is the
mosque Ali Pasha ,re-,built next to his palace complex in Ioannina. 1he Pasantoglu
mosque at Vidin clearly had no imminent Constantinopolitan model in mind, and is
massie and simple instead o playul or elaborate. 1he mosque o Lmin Pasha at
Prizren was simply modelled ater the early seenteenth century mosque o Sinan Pasha,
which still dominates the town`s skyline. Bushatli`s Kursunlu mosque at Shkodr
intentionally ollowed an outdated model, that o the classical sixteenth-century sultanic
/vtti,e in the capital, not to underline allegiance to the Sultan, but to stress own
greatness.
88


1he architecturally most interesting building project o this period, howeer, was
patronized by an Albanian whose sel-reliance proed equally problematic or the
Ottoman rulers. Mehmet Ali was not an a,av, but neertheless came to rule Lgypt in
much o the irst hal o the nineteenth century. 1he /vtti,e |Ill. 3.11-3.16| he
commissioned to be built in his hometown o Kaala, while he himsel resided in Cairo,
is an unusually grand architectural statement or the period and its diicult
circumstances. 1he date o construction is usually gien as 1800-11 ,c. 1uran and

88
Another example o a suriing mosque built by a wealthy Bulgarian a,av, which could not be included
but should be mentioned, is the Saat Cami ,in reerence to the nearby clock tower, at 1argoiste ,trk. Lski
Cuma, built by a certain Mollazade. It is the only o ormerly 16 ,admittedly much more primitie,
mosques to surie ,Kiel 1990b:112,.
92
Ibrahimgil 2001:121, Ayerdi 1982:236-,, but the latter also mentioned an inscription
reading 1808 on the door. \hile 1uran and Ibrahimgil ,2001:122, report that all
buildings are in the Ottoman Baroque` style, Sezgin ,193:115-6, identiies
characteristics rom two dierent periods: a ery classical appearance o veare.e and
ivaret ,kitchen or the poor,, while the mosque reportedly ollows the Ottoman
Baroque`. Most remarkably, the eae o the drum swings with the windows, a eature
that can be seen at the 169 Zeynep Sultan mosque in Istanbul, but is much more
typical o medieal Orthodox churches in the Balkans and Byzantium ,e.g. the twelth-
century church o St Nicholas at Kursumlija, Serbia,. 1he outer wall acing the citadel is
cured around the portals in a way similar to that around the Nuruosmaniye, with which
it also shares the eleated lateral arches on all ours sides, but their saddle-orm is closer
to Byzantine prototypes, and with the traditional portico in ront o it, the sea aade
achiees a similar eect as the 1830s catholicon o the Rila monastery. 1here is no
inormation about the architect, but Sezgin ,193:118, beliees it to hae been a
1urkish architect`, and indirectly goes as ar as suggesting the Armenian-origin
architect Krikor Balyan, who had been commissioned with seeral residences and also
the Nusretiye mosque during the reign o Mahmud II. But with the Nusretiye we can
see only ery ew similarities, or it represents already another stage in Ottoman
architecture, and it moreoer appears rather unlikely that a court architect would hae
built a structure in a proincial town or an indiidual like Mehmet Ali, who by 1800
really was not yet likely to hae been in the position to patronize such a project. Born
the son o a soldier and tobacco trader, and a mother rom the amily o the town
goernor, Mehmet Ali most probably did not dwell in poerty. But it was only in 1801
that he was among the contingent recruited in Kaala to join the Ottoman orces in
Lgypt, becoming deputy-commander o an Ottoman-Albanian battalion dispatched to
ight the lrench in Lgypt. Only then began his spectacular rise, appointed ,or
93
acknowledged` as, iceroy o Lgypt in 1805, and it was only ater his /vtti,e at Kaala
was supposedly inished, thereby ater the 1810s, that Mehmet came to enjoy a peak o
power ,c. 1oledano 2004,. 1hat Kiziltoprak ,2006, gies the date o the ra/fi,e
,oundation deed, o the complex as 1813 inally proes impossible the year 1800 as the
date o the start o construction. 1he date 181-21, gien in a restoration report by the
Imaret lotel` ,2006,I:1,, into which it has been transormed in recent years, appears
much more reasonable in terms o the buildings` architectural character as well. 1he
authors o this report equally belieed the turco-baroque inluences` to be an indicator
that the architect should hae been rom Istanbul`. Ater all, Mehmet Ali had also
commissioned seeral Greek and 1urkish artists rom Istanbul to decorate his palaces in
Cairo ,Renda 1998:106-8,. lis identiication with things Ottoman, despite his
questionable allegiance to the Sultan, becomes most apparent in his better-known
building project o the 1840s Muhammad Ali mosque at Cairo, which had renounced
the post-Mamluk mainstream that had preiously characterized Cairene architecture or
a more Ottoman appearance.
89
I these two projects are compared, the one in Cairo is
much more the monument o a ruler, while that at Kaala, low-rise and distinguished by
its social-educational and not primarily religious or representatie unction, is that o a
beneactor.
90


Mehmet Ali`s buildings in Kaala, though at some point certainly in a deplorable shape,
suried in a country that was not particularly ond o presering its Ottoman past or
the simple reason that Mehmet, a local, openly challenged the Sultan`s authority. lis

89
On Mehmet Ali and the arts, see also \iet ,1949,.
90
Beldiceanu-Steinherr and Giannopoulos ,2004:6, cite an Ottoman document that reeals that he had
the reenues o the nearby island o 1hassos assigned or the upkeep o his endowment at Kaala,
including a school, a madrasa , a mosque, a library and a soup-kitchen ,imaret`,. It is indicatie o the
social unction that characterized this structure that it came to be known as Mehmet Ali`s Imaret`, not
Mehmet Ali`s mosque`.
94
/ova/ seres as a museum, his tomb remains in the yard, and next to a neo-Byzantine
church o questionable appeal he is represented with an equestrian statue. But not all o
the independent-minded notables in the Balkans hae enjoyed a similar aterlie. laroqhi
,1995:260, rightully noted that, as these notables` commissions were built with the goal
to underline their power and position, this was also exactly the reason why many o
those buildings closely associated with indiiduals ell into ruins or were een torn down
ater they lost their power. 1he a,av remain as a symbol o the centre`s inability to
eectiely control een the least distant regions, and this period has thus been labelled
as a period o imperial decay, with the a,av as its motor. But how was it really or
ordinary subjects to lie under their rule

\enisehirlioglu ,2006:321,326,, in her article on the architectural patronage o a,av
amilies in Anatolia, arries at a ar less negatie conclusion than most Ottomanists`
assessment o deelopments in the age o the a,av: Villages and towns lourished under
their patronage and in some cases whole geographical areas were populated or the irst
time under their authority.` 1he patronage o the Karaosmanogullari amily ,Aegean
Anatolia,, or example, coers a large range o building actiities and demonstrates
how this notable amily elt the need to proide or arious aspects o social and cultural
lie o the region, and endowed and distributed parts o their income or this purpose.`
Is the centro-centric` approach to the role o the a,av in Ottoman cultural history to
be re-ealuated

I we urther compare the patronage o a,av in Ottoman Lurope with that o their Asian
counterparts we ind that in the Balkans there is no example like the palace o Ibrahim
Pasha at Dogubeyazit ,on the 1urkish-Iranian border,, a real palace on which three
generations o Pashas had built until 184, and which curiously shows ornament in
95
Baroque spirit consciously merged with Seljuk rather than Ottoman orms imported
rom Istanbul ,laroqhi 1995:260,. 1he actual conclusion to this section must be that,
just as many sub-topics in this thesis, the architectural patronage o the Rumeli a,av
would merit a separate study, also in order to proide or more than the supericial and
ragmentary surey o monuments produced by them that could be compiled here. Such
undertaking would also be necessary to support the argument that, as it appears rom
the pictures o interiors and architectural details compiled, largely rom preious studies,
by \enisehirlioglu ,2006,, somewhat paradoxically, a Baroque` spirit may in act hae
been more apparent in the a,av architecture in the Asian parts o the empire than in the
Luropean ones.

96
3.2.2. 1he 1hessalo-Lpirote-Macedonian region in the last quarter of the
eighteenth century

\hile in the chapter coering the second quarter o the nineteenth century
deelopments in 1hrace will take the most prominent place, or the last third o the
eighteenth century the ocus inariably shits to the west o the peninsula, more
concretely an area coering the historic regions o Lpirus, 1hessaly, and ,mostly the
western part o, Macedonia. 1he reason is the emergence o an Orthodox merchant
class in this part o the Balkans which, according to Stoianoich ,1992:42, produced
more carters and merchants in the eighteenth century than any other Balkan area o
comparable size.` 1he Macedo-Vlach` merchants o this region had in act traded with
Italy and engaged in trans-imperial commerce beore the eighteenth century but, as held
by Stoianoich ,1992:63,, they did not achiee distinction until the 1reaty o
Passarowitz ,118,. Kienitz ,192:259, names seeral actors or the deelopment o
Greek` commerce in the eighteenth century: a longer absence o wars with Austria
ater the peace o 139, the loss o Venice as a serious competitor, and, last and
probably least, a desire or oriental` goods at the western Luropean courts
,1urquerie`,.

\hile McGowan ,1994:669, asserts that in many places, as at Larissa and Salonica, it
was common practice or such prosperous amilies to buy protection rom some
powerul Muslim`, industry could thrie in a ew geographically isolated communities
let alone by bandits and goernments alike. In the second hal o the century
Macedonia and 1hessaly may hae exported roughly hal o their grain, cotton and
tobacco production. Local merchants, mainly Greeks and Vlachs, held a quasi
9
monopoly on the oerland export o wool and cotton to western markets. As Luropean
merchants were unamiliar with the ways and languages o the Ottoman peoples they
depended on local brokers and carters to dispose o their merchandise in the Balkan
interior as well.
91
1he newly acquired wealth resulted in the replacement o ormerly
modest huts with more representatie dwellings urnished in the 1urkish manner` but
already with reerence to the \est, oten Vienna, which they had come to know
abroad.
92
,Stoianoich 1992:21-22,41, As or the mechanisms o inluence and actors o
transormation in the process o dislocation, \alkey ,1990:119, had concluded the
ollowing:

|1|hose liing abroad were to be heaily inluenced by the artistic and ormal ideas o
the countries in which they ound themseles. Returning home or in simply remitting
money to improe the amily home, they would leae instructions to the master builder
to include such-and-such an element, such-and-such detail. \ith the owner`s
description, and with the builder`s knowledge ,either rom his own traels or word o
mouth within the Guild, this request would be translated into the new house in an
appropriate and oten daring way.`

In the late eighteenth century, in act, a whole quarter o Ottoman exports went to
Austria ,c. Goek 1994:88,, where Greek` colonies had emerged in major towns.
Ottoman residents in Vienna numbered 50-60 in 160, but Stoianoich ,1992:56,
estimates that by 183 they must hae increased to perhaps een ten times this
number`. 1he Balkan merchants in the labsburg lands did, howeer, not come rom

91
Luropean merchants hae usually preerred to deal with Ottoman Christians rather than Muslims in
their trade enterprises, which has oten been explained as a preerence on religious grounds. Rather, they
chose to deal with non-Muslim merchants because they were araid that contracts entered into with an
Ottoman Muslim would be struck down in an Islamic court, where the word o a Muslim was worth more
than that o a Christian ,see Goek 1996:9,. An additional reason must hae been that Ottoman
Christians were simply more likely to be ersed in Luropean languages than their Muslim co-subjects.
92
Conersely, also merchants rom Vienna came to settle in the Ottoman Balkans in the late eighteenth
century, as the example o the Jewish Arie amily ,Samoko, demonstrates. 1his, howeer, should hae
been an exception.
98
the wretched illages o Macedonia`, as some had speculated, but mostly rom the
upland communities o the Lpirote-Macedonian-1hessalian region ,Stoianoich
,1992:38,. It was not merely coincidental that the wealthier Greek merchants resided in
cities outside the Ottoman Lmpire ,e.g. Vienna, 1rieste, Amsterdam, or, in the words
o Stoianoich ,1992:52,, both person and property were insecure in 1urkey and thus
both person and property like good money` oten led to areas o greater security. |A|
balance between the accumulation and concentration o capital could not be achieed in
the Ottoman Lmpire. As a result, both the prospect o Ottoman economic growth were
thwarted and irtually eliminated until the middle o the nineteenth century.` Gien the
circumstances, it was ery diicult or a group to succeed more than locally. Ottoman
mercantile capital was large and growing, but also widely dispersed, and a good part o it
was externalized, dierted to other states.
93
A part o the amily, howeer, always
remained on Ottoman territory.

1he classical example is the 1hessalian town ,oten illage`, o Ambelakia. In 18 its
inhabitants organized themseles as a joint-stock company or the purpose o exporting
cotton yarn, spun and dyed in the community, to Germany and Austria.
94
lrom ewer
than 1,500 inhabitants in 183, it grew to 6,000 in only two decades o prosperity
,Stoianoich 1992:18,21,. Kienitz ,192:261, sees it as an indicator or the intensie

93
Stoianoich ,1992:21-2, appends: \hen, at the close o the eighteenth century, a number o Greeks
opened soap, macaroni, or other actories,` they ounded the new entures more requently in the ports
and towns o the Ukraine or southern Russia than in their natie towns.` Sadat ,192:355, holds the
1urkish habit o coniscation` accountable to hae discouraged conspicuous consumption and,or
inestment . Commercial capital was either reinested in trade or sent abroad.`
94
Jelaich ,1983:16, calls Vienna the major center` o Greek cultural reial in the eighteenth century.
It was also in the labsburg metropolis that the irst Greek journal appeared in 193 ,Ortayli 1994:101,,
while Greek books were printed there already since 183 ,Jelaich 1983:16,. Also the irst Bulgarian`
printed book with a purely secular content, the tevatografia o lristior Zearoic, had been published in
Vienna in 114 ,Macdermott 1962:61,. Ortayli ,1994:34,2, sees the reason or Austria assuming such an
important role in the cultural deelopment o the Balkan Christians in the eighteenth century in that the
labsburg Lmpire under Maria 1heresia turned its attention rom western to Southeast Lurope. In part,
he explains the attraction as due to the cultural lourishing o western Slas in the empire.
99
relations Ambelakia had with the German-speaking world that one o the leading
amilies ,the Maroi, had their last-name translated into the German Schwar,t,z`.
95
It
is thus the Georgios Schwartz` mansion |Ill. 3.1. & 3.18.| that seres as architectural
monument to Ambelakia`s golden age. More than its architecture, it is the interior which
impresses in its richness o painted decoration ,including depictions o Istanbul and
Venice, in a style whose genesis will be discussed later in this chapter. 1he Schwartz
mansion is urther interesting because we know in this case how long it took or an
elaborate house like this to be completed: ie years ,~seasons, or the building, and
three years or painting and decoration ,\alkey 1990:188,.
96


Just like Ambelakia, the 1hessalian towns o 1yrnaos and nearby 1saritsani lourished
through trade with textile,
9
while Kastoria and Siatista, both in Macedonia ,which really
made no dierence at that time,, dealt with ur.
98
Metsoo in the Pindos mountains, on
the other hand, was wealthy not because o local production but because o trade
actiity o its more successul sons ,such as the Aero amily, abroad ,Kienitz

95
1he communication between Ambelakia and Vienna was directly maintained through a courier serice,
circulating eery 15 days and ia Zemun ,near Belgrade,. 1raellers had also reported the presence o
Germans` in the mountain illages` o that region ,spouses, and that German was generally`
understood. In this area many German loanwords hae been presered into the twentieth century,
including many words related to household items and urniture, such as "irhan" ,rom German
"Vorhang" ~ curtain,. See 1urczynski ,1959:23-6 and re.,
96
According to Bammer ,1982:35-6, and re., it was in act built between 18 and 198 ,equalling 11
years, which again does not imply that it could hae not been built and decorated at dierent times within
this period, and by the team o Ioannis Xarbinos, presumably a local to the region. O the painter-
decorator only the initials L. L.` are known. Built as the residence o the Ambelakia cooperatie, the
Schwartz mansion also uctioned as the headquarters o which in this institution`s our decades o
existance ,18-1820,.
9
1he success o these towns is explained by Lawless ,19:523, through that both enjoyed judicial and
administratie autonomy granted to them at the time o the 1urkish conquest.` More speciically on this
matter, see Kiel ,1996,.
98
Interestingly, already by the late seenteenth century Lliya (elebi reported the houses in Kastoria's
Christian quarter to be grand seraglios o a strange and curious nature. All the houses on the shores o
the lake possess boatsheds and enclosed balconies. 1he seraglios are mansions with ports, and with one
loor aboe the other in the Constantinople style.` ,cited rom http:,,www.macedonian-
heritage.gr,lellenicMacedonia,en,C3.4.1.html,
100
192:260,263,. Ater 1800, howeer, the total number o Greek merchants in Central
Lurope declines ,Stoianoich 1992:56,. German markets, and then een the Ottoman
markets, came to preer the cheaper British cotton, but also the Napoleonic wars did
their part. In 1811 Ambelakia was annexed and heaily damaged by Ali Pasha ,a ate
shared by Moschopolis decades earlier,, and 1yrnaos and 1saritsani were haunted by
epidemics in 1813. Jakob Philip lallmerayer ,in Kienitz 192:261-2, obsered in 1841,2
that one third o 1yrnaos` houses had disappeared since the beginning o the century,
and parts o the town had transormed into ields and pastures. 1he legacy o this
period and this new` merchant class in the southwest Balkans, howeer, are a
considerable number o their mansions to this day. More than on the aades, their
ormer wealth can be seen in the oten highly ornate interiors, mostly showing the same
decoratie program as those elsewhere in the empire ,to be discussed in the next
section,.
99


In only ew cases, at least in Greece, we also ind paintings on the aade, an example
being the Poulkos mansion in Siatista |Ill. 3.21 & 3.22| which, built in the 150s, must
hae been one o the earliest examples o a wealthy house in this town. In terms o
architecture it is a typical Ottoman house` with a ground loor o stone, a plastered
upper loor with projections, and a rather lat roo with oerhanging eaes. Next to the
top windows, which are exceptionally large ,almost as large as the lower windows,, we
ind painted decoration ,not necessarily rom the same date,: ships and geometric motis
which, i we ignore the Christian cross o course, are closer to those ound it earlier
mosque interiors than to the later merchant houses o Plodi. In the bas o,n,das`
,main room, rom trk. ba,oaa, we ind another curiosity: \hile depictions o

99
Bammer ,1982:125, suspects that the laish use o colours in these houses was also conditioned by that
many o the owners entertained cotton mills and tanneries, whereby otherwise expensie colours could be
used extensiely and cost-eiciently.
101
Constantinople are a requent eature o mural paintings in /ova/s o the late eighteenth
century and beyond, here it appears as i the city is depicted during the Ottoman
conquest o Constantinople, which could be suggested rom the lack o minarets, while
the red dragons lying in a darkened sky may represent the malicious conquering orces.
It should be noted, howeer, that such depiction is an absolute exception. In Christian
as well as Muslim houses usually a harmonic Ottoman Istanbul, complete with minarets
and mosques, is depicted. 1hese examples surie in a ew mansions in this region,
most notably at Kozani, Kastoria, and Siatista.

102
3.3. New trends in architectural decoration
3.3.J. 1ransformations in Ottoman art and its dissemination to the
provinces

1he most signiicant change in the embellishment o residential and religious spaces
around 1800 occurs not in architecture itsel but in architectural decoration. Renda
,19:263, 198:11, attributes this marked change to an interest in Luropean
architectural motis which started at the beginning o the eighteenth century. Painted
loral decoration, mostly consisting o bowls o ruits or panels o lowers, could be
ound on the walls o residences already in the seenteenth century, but it is in the
second hal o the eighteenth century that this genre comes to be replaced by a more
monumental type o mural painting, applied directly on plaster. Among the new motis
are most prominently landscapes, oten topographical representations o Istanbul,
depictions o mosques, and less oten other towns, all enramed in Baroque motis.
Although this kind o painted decoration had been well documented by Luropean
traellers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was not taken up as a serious
subject o study until the 190s. In opposition to the lack o interest encountered
among scholars until that date, Renda ,19:265, insists on its signiicant role in the
history o 1urkish art, or it represents the phase o transition rom the ,rom that point
on declining, art o miniature painting, used in the illustration o handwritten books, to
painting in the western sense, on canas. Gien that in the Ottoman house` decoration
was a program o the interior and not the aade, as preiously discussed, this trend
unquestionably deseres mention as an important phenomenon in the architecture and
isual culture o the late Ottoman Balkans.

103
Because the irst examples o this style are ound in Istanbul, Renda ,19:263,
concludes that this art was initiated in the capital. 1he earliest examples date rom the
mid-eighteenth century, with murals in the 1opkapi Saray`s barev section orming the
largest group. But also outside in the palace, or example in the 150 /ova/ o an
Armenian amily o notables, narrow riezes with landscape elements can be ound. In
the proinces, the earliest known example o rieze-type landscapes was ound in a
residence in Bursa dating rom 168 ,Renda 198:14,. In the later hal o the century
also larger compositions ramed with Baroque cartouches came to be aoured, but
notwithstanding size or orm, the content remains similar: seaside mansions or small
kiosks on the Golden lorn or the Bosphorus, bridges or ountains, boats, and birds.
1he colours are restricted to shades o green, brown, and blue. In the techniques
employed, Renda ,19:263,265, sees a deinite indication that the artists were aware o
western methods o perspectie`. 1he reason or the speciic choice o landscapes,
while eidently approaching western modes o expression, she suggests, lie in social and
religious restrictions on monumental representations o the human igure, as well as
certain Ottoman traditions in topographical painting. \estern commentators, as
illustrated by Kreiser ,198:549-51,, had reiewed this restriction on igural
representation as the main obstruction to the emergence o a successul` school o
painting in the Ottoman Lmpire. le, howeer, could locate only a ew` examples o
/aai protocols in which a non-Muslim is adised to dispense with images` ,probably
reerring to icons, and an altar in his home.

Problematic in the study o this kind o art, Renda ,19:264-5, admits to the diiculty
o identiying the artists responsible or these paintings, as inormation is scarce or non-
existent, een or the royal residences, where these artists igure neither in archies nor
payrolls. But as there is no eidence o oreign artists until the mid-nineteenth century,
104
she concludes that at least the earlier examples were certainly works o local artists,
probably trained in the Istanbul workshops under oreign inluence. Notwithstanding
the ethno-conessional origins o patrons or artists, these works display a strong unity in
expression in a ast territory between the Danube and the Nile. Renda`s surey o
buildings rom arious parts o the empire has shown that this new wae o painting
spread rapidly orm the capital during the reign o Selim III ,189-180,, and links this
dissemination with the a,av, as it was

only natural that the proincial elite should ollow the example o the capital in all
aairs and build in their home towns buildings to equal, een at times to surpass, those
in the capital. 1hereore, mural paintings and landscapes are ound in seeral buildings
including mosques, tvrbe., libraries, ,aairrav. and especially the houses o the upper
classes in Anatolian and Rumelian towns. Most o the murals dating rom the period o
Selim III are similar in style to those in Istanbul, suggesting that at irst, artists rom the
capital were employed by local patrons. 1he rieze and the panel type landscapes were
both used widely, some being iews o Istanbul, although representations o local towns
were also common . During the irst hal o the 19
th
century buildings with murals
increased in number and proincial styles emerged showing that local cratsmen started
to ollow the models rom the capital. Subject matter and style took a local orm and
can be considered as examples o olk art. . A ew examples . show a similarity in
style suggesting that they must be the works o a group o artists . 1he majority o
murals, howeer, relect indiidual styles. Proincial artists were more strongly bound to
the esthetics |sic| o the traditional art o miniature painting, but their eorts to create
depth, although primitie, are encountered in all these murals and they should be
ealuated as the proincial ersions o a new concept in pictorial art.`
100


laroqhi ,1995:95, ound it noteworthy that these eighteenth century pashas, who sought
to rule most autonomously in their` proince, did vot pick up on the regional culture o

100
Among the examples rom the Balkan proinces sureyed and illustrated by Renda
,19,198,1996,1999, are houses in Kastoria, Siatista, Ambelakia, Verria, and Plodi, as well as mosques
in Skopje, Bitola, 1etoo, and Samoko. Some o these will be dealt with in greater detail in the ollowing
chapters, appended by the examples gien by Kiel ,1990a, or the Albanian lands and other examples
ound in Bulgaria and Macedonia. In Bosnia and Serbia examples or this decoratie art are rarer, the
reasons or which will be explored in Ch. 4.
105
that proince, but cultiated the connection with Istanbul, particularly in cultural
matters. 1hat panoramas o Istanbul were a preerred moti in their reception rooms,
she sees as eidence supporting this assertion. Moutsopoulos ,196:108,, writing not
about proincial rulers` but merchants` houses, attempts a more narratie illustration o
the character and reception o these interior mural paintings` in the mansions Verria
,western Macedonia,, where the inest examples date rom the early nineteenth century:

1he themes which interest the popular artist concern ar o cities, especially Venice
and Constantinople. le paints houses, great numbers o them, either singly or all
together, using a somewhat elementary orm o perspectie . Ships, o all sizes, shapes
and kinds are a second aorite theme . And they are beautiully done, with billowing
sails and lags in unknown harbours, ready to sail and loaded with all sorts o goods.
And as the winter approached, the old men would sit on their low seats by the blazing
hearth and tell their grandchildren about the long oyages the sailors made to carry the
lax rom Verria to Constantinople and the Black Sea, about the armed schooners on
the long haul to Zemoun, about the attacks o the Albanian brigands, about the halt at
Bitolia. So, ollowing the panorama o the painted parlour rieze, they gae iid
presence to the ar-o world they dreamed, o the distant world which always attracted
the best men o Macedonia, great grandathers, grandathers, athers who, in ar-o
lands, enjoyed the best conditions, the reedom to absorb new ideas and to become
acquainted with new ways o lie ar rom slaery under the 1urkish tyrant. 1hus it was
that they were able reely to deelop their innate abilities and thus it was that an outlet
was proided or the commercial genius o the Greek race.`
101


1hat in the ornately cared wooden ceilings o these houses Moutsopoulos ,196:109,
also belieed to identiy a strong arab inluence`, he attributed to the act that in the
proinces the same masters and cratsmen had worked in the construction and
decoration o mansions and mosques alike. And indeed, it appears noteworthy in this

101
le then adds that ater the great ire o 1854 the murals became more conentional and only a distant
recollection o the traditional ideas suries.` It should be mentioned that none o the interior mural
paintings at Verria hae been presered. Only the Manolakis house`s hae been documented by
Moutsopoulos beore it disappeared by 196. ,Moutsopoulos 196:109,
106
context that landscape paintings igure ar more oten in proincial mosques than in
those o the capital. \as this kind o decoration then really more o a phenomenon o
the Balkan proinces, less oten also ound in Anatolia, than o a general trend in
Ottoman architectural decoration emanating rom the capital, as most trends did
laroqhi ,1995:266, concedes the possibility that in Istanbul these might hae allen
ictim to later restorations.
102


Another eighteenth century innoation that, i we ollow Bakirer ,2001:4,, has its source
o dissemination in the a,av as well, are the stained-glass top windows ,rerev, with
elaborate stucco grilles with glass insets, oten seemingly imitating the Ottoman
Baroque` arch orms ,semicircular but widening and turning at the corners,. Bakirer
,2001:12, dates these to the Selim III period ,189-180,, with examples being his
1opkapi wing dating rom 190 and the Aynalikaak Palace repaired` during his reign.
I we accept that the typical mansions o Gjirokastr and Macedonia-1hessaly, which
oten display ery similarly elaborated top windows, date rom the late eighteenth
century, the conclusion would be that, at least in this period, the trends rom the capital
spread ery ast. It is also interesting to note that next to Gjirokastr we ind many ,i
not most, examples or these embellished top windows ,or painted fav ersions o
these! |Ill. 3.1.|, in the 1hessalian-Lpirote-,west, Macedonian region, presumably
dating rom shortly beore and around 1800. 1hey apparently do not igure much in

102
1hat more conseratie orces were not particularly ond o such unorthodox decoration is illustrated
by the restorations` o mosques damaged in the \ugosla conlicts o the 1990s, sponsored by
philanthropists` rom the Arab world, where charmingly decorated Ottoman interiors hae gien way to
almost completely whitewashed interiors. As these destructions took place only recently, the original
character o these mosques had luckily been documented and published in earlier decades. In some cases,
as in the Gazi lusrebegoa at Sarajeo the Saudi restoration has been reersed again ,see also
archnet.org entry Gazi lusre Bey Complex` and related links,. A dierent example rom within
1urkey, mentioned by Kiel ,et al. 2001:6,, is the catastrophic restoration` o the Lski Cami in Ldirne
whose loely, colorul 18th- and 19th-century decoration was replaced by a soulless pseudo-Ottoman
decoration in two dull colors: Nescae-with-milk and Nescae-without-milk.` 1he reasons or such
undertaking he, howeer, does not see in religious moties, but in the simple act that the work was done
by architects o the Pious Lndowments Directorate alone, while art historians were not consulted.
10
what is presered east o 1hessaloniki, much closer to the capital.
103
1his only supports
the argument o a regional disparity between the \est and Last o the peninsula, with
the ormer presering much o the houses rom its period o prosperity in the last third
o the eighteenth century, and 1hrace with the most splendid examples o architecture
rom ater the 1820s. O course, this does not mean that all towns in the western part
lost their signiicance. Berat in Albania, or example, lourished in the irst hal o the
nineteenth century as a centre o crats production, whereby it achieed a rather
dierent appearance than the nearby Gjirokastr, whose best-known houses` shape
dates rom a hal-century beore that. 1he houses o Berat, as most nineteenth-century
houses in the Ottoman domain, do not hae top windows anymore, as glass - preiously
a luxury good - eentually became aailable to broader segments o society. 1hereby the
top windows, inented to proide the main room,s, with natural light while making
minimal usage o the expensie glass, became obsolete.
104


Mural paintings will be ound in the houses o the wealthy in the Balkans until the end
o the Ottoman period, but the time-rame set in this work ,100-1850, does still make
sense, as ater the mid-nineteenth century, in a time o institutionalized westernization,
the artistic programs deelop in a dierent direction. Decorators o the late eighteenth
and irst hal o the nineteenth century still used the traditional brushwork technique
using paints mixed with water and glue or egg-yolk, taking up the traditional /atevi,i

103
A contemporary ,and habitually reerred to, example in the Anatolian proince is the (akiraga konagi
at Birgi. It should be noted that this /ova/ has been dated dierently: as late eighteenth century ,c.
Bakirer 2001:13, in reerence to Lldem, and to the 1830s ,c. Kuyulu 2000:3, in reerence to Renda, Arik,
and hersel,. I we compare with the examples rom Lpirus and 1hrace, and accept their dating, the
explanation that the mansion dates rom the late eighteenth century but the acade decoration rom the
1830s appears most reasonable.
104
1he early nineteenth-century traeller Leake ,196:144, reported that in Ioannina a ery bad kind o
glass` ,as well as eery thing but the stone and the mortar`, was imported rom 1rieste and liume
,Rijeka,, while seldom seen in Asiatic 1urkey`. In Greece, howeer, it was rendered necessary by the
long winter.` Also the window glass or the mosques and palaces o Istanbul had been imported rom
Venice ,Goodwin 191:113,.
108
decoration o geometric and loral motis and applying to landscapes and still lie. In the
second hal o the century, howeer, western-type oil painting comes to be preerred,
and techniques o Luropean painting are applied with more skill and precision. \hat
concerns the themes, now also oreign-looking landscapes as well as hunting scenes, in
which animals and sometimes een human igures are depicted in small dimensions,
become popular. Residences become increasingly urnished with Luropean-type
urniture, which is ree-standing, in contrast to the typical Ottoman built-in cupboards
and multi-unctional spaces, and also paintings come to be hung on the walls, which was
not a widespread eature in the Ottoman house` until the later nineteenth century. Due
to these spatial changes within the reception room, painted decoration comes to be
concentrated on the ceilings o rooms, or on panels near the ceiling. At that time also
oreign artists also came to work in the Ottoman palaces at Istanbul, while entertaining
workshops in Galata, where their skills and techniques were passed on to local masters.
,Renda 19:264, 1998:103-105, 1999:320, On their way to Istanbul, where many little-
known Luropean artists ound work at that time, they occasionally also stopped in the
Balkan proinces and taught locals in western painting skills, i they had not already
studied abroad themseles. So had, or example, 1oma Visano Moler` ,rom the
Viennese pronounciation o the German Maler` ~ painter,, who was trained in Vienna
in the second hal o the eighteenth century and thereupon ounded the Bansko
School` o painting in Bulgaria. Also the painting school o Samoko had deeloped
ater its ounder`, lristo Dimitro, had, ater studying iconography on Athos, gone to
Vienna. lis son, Zahari Zogra, the most important representatie o the Samoko
School, then urthered his knowledge o western modes by taking lessons rom lrench
artists traelling to Constantinople in the 1840s. ,Roskoska 1982:130,
Doytchino,Gantche 2001:59, Gradually, cratsmen in the Balkans came to be better
inormed o styles, trends, and techniques in Lurope, which is duly relected in their
109
works ater this period. Beore that, howeer, we detect the consolidation a regionally
airly coherent expression o a late Ottoman Balkans art.

110
3.3.2. 1he Albanian lands at the peak of Islamic culture in the Southwest
Balkans

It has been noted earlier that the Albanian lands pose an exception to the rule o
architectural-typological Ottomanization` o the Balkans. In most o the region this
was a deelopment o the iteenth and sixteenth centuries, coinciding with the spread
o Islam which subsequently generated a need or Muslim religious inrastructure.
105
In
Albania, only the eighteenth century up to 1830,40 was a time o large-scale
Islamization`
106
,Kiel 1990a:290, among the Albanians, whereby groups o masters
could do nothing else but build and decorate new mosques etc. and a great consistency
o style emerged in Albania or the irst time.`
10
\hile not proiding a wholesale
deinition, in arious parts o Kiel`s work on Albania we come to understand what he
means by reerring to this speciically Albanian style: unusually spacious porticoes,
rounded rather than pointed arches, unconentional capitals, the law o the periphery`
inluencing the appropriation o Ottoman orms, a partial surial o pre-Ottoman
Byzantine and Dalmatian building traditions blended with an oriental concept o

105
In Ottoman Albania prior to the eighteenth century neither a colonization with 1urks nor conersions
to Islam had taken place on a larger scale. Ottoman art was thereore only represented by a loosely knit
network o administratie settlements ,the .avca/ capitals, such as Vlora, Llbasan, Ohrid, Shkodr, Pec,
etc.,, usually around a pre-Ottoman castle, where we ind some works o the iteenth and sixteenth
centuries. 1he largest monuments o Ottoman architecture in this period are works o military
engineering, a situation characteristic o Albania. Kiel thence describes Ottoman art as remaining
basically a oreign, imported art, the subtle play o lines and sensitie code o aesthetics o which were
neer ully understood . 1he country was too ar away rom the centres o graity o the empire to eel
direct contact and inspiration.` ,Kiel 198:542-5,
106
1he literature mostly explains this deelopment with a policy o Islamization as a means o paciication
in these unruly peripheral areas ater the 1690s, and,or with heay new taxes laid on the Christians,
driing many subjects into accepting the aith o the conqueror ,c. Malcolm 1998:164-5,. Apart rom
socio-economical moties, Kiel ,198:546, also mentions the work o arious derish orders as a moing
orce behind this conersion.
10
In another article, Kiel ,198:1, indirectly suggests that the reason or some mosques rom the early
nineteenth century being spared destruction is because their style ,wall paintings, was considered
genuinely local.
111
decoration`, and some Baroque inluences coming rom both Venice and Central
Lurope.
108
\hile calling this Albanian` style a truly national art` as well as local and
proincial and een sometimes un-Ottoman` ,1990a:290-1,, he identiies the builders
and decorators as local groups o ambulant masters, usually Valachians and Christian
Albanians rom the illages in the Pindus Mountains |Greece| at the point where
Albanian territory meets the lands inhabited by Slas and Greeks. 1hese masters were
trained in the construction and decoration o churches, mansions and mosques alike, all
showing the same cosmopolitan style.`
109
1he period between 180 and 1840 Kiel
,1990a:5, then classiies as the period o greatest lourishing o Ottoman-Albanian
art`. 1hat it assumes such a speciic character he attributes to the proincial origin and
orientation o its patrons, which were no longer Ottoman oicials, educated in the
capital and in touch with the latest architectural deelopments, but . members o the
local eudal aristocracy, the Derebeys o Bushatli, Ali Pasha, Kurd Ahmet and Rotullu,
all with strong local ties. Other patrons were the relatiely inluential guilds o the
principal crat centres o the country, and also local people.` ,Kiel 1990a:290,

A considerable number o noteworthy works are ound in Berat, now largely presered
due to a museum town` status granted by the Albanian goernment een during
communism. 1he town witnessed a particular prosperity in this period due to crats and
trade being highly deeloped, while it achieed political signiicance as well when it was
made .avca/ capital instead o in the decayed Vlor ,Alonya,. \ith a population o 14-

108
As illustratie examples o this art outside Albania, all rom between the 190s and 1830s, Kiel
,198:548, mentioned the Coloured Mosque` and the Sersem Ali baba ,or Arabati Baba`, te//e in
1etoo ,Macedonia,, the mid-nineteenth century Azi Pasha mansion in Bardoci near Skopje, the
Prizren Rotulla Lmin Pasha mosque, numerous mansions o the Greco-Albanian Christian merchants in
Kastoria, and the monastery o the loly Virgin between Kastoria and llorina ,rebuilt in 1813,.
109
Somewhat less enthusiastic than his general assessment o their work, Kiel ,1990a:291, then notes this
situation as characteristic or the time o decay o the Ottoman Lmpire`, and that in the classical 16th
century, at the time the Sleymaniye complex was built, not a single master came rom this mountain
district.`
112
16,000 Berat was considered a large town in its time ,Kiel 1990a:51-2,. All mosques in
Berat thus date rom this golden age` between the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, but the Mosque o Beyazit ,as the name suggests, is apparently an older
oundation, the rebuilding o which Kiel ,1990a:5, beliees to be contemporary with
the Bachelors` Mosque, thereby rom around 1820, as exempliied by the ornamentation
typical or this period.
110
Nonetheless, it is only second to the decoration ound at the
laletiye te//e |Ill. 3.23.| that Kiel ,1990a:52,63-4, ranks the qualities o the Beyazit
mosque. Built by Kurd Ahmed Pasha in 182 or 185, or him it is perhaps the inest
tekke o the country.` Its .evabave ceiling, coered with a multitude o inlay work and
gilded, painted and sculpted elements o the highest quality`, belongs among the ery
best o the Balkans`. 1he upper sections o the our walls are adorned with a broad belt
o calligraphy,

linked with the ceiling by imitation wainscoting illed with ornamental lower designs.
1he whole work is in the best tradition o 18th century Ottoman decoratie art which
continues much o the great inesse o the works o the Lale Deri, the so-called 1ulip
Period`.
111
Only some 18th century rooms in the 1opkapi Saray in Istanbul can be
compared with the extraordinary eeling or detail and quality as exposed here at this
ceiling in Berat.`

1he possibly best-known Ottoman-period structure at Berat, howeer, is the Bekarlar
Camii ,Bachelor`s mosque, |Ill. 3.24-26|.
112
Lrected in 182-8
113
by Sleyman Pasha o

110
Another somewhat more curious rebuilding project was the great mosque at Lezh ,Alessio,.
Preiously a Gothic cathedral conerted in the last quarter o the sixteenth century, Sultan Selim III
sponsored the renoation which, according to Kiel ,1990a:192-3,, was nothing more than an attempted
reconstruction o the ormer church. Another minor` structure rom that period mentioned by Kiel
,1990a:182, is a tvrbe at Kruj, where we ind three windows in the gracious style o the Ottoman
Baroque` and decoratie painting in the interior, with an inscription mentioning the date 180.
111
Kiel ,1990a:290,, howeer, also notes that the great art o the Lale Deri` itsel went almost
unnoticed in Albania` in his suggestion o a proincial scope o Albanian architecture.
112
\hy this mosque came to be known as that o the Bachelors`, the organization o unmarried men
who did military duty but lied rom the work o their hands in time o peace`, is - according to Kiel
113
Vlor, or Kiel ,1990a:0-1, it counts among the most remarkable creations o
Ottoman-Albanian art.` A rare priilege, the building has beneited rom research and
restoration works in 1960s and 0s. Mural decoration coers the greater part o its
outside walls and also the interior, with ery colourul paintings representing imaginary
1urkish cities, mosques, palaces and riers with boats loating on them, as well as panels
with rich loral moties, garlands, bouquets and draperies. |In| a ew places are
representations o mosques inspired by the great imperial buildings in Istanbul, but as a
whole, the themes o the paintings in the interior are less secular than those on the
outside, where we een ind battle scenes.` Next to the decoration the plan o the
Bachelors` Mosque appears noteworthy as well. Because it is built onto a slope it has
two stories. 1he prayer hall is accessed rom the upper leel, while the ground loor with
three arcades accommodates shops to generate income or the upkeep o this
oundation ,Koch 1989:211,, a pragmatic solution encountered as well in the roughly
contemporary Coloured Mosque` in 1ranik ,to be dealt with later,.

In the Albanian capital 1irana only one Ottoman mosque has suried the loxha-
period.
114
1he Mosque o Lthem Bey |Ill. 3.2-29|, begun in the 190s and coinciding
with the transer o the seat o the 1optan amily, the most powerul eudal amily o
Central Albania, rom Kruj to 1irana. It was to proe o principal importance or the
later deelopment o 1irana, till then an insigniicant Ottoman-ounded small town, and
the patron`s intention to contribute to the reial o the town through the unding o

,1990a:3, not known, but in Albania the Beqars appear to hae been an important element in society, in
Berat they clearly were.` Koch ,1989:211,, on the other hand, identiied the bachelors` as an association
o policemen and night guards in the bazaar o Berat.
113
Koch ,1989:211, mentions that the inscription 182` in act reers to a repair`, and suggests that this
may hae been the date when the decoration was painted, while the structure itsel could be rom the
eighteenth century.
114
Kiel ,1990a:250, reers to inormation proided by the nineteenth-century traeller Von lahn ,1854,,
who noted seeral gaily-painted` mosques in 1irana. 1hese, lamentably, hae not been presered.
114
this mosque is een stated in the inscription ,Kiel 198:544 and 1990a:250,. Koch
,1989:124, suspects that the delayed completion o the building, whose construction
stretches oer three decades, was due to conlicts with the Pasha o Shkodr. According
to the same author, the dome was completed in 180 ater the initial patron Molla Bey`s
death. lis son Lthem then continued the project, adding portico, roo, minaret, and
interior paintings beore 1821, whereas the paintings on the exterior date rom 1823.
1he central-domed prayer hall plan is ar rom unusual, but it is odd that the outer
portico was built around only two sides o the building. Kiel ,1990a:251-2, suggests that
this may hae been due to contemporary circumstances, preenting the builders rom
erecting a ully symmetrical building. 1he style o the capitals o the columns connecting
the rounded ,not pointed, arches he identiies as o local origin and not related to
Ottoman building tradition.` Not only the interior, but also the portico is completely
painted with stylized plant and lower motis in sot red and green colours. Kiel
,1990a:252, inds the style o these paintings inished in 1822,3 somewhat ulgar at
close quarters`, but assesses the mural paintings in the prayer hall as een more
antastic`:

1he entire surace o the walls and the dome is coered with brilliantly presered and
radiantly executed ornamental paintings as ound in no other place in the country. 1he
background has the sot colour o sand against which the dominant brownish-red and a
little sot green contrasts harmoniously. Intricate lower designs mingle with pictures o
antastic cities and great mosques, the subject-matter being ery much the same as that
seen in the rich interiors o old 1urkish houses presered in Verria, Kastoria and Siatista
in Macedonia, or those in the Bulgarian cities o Plodi, Kopristica or Smoljan, and in
many places in Anatolia. 1he painted interior o the 1irana mosque certainly belongs to
the same groups o master builders and painters rom the Albano-Valachian illages o
the Pindus Mountains, who since the late 1th century monopolised the art o painting
or religious as well as ciil purposes |and is a splendid example| o a local ersion o
oriental art blended with Baroque elements in a prousion o igour and inentieness,
but still connected with the main stream o late Ottoman art.`
115

It must hae been the same artists that re-decorated the interior late sixteenth-century
ladum mosque |Ill. 3.30| at Dakoica ,Gjakoa, in Kosoo, or we ind there
exceptionally similar patterns, een the same empty landscapes with cypresses. But more
numerous than the ew redecorations o older structures are the new mosques built in
this period o expansion o Islam in the Albanian lands. Next to the mosques at Prizren
and Shkodr already discussed in the section on the a,av, these include the Red
Mosque` o Sinan Aga at Pec ,159-60,, the Ilijaz Kuka Mosque at Prizren ,192,, the
\asar Pasha mosque at Pristina ,1832,, but also the sixteenth-century Suzi (elebi
mosque and the Gazi Mehmet Pasha mosque at Prizren must hae receied their
wooden porticoes in the decades around 1800. Most o these structures include painted
decorations typical or the period, although alone three o the aboementioned must
hae been already ,re-,decorated at a later point, ater the mid-nineteenth century. As
examples or redecorations o iteenth and sixteenth-century mosques in the irst hal
o the nineteenth century the examples o the latih mosque in Prishtina and the
Bayrakli mosque in Pec |Ill. 3.31| can be mentioned.
115
1he latter is particularly
interesting, or it displays a striking similarity to the decoration o the Seri lalil Pasha
Mosque at Sumen, but it also has similarities with other mosques in the Albanian region:
landscapes with cypresses, depictions o a mosque, and the common egetal patterns.
Also the spandrels o the vabfit ,with rounded arches, are decorated, a sight resembling
what we ind in churches ater the 1820s.
116


115
Such redecorations are o course not restricted to Albania and Kosoo. As examples in Macedonia can
be mentioned the Muradiye in Skopje and the mosque o Isa Bey in Bitola, in Bulgaria the old mosques`
,Lski Cami, at Jambol and Stara Zagora. 1he latter ,also called lamza Bey Cami,, mentioned by Kiel
,194:63,, is also interesting in another regard: 1his early iteenth century mosque, one o the oldest in
the Balkans, seems to hae been exposed to an attempt to baroquiy` not only the interior but the
exterior as well. 1he twele windows in the drum o the dome were enlarged and cut into an oal shape.
116
It should be addressed that nearly all the mosques in Kosoo mentioned here were damaged to arying
degrees, many completely, during the last decade. Some are now restored with unding rom abroad, with
1urkey assuming a prominent role.
116

Next to present-day Albania and Kosoo, Albanians also lied in much o northwest
Greece but also as ar south as Athens and some Aegean islands. 1hese, howeer, were
predominantly Orthodox Christians, whereby we would look in ain or monuments o
Islamic architecture closely related to those in Albania. 1o the north the Albanian
settlement area extended into what gradually became part o Montenegro towards the
end o the century, the areas o Podgorica, Ulcinj, and a part o the Sandzak region ,split
between Serbia and Montenegro,. But next to Albania proper and Kosoo it is in the
western hal o the Republic o Macedonia that we ind important Albanian-Muslim
monuments rom that period, and particularly in 1etoo, not ar rom Skopje. O two
airly well-known structures there, the earlier one is the Arabati Baba te//e ,~ derish
lodge, |Ill. 3.34|, also called Sersem Ali Baba tekkesi, o the Bektashi order. lirst
mentioned in a ra/vfvve o 199, it was obiously built at an earlier date, Cerasi
,1988:98, mentions around 10`. 1he buildings themseles, howeer, must hae
receied their present shape and decoration in the early nineteenth century, maybe in
the 1820s. In this complex seeral structures are worth mentioning, most importantly
maybe the central ,aairrav which, really more than a normal ountain, is extended to a
colonnaded rectangular pailion with a raised platorm or ceremonies to be held in the
outside during summer months. 1he spandrels, resting on wooden columns supporting
S-cured arches, are adorned with painted decoration typical or this region and period,
and are ound on seeral o the complex buildings. Similar patterns we ind on the
tower`, which consists o a ground loor o stone and an eleated seating area aboe it.
A rieze with painted decoration and rosettes runs around the leel aboe the windows.
Much deotion was dedicated to the intricately cared ceilings in many o the buildings
o the complex, but especially to the highly ornate entrance o the ,aairrav. Palikrusea
and 1omoski ,1965:209-10,, without urther elaborating on their assumption, beliee
11
that the work was done by the well-known masters rom the Mala Reka region east o
Debar. It seems noteworthy that these are held to hae been Muslims, the Macedonian-
speaking 1orbesi, which poses an exception to the masters so ar mentioned, which
were all Orthodox Christians.

1he other, better-known, structure in 1etoo is the Alaca Camii ,Sarena dzamija,
Colored Mosque`, |Ill. 3.35-|. 1he date o its oundation is not known with certainty,
but may hae been the as early as the end o the iteenth century. 1he date most oten
gien in non-expert sources, howeer, is the seenteenth century, which is eidently
wrong or its present shape acquired later ,clearly in the nineteenth century, through
rebuilding and redecoration. Ayerdi ,1981b:6, mentions masters rom nearby Debar
as the artists to hae painted interior and exterior o this structures, and suggests a date
between 1818 and 1822, while Ibrahimgil ,1995:250, suggests, in line with other sources,
that the present shape dates rom the 1830s. It appears not too unlikely that the same
artists may hae worked in 1etoo at both structures at the same time. On the other
hand, this region abounded in qualiied artists. Ibrahimgil ,1995:250,, next to
mentioning the ersion o a master Nikola o 1etoo being responsible or the design,
also cites a curious theory, admittedly held by some rather prominent \ugosla scholars
,Redzic, Zdrakoic,, that the artists responsible were Italians.

Ayerdi ,1981b:4-5, also notes the Alaca mosque`s contemporanity with the
Sulejmanija at 1ranik |Ill.4.16|, equally nicknamed Colored Mosque` or its painted
aade. But sae or the act that both are rectangular and rooed ,not domed, buildings
with painted aades, the mural paintings o the mosque at 1ranik hae a ery dierent
character, making it unlikely that they were built by the same masters, which Ayerdi
might hae wanted to suggest. In 1ranik loral motis dominate, painted in a rather
118
nae manner and less sophisticated technique, and with almost no reerences to
anything Baroque. 1his is dierent in the 1etoo mosque, where Baroque motis can be
ound next to landscape paintings and other elements typical or the period and the
area. In the interior all suraces are completely coered with painted decoration. 1ruly
baroque balconies add to the lamboyant eect.

\hile Ayerdi ,1981b:6,, in his usual disgust o anything post-dating the classical`
sixteenth century, inds it ar rom being beautiul`, the 1etoo mosque is really a ,i
not the, masterpiece o late Ottoman Balkans decoratie art which has ew competitors
in terms o the maturity o style, possibly only the Rila Monastery, where masters rom
the same region ,Debar, worked. But we should also note that the decoratie programs
dier on three parts o the structure: the portico ,north wall, with Ottoman Baroque`
arches and paintings on white surace, haing close parallels in many places o the
southern Balkans rom Albania to Bulgaria, the interior, where we basically ind the
same motis but also much richer colours as well as landscape paintings ,Istanbul and,
curiously, Venice,, the exterior side walls on the \est, Last, and South, where the style
clearly diers. 1hese walls are arranged in rectangular panels illed with dierent colours
and more geometric schemes ,star-shaped rosettes,, thereby showing little resemblance
to the decoration o the portico and the interior. Could they hae been painted at a later
point, and,or by dierent artists Ibrahimgil ,1995:251,, attempting a comparison with
roughly contemporary mosques in Anatolia,
11
maintains that in the Asian examples the
inluence o Ottoman miniature painting is more isible, while the Balkan examples
show a stronger inluence o western Baroque, and beliees that this has do to with

11
1he mosques he mentions are, next to the Beyazit mosque at Amasya, the lizir Bey mosque in Soma
,in the Aegean hinterland, and the Basausogu mosque at \ozgat ,north-central Anatolia,, built in 191-
2 and 1800-1, which Renda ,1999:31, also holds to be the irst examples o decoratie programs
otherwise known rom residences are used in mosques. lor a brie ,and mainly photographic, discussion
o similarities between Balkans and Anatolia in terms o this art, see Arik ,2002,.
119
painters working in Macedonia not haing been too amiliar with 1urkish decoration
traditions.
120
3.4. On the architects and painters of mansions and mosques in the
late Ottoman Balkan provinces

1o identiy the persons responsible or the construction and decoration o the works
hereupon mentioned, and to clariy the use o terms, the distinction between an actual
architect and that o the master builder - called vai.tore. in Macedonia and Lpirus, /atfa
,helper`, same Arabic root as caliph`, in the capital, in Anatolia and sometimes in
Bulgaria - must be made. O the two, writes Cerasi ,1988:8,, the architect was apt to
be the more cultured and better integrated into oicial institutions, the master builder
belonged to a socially broader sphere. |By| the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
master builders were oten called upon to assume ull responsibility or public buildings,
though their works or priate clients continued to outnumber their public projects.` In
reerence to Bernard Lewis` thesis that the decline o Ottoman culture at the beginning
o the nineteenth century was restricted to court culture, whereas popular culture
continued to retain its itality or many decades, Cerasi ,1988:88, declares that in the
proincial towns the master builders were the symbol o that itality.`
118


Anhegger ,1954:90, traces their origin to some areas, in which some illages or
population groups had almost exclusie worked as itinerant builders.
119
1hat at that time

118
It should be noted that this is also a rather liberal interpretation o what Lewis ,1961,1968:35,
originally wrote: |1he| apathy o the Ottoman ruling class is the more striking when contrasted with the
continuing igour o their intellectual lie . It is not until the end o the eighteenth century and the
beginning o the nineteenth that we can speak o a real breakdown in the cultural and intellectual lie o
1urkey, resulting rom the utter exhaustion o the old traditions and the absence o new creatie impulses.
And een then, behind the battered screen o courtly conention, the simple olk arts and olk poetry o
the 1urks continued as beore.`
119
As the area they traelled rom, Anhegger ,1954:90-1, mentions a region with northern Macedonia as
centrepiece, stretching westward into central Albania, while experienced masters hailed rom Kolonje
,Greek-Albanian border region,, Debar, or Kastoria. \hile this roughly coincides with where other
authors locate these builders` illages, he urther adds the mountainous lands between the upper Struma
and the Moraa, and some places north o Kjustendil ,Bulgarian,Pirin Macedonia,, the Rhodope
121
whole illages or towns specialized in one crat is no big exception, i we ollow
Moutsopoulos ,196:102-4, on Macedonia: Castoria and Siatista were occupied
exclusiely with the urrier`s crat, Dimitsana made nothing but gunpowder, Stemnitsa
had metal oundries and goldsmiths, Cosmas, in the Kinouria area made the combs or
weaing looms. In Lpirus, the inhabitants o Soupikia were all coopers, and the people
o Zagoria were specialised in nature-healing and oen-building.` le then mentions a
large number o little-known illages in northern Lpirus and western Macedonia as
areas o Greece which produced the greatest builders, including the illages around
Kozani, llorina, and Siatista, and urther singles out lionades as home o renowned
painters with a tradition in the painting o ikons |sic|` and 1yrnaos, where wood-
caring was a traditional occupation.` lrom these illages boulakia`, groups ,~ trk.
btv/, o builders set out,

usually ater the carnial season, to begin jobs which had been arranged in adance by
the head o the guild. At the head o eery group . was the irst master-builder. 1hey
stayed away rom their illages until mid-Noember when they usually returned to look
ater their land. Lach group o koudaraii consisted o 10-20 building cratsmen. But
there were sometimes larger groups o up to 100 or the big projects. 1hey isited the
big towns and built the bridges, the caraanserai, the roads and aqueducts. 1he routes
ollowed by these groups are o special interest, or they bear witness to the spread o
local building techniques and, especially, o design and een the oreign inluences
which the building cratsmen probably brought back with the rom their traels abroad.
It would seem, howeer, that the cratsmen usually built in accord with the tradition o
the place where they worked, with the materials they ound on the spot and, o course,
ollowing the instructions o the owner.`


mountain illages Bracigoo and Siroka Laka, as well as Zlatina ,close to Sumen and Varna,. lor an
excellent i brie account o work migration ,prominently including builders, in the late Ottoman Balkans
rom an ethnological-historical perspectie and based on secondary sources in the Slaic languages
,thereby excluding Greece,, see Palairet ,198,.
122
\hile Kiel ,1990a:252, goes as ar as to state that master builders and painters rom
the Albano-Valachian illages o the Pindus Mountains |had| since the late 1th century
monopolised the art o painting or religious as well as ciil purposes`, Cerasi ,1988:89,
positions the beginning o the heyday o Balkan mason corporations` in the late
eighteenth century and in the western parts o the peninsula. All o them were
organized as traeling conraternities o masons and carpenters, oten belonging to the
same amily, town, or illage. In more than one case, the amily or illage corporations
... had a secret language which extended rom building nomenclature to eeryday terms.
1he best-known companies worked oer a ast territory, een as ar as Cairo.`
120
le
moreoer attests them openness to oreign inluence ,Italian in Lpirus and Central
Luropean in Macedonia and Bulgaria,`. As ew o the more amous master builders
were born or raised in towns, Cerasi ,1988:89-90,, signiicantly, notes it as a paradox o
Ottoman ciilization - centered in towns and dominated by towns - that its architectural
culture should hae been almost entirely produced by illagers.`
121


Malcolm ,1998:203-4,, upon noting that among the Albanians o Prizren the terms
Vlach` and Gog` ,stone-mason, were used interchangeable, remarks that the crat o

120
Similarly exotic, \alkey ,1990:119, mentions that the team o Kominos Kala was inited to Jerusalem
in 1808 to restore the church o the loly Sepulchre. Palairet ,198:46, mentions a song sung by the
women o Galicnik ,near Debar, where reerence is made to their men working ar, ar away in
Alexandria.`
121
Another actor which played a role in the architectural production in Ottoman cities was the town
architect` ,oicially chie architect o a region`,, as researched and portrayed by Orhonlu ,198,. As ar
as can be understood, their duties included mainly control o the guilds o construction ,builders,
carpenters, stonemasons, whitewashers, bricklayers, tile makers, timber merchants, marble cutters, stone
cutters, glaziers, etc.,, preiously a responsibility o the /aai, as well as the technical aspects o
construction business in their regions or cities and the solution o conlicts occurring among the members
o the guilds o construction. No one could start building without a certiicate issued by the town
architect. In the Ottoman Balkans this unctionary igured in Belgrade, Vidin, Plodi, Komotini, Ldirne,
1ekirdag, and Ahiyolu ,Pomorje near Burgas,. 1hey were centrally appointed by the chie architect in
Istanbul, but recommended to him by local administrators. Also non-Muslims were appointed to these
posts. Orhonlu suggested the establishment o this oice to hae taken place in the seenteenth century,
being related to the urbanization moement` o that century, but Necipoglu ,2005:15-8, has ound
eidence or the existence o such ,or a ery similar, oice in places like Skopje or Sarajeo already in the
sixteenth century.
123
stone-masonry was one rather unlikely skill deeloped by Vlachs in this region`, gien
their pastoral-nomadic traditions. But i we look at the areas o Vlach settlement in the
Macedonian-Albanian-Greek border region, rom which so many o the traelling
builders hailed, it appears plausible that they were pushed into the building industry
exactly because this mountainous region could not hae suiciently supported extensie
agriculture. 1he Vlachs` pastoral-nomadic traditions` Malcolm reers to may hae only
urther supported the choice or such proession.
122
But also one occupation did not
necessarily preclude the other, as the obserations o a traeller ,in Lawless 19:525-6,
hae shown. Visiting 1rikala in the early nineteenth century, he noted that some 1urks
let rooms out to Vlachs who came down to the plain with their lock in the harsh winter
months and took up employment as artisans or labourers. I we beliee \alkey
,1990:118, that, on aerage, a building troop could complete only a large house or a
small church, we can guess how large the demand or these workers must hae been.
123


\hile the aorementioned excursion to Cairo should hae been an exception,
ladjimihali ,1949:30, maintains that builders-decorators rom the va.toroboria ,masters`
illages`, o Lpirus and western Macedonia worked as ar as Bucharest, Istanbul, een

122
It seems worth mentioning that these nomadic-pastoral traditions` were by that time not already a
thing o the past but, i we take the Vlachs o northern Greece as example, suried een into the second
hal o the twentieth century. See, or example, Sanders ,1954,. 1he building-crats traditions o these
societies must hae lost their importance much earlier with the arrial o modern technologies. It is,
howeer, still interesting to notice that the interwar mayor o Skopje was an architect rom the illage o
1resonce in the Debar region, which had produced so many master builders in the late Ottoman period.
I there is any connection at all, this may be a case in point to suggest that in some areas preerences or
certain proessions persisted. \hile these groups` end is easier to explain, little inormation is proided
about earlier centuries and the origins o these groups. Moutsopoulos ,196:102, holds that the builders`
guild was the only one neither discontinued nor disrupted upon Ottoman conquest, because o the
recognized need or new buildings. And indeed, the accounts o Ousterhout ,1999, and Bouras ,2002, on
master-builders in Byzantine times sound ery much like those on Ottoman times, sae or the places o
origin. 1he earliest building that I hae come across as being attributed to Valachian or een Albanian
master builders`, thereby likely to be rom the region which has igured so much in this respect in the
eighteenth century and beyond, was or supposedly being responsible or the mosque o Ibrahim Pasha
,1616,, at Razgrad, while Kiel ,1991a:496-, inds dubious, but also cannot exclude that they may hae
participated.
123
\alkey ,1990:118, hence beliees it to hae been a record that alone in the season o 195 the team o
Demos Zoupaniotis could build three churches.
124
Asia Minor. \as it because o these traelling masters that Bucharest acquired a more
Ottoman appearance, as is held particularly or the second hal o the eighteenth century
,c. Berindei 1994:38,, when the Danube Principalities were more closely linked to the
Ottoman mainstream under the rule o the Phanariotes Streetscapes aligned with
typical Ottoman houses` in Bucharest hae only suried on engraings rom the irst
hal o the nineteenth century. 1he late eighteenth century bav o Manuc Bey ,lanul lui
Manuc, |Ill. 3.39|, howeer, suries as a testimony on an Ottoman inluence` in the
architecture o this period. Built by a rich Bulgarian-born Armenian, standing in the
spacious courtyard we are reminded o ery similar examples south o the Danube and
on the opposite hal o the peninsula. It is only here that Bucharest appears to hae
been an Ottoman core land. \e een ind the same painted motis on the galleries`
walls but also, untypically, low-relie stucco ornament ,a later addition,. 1he only really
local` elements are the steep roo and the galleries` arch-orms, which could be ound
in earlier examples o \allachian architecture, but they do not really change the oerall
Ottoman character o this bav, or at least its inner courtyard.

\hile the scholars preiously cited name a ariety o illages as the homes o these
masters, most o which were located in a region where Albanian, Greek, Vlach, and Sla
,Macedonian-Bulgarian, areas o settlement met. It thus comes as no surprise that
dierent authors oice dierent interpretations on the ethnic identities o these builders.
Acculturation must hae been a normality within the Balkan Orthodox Christian
community`, but a lellenization - in this region where Greek was the lingua ranca
particularly in commercial contacts - may hae been the most likely adance. lor the
inhabitants o the Debar region it has been suggested that these were actually Vlachs
which had been slaicized in time ,c. Koukoudis 2003:435-6,. Daido ,1991:180, also
mentions the case o a Greek master in lungary adopting a Serbian name. Lthnic`
125
identities within the Balkan Christian Orthodox community` were certainly more luid
than can now be imagined. But our masters must hae been much less aected by such
processes as the merchants were. lellenization essentially went hand in hand with social
mobility. Len i located in regions whose settlement pattern had been as much Vlach,
Sla, or Albanian as it has been Greek, the mansions that hae been presered today are
known as the houses o wealthy Greeks. In this context it should also be noted that,
een i cratsmen came rom nearby, the building o houses was at that time still a ery
costly aair ,c. McGowan 1994:00-1,.

One o the problems associated with studying these traelling cratsmen is what to call
them: builders, decorators, builders-decorators Apparently they must be considered a
single phenomenon, as most authors assure us that they were in oten responsible not
only or the building but all tasks related to it ,or at least the coordination o which,,
including painted and cared decoration. Versed in these skills, the same persons
worked in the building and decoration o houses, mosques, and churches, but they also
painted icons ,with which the painted decoration in the houses o this period has close
to nothing in common, whereby we may assume that they learned seeral styles or
modes o painting in the course o their training,. At the same time the inormation
oered about indiiduals, and i really one person may hae been ersed in all these
arts` at the same time, is meagre.

\e might be best adised to illuminate one case where the biography o one builder-
decorator does not share the ate o most, anonymity, and also inormation on the
condition in which he worked and the people he worked with is aailable: the case o
Aleksi Rilec ,rom Rila`,, as documented by Daskaloa-Obretenoa and Obreteno
,2005,. lis surname` is already a misnomer haing led some to the conclusion that he
126
was rom Rila. In act he was born near Debar in 160, where he irst had learned the
crat o wood-caring. In his twenties he had already worked at Rila, maybe Athos, and
other monasteries and churches in Macedonia and western Bulgaria. But we know that
he also abricated liturgical urniture`, employing the wood-caring skills he acquired
earlier in his career, and maybe he een built some houses or priate persons in the Rila
illage. In 1816 he was again inited to work in restorations in Rila, which had been
plundered in the 160s and 0s. 1here he remained until 1819 as a chie master with
experience. lis coordination was recorded in a memorial slab describing Aleksi ,in
church Slaonic, as both arhitekton` and chie master builder`. Ater a deastating
ire haunted Rila in 1833, it was again rebuilt under Aleksi`s superision. lrom this
period date seeral new additions, including beautiul kiosks projecting rom the
galleries o the northern and western wings |Ill.4.5|. 1hese were created by another
master rom Debar ,illage o Lazarpole,, a man named Krustju, who also eternalized
his own name in a rieze. As Aleksi was not able to inish the restoration in the oreseen
time, other good builders` were inited. More than their names, it is their places o
origin that interest us, these were Pael rom Kimin near Kastoria and Milenko rom the
illage rom Blatesnica ,near Rila,. Pael was then recorded as arhitekton` o the
Church o the loly Virgin ,Seta Bogorodica,, but at the same time also signed himsel
as protomaistor` and maimar` ,a corruption o the 1urkish vivr ~ architect,
124
.
125


\as this the time in which we hae to situate the transition rom master-builders to
architects`, that is, the perception o this proession in a more western sense, and does

124
In Serbia and Bosnia also veivar, ostensibly similarly deried rom the 1urkish vivr, was used or
master-builders and architects.
125
1his is not to say that arhitekton` was henceorth the common designation. Len in the 1850s the
amed Andreja Damjano, later most oten called an architect`, signed himsel as proto-majstor` ,c.
ladziea-Aleksieska and Kasapoa 2001:18,.
12
it stand in imminent causal connection with the more liberal attitudes o Ottoman rulers
toward church architecture ater the 1820s 1he Rila monastery may be a bad example,
as Ottoman restrictions o Christian architecture traditionally applied less to monasteries
than to the more problematic ,re-,building o churches in urban areas. 1he mid-
nineteenth century works o Andreja Damjano ,also rom a well-known amily o
builders-decorators rom 1resonce near Debar, in Macedonia, Serbia, and Bosnia, or, in
Bulgaria, the amed Usta` ,trk. or master`, Kolju liceto ,rom Drjanoo near
1arnoo, already appear more like architects in the western sense: well-known by their
names alone ,and not only by the reputation o their illages or areas,, and, with a ew
exceptions, or the irst time in centuries building monumental churches in urban
centres, in which we ind already two diergences rom practices only a ew decades
earlier.

\riting about art and architecture in the Balkans between 100 and 1850 we must
acknowledge that our knowledge o the indiiduals who produced these works is airly
limited, while at the same time they are not always as anonymous as is oten portrayed.
Mostly illiterate, they let no personal accounts. It is thus diicult to trace their works
beyond monasteries ,where records were more likely to be kept,, and most oten they
did not sign their names perhaps because they were not expected to do so.
126
An
important tentatie conclusion is that the residential and religious architecture and art
dealt with here was or the most part produced by builders-decorators rom non-urban

126
Again this is not uniersally true. \alkey ,1990:118,, rom the region and literature he coered,
concluded that the master o the team would oten leae his signature cared into the house, e.g.
Kosmas rom Zoupani` ,~ Pentaloos near Kozani, or, more pretentiously, 1heodoros Zoupaniotis,
the great star rom Zoupani`. In some cases we also ind cared aces in the stone work o some house,
which may represent the builders, clients, or no one in particular.
128
backgrounds and without a ormal training.
12
As such, they almost certainly did not
enjoy the social position an architect enjoyed in the \est. At the same time, the quality
o many works attests a high leel o sophistication. \e also notice a change in the
relationship patron,architect in terms o association. \ith the possible exception o the
highly acclaimed Sinan, in Ottoman architecture the patron enjoyed the credit or a
building and not the architect,s,, who in the ast majority o cases remain,s, completely
anonymous.
128
1his has been considered a general eature o eastern` ,including
Byzantine, art history, is a is its western counterpart, where the emphasis has been on
the artist, an artist history`, rather than art history`.
129
1hat this pattern appears to
change in the period o a yet incoherent western impact on the cultural lie o the
Balkan peoples seems noteworthy. 1hat some o these masters may hae been ersed in
two or three o these crats` - architecture, plastic, painting - may, on the other hand,
only be an accidental parallel with some geniuses o the western Baroque ,Bernini,
lischer on Lrlach, Asam brothers,, but may well hae similarly beneited a certain
unity o style within indiidual projects.

Apparently, almost all o these builders-decorators were Orthodox Christians, with a
considerable portion hailing rom the Mala Reka region around Debar. 1hey appears to

12
Although we speak o schools` ,e.g. Bansko School, Debar School, etc., they certainly did not enjoy a
ormal training but a learning by doing`, a process, howeer, oten described as lengthy and rigid. By no
way should they thereore be called sel-taught`, as is oten done.
128
1his relatie indierence towards architects-builders-decorators may be exempliied by that Muslim
patrons were eidently not bothered by the act that an Islamic house o prayer was built by the hands o
inidels, and not slaes ,which, rom the point o iew o a conseratie endower, would hae positiely
underlined religious hierarchies,, but paid workers. As Kiel ,1990c:xiii, stressed, sometimes they were,
depending on their experience an reputation, een better paid than Muslim workers. Cerasi ,1988:88,
moreoer assures us that Christians were also members in the sultan's ba. workshop, producing the works
o architecture commissioned by the Ottoman rulers, and not only as Islamicized aer,irve.
129
Goodwin ,191:201-2,, while admitting to strictest protocol to diminish the importance o the
indiidual beore God`, holds that the Ottomans were still reer than other Islamic states, where the
names o any artists are hard to ind, but they were not concerned with indiidual rights howeer much
some personalities contried to emerge and radiate.`
129
hae achieed particular prominence in the decades ater 1800, while prior to that the
illages in the Pindos mountains and surrounding areas are most oten reerred to. As
we know with certainty, howeer, both these regions produced masters that worked all
oer the southern Balkans rom the Adriatic to the Black Sea. In the irst hal o the
nineteenth century urther art schools` emerge in Bulgaria, most prominently those o
1rjana, Bansko, and Samoko. But een then, with good masters so close at hand, the
work o masters rom Debar and Kastoria - or in act rom the illages around these
centres - was still sought ater in Bulgaria up to the mid-nineteenth century, as we hae
seen in the case o Rila monastery.

Mobility emerges as a major actor and problem in the art historiography o the Balkans,
particularly between the Balkan Renaissance` period ater 150, with the problem that
so many o those who created the most splendid works o art were not rom the
country or which an art history needed to be written once the nation-building project
began. Problematic is also that or a long time irtually all trends, apart rom those
directly connected to church-related works, emanated rom Istanbul, including those
understood as western imports, such as the murals with landscapes. Len i at times
lrankurt or Venice rather that Constantinople were depicted, this ormed part o a late
Ottoman phenomenon, with Ottoman techniques employed. On the mechanisms o
dissemination o trends rom the centre to the proinces Cerasi ,1999:123,,
extrapolating rom the results o Stajnoa`s research, had concluded that noelties were
irst experimented with in the imperial court, then had some success in Istanbul, and
inally spread into the proinces. louse types had a slightly dierent moement because
o the action o the builder squads.` 1hereby, we can gie these local builders credit not
only or the dissemination o trends, but also or their deelopment and consolidation.
Mobility o artists had, o course, also existed in Lurope in the Age o Baroque, i we
130
think o the work o Italian architects in Vienna ater the mid-seenteenth century ,an
Italian colony`,. But the unity o art created in the Balkans rom the late eighteenth to
the mid-nineteenth century renders any approach other than the regional ,read trans-
national`, airly ragmentary i not questionable. \e could not imagine a Bulgarian
National Reial` without the contributions rom Debar, Kastoria, or Athos, all outside
the boundaries o the modern Bulgarian national state. 1he case o Albania where, i we
beliee Kiel, or more than a century irtually all works o art and architecture had been
produced by the same masters rom the Pindos mountains in Greece, is somewhat
similar, een i he is among the ew to claim that among these were also Christian
Albanians, and not only Vlachs ,or Greeks`,.
131
3.S. Recapitulation

1he chapter comprising the deelopments between the 10s and 1820s grew to be the
longest and, not only in terms o diision, the most complex. 1his relects not only a
new dynamic in economic and cultural aairs and a more comprehensie record in the
historiography o the region, but also a new dynamic triggered by the gradual dissolution
o established patterns and actors o cultural and artistic production. 1he best art is no
more monopolized by the religious sphere and patronized by an administratie class in
close connection with the imperial centre, but by newly prominent ,though not new,
groups: the a,av and the merchants. A third group, the brigands, is signiicant or
architectural history as well, not only because it decimated the architectural record o the
past, particularly in Bulgaria, but also because their actions resulted in a more deensie
appearance o dwellings in many places.

As we hae seen, the tower house` emerges not because o terror by the 1urks` but
by groups o roaming bandits which the goernment could not control. 1hat this in
many areas was not only a problem o the eighteenth century, and under Ottoman rule,
has been suggested by architectural historians maintaining that this orm had already
existed in Byzantine times. In other cases we hae seen that the emergence o the
ortiied dwelling, as in the Albanian lands or the Peloponnesus, had sometimes more to
do with local euds than Ottoman terror or unmanageable brigands. 1hat much o this
insecurity centred on the western parts o the Balkan Peninsula, where some
mountainous regions had neer been under the tight control o the Ottomans ,as can
also be seen rom their non-partaking in the Ottoman tivar-system,, is not that
surprising. 1hat around and ater 1800 the anarchy reigned in areas ery close to the
132
capital must, howeer, be taken as eidence or the decay o the Ottoman system and
the inability o its administration. 1he reaction to this situation may not hae been
prompt but was still incisie. By the mid-nineteenth century some territories that had
been nominally part o the Sultan`s domain or centuries eentually become integrated
parts o the empire or the irst time, ironically, only decades beore the empire`s
dissolution.

\hile the brigands naturally receied a negatie ealuation ,except or where they were
mis-interpreted as reedom ighters or the national cause,, urther researches into the
role culture and the arts played in the political and personal designs o the a,av still
promise to yield interesting indings. 1his, howeer, should be the subject o a separate
study integrating Ottoman sources ,and the important literature thereupon already
produced mainly by \ugosla and Bulgarian scholars,, local chronicles and olklore, the
impressions and descriptions o the numerous western isitors, as well as the buildings
themseles, which, as we hae seen, can indeed proide us with inormation on the
personal ambition and taste o the patron, more than they would enlighten us about
general deelopments in the context o Ottoman architecture.

Concerning merchants and artists ,builders-decorators,, it is hard to oerlook the
predominance o the southwest Balkans ,Lpirus, 1hessaly, western Macedonia, in the
last third o the eighteenth century. \hy this comparatiely small and curiously
mountainous region emerges as perhaps the most dynamic region o the empire in
terms o commerce and cratsmanship` should be the ocus o a separate study. An
explanation may begin with the nature o the terrain, which would not hae supported
extensie agriculture. 1hereby, work migration became a long-standing eature o this
region, both or the merchants as well as the groups o builders-decorators, which o
133
course also resulted in a dierent dynamic o exchange, both with the Ottoman and
non-Ottoman world. Also here the connection between economic potency and the
increase o skilled builders-decorators is eident. In the irst decades o the nineteenth
century, howeer, this region loses its prominence to central Bulgaria, where the riches
are again based on textile trade, but guilds and artisanship play a greater role in the local
economy. \e will then also note a transer o skills, in a ew cases also persons ,e.g.
Greek merchants resettling in Plodi,, and possibly also stylistic originalities rom the
southwest Balkans to the central Bulgarian districts, where many o the most dynamic
centres will again be relatiely small settlements - sometimes called illages, sometimes
towns - in mountainous expanses.

\et another new dynamic is encountered in the Albanian lands at this period. Our
knowledge o this subject has remained limited or a long time because o, on one hand,
the lack o interest in late Ottoman decoratie art and, on the other, due to the isolation
o Albania rom the outside world during the loxha goernment. Now we can
determine that also monuments in neighbouring Kosoo and Macedonia ormed part o
a general trend in this part o the Balkans and in this speciic period. 1he conersion o
a large part o the population to Islam necessitated this population`s proision with the
releant inrastructure. In this long neglected corner o Ottoman Lurope this art, almost
predictably, assumes a reasonably distinct character. \et, as can be seen rom the
examples mentioned, it did also not deelop in absolute isolation rom general trends in
post-classical Ottoman art. More than in architecture, innoation is yet again most
isible in the decoratie programs embellishing structures which are seldom o really
monumental dimensions.

134
linally, much can ,and should, still be written about the lies and the work o the
itinerant builders-decorators. lere, most documentation is aailable in the languages o
the region, while to Lnglish- and 1urkish-readers it remains a rather unexplored subject.
Cerasi`s article ate Ottovav .rcbitect. ava Ma.tervitaer. ,1988, may hae been the irst
attempt to treat the Balkan builders in the context o late Ottoman architectural history.
As he could not directly access the publications in Bulgarian-Macedonian and Greek,
this article o course leaes much to be desired, but - as can be seen rom this article
eaturing in the reading lists o some 1urkish uniersities` syllabi - it still seres its
purpose in that it proides a basic reading or those not ersed in the Balkan languages.
Another important contribution has been the article by Palairet ,198,, which looks at
the topic rom the perspectie o work migration. Vasilie`s book ,1965, on the
builders, decorators, and wood-carers o Bulgaria ,including Macedonia,, despite its
age, seems to still be the most comprehensie treatise on the subject, but, a product o
its time, is o course lined with anti-Ottoman sentiment. In more recent decades
additional studies on indiidual masters ,lice, Kane, Damjano, Korari, etc., or
regions ,c. the Cree/ 1raaitiovat .rcbitectvre series, or the books and articles o
Moutsopoulos, where builders-decorator oten take an important place, hae been
published. 1he uture goal o a ,necessarily polyglot, researcher should be to integrate
this ragmented body o literature into a regional, Ottoman-historical context and
narratie. 1his would be not solely a study o one o many proessional groups in the
Ottoman Lmpire, but essentially an answer to the question o the identity o the people
that produced the architectural landscapes, the ace` o the Balkans that we hae come
to know.
135
4. Reorganization (1anzimat) and Rebirth (vzrazdane)

1he last period to be coered here is the 1820s to 1850s. By that time Ottoman control
oer many territories preiously included in this surey was considerably weakened or
already ended. An independent neo-lellenic state, coering Attica, central Greece, and
the Peloponnesus, emerged ater a decade-long struggle. O the other historical regions
requently mentioned here, 1hessaly was only to join the modern Greek state in 1881
,despite objections by its Vlach inhabitants,, and large parts o Macedonia and Lpirus in
1914. \allachia and Moldaia ormally remained under Ottoman suzerainty or another
hal-century until 188, but the rulers were no longer appointed rom Constantinople.
In 1859 both principalities elected the same ruler ,now domnitor`, and were
henceorth called the United Principalities o \allachia and Moldaia`, and eentually
Romania`. Serbia also gradually achieed ar-reaching autonomy within the empire and
een became a threat to neighboring Bosnia which, despite moements or autonomy -
the only case where such enterprise was motored by Muslim subjects - remained an
integral part o the empire until occupation by Austria-lungary in 188.

\hile around 1800 architectural phenomena were still largely shared on a regional basis,
ater the 1820s a greater range o diering, more indiidualistic expressions eoled. In
the south, in Bulgaria and Macedonia, where this period came to be known as the
|national| reial` or Renaissance`, this was partly due to the Christian subjects
successully re-claiming urban space, either through elaborate residences or newly built
or re-built houses o worship under the patronage o wealthy merchants and surpluses
generated by the prosperous guilds. In \allachia and Serbia, both on the border with
Austria and enjoying ar-reaching autonomies, soon a modest ersion o Luropean
136
Classicism in the orm o residences built rom solid materials superseded preious
Ottoman customs, and are thereby not longer o concern to us. In the case o Serbia,
howeer, this deelopment did not take place without a short but interesting period o
transitional architecture. In neighboring Bosnia, likewise sharing a border with the
central Luropean empire, the inluence o the \est or o deelopments in the Ottoman
south Balkans, howeer, seems to hae been almost negligible. Possible reasons or this
will be explored later in this chapter, which will begin with a discussion o
interpretations o how the reial period` in the culture o Bulgaria and Macedonia
came about.

13
4.J. 1he Bulgarian National Revival and its architectural manifestations

O the groups o structures mentioned in this thesis the Bulgarian National Reial
louses` are probably the best known. 1hereore, instead o mere description, we shall
concentrate on the interpretation o this architecture in- and outside o regional trends
in the Ottoman Balkans, where some problematic readings exist, as will be discussed.
130


1o understand the deelopment o a Bulgarian National Renaissance` in its political as
well as cultural and artistic implications we will irst be concerned with the
historiography o this process, rom which our modern understanding o which deries.
Its beginning is usually situated in the second hal o the eighteenth century. But were
people during the century ater that really aware o a national reial taking place And
did they know that they themseles as well as the material culture they produced ormed
a part o it Daskale ,2004:1, maintains that the Bulgarian Reial`s interpretation as a
process o the ormation o the Bulgarian nation - or, in contemporary parlance, its
reial, awakening, coming to its senses, being brought back to lie, resurrection, etc. -
began |only| in its inal phase`, the 1860s and 0s, when the Bulgarian exarchate ,and
thereby a Bulgarian nation, was established ,180, and people started looking back at
the Reial as a historical process. 1hose who had taken an actie part in this process
usually dated its beginning only to the 1820s coinciding with Mahmud II`s reorms. In
181 an inluential article appeared by Martin Drino who is regarded as the irst

130
In Bulgarian, publications on the Reial Architecture` abound. Pars pro toto could be mentioned
Arbalie`s oten cited work o 194. In western languages, howeer, ew comprehensie studies hae been
produced. Pew`s Alte luser in Plodi` o 1943, a summary o his preious studies re-issued in
German by the archaeological institute o litler Germany ,allied with Bulgaria in \\II,, seems to still be
the main reerence or scholars to whom the Bulgarian sources are inaccessible. Despite the breity, Pew
deliered a comprehensie surey leaing only ew questions unanswered, while also being rereshingly
deoid o unnecessary romanticism and ideology.
138
proessional Bulgarian historian. le traced the beginnings o the Bulgarian Reial to
162, to Paisij lilendarski`s Istorija Sloenobolgarska` ,Slao-Bulgarian listory,. 1his
was widely accepted despite later attempts to shit back the beginning o this period
back to 100 or een 1600 ,proto-Reial` and,or early Reial`,. 1he term
raraaave ,mostly translated as reial`, but actually better and also oten translated as
rebirth` ~ Renaissance`, itsel was irst used in 1842 in a pamphlet appearing in
Russian in Saint Petersburg, but long competed with other designations such as
awakening` or resurrection`. Post-liberation` ,i.e. ater 188, historiographers then
selected a glorious, heroic image o the past and projected it onto the collectie
consciousness in such a powerul way that it came to be accepted as the sacred truth` by
uture generations.` ,Daskale 2004:2,5,12,100-1,

In critically reiewing this deelopment, Daskale touches upon an important subject,
namely that historical processes are not always as linear as historiography has interpreted
them. 1his problem includes the use o the term Renaissance` in suggesting a belated
,through Ottoman bondage`, relatie o the Renaissance in Lurope. 1his is not only a
matter o translation o raraaave, but an actual reerence many Bulgarian authors hae
made in writing o the cultural deelopment o their nation in this period. \hy this is
somewhat problematic shall briely be discussed here.

1he moement in Italy was a conscious process o reial o the classical heritage,
perhaps most isibly in terms o architectural culture it was also a reaction against the
barbarous` Gothic. In the Bulgarian case, ollowing Daskale, the Bulgarian
Renaissance` was, or the most part, an assessment o a period once it came to be seen
as a historical process. \e also can hardly discern a real reaction in terms o art and
architecture, rather a largely regionally shared and ery gradual urther deelopment o
139
an established type. 1he iew o a Bulgarian Renaissance Architecture` catching up to
Luropean achieements in the nineteenth century also somewhat competes with the
iew that Ottoman classical architecture did not materialize in total isolation rom the
Italian Renaissance, but shared some striking similarities.
131
Other than the general
western principles o plan and decoration that iltered through Ottoman building
practices, no direct inluence o the Luropean Renaissance on Bulgarian mid-nineteenth
century houses can be detected. One general problem seems to be that, rather than in
the context o the architectural history o the late Ottoman Balkans, this orm is most
oten interpreted emotionally:

1he structure, ornamentation and decoration o the Reial houses relect the ideas,
the emotions and the aspirations o a nation striing or reedom and independence.
1he buildings o the period are stamped with the people`s optimism, inward spiritual
strength, indomitable resole and hopes or a better and happier lie.` ,Arbalie
194:349,

1he inluence o the Ottoman Baroque`, or o Istanbul in general, is not always but
oten entirely dismissed. Doytchino and Gantche ,2001:51,, or example, maintain
that the inluence o the 1urkish Baroque` ,130 to 1808`, on the Bulgarian
Baroque`
132
was not considerable because the Bulgarian style eoled through

131
Such iew is held by prominent scholars like Goodwin and Necipoglu, but is also strongly disagreed
with by Cerasi ,1999:126,, who sees
absolutely no sign o Renaissance orms or schemes in Ottoman architecture ,the role o
Renaissance artists has certainly been oerplayed, and there hae been too many acile inerences
regarding the contributions o Bellini and lilarete in Istanbul,, and there is no single architectural
work which bears the imprint o a major Renaissance concept. 1he plan o the latih complex ...
and its arid grid, or which the name o lilarete ... has been eoked, hae none o the distinctie
inesse o either Ottoman or Italian monumental architecture. Its regularity is just a scheme with
no conceptual or linguistic implications, as i some architect or traeler had gien an oral
description o lilarete's ideas and some other architect or builder had simply conscientiously
applied the little he had inerred rom those ew phrases.`
132
\hat was perhaps the irst comprehensie discussion o nineteenth century art and architecture in
Bulgaria under the banner Bulgarian Baroque`, and thereby most probably instrumental in the
establishment o this notion as scientiic act, see the still requently cited work by Bice ,1955,:
Balgarski barok`.
140
identiication with the western Baroque and a negatie attitude toward the Ottoman
Lmpire.
133
So it is, somewhat ironically, exactly the mural paintings during the
Bulgarian Reial` that or authors like Arbalie ,194:350, constitute the best
eidence o the uniersal cultural and economic reial, the people`s aspiration to
perection, national reedom and independence.` 1he peculiarities o residential
architecture in Bulgaria in that period, admittedly, are apparent and not at question, but
it is eidently less the interior than the exterior that distinguishes the mid-century /ova/s
in Bulgaria rom designs in the wider region. 1hese eatures include, most
distinguishably, the cured eaes and gables and the painted decoration on the aades,
in combination with the oten perectly symmetrical layout. 1hese are, admittedly,
eatures that can be seen in other parts o the Balkans in that period as well - the
characteristic, cured eae and,or i/va we also see on buildings in Berat |Ill.3.24|,
Belgrade |Ill.4.14|, Xanthi |Ill.4.6,4.9|, Blagaj ,near Mostar, |Ill.4.8|, Ohrid |Ill.4.|, or in
Dakoica - but in Bulgaria they really constituted a perceptibly broader phenomenon.
134

Interestingly, but without urther elaboration, Pew ,1943:22,, writing o Plodi, states
that painted house-aades were in act typical or the Ottoman lands in that period, the
decorators being traelling masters rom Plodi, Debar, Constantinople, or
1hessaloniki, but that the greater part was painted oer in later decades.
135
1his opens
the question whether such painted aades really existed, on a widespread leel, not only

133
1his is not to say that the wish or artistic reerence to Lurope was not articulated as such. Presered
is, or example, a contract rom 1836 in which the patron instructs the wood-carer Ian Paskula rom
Debar ,alternatiely identiied by Vasilie 1965:22 as Joan Paskula` or Jani Paskulis` rom Metsoo in
Greek Macedonia, to produce the iconostasis or the church o SS Constantine and lelena in the style o
Vienna ,po ienski obrazec`, ,see larboa 2002:130,.
134
Kizis ,1992:16,38, inds in the cured eatures o houses south o the Rhodopes, in the Greek part o
1hrace, a northern 1hrace inluence`, yet holds that they were built by Lpirot or Constantinopolitan
cratsmen in the local architectural idiom which with the passage o time was heaily inluenced by
Luropean styles`. Cured eaes pronouncing entrances in the style known rom Plodi can also be seen
on churches, and een in Albania, as in the church o St Mary in Berat |Ill.4.13|.
135
Pew`s work rom the 1940s, or example, also shows the house A.C. Kojumdzioglu without its
characteristic painted aade ornament, signiying that it must hae been recreated some time later.
141
mainly in Bulgaria but also in other parts o the empire, and simply are not known to us
as they were plastered or painted oer later. But why, then, should they hae only been
presered in such a large number in Bulgaria
136


1he making o the Reial louse` into a national arteact has also touched upon the
speciic locations and situations in which this architecture, as well as the ideology
supposedly accompanying it, lourished. An imperatie pillar o Reial historiography
is that it was not borne in the large Ottoman urban centres ,thereby under cultural
pressure` by Greeks and,or 1urks, but in isolated mountain settlements,

small crat and trade towns inhabited by Bulgarians, ar rom the great roads and
presered rom 1urkish attacks and colonization. Although these towns were not large,
the manner o production, the social structure and culture in them were urban in
type.`
13
,Koea 2004,

O how these settlements came into being arious heroic and less heroic readings exist.
Representatie o the Bulgarian iew is what Roskoska ,19:19, writes o
Kopristica, one o the centres o the Reial:

Due to the hard times and uncertain liing conditions during the epoch o Ottoman
domination a part o the country`s Bulgarian population was orced to withdraw rom
the lowlands and to settle in arious naturally protected mountainous sites. 1hat is
precisely how the town o Koprishtica came into being.`

136
According to Stamo ,19,, more than ,500 historical monuments dating rom the National Reial
Period ,which Stamo strangely dates to the end o the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, hae
been presered.
13
lor that we oten, as with the cases in northwest Greece, read o these places as illages` is due to
their oicial status, which Gariloa ,1999:28, explains with the authorities` ill-disposition to recognize
as towns localities without Muslim inhabitants - according to the principle: no lriday mosque, no town.
Such circumstances account or the otherwise inexplicable illage status o such localities as Kaloer,
Sopot, Llena, Kotel, Panagyurishte, 1ryana, and many other small but economically, culturally, and
politically actie Bulgarian towns situated in the densely populated alleys along either side o the Balkan
mountain.`
142

Much to the contrary, Kiel ,1985:2, explains the consolidation o these exclusiely
Christian-Bulgarian settlements in the Sredna Gora and Balkan mountains with a
purposeul settlement policy by the Ottomans. Attracted to these places by tax and
other priileges, these aerbev;a)ci illages in places commanding the roads were
established to guard the mountain passes ,aerbeva). 1hese illages then turned into crats
and trade centres in time, and the places Kiel mentions o haing lourished in this
manner ,Drjanoo, Llena, Ltropole, Gabroo, Kaloer, Kopristica, Kotel, Panagjuriste,
1eteen, 1rjana, and Zerana, are identical with those towns instrumental in the
Reial. 1his can hardly be coincidental.
138
lor Kiel ,1990b:84, their emergence was
part and parcel o the Ottoman policy o internal colonization and urbanization.` On
their signiicance in Bulgarian nationalism, Clarke ,1945:14, moreoer holds that,
although the small mountains were the nurseries o nationalism, it was in
Constantinople that the moement was ocused, at any rate until the Porte recognized
the Bulgarians as a distinct vittet.`

\hereas recurrently all eighteenth and nineteenth century houses in Bulgaria, een the
most typically Ottoman, are designated Bulgarian national reial houses` or,
somewhat less problematically, houses o the national reial period`, the house-type
most representatie or this indubitably remarkable cultural reial seems to hae
reached these towns as an export ,c. Gariloa 1999:142, Roskoska 19:52, Biche

138
Another alternatie explanation is oer by Palairet ,199:38,: 1he withdrawal o population into the
hills, particulary during the seenteenth centuries, was not prompted solely by insecurity or oppression in
the lowlands. \hen population density was low or alling and land abundant, the hills oered a more
salubrious climate than the marshy lowlands, their soil was easier to clean, and supplies o water and
timber more ample. 1he produce o the hill economy was augmented by long-established domestic
industries.`
143
1961:68,, namely rom the region`s multi-ethnic primate city o Plodi.
139
1he eatures
that set this house type apart rom the typical ,or earlier, Ottoman house`, whereupon
it is associated with western and oten Baroque inluence, are, in addition to the
elaborate ceiling ornamentation and wall paintings ound in earlier merchant houses
elsewhere in the Ottoman domain, as ollows: symmetrical arrangement,
140
the
aorementioned cury orms on the eleation, mostly in cvvba or i/va ,sometimes both
horizontally and ertically rounded, and eaes, aades painted with occidentalizing
motis, sometimes apparently imitating stucco ornamentation ,e.g. window heads, in a
one-dimensional way, oal room orms ,rom a clearly Baroque input,, and also the
western orientation relected in choice and origin o urniture, resulting in a culturally
hybrid room equipment.
141
But to understand the society which produced this
architecture, rather than to describe its eatures in greater detail, we shall hae to look
into the historical and cultural context in which the Plodi houses`
142
|Ills.4.1-4| with

139
Pew ,1943:33, mentions another export destination o the Plodi house, not to the Bulgarian
mountain towns like Kopristica, but to the nearby Rhodope illage o Dermendere ,also lerdinandoo
or Parenec,, which had become a popular country residence o the wealthier Plodi citizens during the
hot summer months. 1hese residences were usually two-storied and, built by the same masters, looked
much like the mid-century town houses. Some o these also had large gardens and stables.
140
In act, Pew ,1943:26, maintains that in Plodi, without exception`, all buildings rom between the
late eighteenth century and the mid-nineteenth century eature a symmetrical room arrangement, and links
this with trends spreading rom nearby Istanbul.
141
1his situation is described by 1odoro ,1998:IV,22,2, as ollows: |L|lements o Viennese lie - - the
chairs, candlesticks, glassware, and china rom Czech and Saxon manuacturers - - which were to become
typical or Bulgarian and Greek merchants and entrepreneurs o the irst and middle decades o the
nineteenth century . were placed alongside the copper essels skilully made by local cratsmen . In
general the prosperous representatie o the Bulgarian bourgeoisie was trying to catch up with the already
consolidated urban bourgeoisie in the rest o the Balkans in both lie style and social status. Certain
eatures in the way o lie o the rich 1urks were not alien to him either.` 1odoro ,1998:IV,2, also
includes a note on the change o emale dress: 1hough slowly, alien` ashions also crept into the
wardrobe o women in the late 1850`s. 1he urban woman gradually moed away rom the illage
woman.` In the 1940s Pew ,1943:2, still saw goods rom Vienna, such as chairs, couches, tables,
mirrors, or silerware in many houses.
142
lor Goodwin ,191:441, proincial residences like the /ova/ o Plodi, which closely ollow the
plan o the quasi-religious (inili Kiosk`, were the counterparts ,rials`, o the ,ati o the Bosphorus.
144
the most representatie examples dating rom the second and third quarter o the
nineteenth century, came into being.
143


In contrast to the mountain towns, Plodi was a ery old city, but the old Plodi` we
speak o emerged in the late eighteenth century. Accounts o the Plodi a century
earlier greatly dier, as illustrated by Pew ,1943:,9,: a western traeller had seen a city
o 40,000 and o a sad` appearance, with windowless houses built o wood and other
cheap materials - a temporary architecture renewed eery 40-50 years - spotted with
older stone-built churches, inns, and baths. Lliya, howeer, isiting Plodi at roughly
the same time, called it the most beautiul o cities o Luropean 1urkey, a large and rich
centre o commerce, and mentioned 165 palaces`
144
o a,av. 1wo centuries later
Plodi, still ,and probably een more so, a dominant regional centre o commerce,
attracted much immigration rom its rural surroundings but also many merchants and
builders rom the western hal o the southern Balkans ,Macedonia, Lpirus, etc., in
search or lucratie business and work. 1his process was a part o a regional shit o the
economic balance in aour o the Bulgarian lands. Bulgarian merchants, howeer, did
not achiee prominence until the 1830s. Stoianoich ,1992:42-3, identiied our
principal reasons or this:

1, 1he population o the Black Sea and Aegean coasts was mainly Greek, 1urkish, Jewish, or
Armenian, 2, Bulgaria was the hinterland o our major Ottoman cities - Istanbul, Adrianople
,Ldirne,, Phillippopolis ,Plodi,, and Soia - each o which needed the production o the
Bulgarian peasantry and consequently set limits upon the export o rural production beyond the
conines o the Lmpire, 3, Greek, Jewish, and Armenian merchants possessed irtual monopoly

143
1he dating o houses in the Ottoman Lmpire, in general, has been a problem. Pew ,1943, and
Roskosa ,19,, or Plodi and Kopristica, both report examples rom the eighteenth century`, but
the irst precisely dated examples they mention are rom the 1820s. 1his is mostly due to the inscriptions
on the houses themseles, which at that time become common. Interestingly, Roskosa ,19:169, states
that they usually ollow the Muslim calendar, while in some cases also both ariants can be ound.
144
le is indeed using the term .ara,, not /ova/.
145
rights to the trade o Istanbul with the eastern Balkans, and 4, little o the produce o Bulgaria
could be marketed in \allachia, Serbia, or Bosnia, because o the basically similar agricultural
production o the our areas.`

At least until about 150 the role o Bulgarian traders thus remained negligible. It was at
this time that the Greeks and Bulgarians o mountain illages like Stanimaka
,Asenograd,, Melnik, Razlog, Panagjuriste, Kopristica, Karloo, and Gabroo began
to make long commercial odysseys to Russia and lungary. Many o these illages ,or
small towns, then suered harshly, or were completely destroyed, in the unrest o the
/araati period. Some places, howeer, could quickly recoer. Kopristica, or example,
a centre o large-scale liestock husbandry, was thoroughly destroyed by bandits, but
could recoer rapidly because most o its capital - locks o sheep on pasture in 1hrace
or artisan goods sent by caraans or sale in Istanbul and Anatolia - had remained intact.
By the 1830s this illage` had maybe 5,000 inhabitants and urnished Plodi with
some o its merchant dynasties`. 1he /araati period had not only resulted in migration
moements to \allachia, but then also to the depopulated alleys.
145
Not anymore
solely between illage and city, a more expanded exchange o goods began between
indiidual towns and production areas on both sides o the Balkans mountain range,
and between Macedonia and the ports on the Danube.
146
By the 1840s areas like
Plodi, Slien, or Samoko represented an enormous workshop operating less or

145
Romanian cities like Bucharest, Braila, or Braso had in act played an important role in the cultural
deelopment o the Bulgarians ,see Crampton 199:64-5,. Clarke ,1945:144, een beliees that the
Bulgarian emigr |sic| colonies north o the Danube played somewhat the same role in the Bulgarian
renaissance as the north-o-the-border Serbs o lungary did in the Serbian`. Neertheless, Clarke
,1945:154, appends that around 1800 the Bulgarians in \allachia were known as Sarbi` ,Serbs,,
supporting his suggestion that the strict separation between these two groups is a more recent
deelopment.
146
Lawless ,19:529,, howeer, maintains that ,at least or 1hessaly, which he writes o, a true urban
system did not emerge until long ater the end o Ottoman rule: lar rom sering the rural areas around,
the towns were economically parasitic, and, as the home o the landowning class, much o the wealth
rom agriculture was concentrated there. Lach town, urthermore, sered only the surrounding area and
because o the poor communications there was little or no dierentiation in the serices which each town
oered, and little or no economic competition and interaction between dierent centres.`
146
domestic consumption than or the general Ottoman regional market.
14
,Stoianoich
1992:43, 1odoro 1983:212-3 and 1998:IV,21,24-5, Detrez 2003:32,

Plodi, a large accessible urban centre located in the 1hracian plain, became a target o
considerable immigration in this period, which ultimately also changed the ethno-
conessional make-up o the city. By 1850, at the peak o Plodi`s prosperity, howeer,
the Orthodox Christians, numbering around 40,000, constituted only a slight majority
oer the Muslim population ,Detrez 2003:33,. Insight into the composition and
identiication o the Plodi society o the mid-nineteenth century can be aorded rom
Moraeno`s Record o the Plodi Christian population in the city and o its common
institutions, according to oral tradition` ,186,, as studied by Detrez ,2003,. le,
according to sel-deinition o the persons he interiewed, diided Plodi`s Orthodox
Christians into not only Greeks and Bulgarians but additional categories: gvaita.
,hellenized Bulgarians, apparently also a sel-designation,
148
and tavgera. ,ethnic Greeks
rom the region, as opposed to the Greeks` hailing rom elsewhere,
149
.
150
lrom the

14
1aken the Danube Vilayet ,much o northern Bulgaria and the Dobrudja, as example, by the 1860`s
only 19 o the working population ,o which we hae knowledge o, engaged in agriculture, almost as
much as those engaged in trade ,16,, but altogether less that those engaged in artisan and manuacturing
branches ,46,. 1he percentage o those who sold their labour reached about 36. ,1odoro
1998:IV,2,
148
larboa ,2002:135, dates the appearance` o the grcomanes` among the Bulgarians into the
eighteenth and beginning o the nineteenth century. 1he reason or this process she explains with the
desire or integration into the higher cultural leel o the Greeks. As language` o the gvaita., Moraeno
speaks o gudilski`, which the linguist Detrez ,2003:38,, on examples gien by Karaelo, identiies as a
weird mixture o Bulgarian, Greek and 1urkish words.`
149
1he diision between Greeks` and tavgera. is moreoer accounted or by Detrez ,2003:31-2,36,: 1he
tavgera. ,named so ater their widespread occupation o wine-growing, hail rom the nearby mountain
town o Asenograd ,Stanimaka, and its surroundings, whereto a great part o Plodi's Byzantine
Christian ,mostly Greek, population had settled ater Plodi had been taken by the Ottomans. 1he ew
persons identiied by Moraeno as lellenes` came rom Macedonia, Lpirus, 1hrace, een Athens and
Ionian or Aegean islands. 1he existence o holders o passports o the neo-lellenic state, howeer, do
not oer deinite indication o ethnic identities, as many gvaita. had Greek passports, the Bulgarians
generally did not. A ew inhabitants o Plodi were also Russian citizens, including Greek-speakers.
150
1he numerical relation between these groups in Plodi ,center and periphery, was, in Moraeno`s
count, as ollows ,by households,: 23 Bulgarian, 163 gvaita., 58 tavgera., 53 Bulgarian parents with gvaita
children, 4 both Bulgarian and gvaita, 21 Greek. ,Detrez 2003:34,
14
1830s onward, the upward social mobility o many Bulgarian immigrants eentually
resulted in a power struggle with the Greeks and the hellenized Bulgarians, as the
Bulgarian immigrants, mostly peasants rom the hinterland, resisted hellenization and
demanded church serices in Bulgarian. 1here was much hostility between the
Bulgarians and the gvaita., but the deelopment o Bulgarians turning gvaita. was
ongoing, and essentially seen as a orm o social promotion rather than as a
renouncement o one`s ethnic identity. 1hereby, when members o a Bulgarian amily
became gvaita., Moraeno`s account proides no eidence that this would hae
prooked tension or rits within the amily. ,Detrez 2003:33-5, But language did not
constitute the main distinction between the gvaita. and the Bulgarians, i we again ollow
Detrez ,2003:38,41-2,, who maintains, based on Bulgarian not Greek sources, that

all Plodi citizens spoke Greek, including those with an actie sense o Bulgarian
awareness and who were opposed to the spread o lellenism in the city . Bulgarian
was spoken only in some Plodi neighbourhoods and by the serants, in the city centre
households that spoke Bulgarian were rare . Beore the 1850s in Plodi there was
little serious resistance oered to the use o Greek as the common language o the
entire urban elite, een by those members o that elite who allegedly possessed an actie
sense o Bulgarian consciousness. \hat those people actually possessed was Bulgarian
etbvic awareness, which did not constitute an obstacle to speaking Greek in eeryday lie
and adopting the Greek urban lie style . Len amilies who had presered a sense o
Bulgarian consciousness did not object to sending their children to schools where they
were taught in a language that was not their mother tongue. As elsewhere in Bulgaria,
the irst demands to hae Bulgarian education were inspired more by pedagogical than
by nationalist considerations. All this again indicates that prior to the 1850s and
obligating national consciousness was still absent . Gien the act that nations were
still in the process o ormation, it would be an anachronism to deine the gvaita. in
national terms - as Bulgarians` or Greeks`. 1hey were Bulgarians by ethnic origin,
but Greeks in the sense o Rovaio. - Orthodox Christian`, or in the sense o city
148
dweller` or member o the urban social elite`, meaning which the word Rovaio. had
acquired in the nineteenth century.`
151


On acculturation in mid-century Plodi, and how his Bulgarian barbarism` was
pruned, the Kopristica-born Ljuben Karaelo, an important igure o the National
Reial`, let a personal account ,translated in Detrez 2003:3-8,:

Really, tell me, can a Bulgarian wear a pair o |ull-bottomed and tight legged| breeches
and a red belt, when the Graecoman ciilization required long and high-bottomed
/araravi ,trousers, with a multitude o decorations and a yellow belt with a knot in the
middle Among the Graecomans it was considered a disgrace to wear a woollen jacket
lined with sheepskin, and Stanyo attempted to reorm me and gie me a Plodi
appearance. le bought me blue trousers, a yellow belt, shiny shoes and a purple ez.
1he only shortcoming was my socks. Leryone knows the great descendants o the
Byzantine empire wear cotton socks, tied below the knee, like women, and my woollen
socks rom Koprishtica were short, so the shins o my legs remained completely bare.
But anyhow, or 500 Grosches Mr. Stanyo made me a Greek.`

lrom all this one is tempted to assume that those who built the amed Plodi
mansions could hardly hae called themseles Bulgarians`, een i eidently o
Bulgarian origins, and that such branding is a reading-back into history. 1his is not to
say that these houses should be considered Greek` or 1urkish` instead. Rather, they
simply ormed a part o a late Ottoman Balkans artistic trend that had diering
maniestations in dierent localities o one region, created or the upper crust o a
ethnically dierse, pre-national society by an ethnically dierse group o artists and

151
1hence Detrez ,2003:39-40, concludes, that instead o a Bulgarian or Greek ethnic state the gvaita.,
who were also the most ierce proponents o the use o the Greek language in church and at school` and
identiied with the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, probably would hae preerred the Ottoman Lmpire
or a successor state in the orm o a restored Byzantine Lmpire as a homeland. 1hey did not dier, or
that matter, rom the majority o the wealthy Greek urban establishment all oer the Ottoman Lmpire.`
149
cratsmen.
152
Not only residences but also mosques in Greece, Macedonia, and Albania
equally orm part o this art. 1his, unsurprisingly, resulted in some curious outcomes.
One o which, sometimes mentioned in the same sentence with the roughly
contemporary coloured mosques` in 1etoo and 1ranik, is the Bayrakli mosque at
Samoko |Ill.4.1,18|, which Kiel ,1990b:128, ound to be a curious structure, looking
more like some sort o rich house than an Ottoman mosque`. 1his mosque had been
rebuilt and redecorated by local ,Bulgarian, masters in the 1830s. During a restoration
o the mosque these masters` signatures, scratched into the sot lime o the irst layer,
were discoered. 1he building o the Bayrakli coincided with the bloom o the Samoko
School o painting, o which the interior and exterior painted decoration is one o the
most important examples.
153
As preiously mentioned, this school o painting had had
more direct connection with western art, through its ounder lristo Dimitro studying
in Vienna in the 10s and, more than a hal-century later, his son Zahari taking lessons
in painting rom lrench artists who were traelling to Constantinople.
154
It is this one o

152
lrom the names proided by Pew ,1943:34-40, we see that the persons who had these houses built
were not only o Sla,Bulgarian but o Bulgarian, Armenian, and oten Greek origin ,or orientation, in
these case o the hellenized Bulgarians,. 1he owner o the Maridi louse, one o the most oten depicted
Plodi houses, may or example hae been the gvaita o the name o Cerne ,black`, that, as
Moraeno reported, changed his name ,Detrez 2003:39,. More generally, Detrez ,2003:35,, noticing the
requent inter-ethnic marriages between Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Vlachs in Ploid, also
suggests that no great store was set by loyalty to one`s ethnic community, although we may assume that
eeryone was perectly aware o his own ethnic ailiation and that o his ellow citizens`.
153
lrom the tevettvat registers o Samoko in 1845 ,published by Ianea 2004, a ew interesting
conclusions can be made on the socio-economic status these painters-decorators ,registered as nakkas`,
enjoyed. In this town o almost 8,000 inhabitants, in act only 5 households depended on the income o
its head as decorator. 1his, howeer, seemed to hae been a rather prestigious and lucratie occupation,
as the aerage household income o a decorator was 834 kurus, almost twice as much as the aerage
income o those engaged in manuacturing, trade, and serices ,484,5 /vrv,,. O the more than 60 crats
proessed in Samoko by mid-century, only the drapers ,vbaci, oten Jews, and the candle-makers ,vvvcv,
had higher aerage household incomes than the decorators, who also brought home more than our times
as much as the 40 o Samoko`s population who Ianea characterizes as low income` or earnings o
less than 200 /vrv,. But they also earned more than those engaged in textile production and trade, on
which the town thried. Striking is also that they had an aerage income 3-4 times as high as the local
builders,carpenters ,avtger and aogravaci,, whereby we may conclude that their serices must hae been
really considered a luxury rather than necessity.
154
Art histories o the late Ottoman Lmpires are multi-sited histories. Although a Bulgarian school o
painting`, works o the Samoko masters can thus be ound in southeast Serbia ,c. Popoa 2005, or
northern Greece ,Athos, prominently, as well.
150
the last domed mosques built in the Balkans, but, with its painted exterior and almost
Byzantine church-like appearance, a monument o its own.

\ith Samoko proiding some o the most sought-ater decorators o this period,
builders rom the Rhodope mountain illages assume a prominent ,i not dominant,
role in much o 1hrace and beyond.
155
O these, the gited builders o Bracigoo were
perhaps the most amous, achieing region-wide popularity ater building the bridge
oer the Marica rier near Pazardzik ,1atar Pazarcik, in 199. At irst they only built in
the surrounding region, in and around Plodi and Pazardzik, but they soon broadened
their area o work to most o Bulgaria, \allachia, Ldirne and Istanbul. Based in the
Rhodopes, their presence there, howeer, did not reach back long. In the second hal o
the eighteenth century Bracigoo had receied around 150 amilies rom around
Kastoria and Kor, leeing rom the terror o Ali Pasha o Ioannina. Most o the
settlers came rom the builders` illages o Omocko ,now Liadotopos, near Kastoria,
and Oresce, and they continued their proession in 1hrace. By 185, still, 393 out o
3,054 inhabitants worked in construction ,and i we assume a household size o 5
persons, that would mean that around two thirds o the illage`s households would hae
been supported by a member working in this proession,. Due to their region o origin,
the mountains o western Macedonia ,Albania`
156
,, they were locally called
Albanians`, their distinct dialect Albanian`. ,Berbenlie 1963, esp. 11-21, lrom the
list o names proided by Berbenlie ,1963:18-19, we can, howeer, see that these were

155
lor the builders o 1hrace, Moutsopoulos ,196:102,, as should be mentioned, identiied completely
dierent areas o origin than had Anhegger ,1954:91, and Pew ,1943:42,, who stressed the role o the
Rhodopes. It is ery probably that Moutsopoulos speaks only o the Greek portion o 1hrace when he
writes that there the builders came rom rom the Soides in the Vizii |Vize| district, Souili ,Souli,,
Ortakioi and Adrianoupolis.`
156
1his is not as curious as it may sound or, historically, the toponym Albania` had little coincidence
with the territory o the modern nation state but was sometimes applied to include not only Kosoo and
western Macedonia but een Montenegro and Lpirus.
151
really Slas. So, in conclusion, it can be said that a group o Macedonian Slas rom
present-day Greece were instrumental in the National Reial`
15
o Bulgaria, where
they were called Albanians`
158
.

Among the assistants rom the Balkan range that came to work with them was the
Drjanoo-born Nikola lice, nicknamed Kolju liceto, probably the best-known builder
o the Bulgarian Reial. More than in 1hrace, he worked in north Bulgaria ,especially
around 1arnoo, and much in Romania ,\allachia and Dobrudza,. Ater mid-century
he also worked or the Ottoman state, as locally represented by the reormist Midhat
Pasha, and or his bridge oer the Bjala receied the Meciai,e medal. In the new
Bulgarian principality, ater 188, he then spent his last three years as city architect` o
1arnoo, haing changed the usta` or maistor` titles or architect` in his signature.
A Baroque curiness can be noticed throughout much o his work, whereby the term
icer./a /obitica ,the lice sweep` or yoke`,
159
came to used or the way roo-lines
and pediments that characterize many o his buildings |e.g. Ill.4.2|, including one o his
last works, the /ova/ o 1arnoo ,182-4,, an almost western building ,as many o the
proincial /ova/s ater mid-century,. ,1ulesko 2002,

\hat concerns the elaborately cared ceilings o Plodi houses, Pew ,1943:30,42,
states that most cratsmen responsible or these came rom the Balkan mountains -

15
1hat the apparent bloom in the art o this region at that time was supposedly stimulated by |national|
reial ideas` ,i/v.tro r Ma/eaovi;a be .tivvtiravo ot raroaev./ite iaei`, is, or example, held by Vasilie
,1965:14,. le urther states ,1965:40-1, that the representaties o the schools o Debar, Samoko,
1rjana, and Bansko created the so-called Bulgarian National Reial style` as they let works with
speciic national spirit, in strongly expressed national style.`
158
But not only the masters rom Kastoria but also those rom Debar, as Vasilie ,1965:14, conirms,
were called Albanians` in Bulgaria.
159
In a rather romantic interpretation, 1odoro ,1966:,22-3, belieed lice to hae drawn the
inspiration or these graceul cures` rom the orms o the mountain range behind his natie Drjanoo,
maintaining that lice`s teitvotir is not a Baroque meander, and is not be ound on any \est Luropean
Baroque building.`
152
rom 1rjana, 1eteen, Llena, and Zerana - but also rom Kastoria and Debar, and
that among the builders those rom the Rhodopes and Macedonia played a ar more
important role than those rom the Balkan mountains.
160
Interesting is also the
inormation proided by Papoulia ,et al. 1994:Ch..2, that Plodi indeed had a large
number o guilds, but that that o the aovtgeriae.
161
-masons, though one o the oldest
guilds in Plodi, was ounded only in the closing decades o the eighteenth century. It
did not hae a written charter because most o the masons were illiterate migrants rom
elsewhere. According to Pew ,1943:42, a unique item or Bulgaria, a chronicle or the
Plodi builders` guild coering the years 1850-1906 has suried. Lntries were written
in Greek ,in Pew`s judgment a bad Greek`, until 1880 and ater that in Bulgarian. It
recorded 440 masters on the occasion o a guild celebration and, generally, listed all
masters regularly paying their membership ees. loweer, only irst names are
mentioned, and inormation about amilies and lies are lacking. Nonetheless it can be
seen that most members were indeed Slas rom 1hrace and Macedonia. 1he guild not
only represented them proessionally but also contributed to public welare, or example
by proiding or a oluntary ire-ighting team.


160
In the ceiling ornamentation, oten with ery high ,hanging`, relie, Pew ,1943:2, discerned two
moti programmes: one displaying complicated geometric and egetal patterns, coering the whole space,
and the other, more pronouncing the middle o the room, with a star-like pattern, which reminded him o
the sculpture and ornament o contemporary carings in churches. Pew ,1943:42, ound the ceilings at
1rjana, though less majestic than those o Plodi, ery precisely worked, but also characterized more by
the inluence rom the Orient than o \estern Baroque. 1hereby he indirectly suggests that, i not rom
the carpenters rom the Balkan mountains, the more western-looking works must hae been produced by
the western Macedonian cratsmen working in Plodi. Interestingly, also larboa ,2002:130,, while
recognizing the simultaneous impact o trends spreading rom both Istanbul and Vienna, attributes the
western inluence on Plodi architecture as due to the masters coming to Plodi rom Debar in western
Macedonia. I this is a act, could this hae been due to the Macedonian-Lpirote-1hessalian region, and
oremost its Christian merchants as patrons and thereby giing directions to the masters they
commissioned, haing established direct cultural connections with the \est ,Vienna, oten, but also the
borders with Venetian and Austrian territories in the \estern Balkans were not that ar, decades earlier
beore similar deelopments took place in the eastern hal o the Balkans
161
1his was the designing or the building cratsmen in 1hrace, while in Lpirus and western Macedonia
they were known as koudarei` ,Moutsopoulos 196:102,.
153
By the 1830s the guilds, still controlling much o the economic actiity, began to
generate their own disposable surpluses. 1hese then came to be spent on what could be
broadly called public works`, including new churches ,not anymore the modest
typically single-aisled but now larger and oten three-aisled churches,, renoations o
monasteries ,with that o the Rila monastery becoming a great symbol o the Bulgarian
Reial,, schools, and urban commodities such as ountains and, ery isible, clock
towers showing the time according to Christian rather than Muslim modes, a symbol
o cultural sel-assertion and modernity as well as a material attestation o recent
attainments`
162
,Crampton 199:59,. Unlike sometimes stated, clock-towers in the
Ottoman Lmpire were not an innoation o the nineteenth century. Already in the
sixteenth century some Balkan towns like Banja Luka or Skopje, the latter with a clock
brought rom conquered lungary, had clock-towers ,Kreseljakoic 195,. 1here were
usually built next to mosques, as ra/if ,endowments,, and an early concentration o such
structures we ind particularly in Bosnia and lerzegoina, where their shape has oten
been linked to the Italianate campanile o the neighbouring Adriatic coast.
163
1his is not
to say that the resurgence o this type in the eighteenth and oremost in the nineteenth
centuries was not understood as a marker o modernization in the 1anzimat era o
reorms ,which it undoubtedly was, but that it was not an inention o this period.
\hateer its prehistory, particularly in Macedonia and Bulgaria this trend let some
remarkable monuments relecting the general architectural ,including Baroque`, trends,
next to some more rustic examples. Relecting the baroque curiness o contemporary

162
In a more nationalist interpretation, these clock towers are considered as demonstratie
constructions, built to express and dend |sic| the Bulgarian national presence, allegiance and sel-
conidence, and to show the desire o the Bulgarian people or national and cultural reedom. 1hese
towers are the psychological accents, which Bulgarians oppose to the oicial Islamic architecture o the
Ottoman inaders.` ,Roskoska 2003:109, lor Biche ,1961:5,, the reasons were more practical: 1he
ixed working hours |in the commercial districts|, which were strictly obsered, led to the simultaneous
opening and closing o the stores. 1o keep the proper working hours, howeer, eery merchant had to
know the exact time. 1hus the clock tower emerged as a child o necessity.`
163
lor a surey o clock towers in Anatolia, see Acun ,1994,.
154
designs o houses and churches, noteworthy are the clock-towers in Prilep ,1858, and
Botegrad ,1866, |Ill.4.23| near Soia, both o which hae become signature landmarks
or their respectie cities and are claimed to be the most beautiul o their kind in their
respectie countries. 1he structure in Prilep ,Macedonia,, renewed ater a ire in 1856,,
has an inscription ,published in Kiel 1990c:VIII,10, rom 1863,4 which proudly
reads: Not eery place has a clock to strike the hours`. Stylistically, Kiel
,1990c:VIII,11, inds that it belongs to circle o architecture o the sturdy but
neertheless elegant Neoclassistic |sic| style o the Macedonian Reial Period o the
19
th
century . rather than to late Ottoman art.` 1he really Baroque eature is in act
not the octagonal tower itsel, but the drinking ountain below it |Ill.4.24|.

laing already mentioned Macedonia, it must be stressed that these lands must be
considered part o what has come to be called the Bulgarian National Reial as well.
Skopje, or example, was a decidedly Bulgarian city in the church conlict.
164
In the
1830s the Sla guildsmen demanded a Bulgarian instead o a Greek Metropolitan, and
then built a church or use only by Bulgarians, Seta Bogorodica ,Our loly Mother o
God, in 1835. ,Adanir 1994:159, Destroyed in \orld \ar II, it suries only in older
illustrations |Ill.4.25| where we see an interesting building o rectangular plan o modest
size, pitched roo, blind arcades with semi-circular arches on the ground loor, and
oerall a building that, though not as a church, may not look out o place in Italy. 1he
team responsible or its construction was that o Andreja Damjano ,1813-188,, the
most amous representatie o the Renzoski-Damjanoi amily o builders and icon

164
By the 1830s Skopje had a population o around 10,000, still nothing compared to the 60,000 beore
the Austrian inasion, but at least twice the number it had a hal-century earlier. Adanir suggests the
reial o the oerland route through the Balkan interior during this period ,Napoleonic wars, as a reason
or this growth. Among the towns o Macedonia, howeer, it ranked only behind 1hessaloniki ,60,000,,
Bitola ,40,000,, Seres ,25,000, and Stip ,20,000,. ,Adanir 1994:156-,
155
painters rom around Debar.
165
1his church was only a modest prelude to the truly
monumental structures he would design` in the ollowing hal-century in much o the
Balkans, but particularly in Serbia and Bosnia, where he built the Orthodox cathedrals
o Mostar and Sarajeo in the 1860s and 0s, both in a hybrid mix o Byzantine and
Baroque orms and much reminiscent o the Serbian Baroque` churches that had been
built in Austria during the preious century.
166
1he architecture o the churches does not
concern us much, since they already show a maturely occidentalized emancipation rom
Ottoman-period models ater mid-century, when many o the restrictions on church
building had been lited ,which will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter,.
Useul, howeer, is the insight lilipoic ,1949, proides on how the choices or designs
were made at that time. \hen Damjano negotiated with the Orthodox parish o
Sarajeo oer the design o a new church he was asked to delier a plan or drawing.
Rather than doing this, howeer, Damjano adised them to see as examples the
churches he built in in Nis and Smedereo, and promised he would construct an een
iner one or them. \hen the parish o Mostar, who also planned the construction o a
cathedral but was not satisied with the work o another master-builder rom
Macedonia, then asked Damjano or a design, he sent them to Sarajeo to see the
cathedral he had just inished there. lilipoic, howeer, beliees that some kind o plans
must hae been used in the construction o these churches. Although churches were
eidently his speciality, Damjano and his team also built secular structures. In the
Mostar church one resco painting is attributed to him as well. \hile working in

165
Damjano, howeer, was born in Papradiste near Veles ,central Macedonia,, whereto his amily,
originally based in the Reka illage o 1resonce, had moed in the later eighteenth century. le was also
buried in Veles, next to the church built by himsel.
166
1o Serbia he had moed in 1851, his irst project being the church o Smedereo ,1851-5, on the
border with Austria. In this context it is interesting to note that the 1urkish` builder Damjano had been
gien preerence oer the Austrian` ,Czech, architect Jan Neola, whose original design or the church
had been dismissed by the parish, who then decided to opt or a builder more amiliar with the Orthodox
Slas` medieal church heritage. ,Kadijeic 199:1,
156
Sarajeo, he was also commissioned with the repair o the clock tower and the building
o the Krsla barracks ,later demolished,. O the latter Damjano had a model built o
wood and, when taking it to Istanbul to show it to the Sultan ,only ater it was built,
16
,
he was reportedly decorated by the ruler - an honour already Andreja`s great-grandather
had had or haing painted an appreciated portrait o the Sultan ,Vasilie 1965:151, -
and was conceded the right to wear a sword.
168



16
1his was because the sultan, surprised at the high cost o the building, had asked the responsible pasha
to justiy the expense, whereby Damjano was asked to crat a model and accompany the pasha to the
capital to show it to the ruler ,ladziea-Aleksieska and Kasapoa 2001:19,. 1he sultan, apparently, was
pleased with the design.
168
low these masters presented their ideas to their patrons has been a subject o discussion, as detailed
architectural drawings are rare or the whole Ottoman domain up until the nineteenth century. lice had
presented to Midhat Pasha a wax model o the bridge oer the Jantra he was commissioned to build,
whereupon Cerasi ,1988:94, asks: Could this hae been an Ottoman tradition` \alkey ,1990:118,
mentions that in the case o the builders o northwest Greece no drawings were made either. 1he only
written eidence o their work is a number o one-page documents each describing the number o rooms
to be built, how many special doors, how many ireplaces and a schedule o payment and bonuses.` In the
case o Damjano`s church at Nis, howeer, a careul i basic drawing rom 1856 by the master exists
,published in ladziea-Aleksieska and Kasapoa 2001:15,. Interesting is also the case o the 1rjana-
born Genco Kane ,dealt with in greater detail by Koea 198,, who had learned how to make technical
blueprints o buildings when working in construction projects superised by oreign-trained engineers in
neighbouring Romania ,Biche 1961:8,.
15
4.2. Serbia under Milos Obrenovic

\hile in the south Balkans rom the late eighteenth century onwards cultural innoation
had been borne and patronized chiely by an emerging urban merchant class, Serbia
,~the principality in central Serbia, had neither cities, sae or the Ottoman garrison
towns o Belgrade and Uzice, nor cosmopolitan merchants.
169
A wealthy class o
Serbian merchants had existed in old Serbia` ,Kosoo, prior to the eighteenth century,
but many o these indiiduals had migrated northwards to Austria with the retreating
labsburg troops ater the ailed occupation o Ottoman lands in the late seenteenth
century. 1here, many Serbs continued to prosper, soon controlling a large portion o the
trade. \ith Kosoo soon becoming repopulated with Albanians, and gradually acquiring
a Muslim character, the area thereater coming to be identiied as Serbia was the central
region between Belgrade and north o Nis, thereby north o where the medieal
kingdoms had been centred. \hen this region ,Sumadija,, especially ater the 160s,
began to raise pigs or export to Austria to satisy demands preiously met by lungary,
Slaonia, and the Banat, we see the emergence o a rural middle class o battle-trained
pig merchants, hal merchants and hal warriors`.
10
Austro-Ottoman agreements o

169
In the 1830s and 1840s only some 6 o Serbia`s population lied in cities ,c. \erolympos 1996:1,.
In Danube Bulgaria, at the same time, the urban population should hae been around 20 ,c. Palairet
199:28,. In the otherwise surprisingly urbanized Ottoman Balkans, particularly in Serbia a trend or de-
urbanization was noticeable rom the late eighteenth century onwards. According to estimates aailable to
Palairet ,199:28-9,, Belgrade`s population declined rom some 6,000 houses ,30,000-55,000 inhabitants,
in 1 to only 69 ,000 inhabitants, in 1834. Uzice declined rom maybe 20,000 inhabitants in the late
eighteenth century to 2,490 in the 1860s, when this ,until then still predominantly Muslim, town was
acated rom its Muslim inhabitants. But een beore the expulsions in 1863, Uzice`s population would
already hae declined to 4,100. \hile beore the time o the Serbian Uprising the urban population in the
Belgrade a,ati/ must hae accounted or 2 or higher, aterwards it shrank to maybe 5.
10
Despite the lack o urban centres o commercial prominence the a,ati/ o Belgrade, the later
principality, was airly prosperous due to its ertile land, and een attracted migrants. Judah ,199:50,8,
cites estimates according to which in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries maybe hal a million Serbs
came escaping poerty rom the mountains o Montenegro and lerzegoina or rom Kosoo and the
.avca/ o Noi Pazar, including the amilies o the later rebel leaders Karadorde and Obrenoic. Between
1815 and 1833 alone the Serb population in the region is belieed to hae doubled, partly certainly due to
Milos` policy o distributing land to immigrants and reugees.
158
184 and 191 urther stimulated Serbian trade, giing rise to this class which then was
to urnish the uprising o 1804 with some o its most prominent leaders. ,Stoianoich
1992:18,44,51-2,59,

1his reolt, unlike oten later interpreted, had not begun as a spontaneous nationalist
uprising but as a protest against the unruly Janissaries, who had had dominated the
a,ati/ o Belgrade until the 190s. \ithdrawn by Selim, Serbia then was wisely
administered by an enlightened but irm lajji Mustapha, who rebuilt the churches and
encouraged trade.` ,Swallow 193:21, 1his ruler o Greek extraction` - something
which Castellan ,1992:234, ound noteworthy - was also popular among Serbs, earning
him the title Mother o the Serbs`. loweer, when Selim allowed the Janissaries back
to Serbia to ight the rebel Pazantoglu and restore order in 198 Mustaa Pasha and
some senior oicers were assassinated. Anticipating large-scale massacres, a peasant
uprising broke out under the leadership o Karadorde in 1804. Ater nine years o reolt
the Ottomans regained control oer Serbia, only to ace another uprising in 1815, led by
Milos Obrenoic as Karadorde had led to Austria. In seeral stages ,181, 1830, 1833,
Serbia was made an autonomous principality ,under Ottoman suzerainty but emptied o
its Muslim population,
11
with Milos as hereditary ruler. Partly contemporary with the
Greek reolution and the Greek enlightenment, Scopetea ,1991:204,, howeer, suggests
the Serbian reolution and the Serbian enlightenment to be studied as two parallel and
mutually independent complexes.` 1he enlightenment took place in Austria under the
guidance o wealthy Serbs, the reolution was an uprising brought about by peasants.
Milos, characterized by Jelaich ,1983:239,, was not an educated man, he could not

11
1hat those Muslims liing in the principality but not connected to the Ottoman garrisons would hae
to sell their property and leae was speciically spelt out in clauses in the documents by which the sultan
ormally granted autonomy to Milos. Beore the irst uprising maybe some 40,000 Muslims had lied in
the a,ati/ next to 250,000 Serbs. ,Judah 199:5,8,
159
read or write. Nor had he experienced lie outside the Ottoman Lmpire. \ith this
background he naturally adopted Ottoman examples in running his state, essentially he
acted like a 1urkish pasha.` lis autocratic and oten brutal rule resulted in a rebellion
against him, in which a constitution was demanded. Inaugurated in 1835, along with a
lag and a ministry o oreign aairs, it had to be withdrawn at the demands o the
Sultan, Russia, and Austria. 1hough Milos might hae lacked a wider ision, seeral
interesting architectural and urbanistic` projects took orm during his reign ,1815-
1839,. \e will hae a brie look at three ensembles` emerging under Milos: the .r./a
raro. at Belgrade, the 1opcider complex` near Belgrade, and the Mito.er revac at
Kragujeac.

1he core o the Serbian suburb ,.r./a raro., o Milos` Belgrade was just outside the
ortress. Along one street, Kralja Petra, three buildings rom between the 1820s and 40s
remain, representing a spectrum o builders rom Macedonia, rom Serbia, and rom the
Austrian towns just across the border ,Zemun, Panceo,.
12
1he earliest o these is the
present-day Kaana `, built in 1823 by Milos or his commercial consultant Petar Icko
by Greek` builders in a typical Balkan style`. 1he other is the palace` o Milos`s wie
Ljubica |Ill.4.14|, built between 1829 and 1831 under the superision o his personal
builder ladzi Nikola Zikoic, and some workmen rom Panceo who are possibly, or
at least in part, to be credited or some o the palace`s occidental eatures. It is this a
structure oten mentioned in the same paragraph with the houses at Plodi, which it in
act mostly pre-dates. Most noteworthy is the cured projection on the irst loor and

12
Krunic ,1996:26, mentions avvaeri ,carpenters, rom Struga, Debar, and Veles ,all in the present
Republic o Macedonia or, anachronistically South Serbia` or Old Serbia`, and that these brought
house-types rom the south. Dvvaer must be a corruption o the 1urkish avtger ,as also conirmed by
Kreseljakoic 1935:98,. In the translation o Ottoman texts rom Bosnia, Nagata ,199:61,9, had noted
that locally the G in avtger had been replaced by a ,modern 1urkish, C , avtcer,, as in the regional dialect
the Ottoman-1urkish K ,or G, in this case, was oten substitutde with a C ,or the soter D, in this case,
\ith the U naturally becoming an U ,as the U does not exist in Slaic pronounciations,, the L, less
rationally, must hae become an N.
160
the rigorous symmetry. Discrete mouldings on the ront acade, otherwise exhibiting the
typical whitewash o the Ottoman house`, betray a Central Luropean inluence. 1he
interior again is more traditional` with its wood-cared elements o typically late
Ottoman character. Also by name it is not yet a palace or court ,as later royal projects,
but a /ova/. Just across the street we ind the main Cathedral ,183-40, |Ill.4.28| dating
rom a period - according to Maneic ,192:, a time ater the mid-1830s - when Milos
not anymore entrusted his building projects to the local sel-trained builders but to
oreigners`, that is, mostly Serbs or other Slas rom Austria. 1he odd blend o
classicist ,pediment, and Baroque ,bell tower, has oten been noted, and a German`
inluence is een isible on the rescoes in the interior.

Although his ,or in act his wie`s, /ova/ in the Serbian quarter is the most
representatie residential building o Milos`s reign, so curious that een Le Corbusier
ound it worth drawing, the prince` ,a questionable but customary translation o the
Serbian /ve, himsel chose to reside in the airly remote 1opcider area, supposedly to
not be too close to the 1urkish garrison in the citadel. 1here, ater 1831, Milos had a
residence built or himsel |Ill.4.15|, a church, a park, coeehouse, and army barracks.
Despite the solid building materials used, Akin ,2001:148, still attests the 1opcider
residence the continuation o Ottoman traditions, which she identiied in the ceilings,
benches, cupboards, and niches, and a hall resembling a central .ofa.

Ater the second uprising, Kragujeac ,not Belgrade,, the hub o the central Serbian
Sumadija region and the epicentre o the uprising, had sered as the capital o the
Serbian /ve between 1818 and 1839, grew considerably. Seeral buildings materialized
in the area now called Milose Venac`: a court, a high school, a theatre, an arsenal,
barracks, a theatre, and a new church. Built as early as 1818, this church was still o ery
161
modest dimension as a mosque was in its icinity.
13
At that time Milos still seems to
hae asked or permission. 1he churches o the 1830s, howeer, already leae little trace
o such considerations, coinciding with the new autonomies achieed, and a shit o
interest towards Serbia`s real urban centre, Belgrade.

In terms o secular architecture the period until the 1860s was then characterized by
what Maneic ,192:8, described as a proincial Luropean Classicism, miniature
ersions o palaces. 1hereby it must be comparable to the ulgarized` ersion o
Luropean Classicism proessed by local builders that Popescu ,2004:32, speaks o or
Romania ater the 1820s. 1he years around 1860, howeer, then again mark a proound
change. In Belgrade the Captain Miso building is the irst true palazzo` o Luropean
dimension in the capital, and the wealthy Serb merchant community o 1rieste built a
large cathedral, setting the neo-Byzantine` style that was henceorth to dominate
Serbian religious architecture and thereby putting an end to the century o Baroque`.

In the second quarter o the nineteenth century, howeer, Serbia appeared to westerners
like Paton as a mixture o German and 1urkish. 1he /ova/ o Sabac, or example, he
reported to be

a large building, in the style o Constantinople, which, with its line o bow windows,
and kiosk-ashioned rooms, surmounted with projecting roos, might hae passed
muster on the Bosphorus. On entering, I was ushered into the oice o the collector, to
await his arrial, and, at a irst glance, might hae supposed mysel in a ormal Austrian
kanzley |~chancellery|. 1here were the lat desks, the strong boxes, and the sheles o
coarse oolscap, but a pile o long chibouques, and a young man, with a slight
Northumbrian burr, and Serian dress, showed that I was on the right bank o the Sae

13
1he present building o the Stara Crka ,Old Church,, remodelled in 190 in a neo-Byzantine-Baroque
spirit and with addition o a belry, bears little resemblance with the original structure, sae or its
approximate dimension.
162
. I accompanied |the pandour| until we arried at a house two stories high, which we
entered by a wide new wooden gate, and then mounting a staircase, scrupulously clean,
were shown into his principal room, which was surrounded by a dian a la 1urque, but
it had no carpet, so we went straight in with our boots on. A German chest o drawers
was in one corner, the walls were plain white-washed, and so was a stoe about six eet
high, the only ornament o the room was a small snake moulding in the centre o the
roo. Some oak chairs were ranged along the lower end o the room, and a table stood
in the middle, coered with a German linen cloth, representing Pesth and Oen`. ,Paton
1845:94,96,

It was this a isual culture in transition, and Cerasi ,1999:131, has ound it paradoxical
that

the non-Muslim middle classes . bred ery un-Ottoman nationalistic ideas,
enthusiastically conerted to \estern house appliances and gadgets, dressed in public in
the Luropean ashion, yet up to the ourth quarter o the nineteenth century, built
houses ery traditional |read Ottoman| in their outer aspect. 1he /ova/. o the ruling
house in Belgrade in the irst hal o the nineteenth century and a ew decades later the
socalled |sic| Plodi-lilibe symmetrical house type built by Bulgarians and Greeks ...
are proo o the relatie indierence o cultural patterns to political inluence.`

On the occasion o Paton`s isit to the tax collector`s house in Sabac, a border town
with Austria, he recorded a simpler explanation:

\e are still somewhat rude and un-Luropean in Shabatz,` said Gospody Ninitch, or
such was the name in which the collector rejoiced. Indeed,` quoth I, sitting at my ease
on the dian, there is no room or criticism. 1he 1urks now-a-days take some things
rom Lurope, but Lurope might do worse than adopt the dian more extensiely, or,
beliee me, to an arriing traeller it is the greatest o all luxuries.` lere the serants
entered with chibouques. I certainly think,` said he, that no one would smoke a cigar
who could smoke a chibouque.` And no man would sit on an oak chair who could sit
on a dian:` so the Gospody smiled and transerred his ample person to the still ampler
dian.` ,Paton 1845:9,

163
Paton also isited other houses in Sabac, and interestingly, also saw wall paintings
showing Constantinople, here, right on the Austrian border, and in the house o an
Orthodox bishop, while suggesting that this may hae been a general eature o houses
in this, and probably many other towns.

\e had now arried at the house o the Bishop, and were shown into a well-carpeted
room, in the old 1urkish style, with the roo gilded and painted in dark colours, and an
un-artistlike panorama o Constantinople running round the cornice.
14
I seated mysel
on an old-ashioned, wide, comortable dian, with richly embroidered, but somewhat
aded cushions, and, throwing o my shoes, tucked my legs comortably under me.
1his house,` said the collector, is a relic o old Shabatz, most o the other houses o
this class were burnt down. \ou see no German urniture here, tell me whether you
preer the 1urkish style, or the Luropean.` . \e now took our leae o the Bishop,
and on our way homewards called at a house which contained portraits o Kara Georg,
Milosh, Michael, Alexander, and other personages who hae igured in Serian history. I
was much amused with that o Milosh, which was painted in oil, altogether without
chiaro scuro, but his decorations, button holes, and een a large mole on his cheek,
were done with the most painul minuteness. In his let hand he held a scroll, on which
was inscribed Usta, or Constitution, his right hand was partly doubled a la inger post,
it pointed signiicantly to the said scroll, the oreinger being adorned with a large
diamond ring.` ,Paton 1845:111-4,


14
It should be assumed that i Paton had seen a Byzantine Constantinople without the Ottoman
minarets, he would hae speciically noted this.
164
4.3. 1he Bosnian exception

Bosnia appears to go a dierent way in the period ater 100. Deelopments in Bulgaria,
Albania, or Macedonia in the irst hal o the nineteenth century, with a ew debatable
exceptions ,see below,, seem to hae had no real impact or counterpart in this region.
Although the proince closest to Lurope`, Luropean inluence on the architecture o
the post-classical Ottoman period seems almost negligible in Bosnia. lor Cerasi
,1988:91, it is due to the area`s conseratism that, similarly to Kosoo, not only the
western idiom but also that o Istanbul` was reused, and the undamental concepts o
the earlier Ottoman town and architecture` were kept. |\alled| street ronts and
middle-class houses strictly diided into barev and .etavti/ were common in the
nineteenth century ater they had disappeared elsewhere.` 1he conclusion he thereupon
makes is signiicant:

|I|nnoations originating in Istanbul penetrated more easily along the most important
routes and in the lieliest urban system ... Innoation and conseratism were not a
matter o religion or nationality, but o school and taste and o contact with the capital.`

In the speciic case o Bosnia, howeer, additional reasons may be sought in historical
deelopments as well, namely in continuities and disruptions o cultural production and
its protagonists. Ater Bosnia was taken by the Ottomans in 1463, Ottoman architecture
and typology soon entered the country, making it an outpost o classical Ottoman
culture in the north. At the same time, howeer, the cultural and economic lie o the
Bosnian Catholics ,later Croats`,, which at the time o conquest still ormed a majority,
was not interrupted. Local merchant amilies like the Brnjakoici, Grureici, or
Brajkoici continued prospering trade relations with Dubronik, but also the lranciscan
165
monks, equipped with priileges and guarantees by the conqueror, remained ery actie.
1hey built churches and monasteries, schools to ight illiteracy, and deeloped a rich
literary production. Books printed in Venice ,in the Bosnian Cyrillic ont, were also read
by a considerable number o people. At the same time also paintings, now still ound in
monastery depots, were commissioned rom artists in Venice and Austria. But also local
artists were trained in the style o the Italian Renaissance. 1he presence o Bosnian
Catholics in the cultural lie o Bosnia receied a catastrophic blow only later, through
the incursion o their Austrian co-religionists in the late seenteenth century. \hen
Prince Lugene eentually retreated to north o Danube and Saa, the majority o
Bosnian Catholics decided to ollow him out o ear o retaliation, putting an end to the
predominance o the Catholics in the urban commercial middle class, a role then
gradually claimed by Serbs, Vlachs, and Greeks. 1he Bosnian lranciscans remained in
the country but were henceorth met with distrust on the part o the Ottomans or
eared coalitions with the Austrians.
15
,Lorenoic 1998, esp. 121-36, Malcolm 1994:69-
0,85,96,

Ater 1699 Bosnia became a borderland with Austria and at the same time more
Muslim`, not only as a result o emigration o a part o its Christian population but also
through large-scale immigration o Muslims rom the coastal and Pannonian regions -
Croatia, Slaonia, Dalmatia, lungary - now held by Austria and Venice. In the
nineteenth century Bosnia then became the main destination or Muslim reugees
expelled rom neighbouring semi-independent Serbia. 1hat traellers described the
Muslims o Bosnia as paranoid` and anatic` does not really surprise in this context,

15
Len i less isibly, the lranciscans continued to play a signiicant role in the cultural history o Bosnia.
In the eighteenth century the irst historiographical works, not anymore mere chronicles, appeared. An
important mid-nineteenth century igure was Ian lranjo Jukic. le ounded the irst secular school, a
cultural association, and a journal. In 1842 he sent a drat or a Bosnian constitution to the Sultan,
resulting in permanent exile.
166
neither does the supposed conseratism. It is plausible that this political situation
resulted in a general climate in which Bosnian Christians simply did not hae the
possibilities o expression they claimed in places in the southern Balkans, that is, much
closer to the imperial capital ,as the Bulgarian mountain towns,. But the comparatiely
minor role Bosnia had in the intra- and trans-regional commerce certainly also played a
role.

Ater 1699 not only the prominence o the Bosnian Catholics came to an end, but also
the predominance o an established Ottoman urban centre o cultural production.
Deastated by Austrian troops, Sarajeo lost its role as proincial capital to the small
1ranik in central Bosnia.
16
Now seat o the Ottoman izier in Bosnia, 1ranik
deeloped as a airly new centre at the expense o Sarajeo, resulting in a prospering o
cratsmanship and commerce, while ater 1800 also becoming seat o lrench and
Austrian consulates rom 1806-20 ,as narrated in Io Andric`s noel Bosnian
chronicle` ,. Promoted rom the status o /a.aba ,small town, to ,ebir ,large town,, een
by 1850, when the capital was again permanently moed back to Sarajeo, 1ranik
would only hae a population o some ,000 ,Popoic 2004:53,.

\ith the Sleymaniye at 1ranik dating rom that period already discussed ,Ch 3.3.2,,
one contemporary but ery dierent mosque is the one built by lusein Kapetan
Gradasceic, an initially loyal /avaav ,rontier military chie, in northern Bosnia.
During his rule o little more than a decade his hometown Gradacac, or almost a
century ruled by his amily, became one o the most prosperous captaincies in Bosnia.

16
Indicatie or this changed situation is that Mulic ,1998,, in his essay on the urban deelopment o
Sarajeo, mentions no single eent or building rom the period 169-188. Nonetheless, Sarajeo in the
eighteenth century deelopped rather interestingly, into what has been called a city state` or guild
republic`, where the Ottoman izier could only stay as a guest, and only or three nights ,see ladzijahic
1961,.
16
le was also popular among the area`s Christians, permitting them to build new illage
churches and schools een without the approal o the Sultan. le entered the political
scene in the late 1820s when he was gien responsibilities in the eent o aggression
towards Bosnia in the Russo-1urkish war, as well as deence against potential aggression
rom Serbia. Ater the Sultan had then gien the autonomous Serbia six districts that
had traditionally belonged to the Bosnian proince, he came to be inoled in the so-
called Bosnian autonomy moement`, o which lusein became unoicial head. le
oerthrew the Bosnian izier, took the capital 1ranik and Sarajeo, and moed urther
to Kosoo where he dealt a heay deeat to the imperial army under direct control o
the Grand Vizier. 1he sel-proclaimed Commander o Bosnia, chosen by the will o
the people` was then deeated by orces gathered in lerzegoina and had to lee to
Austria, but remains one o the most popular igures in Bosnian national history.
,Kamberoic 2002,

lusein also undertook a couple o building projects in his home-town, most
prominently the restoration o the castle and his residence, with bricks brought rom
nearby Austria, but he also built a clock-tower ,1824, and a mosque ,1826,. 1his
mosque is a central-domed square building with a three-domed portico and a rather tall
minaret, as ery typical or Ottoman Bosnia. 1he really unusual elements are the portal
and the vibrab |Ill.4.20,21|, where we ind arious motis ,ases o lowers, cypresses,
ribbons, geometric orms, cared into the stone.
1
1he heads o portico and vibrab are
cured rather indiidualistically whereby they hae been linked to the 1urkish
Baroque` with which they, howeer, hae little in common. Ayerdi ,1981:164-5, who,
predictably, inds these eatures extremely ugly`, notes the Rococo` elements, but
suggests that such style may hae been due to the closeness to the Austrian border or,

1
As a result o an unproessional restoration in 1996 part o the relie was lost due to an oer-painting.
168
admittedly less plausibly, because lusein may hae wanted to win oer the Slas with
such style.
18


A minor but ery interesting work sometimes linked to the 1urkish Baroque` as well
,apparently out o lack o alternatie associations, is ound in the courtyard o Banja
Luka`s lerhadija mosque ,destroyed in 1993, |Ill.4.10,11|. Demolished in 1955, the
beautiully decorated canopy oer the well ortunately at least suried on postcards and
photographs which, although rom roughly the same period, already show dierent
states o decoration. 1he painted postcard shows a style untypical o Bosnia, but ery
much reminiscent the decoratie programs we ind in the southern Balkans. Could it
hae been produced by cratsmen rom Macedonia or Bulgaria, maybe in the second
quarter o the nineteenth century, as could be suggested rom similarities in style with
mature works urther south Although we otherwise ind ew works in such spirit in
Bosnia, we know that masters rom the south also worked in the northern regions o
the Ottoman domain, Bosnia, Serbia, and \allachia. In any case, it is a dierent style
rom what we see in 1ranik on the Coloured Mosque`, which has been briely
discussed beore, or the tvrbe there, which both take a similar orm but are decorated in
dierent patterns. Other than the cases mentioned, no other structures with painted
exteriors seem to exist in Bosnia.
19
lrom an example o an interior o a wealthy citizen`s
/ova/ in Sarajeo |Ill.4.22|, we can at least be sure that painted decoration also existed

18
Ayerdi also notes that the inscription is in bad 1urkish, and content-wise rather indiidualistic.
19
A somewhat unclear i interesting case is that o the (arsi mosque in Stolac, with a porch wall painted
with naturalistic motis. Built by Sultan Selim in 1519, it was renoated in 188-9, as stated in the
inscription ,see Mujezinoic 1998:36-8,, where it is reported that the conqueror o Lgypt had built it in
ine ashion, but there came the need or repairs, and eeryone anxiously awaited its renoation ... 1his
ediice is painted with ine adornments and resembles a beauty clad in silken garments`, a rapturous
renoation o the mosque in a new mode!` lasandedic ,1990:12, see also 9-11,, howeer, has been told
that the present paintings date rom 1968, when local cratsmen irst copied the paintings, and then
reapplied them to the renoated walls. It is thus not clear i we can really conclude much on the 180s
shape rom this 1960s repainting`. In 1993 the mosque was destroyed and later rebuilt without the
paintings.
169
here in house interiors. loweer, in the case illustrated, these assume a slightly more
conseratie stand. Such kind o decoration must hae also existed outside Sarajeo as
can be concluded rom the obserations o our oten-cited traeller Paton ,1845:143-4,
made in Zornik ,on the border with Serbia, in the 1840s. le reported o the pasha
haing his /ova/ decorated by a house-painter` rom Montenegro, accompanied
,aided, by a German ,rom Austria,. \hen he had hal accomplished his task,
howeer, the pasha accused him o being a Serian captain in disguise` and threw them
into prison. Paton does not mention any eatures o that decoration, as he could not see
it. It is still interesting to note that also here, in the deepest proince, the ashion o
painted decoration was popular, and that the painters were a Montenegrin and a
German, both not the typical nationalities or such work in the Ottoman Balkans.
180


1he last monument o concern to our narratie is the derish te//e at Blagaj near
Mostar, rather well-known since it is popular among tourists. It is usually dated to the
seenteenth century, which is true or its oundation, but in its present shape dates to
the mid-nineteenth century. lor Ayerdi ,1981:64,, ollowing the not ery helpul
chronological sequence along western styles, the repair o 1851 was not in the Baroque
or Rococo but in the ampir` ,rom r. Lmpire`, style.
181
\ith the usually elaborate
ceilings with olk motis in the interior, the most noteworthy eature on the exterior is
the cured gable, much in the way we ind it on houses in Bulgaria, eaturing an oal
disc in the tympanum. Celic ,1953:189-93,, who restored the building in the 1950s,
beliees the 1850s shape to hae been in the spirit o the Istanbul Baroque`.

180
Untypical, because the men o Montenegro reportedly regarded as derogatory any work sae that o a
pastoral or military nature. Crats were practiced mainly by immigrants, who consequently enjoyed high
wages because o lack o labour market competition. Len beore \\I, trade and commerce were largely
in the hands o Muslims and Albanian Catholics. ,Palairet 199:148,
181
Ayerdi ,1981:65,, indignant at his Bosnian colleague Dzemal Celic`s allegation that the Bosnians were
not ery pleased that the 1urks brought their Baroque-Rococo styles rom Istanbul, counters with the
accusation that the Bosnians produced the worst works in this style.
10
Mujezinoic ,199:335-43, in act conirms that the sheikh at that period, the Indian`
Muhamed, was indeed sent rom Istanbul, allegedly to spy on unruly eudal lords in
lerzegoina.

I a proisional conclusion is to be made, it would not be wrong to say that the
examples in 1ranik ,mosque and tvrbe, and Gradacac ,mosque, show a rather
indiidualistic style with ew imminent contemporary parallels, while the ones at Blagaj
,te//e, and Banja Luka ,,aairrav, could hae been inluenced by trends in the southern
Balkans. Still, these ew examples are also not enough or a alid generalization.

11
4.4. 1he return of the monumental church

Up until now little space has been deoted to Christian religious architecture. 1his is, o
course, partly due to restrictions laid upon their subjects by the Ottoman administration,
which hindered the construction ,or een the repair, o churches, and thereby
doubtlessly seriously obstructed the deelopment o church architecture well into the
nineteenth century. 1o understand the basis or these restrictions we hae to go back
another one and a hal millennia, to the rules set Abu lania, the ounder o laneite
Sunnism ,to which the Ottoman sultans adhered,, who stipulated that, when cities taken
by Muslims had not oluntarily submitted, churches were to be coniscated.
182

Construction o new churches was not allowed in towns and cities or in the icinities at
a distance less than 10 miles. It was also agreed that churches generally should not be
bigger than mosques, whereby many monumental churches were also conerted into
mosques. In exclusiely Christian settlements there was seen no reason or the ban on
church building, but in mixed communities such projects were barred. Any deiation
rom the law would lead to the destruction o the building, and it was usually the igilant
local Muslim community that instigated such orders.
183
Sometimes local administrators
also simply did not grant permission or repairs, although they should hae. ,Gradea
1994:1,19,23-5,


182
1he Byzantine city o Didimotihon ,Dimetoka,, later birthplace o Bayezid II, or example had
oluntarily submitted, whereby not only the Greeks` houses and the ortress were spared but also the
church was presered ,Gradea 1994:19,.
183
On two ery diering accounts o how ,and why, a newly, legally or illegally, built church in Bijeljina
,northeast Bosnia, was torn down by local Muslims, see Golen ,2001:239-40, and Paton ,1845:121-2,.
12
As harsh as these regulations may sound, the realities slightly diered as more recent
research has shown, while exceptions abounded.
184
\hile we oten read o a general ban
o church building in Ottoman Lurope, Bouras ,1991:111, attests a ast wealth o
monuments suriing rom the 1urkish period`. Kiel, on the oreront o scholars
pleading or a reconsideration o established iews on the negatie impacts o Ottoman
laws regarding its Christian subjects, howeer, also concedes that these regulations
indeed were

a ormidable obstacle to the deelopment o Orthodox Christian art, or rather
architecture, because there were no regulations concerning the decoration o the interior
o the church with resco or al secco paintings. On paper they were an obstacle at least.
\et the actual situation diered greatly rom those on paper. lere we immediately
touch upon the problem that those who hae written about the status o the Christians
under the Sultans and who are largely responsible or the existing ideas about that
status, were Stubengelehrten` who worked conorming to the old-established tradition
o writing history: no documents no history. \et the Balkan proinces abound with
eidence that shows us that the reality was rather dierent: the multitude o illage
churches o all kinds and the monumental monasteries, decorated with exquisite
paintings.` ,Kiel 1985:192,

Gradea ,1994:25,28, also points out to eidence which proes that Christians,
sometimes successully, tried to build new churches, by relying on the laxness o
authority and the diiculty o control, or sometimes just on bribery.
185
But igilant

184
During lietime o St Pimen Zograski , or example, the sultan permitted the Christians in western
Bulgaria to reely ,re-,build churches, whereby 300 churches and 15 monasteries were built or renoated
in the area o Soia alone ,Gradea 1994:26,. \hen Serbs ,and,or Vlachs, migrated into Bosnia in large
numbers in the iteenth and sixteenth centuries also quite a ew monasteries and churches were allowed
to be built ,Gradea 1994:28,. At the end o the seenteenth century the Koprl iziers made repairs
easier, by rejecting the preious prohibitions that Christians had to use used stones and timber or repairs
,Karaca 1995:34,. Mustaa III, on the occasion o the estiities o his son, also allowed his subjects to
repair their churches or a duration o 10 days ,Karaca 1995:35,. Another strategy, Moutsopoulos
,196:99, suggests that it was due to the irtual inisibility o the architecturally unassuming churches o
Verroia and Kastoria that these two towns managed to acquire the largest number o churches in all o
northern Greece.
185
As can be proen by Ottoman and Bulgarian sources as well as archaeological indings, ater the
deastations o the /araati age the Christian subjects launched a large campaign to restore their churches,
13
local religious leaders and communities did what the administration ailed to do.` \hile
not encountering such enmity between the conessional groups, the subject o bribery is
also touched upon by Leon Allacci, who was sent to the empire by the Vatican to study
churches o the recent Greeks` in the mid-seenteenth century. Read by Cutler
,1966:81,84-5,, he in act regarded as extraordinary

the persistence o the Greek rite under 1urkish domination and the lengths to which
the aithul went to rebuild collapsing churches and een, with bribery, to circument
the Ottoman prohibition on the construction o new buildings . Allacci suggests, in
act, that many restrictions imposed upon the Greeks were honored rather in the
breach. Not the least contribution to peace was made by the relationship between
1urkish women and the Greek church. In exchange or baptism o their children, the
wies and daughters o the Conqueror made sure that the light beore the holy images
does not ail lest they suer harm ... 1urkish women, he reports, compete to bring gits
to the church.`

1he date 100 again igures, symbolically, as a boundary to what preceded it. Bouras
,1991:110,, speaking o the change in the character o architecture and painting ater
that, beliees that it was at this time that the post-Byzantine period |in Orthodox
church architecture| ended and the modern began.` Vyronis ,1991:30, reports o 50
Greek painters actie in the eighteenth century, and that this were two and one-hal
times the number known or the preious century, but also that the numbers o the
second hal o the eighteenth century are our times greater than those or the irst hal.
1his sudden rise in the number o painters, most o whom were o rural origin, meant
a certain decline in the quality o the art` or, in the words o Bouras ,1991:109,, a

whereby they were also oten enlarged, which at times resulted in conlicts with the local Muslims and the
Ottoman authorities ,Gradea 1994:25,. At that time, howeer, not only were some churches illegally
enlarged or rebuilt, some communities also tried to build completely new ones. Anscombe ,2005:93,, or
example, ound an Ottoman document rom 195 in which the Orthodox residents o Stara Zagora are
accused o building an unsanctioned new church, taking adantage o the goernment`s preoccupation
with controlling both plague and bandits.
14
corruption o the arts through the adoption o a popular style`. Both make the
changed economic situation responsible or the increase o patronage in this period.
Gradea ,1994:30, also makes a growing conidence among the Balkan Christians to
claim all rights and possibilities proided by the legislation in orce responsible or their
Reial starting rom the eighteenth century.

In the nineteenth century the churches gradually wrestle back their place in urban space
and their possibilities or artistic expression. Until the 1850s they still take the
inconspicuous orms o one- or three-naed hall churches without domes or bell
towers, thereby oten resembling houses or actories, but in many cases already assume
considerable dimensions. 1he aorementioned Seta Bogorodica in Skopje ,1835,, built
by Damjano`s ta,fa ,team,
186
, is already a quite interesting statement.
18
1he church o
Seti Pantelejmon at Veles |Ill.4.26,2| which he built a decade later ,and inished when
he was only 2!, already belongs to a dierent generation.
188
luge een on the outside,
domes and towers are still omitted, but on the inside we ind, concealed rom the public
eye, interior domes and a decoratie program capable o challenging the most elaborate
works o its day. 1wo decades later, the churches built under his superision in Sarajeo
and Mostar are already a ull-ledged architecture without restraint, dominating the
urban space they are set in with their multiple cupolas, bell towers, and largely Central
Luropean appearance. 1hese stages relect the gradual loosening o restrictions

186
O the our sons o Damjan, each was ersed in a dierent crat: Gjorgji was a painter-decorator,
Andreja a builder, Nikola a wood-carer ,rebar,, and Kosta both builder and painter-decorator ,ladziea-
Aleksieska and Kasapoa 2001:11,
18
1he building o this church had actually begun earlier, and under his ather, Damjan Renzoski, but
but seeral times the 1urkish authorities hae stopped the building` ,ladziea-Aleksieska and
Kasapoa 2001:21, and Damjan died in 1834-5`, whereby his son took oer the project. Damjano`s
Bulgarian counterpart and contemporary, Kolju liceto, came to his irst big project in a similar way:
\hen, during the construction o the St Nikola church in 1arnoo, the head builder got ery sick, the
team elected lice to take oer his task ,1odoro 1966:40,.
188
lor ladziea-Aleksieska and Kasapoa ,2001:49, it is the best renaissance work in the history o
Balkan architecture`.
15
throughout the nineteenth century. 1he role o the 1anzimat edict ,1839,, howeer,
appears to hae been oerstressed in its eect on church ,re-,construction. I we look at
Istanbul ,c. Karaca 1995:315-, in the decade beore the 1anzimat and ater the 1reaty
o Adrianople ,1829,, the city witnessed a small boom in ,re-,building actiity. At that
time, during the reign o Mahmut II, the ban on new buildings had been remoed.
189

lrom that point on a fervav was no longer needed or simpler repairs, but only or
rebuilding ,Karaca 1995:35 and Kiel 1985:49,.

Some churches ,re-,built during the second quarter o the nineteenth century are already
ery large, but it is not until ater the Islahat edict o 1856 that Christian architecture
regains monumental dimensions, ornamented aades, and characteristic traits such as
cupolas and bell towers. An immediate reaction to these changed realities we see in
Smyrna, by that time the empire`s second largest city, where in the same year the Islahat
was proclaimed the church o St John ,Aya \orgos, acquired a dome and twin towers,
while Aya lotini was equipped with a huge campanile ,see Colonas 2005:99,. In the
capital, the Ayios Atanasos church ,1858, in the - by decree - exclusiely Greek quarter
o 1atala ,Kurtulus, was the irst church with a dome erected since the conquest. Both
these elements, dome ,preiously resered or Islamic buildings, and bell tower, so
signiicant in the reclaiming o urban space by the empire`s Christian subjects, are,
howeer, not speciied in the edict. In act, gien its consequences what regards the
transormation o Christian architecture ollowing its proclamation, the text o the edict

189
In the literature we can ind some conusion oer when the ban on church building was lited. Biche
,1961:64,, or example, irst claims this to hae been the the year when the 1anzimat Ldict was
proclaimed ,1839,, but then mentions new churches built in 1arnoo and Pazardzik already in 1836 and
183.
16
still sounds rather restrictie, as we can see rom the part reerring to church building
and re-building.
190


Also in the Balkans, particularly in Bulgaria and Macedonia, the majority o churches
built or re-built ater 1856 boast a cupola and a bell tower, or eentually acquire these
eatures. Less close to the imperial centre, in Bosnia a somewhat dierent dynamic can
be detected during the reorm period. 1he archial study by Golen ,2001, proides us
with useul insight on how this process worked in Bosnia and lerzegoina throughout
the nineteenth century. In Bosnia, the 1anzimat had only arried in 1851, with reorms
delayed by the local be,s. Soon thereater quite a ew requests or the rebuilding and
building o churches were submitted to the rati, including ery detailed descriptions as
well as justiications or these requests. Interestingly, all o these belonged to the
Catholics, who lamented a priileged position o the Orthodox in this regard. An
inspector was eentually sent to assess iv .itv whether the permissions should be
granted. Reasons gien to justiy the ,re-,building o churches was either that the
community had no church at all, that the present church was too small or the increased
population, or that the churches had been destroyed by bandits. Additional explanations
gien in the written requests or permissions included descriptions o unaourable

190
In the towns, small boroughs and illages, where the whole population is o the same religion, no
obstacle shall be oered to the repair, according to their original plan, o buildings set apart or religious
worship, or schools, or hospitals, and or cemeteries. 1he plans o these dierent buildings, in case o
their new erection, must, ater haing been approed by the Patriarchs or heads o communities, be
submitted to my Sublime Porte, which will approe o them by my Imperial order, or make known its
obserations upon them within a certain time. Lach sect, in localities where there are no other religious
denominations, shall be ree rom eery species o restraint as regards the public exercise o its religion. In
the towns, small boroughs, and illages where dierent sects are mingled together, each community,
inhabiting a distinct quarter, shall, by conorming to the aboe-mentioned ordinances, hae equal power
to repair and improe its churches, its hospitals, its schools, and its cemeteries. \hen there is a question
o the erection o new buildings, the necessary authority must be asked or through the Sublime Porte,
which will pronounce a Soereign decision according to that authority, except in the case o
administratie obstacles. 1he interention o the administratie authority in all measures o this nature
will be entirely gratuitous. My Sublime Porte will take energetic measures to ensure to each sect, whateer
be the number o its adherents, entire reedom in the exercise o its religion.` 1he Lnglish translation o
the Islahat edict is aailable at www.bilkent.edu.tr,~genckaya,documents1.html. 1he paragraph spaces in
the original text are omitted in my citation.
1
situations like that o the inhabitants rom the Lino region haing to go across the
border to Austria or ceremonies, people standing outside the church in the rain during
masses because churches were too small, or people praying in tents because no church
existed. Lxcept or the case in Gabela ,lerzegoina,, where permission was declined
because a mosque was nearby, all other requests were replied to positiely, whereby new
ones kept coming. Seeing the Catholics` success, soon also the Orthodox started
submitting requests, whereupon additional permissions were granted. Apparently ery
pleased with the new conditions, both Orthodox and Catholics sent letters o gratitude
to the rati, the inspector, and een to the Sultan, who in turn issued a decree ,iraae,
expressing how pleased he was. At last also the Jews sent requests or the enlargement
o their synagogues. Golen ,2001:241, eentually concludes that the rights o the Islahat
edict were realized in Bosnia beore its proclamation in 1856. le, howeer, concedes
that also a large number o churches had been built in Bosnia between 1820 and 1850.
Only ater 1851, howeer, did a real boom begin.
18
4.S. Recapitulation

As can be seen rom the less complicated sub-diision o this chapter, it is almost within
the boundaries o the later nation-states that we could discuss the regions in question:
the still ery Ottoman-Muslim Bosnia, the - in stark contrast - predominantly rural and
Christian Serbia, and the Sla-Greek region in the central and southern Balkans which is
now Bulgaria, Macedonia, and northern Greece.

1he residential architecture o the Bulgarian Renaissance` has been a repeated subject
o dispute between Bulgarian and 1urkish scholars, with the ormer insisting on its
national` speciicity ersus claims o the latter that these houses were typically
Ottoman. 1he truth, as so oten, lies in the middle, as I hope to hae conincingly
demonstrated. Certain eatures o these charming mansions are indeed much more
typical o what now is Bulgaria than o other Ottoman territories. 1hat the indiiduals -
admittedly typically Orthodox Christians - who irst brought this style to the scene
would hae proudly identiied themseles as Bulgarians, howeer, is airly unlikely. Such
suppositions can now be aorded in the light o more recent scholarship more critically
approaching the historiography o the National Reial` or the pre-national realities o
the mid-nineteenth century Balkans ,Daskale 2004, Detrez 2003,, and not least by the
re-reading o original ,Bulgarian, accounts rom that period, as we hae seen. Ultimately,
this should lead to a de-mythologization o Balkan history, including the artistic history
o this region and more speciically the cultural context which produced this art.

lad the enterprising elements in Bulgaria really supported an ultimate independence,
they would hae been ill adised, as the decline o Balkan economies ater secession
19
rom the Ottoman Lmpire and its markets, as demonstrated by Palairet ,199,, has
shown. 1his is not to say that these Orthodox Christian merchants should not hae
bred anti-Ottoman sentiments towards their Muslim co-subjects, who had always been
in a slightly priileged position, or toward the distant ruler in the not-so-distant Istanbul,
but, then again, not really toward the Greek Patriarchate in Constantinople which,
howeer despised by the Bulgarian peasants, had plenty o support among, or example,
the citizens o Plodi. In the same ein, Detrez ,2003:39-40, has suggested that they
would hae preerred, i not the Ottoman Lmpire, a kind o restored Byzantine ,or
Romaic`, Lmpire, as most o the urban establishment o Greek extraction or
orientation and Orthodox religion did in what remained o the Ottoman domains. 1his
is not to say that the mass o Bulgarians o rural background would not hae preerred a
sel-goerning entity outside Ottoman control. But this was apparently less in the
interest o the aluent middle and upper classes, who contributed to the reial` by
their patronage o the arts and education, and under whom the Plodi house`
emerged and lourished. Much clearer is in the case o the itinerant masters that they did
not trouble much where, or whom, or what - church, houses, or mosque - they were
commissioned to build or embellish. 1hat they later became national heroes` has
ortunately beneited us in that much documentation has been made aailable about
them and their creations. 1hat they would hae seen their work as contributing to a
national cause, howeer, is highly unlikely.

Concerning the study o decoratie art in the late Ottoman period, it was noticed that
also in Bosnia and Serbia the wall paintings - so well-coered in the publications on
Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and 1urkey - indeed existed while generally not
mentioned in this body o literature. low ar the examples rom Bosnia and Serbia still
surie and how ar they are really comparable to those urther south must be the
180
subject o a separate, ocused surey. 1his concerns not only the residences mentioned,
but also the decoratie art in mosques. \hile the examples rom Bosnia appear to hae
a rather heterogeneous character, there were also examples which reminded us o the art
o the capital or the south Balkans. \ithout Muslims there was o course no new
Muslim architecture in Serbia. 1hroughout the nineteenth century the remaining
building work, een in Belgrade, was undertaken by itinerant workers rom the South,
by the 1830s already in competition with engineers rom the labsburg Lmpire - ethnic
Serbs or not. \hen Ottoman subjugation was replaced by local goernment, a clear
break ,back to Lurope`, did not occur immediately as is clear in the hybrid isual
described by the traeller Paton in the 1840s. Cerasi has asked the legitimate question
why the Balkan middle classes continued to build such basically Ottoman houses i the
ultimate goal was to be western. In part this can be explained by the speciic skills o the
local builders-decorators, who still did all the work. 1he contemporary narratie source
cited, howeer, also suggests that some Ottoman` eatures were simply still aoured
oer western modes. Although by now well-aware o the ways o the lranks, airav and
ibv/ were simply still preerred oer chairs and a cigar. 1his should suice to
demonstrate the transition rom Ottoman models to Luropean ones was not a clear
break, not a matter o dates when autonomy or independence were achieed, but a ery
gradual process stretching rom the later eighteenth century through much o the
nineteenth century. 1hat the Ottoman Christians, once their economic potency
permitted, adopted the liestyle o the Ottoman-Muslim elite should hae urther
impeded the switness o such process.

Although the total claim that the Ottomans banned any church-building or repair
actiity is a myth, the ast record o examples o churches rom the Ottoman period
beore the 1830s also makes clear that the architecture o the Balkan Christians did not
181
deelop much in these conditions. But, as Medakoic ,1991:Ch.4, shows, also in ree`
Austria the Serbs sometimes had considerable diiculties obtaining permissions or the
building o Orthodox Churches. 1hat Serbian architecture in Austria deeloped along
the lines o the art o the hegemonic culture o that empire, rather than organically`
rom their medieal heritage ,as could be argued or Romania, where Ottoman
restrictions did not apply,, may sere as an indicator. 1his, rather than the supposition
that the Serbs adopted the western Baroque because they were now ree and could re-
establish their connections with the western world, can explain artistic deelopments in
Austria. Ater all, it was not the Serbian Baroque` but the medieal monuments - and
not the western-inluenced ones o the Raska school, but the later, and thoroughly
eastern ones ,Serbo-Byzantine and Moraa schools, - that sered as model when, in the
late nineteenth century, the Serbs were looking or a style that best represented their
national spirit.
191



191
On this matter, see also the critical article by Pantelic ,199,, or the lengthy and more descriptie book
by Kadijeic ,199,.
182
Conclusion

Many o the questions and problems raised and announced to be treated in the
introduction already anticipated the conclusions to be made here, and it is only let to
the author to hope that the arguments hae been conincing or the reader. A
conclusion without sentences ending with a question mark is, howeer, in many cases
not a good sign, so rather than to reiterate the suppositions made in the introduction, I
shall ocus on a ew additional questions raised throughout the process o research.

One concerns the question o periodization, and the conception o a late Ottoman`
period stretching rom 100 to 1923. As we hae seen, the art and architecture rom
ater 100 was ery dierent rom the one it succeeded, but it was also ery dierent
rom that ater the 1850s, whereby a clearer distinction should be made.
192
Next to
architectural and other isual-cultural phenomena preiously discussed in detail, it is
another particularity o the period 118-1856` that it has its own urban ,or semi-urban,
and cultural centres, and that these are to a considerable extent already ery dierent
rom those o the late nineteenth century. Places mentioned oer and oer again in this
study - Kastoria, Debar, or Ioannina, not to mention once booming centres like
Ambelakia, Siatista, or 1yrnaos - while at that time een amiliar abroad, are hardly
remembered or igure in the history o the twentieth century. Another problem
concerns the causalities or the success o speciic places. In the case o Smyrna, it has
been argued that it deeloped and eentually lourished not because, but rather ae.ite
the Ottoman administration, which has been blamed with a general disinterest in

192
Arel ,1993,, or example, writing o the period between the 1ulip Lra and the 1anzimat, speaks o
post-classical architecture`, while lamadeh ,2004:46-, sees in the eighteenth century the beginning o
an early modern period`.
183
economic deelopment planning ,c. Goman 1999,. In contrast to notions o
suppression, exile, and enslaement, howeer, in many cases mentioned here the
prosperity and itality o places in improbably remote mountain areas o 1hessaly-
Lpirus-Macedonia and central Bulgaria came about not ae.ite the Ottomans but, at least
in part, becav.e settlements like Moschopolis, Kopristica, or 1yrnaos had been
equipped with certain priileges by the sultans or their relaties that ostered their
deelopment.
193
Also in the case o the Bulgarian mountain towns, icons o the
National Reial`, these had not come into being because proudly Bulgarian subjects
led rom Ottoman suppression in the alleys to presere their national culture. Instead,
or at least many o which, had originally deeloped as part o an Ottoman settlement
policy in which settlers were attracted by the granting o certain ,economic, religious,
political, priileges, whereby they gradually, and particularly ater 150, deeloped rom
illages into prospering secondary urban centres.

Other polarities between productie and destructie orces in this period must be re-
assessed. lor the dark age` o Ottoman control oer its Balkan territories, the age o
the a,av, we must admit to a limited knowledge o what this period, usually portrayed as
chaos and tyranny, really meant in the lies o those liing under the a,av, or at least
those in the towns. As we hae seen, many indiiduals did prosper economically, and
certainly not least because the local tyrants in part depended on their taxed income.
\hile usually identiied with iolence, and or a large part justiiably so, we hae also
witnessed certain degrees o interest not only in inrastructural and economic
deelopment ,which preious administrators apparently did not ind as necessary,, but
also in cultural aairs`. \e hae also occasionally noticed a more relaxed attitude

193
On the priileged towns in the Ottoman Lmpire, including some seldom mentioned parallels with the
autonomous towns emerging in medieal Lurope, which in Orientalist writing hae oten been juxtaposed
with the presumably solely despotically ruled Muslim` towns, see ladzijahic ,1961,.
184
towards the Christian subjects and the ban on church building. \hile preious
scholarship has ocused on the destructie impact groups like the a,av, but also the
Phanariotes, had in their respectie areas o inluence, their positie inluence remains
to be assessed, and it is to be expected that uture research o a more extensie scope
may yield interesting indings. In the case o the labsburg inasion o the Balkans in
the late seenteenth century, on the other hand, it appears as i the destructie eect it
had on both the cultural production and deelopment o the Ottoman Christians and
Muslims has not been ully appraised. Besides the destruction o great centres o
Ottoman culture like Sarajeo or Skopje, the labsburg adance and retreat also resulted
in a considerable ading o those elements among the Balkans Christians that had
continued to play an important role in the cultural lie o the region een ater the
conquest, patronizing the arts and, in the case o the Bosnian Croats, entertaining iid
contacts with the \est` ,ia the Adriatic, een under Ottoman enslaement`. learing
retaliation ater the labsburg retreat - as many o them ,including the clergy, had
indeed supported the inasion through instigation o local rebellions - many then
migrated to Central Lurope, where they continued to exist as successul merchants. But
that meant at the same time that these industrious elements were now missing in those
areas subsequently re-settled my mountaineers and reugees, whereby these permanently
changed their character.

So has art in eighteenth century Ottoman Lurope really declined 1he answer tends to
be subjectie in accordance with dierent preerences o dierent authors. \hat is true,
concerning mosque architecture, is that particularly ater 150 the structures no longer
display the strong unity in design that had characterized earlier centuries. Instead,
mosques like the ones mentioned in 1etoo, 1ranik, Samoko, Kaala, or Berat are
monuments to indiiduality, expressions o local-regional resources rather than
185
proincial deiations o ideas emanating rom an imperial centre. listorians o Ottoman
architecture had traditionally shown little interest in such buildings, possibly also
because in nationalist constructions a strong national culture was thought to be best
represented by a strong unity in art. \esternization`, howeer, would not yet play the
ital role in the transormations post-classical architecture underwent. Admittedly,
architecture in the Ottoman proinces was neer comparable to that in the capital, but
as an explanation or the indiidualist character o post-classical mosques in the Balkans
we must credit oremost local actors, such as the regional mobility o builders-
decorators, and a subsequent transer o styles and skills. \hat could not be considered
in the scope o this study were contemporary deelopments in the proinces east o the
capital. In terms o both architecture as well as decoration o both mosques and houses
we ind stylistically related examples oremost in western and north-western Anatolian
towns like Bursa, Birgi, Bademli, Kula, or Saranbolu, but also urther east.
194
Riotously
decorated nineteenth century mosque interiors in the Pontus ,eastern Black Sea region,,
or example, show some similarities with those in Albania on the diametrically opposite
end o the empire.
195
1he houses o Akaabat ,near 1rabzon, could be mistaken or the
Vlach merchant houses at Kruseo ,western Macedonia,, while again other buildings in
that district, such as the \akupoglu Konagi at Srmene ,1rabzon district,,
196
remind us
ery much o the ortiied houses in the region o Gjirokastr. 1he communication and
transer o trends and skills not only between Istanbul and the proinces or within the
Luropean proinces, but between the Luropean and Anatolian proinces is certainly a
topic which would require urther attention.

194
lor a study o wall paintings in Ottoman Damascus ery similar to those discussed in Istanbul,
Anatolia, and the Balkans, see \eber ,2002,.
195
lor plenty o photographic material, see the inentory by Smerkan and Okman ,1999,.
196
It should be said that Bammer ,1982:39,, and the sources he cites, hold this /ova/, built around 120
or a Memis Aga, to be in a style not autochthonous` to the eastern Black Sea region, which would only
conirm that this orm reached this area as an import.
186

linally, we must ask through which channels the western inluence` reached the
Ottoman Balkans. I we accept both that proincial administrators desired to hae their
residences decorated in the contemporary style o Istanbul ,whereby they probably
would hae inited decorators rom the capital, as had Mehmet Ali,, and that also the
merchants demanded rom local builders to make reerence to what they saw in Lurope,
there can be no one answer. 1he Baroque` in the Balkans must hae emerged rom a
much more multiarious dynamic than just a direct or indirect inluence rom one place
or the other. \hile the Renaissance had been dominated by Italy, in the Baroque the
national schools` o Luropean countries played a ar more important role. In the same
way the Baroque` in the Balkans came through a ariety o sources to which the region
had been exposed at dierent times and through dierent channels: rom lrance ,in an
Ottomanized` ariant spreading rom Istanbul,, rom Austria ,through indiidual
exchange going hand in hand with trans-imperial commerce,, and,or rom Italy` ,the
Adriatic, including Venice and Dubronik, or Venetian possessions like Crete,. 1he act
that the ery same persons who produced this art were constantly roaming within the
region makes this transer ery complex and almost impossible to reconstruct with
passable certainty.
19
1he transer o skills and ideas should also be considered, this must
hae taken place must hae taken place during each o the building projects, both
between indiiduals as well as between dierent crats which, as we hae seen, were
sometimes proessed by one and the same person or group.


19
1here are also occasional reerences to oreigners working in construction in the Ottoman Balkans in
the nineteenth century, which could hae been another agent in the spread o Luropean orms.
liltebrandt ,in 1urczynski 1959:25,, or example, met a German mason in Plodi, while 1odoro
,1966:,40, and Biche ,1961:3, write o lice wandering around with Italian masons, who were
appreciated because they knew how to make waterproo mortar. Pouqueille ,1820:56, noted that Ali
Pasha`s palace at Premiti was built by a renegade architect rom nearby Calabria ,Italy,. 1he German
decorator Paton ,1845:143-4, met in the Bosnian town o Zornik has already been mentioned earlier.
18
lor such a wide range o topics discussed it is diicult to ind a single oerriding
conclusion. It is only through illing gaps in our knowledge o the arious histories o
this period that more satisactory and conclusie results will be achieed. It is let to the
author to recommend not simply to compare the monuments rom this period with the
more classical` art it succeeds but to acknowledge them as expressions o the societies
by which they were created in this speciic cultural-historical context. 1o explain the
wish or westernization as the principal basis or the Baroque-inluenced transitional
isual culture among the Balkan Christians, particularly ater the 1830s, is unreasonable
or at that time the Baroque in Lurope was long oer. As an alternatie explanation one
may well suppose that rather than ,or in addition to, cultural ambitions this style`
deeloped as a mirror o social processes in the late Ottoman Lmpire, and in
recognition o the superior potential that the iacious Baroque orms oered in terms
o representation.
188
Illustrations



Ill.1.1. Istanbul, Sa'dabad palace, 122, in reproduction ,engraing, by L'Lspinasse
Ill.1.2. Istanbul, Sultanahmet .ebit, 128



Ill.1.3. Nesehir ,Cappadocia,, mosque o Ibrahim Pasha ,126-, ,Source: Goodwin,
Ill.1.4. Sumen ,Bulgaria,, mosque o lalil Seri Pasha ,144,


189


Ill.1.5. Sumen, lalil Seri Pasha mosque ,144,, /ibte-wall with decoration rom later
period ,Source: 1opchie,



Ill.1.6. Sumen, lalil Seri Pasha mosque ,144,, painted window-head in prayer hall
acing courtyard

190


Ill.1.. Sumen, ountain with leaded panels and cartouches, 14 ,Source: 1opchie,



Ill.1.8. Mogosoaia palace near Bucharest,102 ,Source: Internet
198
,


198
http:,,www.romaniatrael.com,media,pictures,mari,8MOGOSOA.jpg
191


Ill.1.9. Bucharest, Greek Church, eighteenth century, lithography
,Source: Internet
199
,



Ill.1.10. Bucharest, Staropoleos church, 124-130, portico ,Source: Internet
200
,


199
http:,,www.show.ro,bucuresti,images,025.jpg
200
http:,,bucharest.usembassy.go,resources,gallery,Michael_Guest,Staropoleos_15.jpg
192


Ill.1.11. Iasi, ountains at St Spiridon monastery, 150s and 160s ,Source: Internet
201
,


Ill.1.12. Belgrade, triumphal gate o Charles VI, 136
Ill.1.13. Belgrade, clock tower at Stambul gate, 120s or 130s ,Source: Internet
202
,

201
http:,,www.geocities.com,costel_isro,iasi_sp,iasi028.jpg
193



Ill.1.14. 1rebinje ,lerzegoina,, clock tower o Resulbegoic Osman Pasha,
early 18
th
ct. ,Source: Pasic,
Ill. 1.15. Vienna, belry o church at Neulercheneld, 133-153



Ill. 1.16. Ulcinj, ountain o Sinan Pasha, around 120 ,Source: Mehling,

202
http:,,mishuna.image.pbase.com,u44,alangrant,upload,28485350.SerbiaMontenegro_PIC10288.jpg
194



Ill. 1.1. Istanbul, palace o Moldaian prince Dimitrie Cantemir ,beore 111,, detail o
engraing ,Source: Cantemir,



Ill. 2.1. Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye mosque ,149-55,, vibrab aade

195


Ill. 2.2. Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye complex ,149-55,, library



Ill. 2.3. Vienna, Baroque burgher house ,built beore 112,, portal



Ill. 2.4. Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye mosque ,149-55,, interior
Ill. 2.5. Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye mosque ,149-55,, .ebit at entrance wall
196



Ill. 2.6. Istanbul-Uskdar, Ayazma mosque ,15-60,, eleation, minaret with bulbous
top
Ill. 2.. Istanbul-Uskdar, Ayazma mosque ,15-60,, interior



Ill. 2.8. Istanbul, mosque o lekimoglu Ali Pasha, completed 134, interior
Ill. 2.9. Istanbul, Greek house at lener ,Source: Gurlitt,

19


Ill. 2.10. Sarajeo, mosque o Ali Pasha, interior ,Source: Internet
203
,




Ill. 2.11. Sumen, 1ombul mosque, interior, ater 140 ,Source: Internet
204
,
Ill. 2.12. Istanbul, Kk Ayasoya ,preiously the Byzantine church o St Sergius and
Bacchus,, interior ater redecoration in the 160s

203
http:,,www.tremembe.unimondo.org,oto,bigBosnia03,1urismo20Responsabile81.JPG
204
http:,,www.lickr.com,photo_zoom.gneid~18431148&context~set-435436&size~o
198



Ill. 2.13. Ohrid, Iconostasis o St Naum monastery church, 111 ,Source: Internet
205
,
Ill. 2.14. Skopje, iconostasis at St Saiour ,Seti Spas,, 1828 ,Source: Internet
206
,



Ill. 2.15. 1royanski monastery ,Bulgaria,, door ,Source: Lckert,
Ill. 2.16. Rila monastery ,Bulgaria,, iconostasis ,Source: Lckert,

205
http:,,k53.pbase.com,u35,jbrandoll,large,2339660.IconostasisSetiNaum.jpg
206
http:,,aq.macedonia.org,images,s.spas.sk.1824.jpg
199



Ill. 2.1. Sremski Karloci, synodal church ,158-162,, eleation
Ill. 2.18. Sremski Karloci, synodal church ,158-162,, iconostasis ,Source: Internet
20
,



Ill. 2.19. Sremski Karloci, Upper Church` ,146,

20
http:,,k43.pbase.com,u44,alangrant,upload,2852915.SerbiaMontenegro_PIC10989.jpg
200



Ill. 3.1. Pec ,Kosoo,, Kulla o \asar Pasha, 1803 ,Source: lerscher,Riedlmayer,



Ill. 3.2. Gjirokastr ,Albania,, late eighteenth century house o the Bakiraj in the Palorto
quarter, murals rom 1853 ,Source: Riza,1homo,
201



Ill. 3.3. Maldarasti ,\allachia,, Cula Duca, 1812, altered in 182 ,Source: Stoica,



Ill. 3.4. Ioannina, palaces o Ali Pasha and his sons ,not extant,, engraing, early
nineteenth century

202


Ill. 3.5. Ioannina, palace o Ali Pasha ,not extant,, engraing, early nineteenth century



Ill. 3.6. Ioannina, house o Nikolas Argyris, engraing, early nineteenth century

203


Ill. 3.. Ioannina, lethiye camii, end o eighteenth century ,Source: Internet
208
,



Ill. 3.8. Vidin ,Bulgaria,, mosque o Osman Pazantoglu, 1800-1801 ,Source: Internet
209
,

208
http:,,www.allempires.com,orum,uploads,Neoptolemos,2006-05-03_204449_ethiye_3.jpg
204


Ill. 3.9. Vidin, library o Osman Pazantoglu. 1802-1803 ,Source: Internet
210
,



Ill. 3.10. Shkodr ,Albania,, Kursunlu mosque, 13-4 ,Source: Internet
211
,



Ill. 3.11. Kaala ,Greece,, Mehmet Ali`s /vtti,e, 1800-11 or 181-21
,Source: Sezgin 193,

209
http:,,idin-ino.hit.bg,photogallery,Zabelejitelnosti,Jamiq20Osman20Pazantoglu.JPG
210
http:,,idin-ino.hit.bg,photogallery,Zabelejitelnosti,Biblioteka20Osmanpazantoglu.JPG
211
http:,,rattle.bloguje.cz,plumbit.JPG
205



Ill. 3.12. Kaala, mosque in /vtti,e o Mehmet Ali, iew rom street



Ill. 3.13. Kaala, mosque in /vtti,e o Mehmet Ali, iews rom harbour




206




Ill. 3.14 and 3.15. Kaala, /vtti,e o Mehmet Ali, portals on wall acing the citadel



Ill. 3.16. Kaala, /vtti,e o Mehmet Ali, detail in interior o mosque
,Source: Imaret lotel,
20



Ill. 3.1. Makrinitsa ,1hessaly,, Mouslilis mansion, 1833
,Source: Leonidopoulou-Stylianou,



Ill. 3.18. Ambelakia ,1hessaly,, Giorgios Schwartz mansion, late eighteenth century, top
windows and decoration on interior ,Source: Akin,
208



Ill. 3.19. Ambelakia, Giorgios Schwartz mansion, late eighteenth century ,Source: Akin,
Ill. 3.20. Gjirokastr, interior o late eighteenth century mansion ,Source: Akin,



Ill. 3.21. Siatista ,Greek Macedonia,, Poulkos mansion, ater 150, painted decoration
on exterior ,Source: Internet
212
,

212
http:,,www.macedonian-heritage.gr,lellenicMacedonia,media,original,c3312a.jpg
209



Ill. 3.22. Siatista, Poulkos mansion, depiction o Constantinople ,Source: Internet
213
,



Ill. 3.23. Berat ,Albania,, laletiyye tekke, built in the 180s, interior
,Source: Strazimiri et al.,

213
http:,,www.macedonian-heritage.gr,lellenicMacedonia,media,original,c3312b.jpg
210



Ill. 3.24. Berat, Bachelors` mosque, 1820s ,Source: Strazimiri et al.,
Ill. 3.25. Berat, Bachelors` mosque, section ,Source: Koch,



Ill. 3.26. Berat, Bachelors` Mosque, 1820s ,Source: Akin,

211


Ill. 3.2. 1irana, mosque o Lthem bey, 190s-1820s, capitals o porch
Ill. 3.28. 1irana, mosque o Lthem bey, interior



Ill. 3.29. 1irana, mosque o Lthem Bey, painted decoration in porch

212


Ill. 3.30. and 3.31. Nineteenth century redecorations o sixteenth century mosques in
Kosoo: ladum mosque in Dakoica and Bayrakli mosque in Pec ,Source: Unesco,



Ill. 3.32 and 3.33. Prizren, Sou Sinan Pasha mosque ,16
th
century, and Lmin Pasha
mosque ,1831,, decoration rom the 1830s or ater ,Source: Unesco,

213


Ill. 3.34. 1etoo ,Macedonia,, Arabati Baba tekke, built,decorated between the 10s
and 1830s ,Source: Oppeln,



Ill. 3.35. 1etoo, Alaca camii, around 1820 ,Source: Akin,

214


Ill. 3.36. 1etoo, Alaca camii balcony on interior ,Source: Mehling,
Ill. 3.3. 1etoo, Alaca camii, section o side wall ,Source: Sezgin,



Ill. 3.38. Debar, Monastery o St Joan Bigorski, sel-portraits o masters rom Debar
,Source: Plaeski,

215


Ill. 3.39. Bucharest, bav o Manuc Bey, around 1800




Ill.4.1. Plodi ,Bulgaria,, house o A. Kojumdzioglu |Kuyumcuoglu|, 1840s
,Source: Internet
214
,


214
http:,,www.clement.li,bulgarien,plodi,dsc00026.jpg
216


Ill.4.2. Plodi, louse Georgiadi, 1840s, aade with cured projection
,Source: Cerasi 1999,
Ill.4.3. Plodi, louse Georgiadi, loor plan with central oal .ofa ,Source: Pew,



Ill.4.4. Plodi, louse o I. Kojumdzioglu ,not extant,, aade toward courtyard
,Source: Pew,


21


Ill.4.5. Rila monastery, projecting /io./, 1830s ,Source: Bozhilo et al.,



Ill.4.6. Xanthi, house o Muzaer Salih Bey ,Source: Sezgin 193,

218


Ill.4.. Ohrid, house with cured eaes-line ,Source: Paloic,
Ill.4.8. Blagaj ,near Mostar,, Derish te//e, shape o mid-19
th
ct. ,Source: Internet
215
,




Ill.4.9. Xanthi, houses with cured eatures.
Ill.4.10. Banja Luka, canopied ,aairrav o lerhadija mosque ,not extant,, photograph
,Source: Internet
216
,

215
http:,,k53.pbase.com,u10,alangrant,upload,382490.Bosnia2004_PIC1513.JPG
219



Ill.4.11. Banja Luka, canopied ,aairrav o lerhadija mosque ,not extant,, postcard



Ill.4.12. Istanbul, 1opkapi complex, /,/ o Osman III., mid-18
th
ct.
,Source: Cerasi 1999,


216
http:,,www.bosnaolk.com,banjalucka,images,sadran.jpg
220


Ill.4.13. Berat, church o St Mary ,Source: Koch,


Ill.4.14. Belgrade, /ova/ o Princess Ljubica, 1829-31



Ill.4.15. Belgrade, /ova/ o Prince Milos at 1opcider, 1830s

221


Ill.4.16. 1ranik, Colored Mosque ,Sulejmanija,, ater 1815 ,Source: Internet
21
,



Ill.4.1. Samoko, Bayrakli mosque, rebuilt and redecorated in the 1830s
,Source: Berbenlie,



21
http:,,www.studenti.de,bih,slike,Llzedina2002040121231k.jpg
222


Ill.4.18,19. Samoko, cupolas o mosque and church, both decorated by local masters
,Source: Roskoska 1982,



Ill.4.20. Gradacac, mosque o lusein Gradasceic, 1826, portal.
Ill.4.21. Gradacac, mosque o lusein Gradasceic, 1826, mihrab ,Source: Internet
218
,


218
http:,,www.aneks8komisija.com.ba,html,slike,1102593849.jpg
223


Ill.4.22. Sarajeo, interior o house ,Source: Grabrijan,



Ill.4.23. Botegrad ,Bulgaria,, clock tower, 1860s ,Source: Internet
219
,
Ill.4.24. Prilep ,Macedonia,, ountain under clock tower rom 1850s ,Source: Internet
220
,


219
http:,,dzer.com,strange,botegrad-center-1.jpg
220
http:,,www.cs.unca.edu,~boyd,touring,tour05,day9a,2.jpg
224


Ill.4.25. Skopje, Seta Bogorodica ,not extant,, 1830s by Andreja Damjano
,Source: Internet
221
,
Ill.4.26. Veles, Seti Pantelejmon, 1840s by Andreja Damjano, section reealing hidden
cupolas ,Source: Internet
222
,



Ill.4.2. Veles, Seti Pantelejmon, 1840s by Andreja Damjano, interior
,Source: Internet
223
,
Ill.4.28. Belgrade, Saborna crka,183-1840.

221
http:,,smk-wmc.org,UploadedImages,MPC20Seta20Bogorodica20Skopje.jpg
222
http:,,tresonce.com.mk,images,eles02.jpg
223
http:,,www.heriquest.com,index.phpp~28&c~9&id~498&l~24
225


Ill.4.2. Sisto ,Bulgaria,, Church o the loly 1rinity, 1865-186 by Nikola lice
,Source: Berbenlie 1983,
Ill.4.28. Sopot ,Bulgaria,, SS Peter and Paul, 1846 by masters rom Bracigoo
,Source: Berbenlie 1983,


226
Bibliography

Acun, lakki. Anadolu saat kuleleri. |Clock-towers o Anatolia| Ankara : Atatrk Kltr
Merkezi, 1994.

Adanir, likret. Skopje: eine Balkan-lauptstadt.` lauptstdte in Sdosteuropa.
Geschichte - lunktion - Nationale Symbolkrat. Ld. larald leppner.
Vienna,Cologne,\eimar: Bohlau, 1994. 149-69.

Adanir, likret and laroqhi, Suraiya ,eds.,. 1he Ottomans and the Balkans. A Discussion
o listoriography. Leiden,Boston,Cologne: Brill, 2002.

Akin, Nur: Balkanlarda Osmanli donemi konutlari. |Ottoman-period houses in the
Balkans| Istanbul: Literatr yayincilik, 2001.

Andrejeic, Andrej. Prilog proucaanju Islamske uticaja na umetnost XVI. i XVII. eka
kod srba u Sarajeu i Bosni.` |A contribution to the study o Islamic inluences on the
art o the Serbs o Sarajeo and Bosnia in the sixteenth and seenteenth century| Prilozi
za proucaanje istorije Sarajea 1 ,1963,: 51-.

Anhegger, Robert. Die Romerbrcke on Mostar. Lin Beitrag zur Geschichte und
Organisation des Bauwesens im Osmanischen Reich.` Oriens .1 ,1954,: 8-10.

Anscombe, lrederick l.. Albanians and Mountain Bandits.` 1he Ottoman Balkans,
150-1830. Ld. lrederick l. Anscombe. Princeton: Markus \iener Publications, 2005.
8-113.

Arbalie, Georgi Petro. Balgarskata azrozdenska kasta i nejnata ukrasa. |1he Bulgarian
Reial house and its decoration| Soia: 1ehnika, 194.

Arel, Ayda. Gothic 1owers and Baroque Mihrabs: 1he Post-Classical Architecture o
Aegean Anatolia in the Lighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.` Muqarnas X ,1993,: 212-
8.

Arik, Rhan. Sanatta batililasma srecinde Balkan-Anadolu beraberligi.` |Similarities
between the Balkans and Anatolia in the art o the \esternization period| Balkanlarda
Islam Medeniyeti Milletlerarasi Sempozyumu 1ebligleri II. Ld. Ali (aksu. Istanbul:
IRCICA, 2002. 1-96.

Ayerdi, Lkrem lakki. Arupa`da Osmanli mimari eserleri, Vol. 2. \ugoslaya.
|Ottoman monuments o architecture in Lurope, Vol.2: \ugoslaia| Istanbul: Istanbul
letih Cemiyeti, 1981a.

---. Arupa`da Osmanli mimari eserleri, Vol. 3. \ugoslaya. |Ottoman monuments o
architecture in Lurope, Vol.3: \ugoslaia| Istanbul: Istanbul letih Cemiyeti, 1981b.

---. Arupa`da Osmanli mimari eserleri, Vol. 4. Bulgaristan,\unanistan, Arnaudluk.
|Ottoman monuments o architecture in Lurope, Vol.4: Bulgaria, Greece, Albania|
Istanbul: Istanbul letih Cemiyeti, 1982.

22
Bakirer, Omr. \indow Glass in Ottoman Vernacular Architecture.` LJOS IV
|~Proceedings o the 11th International Congress o 1urkish Art, Utrecht - 1he
Netherlands, August 23-28, 1999.| ,2001,: 9:1-29.

Bajraktareic, l. Paswan-oghlu.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004. VIII:284-
5.

Beldiceanu-Steinherr, I. and J.G. Giannopoulos. Kawala.` Lncyclopedia o Islam,
Leiden: Brill, 2004. IV:6-.

Berbenlie, Pejo Nikolo and Vladimir lristo Partace. Bracigoskite majstori-stroiteli
prez XVIII i XIX ek i mjahnoto arhitekturno torcesto. |1he masters-builders o
Bracigoo in the 18
th
and 19
th
century and their architectural work| Soia: 1ehnika, 1963.

---. Kunstdenkmler in Bulgarien. Lin Bildhandbuch. Munich,Berlin: Deutscher
Kunsterlag, 1983

Berindei, Dan. Bukarest - lauptstadt der rumnischen Nation.` lauptstdte in
Sdosteuropa. Ld. larald leppner. Vienna,\eimar,Cologne: Bohlau, 1994. 3-53.

Berktay, lalil and Murgescu, Bogdan. 1he Ottoman Lmpire. |1eaching Modern
Southeast Luropean listory, Alternatie Lducational Materials, \orkbook I|
1hessaloniki: CDRSLL, 2005.

Bice, Milko. Balgarski barok. Prinos kam problemite na balgarskoto izkusto prez
epohata na azrazdaneto. |1he Bulgarian Baroque. A contribution to the problems o
Bulgarian art during the Reial period.| Soia: Nauka i izkusto, 1955.

Biche, Milko. Architecture in Bulgaria: rom ancient times to the late 19th century.
Soia: loreign Languages Press, 1961.

Bouras, Charalambos. 1he Byzantine tradition in the church architecture o the
Balkans in the sixteenth and seenteenth centuries.` 1he Byzantine 1radition ater the
lall o Constantinople. Ld. John J. \iannias. London and Charlottesille: Uniersity
Press o Virginia, 1991. 10-49.

---. Master Cratsmen, Cratsmen, and Building Actiities in Byzantium.` 1he
Lconomic listory o Byzantium: lrom the Seenth through the liteenth Century. Ld.
Angeliki L. Laiou. \ashington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002. 539-54.

Bozdogan, Sibel. Modernism and Nation Building: 1urkish Architectural Culture in the
Larly Republic. Seattle: Uniersity o \ashington Press, 2001.

Bozhilo, Ian and Nikolai 1ouleshko and Lyuben Prashko. Bulgarian Monasteries.
Soia: Nikola liche and Zahari Zograph Christian Architecture and Art loundation,
199.

Bruni, Barbara. La klliye di Kaala. Storia di un`istituzione. llorence: Uniersita -
Dipartimento di Linguistica, 2003.

228
(am, Nusret. \unanistan`da 1rk eserleri ~ 1urkish Monuments in Greece. Ankara:
1rk 1arih Kurumu, 2000.

Cantemir, Dimitrie. 1he listory o the Growth and Decay o the Othman Lmpire.
London: Knapton, 134.

Castellan, Georges. listory o the Balkans. lrom Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin.
New \ork: Columbia Uniersity Press, 1992.

Celic, Dzemal ,ed.,. Nase starine I. |Our heritage| Sarajeo: Zaod za zastitu spomenika
kulture prirodnih znamenitosti i rjetkosti Bosne i lercegoine, 1953

Cerasi, Maurice. Late-Ottoman Architects and Master Builders.` Muqarnas 5 ,1988,:
8-102.

---. 1own and Architecture in the 18th Century.` Rassegna. 1hemes in Architecture:
Istanbul, Constantinople, Byzantium. XIX, 2.4 ,199,: 3-52.

---. 1he lormation o Ottoman house 1ypes: A Comparatie Study in Interaction with
Neighboring Cultures.` Muqarnas XV ,1998,: 116-56.

---. 1he Commerce o lorms and 1ypes Between the \est and the Ottoman Last
rom the sixteenth to the Lighteenth Century.` Lnironmental Design: Journal o the
Islamic Lnironmental Design Research Centre 1-2 ,199-98-99,: 114-33.

---. 1he Problem o Speciicity and Subordination to Lxternal Inluences in Late
Lighteenth Century Ottoman Architecture in lour Istanbul Buildings in the Age o
lassa Mimar Mehmed 1ahir.` LJOS IV |~Proceedings o the 11th International
Congress o 1urkish Art| ,2001,: 11:1-23.

Clarke, James l. Serbia and the Bulgarian Reial ,162-182,.` American Slaic and
Last Luropean Reiew 4.3,4 ,1945,: 141-62.

Colonas, Vasilis. Greek Architects in the Ottoman Lmpire ,19
th
-20
th
centuries,. Athens:
Olkos, 2005.

Council o Lurope, Committee on Culture and Lducation. \ar damage to the cultural
heritage in Croatia and Bosnia-lerzegoina. lourth Inormation Report, 19 January
1994.
http:,,assembly.coe.int,Main.asplink~http:,,assembly.coe.int2ldocuments2lwor
kingdocs2ldoc932ledoc6999.htm

Crampton, R. J. A concise history o Bulgaria. Cambridge,New \ork: Cambridge
Uniersity Press, 199.

Curatola, G|ioanni|. Perieria ottomana e laicismo decoratio: la moschea Sarena` di
1etoo e la Bayrakli` di Samoko. La Decorazione.` Il mondo islamico tra interazione e
acculturazione I. Lds. Alessandro Bausani and Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti. Rome:
Istituto di Studi Islamici dell`Uniersita di Roma, 1981. 139-64.

229
Cutler, Anthony. A Baroque Account o Byzantine Architecture: Leone Allacci`s De
templis Graecorum recentioribus`.` Journal o the Society o Architectural listorians
25.2 ,1996,: 9-89.

Daskalo, Roumen. 1he making o a nation in the Balkans: Bulgaria, rom history to
historiography. Budapest: Central Luropean Uniersity Press, 2004.

Daskaloa-Obretenoa, Klara and Aleksander Obreteno. Architekton Alexi Rilets.`
LiterNet, 4.65 ,2005,. http:,,liternet.bg,publish14,al_obreteno,arhitekton_en.htm

Daido, Dinko. Serbische und Griechisch-Zinzarische Malerei in den Kirchen der
Budaer Lparchie Lnde des XVIII. und zu Beginn des XIX. Jahrhunderts.` Proceedings
o the lith Greek-Serbian Symposium. 1hessaloniki: Institute or Balkan Studies, 1991.
15-83.

Dawson, Roderic l. 1he Dosograa` Church in the 1reaty o Kk Kaynarca.`
Lssays in Ottoman and 1urkish listory, 14-1923. 1he Impact o the \est. London:
Saqi, 1990. 51-9.

Denel, Serim. Batililasma Srecinde Istanbul`da 1asarim e Dis Mekanlarda Degisim e
Nedenleri. |Changes in design and outer space in Istanbul in the period o
\esternization and its reasons| Ankara: OD1U \ayinlari, 1982.

Detrez, Raymond. Relations between Greeks and Bulgarians in the Pre-Nationalist Lra:
1he Cvaita. in Plodi.` Greece and the Balkans: identities, perceptions and cultural
encounters since the Lnlightenment. Ld. Dimitris 1zioas. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
30-46.

Dimitriadis, Langelos P. Oikistikos loros kai katoikia stin Lpeiro kata to 19 aiona.`
|Settlement space and housing in Lpirus during the 19th century| Balkanike paradosiake
architektonike. Ld. Vasilike 1urptsoglu-Stephanidu. 1hessaloniki: Aristoteleion
Panepistemion 1hessalonike, 199. 161-8.

Dimitriadis, Vassilis. 1he Lsna System and Proessions in Nineteenth-Century
1hessaloniki.` Archium Ottomanicum 23 ,2005,6,: 131-41.

Doytchino, Grigor and Christo Gantche. Osterreichische Architekten in Bulgarien
188-1918. \ien,\eimar,Koln: Bohlau, 2001

Duda, lerbert \. Balkantrkische Studien. Vienna: Rudol M. Rohrer, 1949.

Lckert, Gerhard. Bulgarien. Kunstdenkmler aus ier Jahrtausenden on den 1hrakern
bis zur Gegenwart. Koln: DuMont, 1989.

Lldem, Sedad lakki. Sa`dabad. Istanbul: Kltr Bakanligi \ayinlari, 19.

Lyice, Semai. Iskodra`da Kursunlu Cami.` |1he Leaden Mosque in Shkodr|
Belgelerle 1rk 1arihi Dergisi 1 ,1969,: 3-6.

230
laroqhi, Suraiya. Social lie in cities.` An Lconomic and Social listory o the Ottoman
Lmpire, 1300-1914. Lds. lalil Inalcik and Donald Quataert. Cambridge: Uniersity
Press, 1994. 56-608.

---. Kultur und Alltag im Osmanischen Reich. Vom Mittelalter bis zum Anang des 20.
Jahrhunderts. Munich: Beck, 1995.

---. Newshehir.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004a. VIII:11-2.

---. Selanik.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004b. IX:123-6.

liguric, Ante. 1rebinje nekada i danas. |1rebinje once and today| 1930. |Online ersion
at http:,,www.ortunecity.com,boozers,durham,262,iguric.html|

lilipoic, M. Andrija Damjanoic iz Velesa, zogra i neimar ,oko 1813-188,.` |Andrija
Damjanoic o Veles, resco painter and architect ,circa1813-188,| Muzeji 2 ,1949,: 33-
40.

lrashri, Gjergj. Korari, Petro.` Groe Art Online. Oxord Uniersity Press, 1996.
http:,,www.groeart.com

Gariloa, Raina. Bulgarian Urban Culture in the Lighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
Selinsgroe: Susquehanna Uniersity Press, 1999.

Georgiea, Gergana and Orlin Sabe. Muslim mystical brotherhoods in the town o
Shumen 1
th
-19
th
centuries.` Istorija na mjusljumanskata kultura po balgarskite zemi.
Ld. Rossitsa Gradea. Soia: Mezdunaroden centar po problemite na malcinstata i
kulturite zaimodejstija, 2001. 322-3.

Ginio, Lyal. A lorgotten Balkan Llite: 1he Muslim Merchants and the Lgyptian
Commerce.` 1he Great Ottoman-1urkish Ciilization, Vol. 2: Lconomy and Society.
Ld. Kemal (iek and Cem Oguz. Ankara: \eni 1rkiye, 2000. 5-81.

Girardelli, Paolo. Architecture, Identity and Liminality: on the Use and Meaning o
Catholic Spaces in Late Ottoman Istanbul.` Muqarnas 22 ,2005,: 233-64.

Goodwin, Godrey. A listory o Ottoman Architecture. London: 1hames and ludson,
191.

Gocek, latma Mge. Last Lncounters \est: lrance and the Ottoman Lmpire in the
eighteenth century. New \ork : Oxord Uniersity Press, 198.

---. Rise o the bourgeoisie, demise o empire: Ottoman westernization and social
change. New \ork: Oxord Uniersity Press, 1996.

Goman, Daniel. Izmir: rom illage to colonial port city.` 1he Ottoman City between
Last and \est: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul. Ldhem Lldem, Daniel Goman, and Bruce
Masters. Cambridge: Uniersity Press, 1999. 9-134.

231
Golen, Zaer. 1anzimat Doneminde Bosna lersek`te Kilise Insa e Onarim
laaliyetleri` |Construction and Repair o Churches in Bosnia lerzegoina during the
1anzimat Period o Reorms| Belleten LXV.242 ,2001,: 215-42.

Grabrijan, Dusan. Bosensko orientalska arhitektura Sarajeu s posebnim ozirom na
sodobno. |Bosnian oriental architecture in Sarajeo with a particular ocus on the
present| Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga, 1985.

Gradea, Rossitsa. Ottoman Policy towards Christian Church Buildings.` Ltudes
Balkaniques 4 ,1994,: 14-36.

Gra, Marianne. Albanien, nordlich des Shkumbin: ein Stck ergessenes Sdeuropa.
Graz: \eishaupt, 2003.

Gudenus, Philipp lranz Reichsreiherr. 1rkische Reise 140,141. Ld. Gordian,
Lrwein, and Lrnst Gudenus. \eiz: Schodl, 195.

Gurlitt, Cornelius. Die Baukunst Konstantinopels. Berlin: \asmuth, 1912.

ladjimihali, Anghliki. La maison Grecque. Athens: Collection de l`lellenisme
contemporain, 1949.

ladziea-Aleksieska, Jasmina and Llizabeta Kasapoa. Arhitekt Andreja Damjano,
1813-188. Skopje: J. ladziea-Aleksieska and L. Kasapoa, 2001.

ladzijahic, Muhamed. Die Priiligierten Stdte zur Zeit des Osmanischen
leudalismus. Sdostorschungen 20 ,1961,: 130-58.

lamadeh, Shirine. Ottoman Lxpressions o Larly Modernity and the Ineitable`
Question o \esternization.` Journal o the Society o Architectural listorians 31.1
,2004,: 32-51.

larbison, Robert. Relections on Baroque. Chicago: Uniersity o Chicago Press, 2003.

larboa, Margarita. L`espace culture de la ille Balkanique entre l`Orient et l`Lurope
,D`apres l`exemple de la ille de Plodi, XVIIIe-XIXe siecles,.` Ltudes Balkaniques
28.1 ,2002,: 128-43.

larris, Robin. Dubronik. A listory. London: Saqi, 2003.

lasandedic, lizija. Muslimanska bastina u istocnoj lercegoini. Sarajeo: Ll-Kalem,
1990.

lauptmann, lerdinand et. al. ,eds.,. Die Reichsgeschichte Mehmed Subhi`s 138-140.
Graz: listorische Landes-Kommission r Steiermark, 198.

lerscher, Andrew and Andras Riedlmayer. Monument and Crime: 1he Destruction o
listoric Architecture in Kosoo.` Grey Room 1 ,2000,: 108-22.

loddinott, R.l. 1he 1radition o \ood Caring in Macedonia.` 1he Burlington
Magazine 98.618 ,1954,: 28-83.
232

Ibrahim|gil|, Mehmet. Makedonya`da 1rk-Islam Mimarisinde Gorlen Duar Ssleme
Ornekleri. |Lxamples o wall decoration seen in 1urkish-Islamic architecture in
Macedonia| 9. Milletletarasi 1rk Sanatlari Kongresi, II. ,1991,. Ankara: Kltr
Bakanligi, 1995. 28-298.

Ianea, Setla. "Crats and cratsmen in the central part o the Balkans in the irst hal
o the 19th century." 1he great Ottoman-1urkish ciilisation, Vol II. Ld. Kemal (iek.
Ankara: \eni 1rkiye, 2000. 148-55.

---. Samoko: an Ottoman Balkan City in the age o reorms.` 1he Ottoman State and
Societies in Change: a study o the 19th century 1emettuat registers. Lds. layashi
Kayoko & Mahir Aydin. London,New \ork,Bahrain: Kegan Paul, 2004. 4-6.

Imaret lotel. 1he restoration o the kulliye o Mohamed Ali Pasha in Kaala, Greece.
2006. |lile I Restoration process`
http:,,www.imaret.gr,download,restoration_process_1.pd, lile II Restoration
details` http:,,www.imaret.gr,download,restoration_process_2.pd|

Ianoa, Setlana. Shumnu.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004a. IX:502-3.

---. \idin.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004b. XI:205-8.

---. Soya.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004c. IX:02-6.

Jelaich, Barbara. listory o the Balkans: Lighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
Cambridge: Uniersity Press, 1983.

Jelaich, Charles. Some Aspects o Serbian Religious Deelopment in the Lighteenth
Century.` Church listory 23.2 ,1954,: 144-52.

Jezernik, Bozidar. \estern perceptions o 1urkish towns in the Balkans.` Urban
listory 25.2 ,1998,: 211-30.

Judah, 1im. 1he Serbs. listory, Myth and the Destruction o \ugoslaia. New laen
and London: \ale Uniersity Press, 199.

Kadijeic, Aleksandar. Jedan ek trazenja nacionalnog stila u srpskoj arhitekturi ,sredina
XIX - sredina XX eka,. |One century o searching or the national style in Serbian
architecture ,mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century,| Beograd: Gradeinska knjiga,
199.

Kaadar, Cemal. "A death in Venice ,155,: Anatolian Muslim merchants trading in the
Serenissima.` Journal o 1urkish studies 10 ,1986,: 191-218.

Kamberoic, lusnija. lusein-kapetan Gradasceic ,1802-1834,: Biograija : uz djestu
godisnjicu rodenja. |Captain lusein Gradasceic ,1802-1834,: Biography: on the
occasion on the 200
th
anniersary o his birth| Gradacac: BZK Preporod, 2002.

Karaca, Zaer. Istanbul`da Osmanli Donemi Rum Kiliseleri. |Ottoman-period Greek
churches in Istanbul| Istanbul: \api Kredi \ayinlari, 1995.
233

Kiel, Machiel. Some Larly Ottoman Monuments in Bulgarian 1hrace: Stara Zagora
,Lski Zagra,, Jambol and Noa Zagora ,Zagra \enicesi,.` Belleten 38 ,194,: 635-654.

---. Aspects o Ottoman-1urkish Architecture in Albania.` Vth International Congress
o 1urkish Art, Budapest 23-28 September 195. Ld. Gza lehr. Budapest: Akadmiai
Kiad, 198. 541-65.

---. Art and Society o Bulgaria in the 1urkish Period. A Sketch o the Lconomic,
Juridical and Artistic Preconditions o Bulgarian Post-Byzantine Art and its Place in the
Deelopment o the Art o the Christian Balkans, 1360,0 - 100. A New
Interpretation. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985.

---. Islamic Architecture in the Balkans.` Arts and the Islamic \orld 4.3 ,198,: 14-24.

---. Osmanische Baudenkmler in Sdosteuropa. 1ypologie und Verhltnis zur lokalen
Kunst - Probleme der Lrhaltung in den heutigen Nationalstaaten.` Die Staaten
Sdosteuropas und die Osmanen. Ld. lans Georg Majer. Munich: Sdosteuropa-
Gesellschat, 1989. 23-6.

---. Ottoman Architecture in Albania, 1385-1912. Istanbul: IRCICA, 1990a.

---. Urban Deelopment in Bulgaria in the 1urkish Period: 1he Place o 1urkish
Architecture in the Process.` 1he 1urks o Bulgaria: 1he listory, Culture and Political
late o a Minority. Ld. K.l. Karpat. Istanbul: ISIS, 1990b. 9-158.

---. Studies on the Ottoman Architecture o the Balkans. Aldershot: Variorum, 1990c.

---. lrazgrad-lezgrad-Razgrad: the icissitudes o a 1urkish town in Bulgaria.`
1urcica: Reue d`Ltudes 1urques 21-23 ,1991a,. 495-563.

---. 1he Klliye o ,KOPRULU, Amcazade lseyin Pasha in Inebahti , Lepanto.` 9
th

International Congress o 1urkish Art: Summary o Contributions. Ankara: Atatrk
Cultural Center, 1991b. 106.

---. Das trkische 1hessalien: Ltabliertes Geschichtsbild ersus Osmanische Quellen.
Lin Beitrag zur Lntmythologisierung der Geschichte Griechenlands. Die Kultur
Griechenlands in Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Lds. Reinhard Lauer and Peter Schreiner.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. 109-96.

--- with Nico Landman and lans 1heunissen. Introduction: IC1A-XI and the Study o
1urkish Art and Architecture.` LJOS IV |~Proceedings o the 11
th
International
Congress o 1urkish Art, Utrecht, 1999| ,2001,:1:1-28.

---. 1races in Stone, Some Notes on a 16th Century Ottoman Poet lrom 1he Balkans,
Valih-i Uskb and 1he Background o lis Lie and \ork.` Journal o 1urkish Studies
26.2 ,2002,: 31-41.

---. Prizren.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004. VIII:33-40.

234
Kienitz, lriedrich-Karl: Stdte unter dem lalbmond. Geschichte und Kultur der Stdte
in Anatolien und au der Balkanhalbinsel im Zeitalter der Sultane, 101-1922. Munich:
Beck, 192.

Kiziltoprak, Sleyman. Mehmet Ali`s Pasa`s klliye in Kaala in the light o his
akiye.` 1hird International Congress on Islamic Ciilization in the Balkans: Bucharest,
Romania, 1-6 Noember 2006. Abstracts. Istanbul: IRCICA, 2006. 5-8.

Kizis, \iannis. 1hrace. |Greek traditional architecture series| Athens: Melissa, 1992.

---. Paradosiaki arhitektoniki tis 1hessalias.` |1raditional architecture in 1hessaly|
Balkanike paradosiake architektonike. Ld. Vasilike 1urptsoglu-Stephanidu. 1hessaloniki:
Aristoteleion Panepistemion 1hessalonike, 199. 145-60.

---. Morea, 1hessaly, Istanbul, Local leritage and Interactions in 18
th
Century
Domestic Architecture.` Centuries o Ottoman architecture. A Supra-National
leritage`. Lds. Nur Akin, Aie Batur, and Seluk Batur. Istanbul: \LM, 2000. 123-34.

Koch, Guntram. Albanien. Kunst und Kultur im Land der Skipetaren. Koln: DuMont,
1989.

Koea, Margarita. Paromaistor Gencho Kane. Soia: "1ekhnika", 198.

---. Cultural Monuments o the National Reial Period.` LiterNet 4.53 ,2004,.
http:,,liternet.bg,publish9,mkoea,nasledsto,cultural.htm

---.1he Bulgarian Orthodox Iconostasis.` LiterNet 5.66 ,2005,.
http:,,liternet.bg,publish9,mkoea,nasledsto,ikonostas_en.htm

Kreiser, Klaus. Dan die 1rkhen Leiden Khain Menschen Pildnuss: Uber die Praxis
des Bildererbots bei den Osmanen.` Vth International Congress o 1urkish Art,
Budapest 23-28 September 195. Ld. Gza lehr. Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad, 198.
549-56.

---. Uber den Kernraum` des Osmanischen Reiches.` Die 1rkei in Luropa. Ld.
Klaus-Detle Grothusen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 199. 53-63.

Kreseljakoic, lamdija. Lsnai i obrti u Bosni i lercegoini ,1463 - 188,, Vol. I:
Sarajeo. |Guilds and trades in Bosnia and lerzegoina ,1463 - 188,, Vol. I: Sarajeo|
Sarajeo: Naucno Drusto NR Bosne i lercegoine, 1935.

---. Sahat kule u Bosni i lercegoini.` |Clock towers in Bosnia and lerzegoina| Nase
starine IV ,195,: 1-32.

Konstandinou i 1egou-Steryadou, Lanthia. Oi naoi kai to monastiri tis Moshopolis.`
|1he churches and the monastery o Moschopolis| Moshopolis. 1hessaloniki: Society
or Macedonian Studies, 1999. 123-3.

Koukoudis, Asterios I. 1he Vlachs: Metropolis and diaspora. 1hessaloniki: Zitros, 2003

235
Krunic, Joan. Bastina gradoa srednjeg Balkana. |1he heritage o towns o the central
Balkans| Beograd: Republicki zaod za zastitu spomenika kulture, 1996.

Kuban, Dogan. 1rk barok mimarisi hakkinda bir deneme. |An essay on 1urkish
Baroque architecture| Istanbul: Pulhan Matbaasi. 1954.

Kuran, Aptullah. Lighteenth Century Ottoman Architecture` Studies in Lighteeenth
Century listory. Lds. 1homas Na and Roger Owen. London and Amsterdam: leer
& Simons, 19. 303-2.

Kuyulu, Inci. Anatolian \all Paintings and Cultural 1raditions.` LJOS 3.2 ,2000,: 1-
2.

Lawless, Richard I. 1he economy and landscapes o 1hessaly during Ottoman rule.`
An listorical Geography o the Balkans. Ld. lrancis \. Carter. London and New
\ork: Academic Press, 19. 501-33.

---. Berat and Gjirokaster: two museum towns in Albania.` Islam in the Balkans ,
Persian Art and Culture o the Lighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Ld. Jennier M.
Scarce. Ldinburgh: Royal Scottish Museum, 199. 9-18.

Leake, \illiam Martin Leake. 1raels in Northern Greece IV. Amsterdam: lakkert,
196.

Leonidopoulou-Stylianou. Rea. Pelion. |Greek traditional architecture series| Athens:
Melissa, 1988.

Lewis, Bernard. 1he emergence o modern 1urkey. London,Oxord,New \ork:
Oxord Uniersity Press, 1961,1968.

Lichtenberger, Llisabeth. Die Stadt. Von der Polis zur Metropolis. Darmstadt: Primus,
2002.

Lorenoic, Ian. Bosnien und lerzegowina. Line Kulturgeschichte. Vienna,Bolzano:
lolio, 1998.

Luzati, Sknder. Bauten und Architektur in Shkodra: Glanz und Niedergang einer
nordalbanischen Metropole. Albanien zwischen Kreuz und lalbmond. Ld. \erner
Daum. Munich: Staatliches Museum r Volkerkunde, 1998. 242-56.

Macdermott, Mercia. A listory o Bulgaria, 1393-1885. London: George Allen &
Unwin, 1962.

Malcolm, Noel: Bosnia: a short history. London: Macmillan, 1994.

---. Kosoo: a short history. New \ork: larper, 1998.

Maneic, Zoran. Noija Srpska Arhitektura.` Srpska Arhitektura 1900-190. Ld. Zoran
Maneic. Belgrade: Muzej Saremene Umetnosti, 192. -38.

236
Marinescu, Marina. Reisende aus \esteuropa im Reiche Ali Paschas. Albanien
zwischen Kreuz und lalbmond. Ld. \erner Daum. Munich: Staatliches Museum r
Volkerkunde, 1998. 159-66.

McGowan, Bruce. 1he age o the ayans, 1699-1812.` An Lconomic and Social listory
o the Ottoman Lmpire, 1300-1914. Lds. lalil Inalcik and Donald Quataert.
Cambridge: Uniersity Press, 1994. 63-658.

Medakoic, Dejan. Serbischer Barock. Vienna,Cologne,\eimar: Bohlau, 1991.

Mehling, lranz N. ,ed.,: Knaurs Kulturhrer in larbe. Jugoslawien. Munich:
Droemersche Verlagsanstalt 1h. Knaur Nachahren, 1984.

Mijate, Petar. Ottoman monuments in Bulgaria. Ankara: 1rk 1arih Kurumu Basimei,
198.

Moutsopoulos, Nikolaos. le laike arhitektonike tes Veroias. |1he Popular Architecture
o Verria| Athens: Lkdosis technikou Lpimeleteriou tes lellados, 196.

---. Nikos. Grece.` Architecture traditionnelle des pays balkaniques. Lds. Lambrini
Papaioannou, Dora Comini-Dialeti. Athens: Melissa, 1993. 35-406.

---. Contribution a la recherche de la typologie de l`habitation grecque.` Rhabiliter
l`architecture traditionnelle mditerranenne: Symposium rgional. Marseille, le 23, 24 et
25 de septembre 2005. Barcelona: Collegi d`Aparelladors i Arquitectes 1ecnics de
Barcelona,RehabiMed, 2005. 19-20.

Mujezinoic, Mehmed. Islamska epigraika Bosne i lercegoine 2 and 3 |Islamic
Lpigraphs o Bosnia and lerzegoina|. Sarajeo: Veselin Maslesa, 199 and 1998.

Mutaciea, Vera. Kardzalijsko reme. |1he time o banditry| Soia: Izdat. na Balgarskata
Akad. na Naukite, 1993.

Mutapcic, Snjezana. Pola milenija zidnog slikarsta Sarajea.` |A hal-millennium o
mural painting in Sarajeo| Prilozi historiji Sarajea. Radoi sa znanstenog simpozija
Pola milenija Sarajea |1993|. Ld. Dzead Juzbasic Sarajeo: Institut za istoriju, 199.
45-66.

Nagata, \uzo. Materials on the Bosnian Notables. 1okyo: Institute or the Study o
Languages and Cultures o Asia and Arica, 199.

Necipoglu, Glr. 1he Age o Sinan. Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Lmpire.
London: Reaktion, 2005.

Nikonanos, Nikos. \ood-Caring.` 1reasures o Mount Athos. Ld. lellenic Ministry
o Culture. 1hessaloniki: Museum o Byzantine Culture, 199. 259-5.

Ortayli, Ilber. Studies in Ottoman 1ransormation. Istanbul, ISIS, 1994.

23
Odekan, Ayla. 1ransormations in Creation o Ottoman Architecture.` Centuries o
Ottoman architecture. A Supra-National leritage`. Lds. Nur Akin, Aie Batur, Seluk
Batur. Istanbul: \LM, 2000. 56-65.

Oppeln, Philine on. Makedonien entdecken. Unterwegs au dem sdlichen Balkan.
Berlin: 1rescher, 2005.

Orhonlu, Cengiz. 1own Architects.` Vth International Congress o 1urkish Art,
Budapest 23-28 September 195. Ld. Gza lehr. Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad, 198.
05-9.

Ousterhout, Robert. Master Builders o Byzantium. Princeton: Uniersity Press, 1999.

Ozkaya, \cel. Osmanli Imparatorlugu'nda ayanlik. |1he ayanlik in the Ottoman
Lmpire| Ankara: 1rk 1arih Kurumu Basimei, 1994.

Palairet, Michael. 1he Migrant \orkers o the Balkans and their Villages ,18th Century
-\orld \ar II,.` landwerk in Mittel- und Sdosteuropa. Mobilitt, Vermittlung und
\andel im landwerk des 18. bis 20. Jahrhunderts. Ld. Klaus Roth. Munich:
Sdosteuropa-Gesellschat, 198. 23-46.

---. 1he Balkan economies c. 1800-1914: eolution without deelopment.
Cambridge,New \ork: Cambridge Uniersity Press, 199.

Palikrusea, Galaba and Krum 1omoski. Les tekks en Macdoine aux XVIIIe et
XIXe siecle.` Atti del secondo congresso internazionale di arte turca. Napoli: Istituto
uniersitario orientale, Seminario di turcologia, 1965. 203-11 |excl. plates|.

Pantelic, Bratisla: Nationalism and Architecture: 1he Creation o a National Style in
Serbian Architecture and Its Political Importance.` Journal o the Society o
Architectural listorians 56.1 ,199,: 16-41.

Papoulia, Vasiliki et al. ,eds.,. 1hrace. ,1994,. Athens: IDLA, 1994. |online at
http:,,alex.eled.duth.gr,Istoria,thrace_english,1hracee.htm|

Pasic, Amir. Islamic Architecture in Bosnia and lercegoina. Istanbul: IRCICA, 1994.

Paton, Andrew Archibald. Seria, \oungest Member o the Luropean lamily, or, A
Residence in Belgrade and 1raels in the lighlands and \oodlands o the Interior,
during the years 1843 and 1844. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans,
1845.

Pew, Ch. D. Alte luser in Plodi. Berlin: llorian Kuperberg, 1943.

Peyu|, Max Demeter. Die Druckerei on Moschopolis, 131-169. Buchdruck und
leiligenerehrung im Lrzbistum Achrida. Vienna: Bohlau, 1996.

Plemmenos, John G. Musical Lncounters at the Greek Courts o Jassy and Bucharest
in the Lighteenth Century.` Greece and the Balkans: identities, perceptions and cultural
encounters since the Lnlightenment. Ld. Dimitris 1zioas. Ashgate: Aldershot, 2003.
19-191.
238

Popescu, Carmen. Le style national roumain. Construire une nation a traers
l`architecture. Rennes: Presses Uniersitaires de Rennes, 2004.

Popoa, Llena. Samokoski ikoni selata iz caribrodsko.` |Samoko icons in the
illages o Caribrod| Nis i Vizantija III ~ Nis and Byzantium III. Nis: Proseta, 2005.
3-382.

Popoic, Alexandre. 1ranik.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004. X:52-4.

Popoic, Dusan. Beograd pre 200 godina. |Belgrade 200 years ago| Belgrade: Kon, 1935.

---. Srbija i Beograd od Pozareackog do Beogradskog mira. |Serbia and Belgrade rom
the peace o Passarowitz to the peace o Belgrade| Belgrade: Srpska knizena Zadruga,
1950.

--- and Milica Bogdanoic ,eds,. Grada za istoriju Beograda od 11 do 139. |Materials
or the history o Belgrade between 11 and 139| Belgrade: Istoriski Arhi Beograda,
1958.

Pouqueille, l.C.l.L. 1raels in Lpirus, Albania, Macedonia, and 1hessaly. London:
Richard Phillips and Co., 1820.

Punde, Marin V. Bulgarian Nationalism.` Nationalism in Lastern Lurope. Lds. Peter
Sugar and Io John Lederer, Seattle and London: Uniersity o \ashington Press, 1994.
93-165.

Renda, Gnsel. Batilasma Doneminde 1rk Resim Sanati 100-1850. |1urkish painting
art in the period o \esternization| Ankara: lacettepe Uniersitesi \ayinlari, 19.

---. \all Paintings in 1urkish houses`, Vth International Congress o 1urkish Art,
Budapest 23-28 September 195. Ld. Gza lehr. Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad, 198.
11-35.

---. \esternisms in Ottoman Art: \all Paintings in 19th Century louses.` 1he
Ottoman louse. Proceedings o the Amasya Conerence, 24-2 September 1996. Lds.
Stanley Ireland and \illiam Bechhoeer,, London : British Institute o Archaeology at
Ankara and Uniersity o \arwick, 1998. 103-9 |plus plates|

---. Ge donem Osmanli mimarisinde duar resmi: Balkan ornekleri zerine bir
degerlendirme.` |\all paintings in late Ottoman architecture: an ealuation o the
Balkan examples| Atatrk e Manastir Sempozyumu. Ankara: Gazi Uniersitesi, 1999.
315-22.

Riza, Lmin and Pirro 1homo. Albanie.` Architecture traditionelle des pays
balkaniques. Lds. Lambrini Papaioannou and Dora Comini-Dialeti. Athens: Melissa,
1993. 1-82.

Riza, Lmin. Les maisons a traits densis en Albanie.` Acta Studia Albanica 2 ,2005,:
14-50.

239
Roschkowska, Anna. Die Bajraklimoschee, Samoko. Soia: Nationales Institut r.
Kulturdenkmler, 19.

Roskoska, Anna. Za arhitekturata na Kopristica. |On the architecture o Kopristica|
Soia: 1ehnika, 19.

---. Vazrozdenska dekoratina stenopis ot Samokoski zograi. |Decoratie wall-painting
o the Samoko zographs in the reial period|. Soia: Izdatelsto Balgarski ludoznik,
1982.

---. Balgarskite majstori i pametnicite na isljama u nas. |1he Bulgarian masters and the
Islamic monuments in our country| Soia: Izdat. Atelie Ab, 2003.

Runciman, Steen. 1he Orthodox communities under the Ottoman Sultans.` 1he
Byzantine 1radition ater the lall o Constantinople. Ld. John J. \iannias. London and
Charlottesille: Uniersity Press o Virginia, 1991. 1-15.

Quataert, Donald. 1he Ottoman Lmpire, 100-1922. Cambridge: Uniersity Press,
2000.

---. Clothing Laws, State, and Society in the Ottoman Lmpire, 120-1829.`
International Journal o Middle Last Studies, 29:3 ,199,: 403-25.

Sadat, Deena R. Rumeli Ayanlari: 1he Lighteenth Century.` Journal o Modern
listory 44:3 ,192,: 346-63.

Sanders, Irwin 1. 1he Nomadic Peoples o Northern Greece: Lthnic Puzzle and
Cultural Surial.` Social lorces 33.2 ,1954,: 122-9.

Scarcia, G|ianroberto|. Perieria ottomana e laicismo decoratio: la moschea Sarena` di
1etoo e la Bayrakli` di Samoko. Premessa.` Il mondo islamico tra interazione e
acculturazione I. Lds. Alessandro Bausani and Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti. Rome:
Istituto di Studi Islamici dell`Uniersita di Roma, 1981. 128-38.

Scopetea, Lllie. Greek and Serbian Lnlightenment: a comparatie approach.`
Proceedings o the lith Greek-Serbian Symposium. 1hessaloniki: Insitute or Balkan
Studies, 1991. 201-9.

Sezgin, lalk. Makedonya`daki 1rk mimari eserlerinden ornekler. |Lxamples o
1urkish architectural monuments in Macedonia| Doentlik tezi, Delet Gzel Sanatlar
Akademisi, Istanbul, 193.

---. Les maisons en pierre de lener.` Armos : 1imitiks 1mos ston kathigit N. K.
Moutsopoulo gia ta 25 hrnia pneumatiks tou prosoras sto Panepistmo. 1hessaloniki:
Aristotle Uniersity 1hessaloniki, 1990. 159-629.

---. 1urquie.` Architecture traditionelle des pays balkaniques. Lds. Lambrini
Papaioannou and Dora Comini-Dialeti. Athens: Melissa, 1993. 282-346.

Shuteriqi, Dhimitr S. Petro Korari, kryearkitekt i Ali pash 1epelens. |Petro Korari,
the chie architect o Ali Pasha 1epelena| 1irana: Shtpia botuese 8 Nntori`, 198.
240

Skiotis, Dennis N. lrom Bandit to Pasha: lirst Steps in the Rise to Power o Ali o
1epelen, 150-184.` International Journal o Middle Last Studies 2.3 ,191,: 219-44.

Stajnoa, Mihaila. Ottoman libraries in Vidin.` Ltudes Balkaniques 15:2 ,199,: 54-69.

Stajnoa, M|ihaila| and R|aja| Zaimoa. Colloque international sur le baroque sud-est
europeen.` Ltudes Balkaniques 18.1 ,1982,: 152-3.

Stajnoa, Mihaila. La mosque 1omboul a Choumen - Inluence du style Lale`.`
|Proceedings o the| Seenth International Congress o 1urkish Art |1983|. Ld. 1adeusz
Majda. \arsaw: Polish Scientiic Publishers, 1990. 225-9.

Stamo, Stean. Conseration actie de monuments du reil national bulgare.`
Monumentum 15,16 ,19,: art. 8 |no page numbers|

Stanley, 1im. Shumen as a centre o Qur`an production in the 19th century.` Istorija na
mjusljumanskata kultura po balgarskite zemi. Ld. Rossitsa Gradea. Soia:
Mezdunaroden centar po problemite na malcinstata i kulturite zaimodejstija, 2001.
134-5.

Steanoic-Vilosky, 1heodor Ritter on. Belgrad unter der Regierung Kaiser Karls VI.
,11-139,. Mit Benutzung archialischer und anderer Quellen. Vienna: Adol
lolzhausen, 1908.

Stephanidou, Lmilia. Othomanikoi oikodomikoi kanonismoi.`|Ottoman Building
Regulations| Balkanike paradosiake architektonike. Ld. Basilike 1urptsoglu-Stephanidu.
1hessaloniki: Aristoteleion Panepistemion 1hessalonike, 199. 295-324.

Stele, lrance. Der Barock.` Kunstschtze in Jugoslawien. Ld. Oto Bihalj Merin.
Stuttgart: \. Kohlhammer, 192. 34-66.

Strazimiri, Burhan and lasan Nalllbani and Neritan Ceka and Reik Veseli. Monumente
t arkitekturs n Shqipri. |Architectural Monuments in Albania| 1irana: Instituti i
Monumentee t Kulturs, 193.

Stoianoich, 1raian. Between Last and \est. 1he Balkan and Mediterranean worlds.
Vol.II. New Rochelle: A.D. Caratzas, 1992. |1he reerences to Stoianoich more clearly
reer to the now almost legendary article 1he Conquering Balkan Orthodox
Merchant`, which had appeared already in 1960 in the Journal o Lconomic listory 20
,1960,: 234-313. As the 1992 reprint integrated seeral additions to the original text,
reerence has been made to the reprint rather than to the original o 1960.|

Stoica, Georgette. Roumanie.` Architecture traditionnelle des pays balkaniques. Lds.
Lambrini Papaioannou, Dora Comini-Dialeti. Athens: Melissa, 1993. 215-281.

Suceska, Ado. Ajani. Prilog izucaanju lokalne lasti u nasim zemljama za rijeme
1uraka. |1he ayans. A contribution to the research on local goernment in our lands at
the time o the 1urks| Sarajeo: Naucno Drusto SR Bil, 1965.

241
Smerkan, Resat and Ibrahim Okman. Kltr arliklariyla 1rabzon |Cultural properties
o 1rabzon|. 1rabzon: 1rabzon Valiligi, 1999.

Swallow, Charles. 1he Sick Man o Lurope: Ottoman Lmpire to 1urkish Republic
189-1923. London and 1onbridge: Benn, 193.

1aeschner, lr. Gebze.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004. II:982.

1heodorescu, Razan. Dynastique et phmere dans les architectures roumaines de
l`age phanariote.` South Last Lurope - 1he Ambigious Deinitions o a Space. Lds.
Razan 1heodorescu and Leland Conley Barrows. Bucharest: UNLSCO, 2002. 5-86.

1riunoic, Lazar. Kunstdenkmler in Jugoslawien. Vol. I. Munich,Berlin: Deutscher
Kunsterlag, 1981.

1odoro, Nikolai. Kolyo licheto. Soia: loreign Languages Press, 1966.

---. La ille balkanique sous les Ottomans, XV-XIXe s. London: Variorum Reprints,
19.

---. 1he Balkan City, 1400-1900. Seattle and London: Uniersity o \ashington Press,
1983.

---. Society, the City and Industry in the Balkans, 15th-19th Centuries. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1998.

1oledano, L.R. Muhammad Ali Pasha.` Lncyclopedia o Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
VII:423-31.

1opchie, Mehmed. Mosques and Moslems in Bulgaria ~ Les Mosquees et les
Musulmans en Bulgarie. Soia: Soia Press, 1981.

1rotsky, Leon. 1he \ar Correspondence o Leon 1rotsky: 1he Balkan \ars 1912-
1913. New \ork: Pathinder, 1981.

1ulesko, Nikolaj. Paromajstor Nikola lice: ziot i torcesto ,1800-1881,.
Osnoen doklad na ljublilejnata naucna konerencija.` |Chie-master Nikola lice: lie
and work ,1800-1881,. Special paper o the jubilee scientiic conerence| ArhArt 15
,2002,.
http:,,www.geocities.com,arh_art,is15.html

1uran, Omer and Mehmet Z. Ibrahimgil: Balkanlar`da 1rk Lserleri. |1urkish
monuments in the Balkans| Ankara: 1BMM Kltr, Sanat e \ayin Kurulu, 2001.

1urczynski, Lmanuel. Die deutsch-griechischen Kulturbeziehungen bis zur Beruung
Konig Ottos. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1959.

Ugrino, Georgi. Cross-Shaped Military Barracks with a garden.` Surey o the
Architectural and Archaeological leritage ,IRPP,SAAl,. Bulgaria. Council o Lurope,
2004. 35-3. |online at http:,,www.coe.int,t,e,cultural_co-
242
operation,heritage,technical_co-
operation_and_consultancy,3._projects_and_programmes,IRPPSAAl_PIL-|

Ulea, Sorin. Medieal Rumanian Art.` Rumanian Art 1reasures: liteenth to eighteenth
centuries. Ldinburgh |et al.|: 1he Royal Scottish Museum |et al.|, 1966. 6-13.

Uzelac, Zlatko: 1rdaska crka s. Ane Johanna Lucasa on lildebrandta u
Slaonskom Brodu. |1he ortress church o St Anne by Lucas on lildebrandt in
Slaonski Brod| Radoi instituta za poijest umjetnosti |Zagreb| 28 ,2004,: 188-20.

UNLSCO |report|. Cultural leritage in South-Last Lurope: Kosoo. UNLSCO: Paris,
2004.

Vasilie, Asen. Balgarski azrozdenski majstori: ziopisci, rezbari, stroiteli. |Masters o
the Bulgarian Reial period: painters, carers, builders.| Soia: Izdat. "Nauka i
Izkusto", 1965.

Vryonis, Speros Jr. 1he Byzantine Legacy in the lormal Culture o the Balkan
Peoples.` 1he Byzantine 1radition ater the lall o Constantinople. Ld. John J.
\iannias. London and Charlottesille: Uniersity Press o Virginia, 1991. 1-44.

\alkey, R.B.: Lie-Making in the Balkans: 1he Legacy o the Builders Guild.` Culture
Space listory |~Proceedings o the eleenth biennial conerence o the IAPS, Ankara,
8-12 July 1990|. Lds. laluk Pamir, Vacit Imamoglu, and Necdet 1eymur. Ankara: Seki
Vanli loundation or Architecture, 1990. 113-24.

\alkey, Ronald. A Lesson in Continuity: 1he Legacy o the Builders` Guild in
Northern Greece.` Dwelling, seeing, and designing: toward a phenomenonological
ecology. Ld. Daid Seamon. New \ork: SUN\ Press, 1993. 129-5.

\eber, Stean. Images o Imagined \orlds, Sel-image and \orldiew in Late
Ottoman \all Paintings.` 1he Lmpire in the City: Arab Proincial Capitals in the Late
Ottoman Lmpire. Lds. Jens lanssen, 1homas Philippe, and Stean \eber. \rzburg:
Lrgon. 2002. 145-11.

\iet, Gaston. Mohammed Ali et les beaux-arts. Cairo: Dar al-Maare, 1949.

\enisehirlioglu, liliz. 1rkiye Disindaki Osmanli Mimari \apilari. Ottoman
Architectural \orks Outside 1urkey. Ankara: 1.C. Disisleri Bakanligi, 1989.

---. Architectural Patronage o Ayan lamilies in Anatolia.` Proincial Llites in the
Ottoman Lmpire. Ld. Antonis Anastasopoulos. Rethymnon: Crete Uniersity Press,
2006. 321-39.

\erolympos, Alexandra. Urban 1ransormation in the Balkans ,1820-1920,: Aspects o
Balkan 1own Planning and the Remaking o 1hessaloniki. 1hessaloniki: Uniersity
Studio Press, 1996.

Zens, Robert. Pasanoglu Osman Pasha and the Pashalik o Belgrade, 191-180.`
International Journal o 1urkish Studies 8:1,2 ,2002,: 89-124.

243
Zirojeic, Olga. Mir,Rat: Otpori razumu.` Republika 266-26 ,2001,.
http:,,www.yurope.com,zines,republika,arhia,2001,266-26,266-26_20.html

Zlatar, Behija. Utjecaj primorskih majstora na izgradnju nekih objekata u Bil u
osmansko doba.` |1he inluence o coastal masters on the construction o some objects
in Bosnia-lerzegoina in the Ottoman period| Znakoi remena, 20 ,2003,.
http:,,www.ibn-sina.net,znakoiVremena,ID~1&tekstID~234
244
Map with places mentioned in the text