CHwB Regional Office

Alipašina 7/ II
71000 Sarajevo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
+387 33 552 376
www.chwb.org/bih
Edited by Maximilian Hartmuth
The CHwB projects are
mainly financed by:
Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo
University of Sarajevo
Franje Račkog 1, Sarajevo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
+ 387 33 253 200
www.ff.unsa.ba
C
H
w
B

|
R
e
p
o
r
t

s
e
r
i
e
s

N
o
.

9
/
2
0
1
0
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
ip
h
e
r
ie
s

in

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
it
e
c
t
u
r
e
:
r
e
d
is
c
o
v
e
r
in
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
it
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
r
i
i
p
e
r
if
e
r
ij
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
it
e
k
t
u
r
i:
p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
iv
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
ij
e
đ
a
s

|

Report series No. 9/2010
Centres and peripheries in
Ottoman architecture:
Rediscovering a Balkan Heritage
Centri i periferije u
osmanskoj arhitekturi:
Ponovo otkrivanje
balkanskog naslijeđa
Proceedings of the international conference "Centres and peripheries in Ottoman architecture: rediscovering a Balkan heritage"
Zbornik radova međunarodne konferencije: Centri i periferije u osmanskoj arhitekturi: ponovo otkrivanje balkanskog naslijeđa"
22-24 April, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
/borolkďradovaďmcduoarodocďkoolcrcocljc
!"#$%&'('()#&'*#&'+#(,(-./0$.1-+(0&2'%#1%,&'3(
peneveĈetkr|von[eĈho|konskegĈnos||[edoº
22-2«ďaµrllď2u1u,ď8arajcvo,ď8osoaďlďucrcczovloa
lrocccdlozsďolďtocďlotcroatlooalďcoolcrcocc
!"#$%&#.(0$4()#&')2#&'#.('$(5%%-/0$(0&62'%#6%,&#3(
red|scever|ngĈoĈ0o|konĈher|togeº
22-2«ďkµrllď2u1u,ď8arajcvo,ď8osolaďaodďucrzczovloa
|dltorď7(!"#$%&'()809'/':'0$(;0&%/,%2
8arajcvo,ď2u11
Cultural Heritage without Borders is an independent
organization based in Sweden dedicated to rescuing and
preserving tangible and intangible cultural heritage touched
by conflict, neglect or human and natural disasters. We see
our work as a vital contribution to building democracy and
supporting human rights. CHwB is neutral when it comes to
conflicting parties, but not to the rights of all people to their
cultural heritage.
<4'%-&(7(=&#4$'13(
vaxlmlllaoďuartmuto
Þuh||sherĈ¦Ĉlzdovoř:Ĉ
tuW8,ďkczlooalďoȸccď8arajcvo,ď2u1u
>#)-&%(?#&'#.(7(@AB+#C%0+(D&-+(EFGHIH
J0$K,0K#(#4'%'$K(DL(7(M#1.%()&#K:#40:'3)
kdlsaď0Ŧlooďaodďkdamďvctooocll
N&'$%'$K(7(O%0/)03)
8cmustď8arajcvo
P#.'$K(DL(7(P'A0+$3)
loctaďllsta
0|rcu|ot|enĈ¦ĈJ|roę:Ĉ
5uuďcoµlcsď/ď5uuďµrlmjcraka
)
0everĈ|mogeĈ¦Ĉ|etegroȾ[oĈsĈnos|evneĈstron|ce:)
0ctallďolď15to-ccoturyďdomcdďmausolcumďocxtďtoďkladŦaďmosqucďloď8koµjcď
(µootozraµoďbyďvaxlmlllaoďuartmuto).
0ctaljďsďturbctaďuďoarcmuďkladŦaďdŦamljcďuď8koµju,ď15.ďstoljcƠc.
(lotozral:ďvaxlmlllaoďuartmuto)
!ocďdcslzoďooďtocďȶȺoďµazcďaodďbackďcovcrďlsďbascdďooďtocďdccoratlooďolďtocďuaodaoljaďmosqucď
loďlrusacďaodďoasďbccoďµrcµarcdďbyďlcjlaďuadŦlƠ.
|lustracljaďoaďµctojďstraolclďlďoaďµolcdlolďoaslovolccďjcďbazlraoaďoaďdckoracljlďsďdrvcocďdaskcď
svodaďuaodaoljaďdŦamljcďuďlruscuď(autorďlcjlaďuadŦlƠ)
©Ĉ2010Ĉ0ßw0Ĉkeg|eno|Ĉ0ɀce
11.............................................................................................................................................. Preface
15..........................................................................................................................................Predgovor
18.......................................................................................................................... Maximilian Hartmuth
The history of centre-periphery relations as a history of style in Ottoman provincial architecture
Historija odnosa centar-periferija kao historija stila u arhitekturi osmanskih provincija
30..................................................................................................................................Johan Mårtelius
Ottoman European architecture
Osmanska europska arhitektura
36....................................................................................................................................Grigor Boykov
Reshaping urban space in the Ottoman Balkans: a study on the architectural development of Edirne,
Plovdiv, and Skopje (14th-15th centuries)
Transformacija urbanog prostora na osmanskom Balkanu: studija o arhitektonskom razvoju Jedrena,
Plovdiva i Skoplja (od 14. do 15.vijeka)
50.................................................................................................................................. Ibolya Gerelyes
Ottoman architecture in Hungary: new discoveries and perspectives for research
Osmanska arhitektura u Mađarskoj: nova otkića i perspektive za istraživanja
60....................................................................................................................................... Machiel Kiel
The campanile-minarets of the southern Herzegovina: a blend of Islamic and Christian elements
in the architecture of an outlying border area of the Balkans, its spread in the past and survival until our time
Zvonici-minareti u jugoistočne Hercegovine: spoj elemenata islama i krišćanstva u
arhitekturi pograničnog pojasa Balkanskog poluostrva, njihovo širenje u prošlosti i opstanak do sadašnjeg vremena
80............................................................................................................................... Marianne Boqvist
“Centre” and “periphery” in the Syrian countryside:
the architecture of mosques in governmental foundations on the Ottoman imperial roads
“Centri” i “periferije” u Sirijskoj pokrajini:
arhitektura džamija u zadužbinama upravitelja na sultanskim cestama
Content / Sadržaj
90................................................................................................................................... Federica Broilo
The forgotten Ottoman heritage of Florina on the River Sakoulevas,
and a little known Ottoman building on the shore of Lake Volvis in Greek Macedonia
Zaboravljeno osmansko naslijeđe Florina na rijeci Sakoulevas i manje poznata
osmanska građevina na obali jezera Volvis u Egejskoj Makedoniji
98.................................................................................................................Vjekoslava Sanković Simčić
The restoration of the mosque of Hadži Alija in Počitelj
Restauracija Hadži Alijine džamije u Počitelju
108..............................................................................................................................Zeynep Ahunbay
Ottoman architecture in Kosova and the restoration of Hadum Mosque in Gjakovo (Ðakovica)
Osmanska arhitektura na Kosovu i restauracija Hadum džamije u Đakovici
118............................................................................................................................ Nenad Makuljević
Država, društvo i vizuelna kultura: poznoosmanska arhitektura u Srbiji, Makedoniji i Bosni i Hercegovini
State, society, and visual culture: late Ottoman architecture in Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina
122.................................................................................................................................... Lejla Bušatlić
Transformacije gradske kuće orijentalnog tipa u postosmankom periodu na području Bosne i Hercegovine
The transformation of the oriental-type urban house in post-Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina
136........................................................................................................................ Mirza Hasan Ćeman
Urgentne urbane intervencije osmanske vlasti na području Bosne i Hercegovine nakon 1860. godine
Urban interventions by the Ottoman state in Bosnia-Herzegovina after 1860
152........................................................................................................................... Ćazim Hadžimejlić
Mihrabi u Bosni i Hercegovini
Mihrabs in Bosnia and Herzegovina
162....................................................................................................................... Mehmet Z. Ibrahimgil
Jedan osvrt na objekte kompleksa Murad Reis-a na Rodosu
A survey of objects within the Murad Reis compound in Rhodes
11
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Preface
!"#$%"#&'"$(") to herewith present the proceedings oí the symposium Cevtre. ava ¡eri¡berie. iv Otto·
vav arcbitectvre: reai.corerivg a ßat/av beritage, organized by Cultural leritage without Borders ,ClwB,
in Saraje·o, Bosnia-lerzego·ina, on April 22-25, 2010. lor ClwB, a Swedish íoundation, the choice
oí location was most Ftting. lor it was in Bosnia-lerzego·ina, in 1996, that ClwB began its acti·ities
in response to the destruction oí cultural heritage in the wake oí \ugosla·ia`s disintegration: ClwB
was íounded íollowing the initiati·e oí a number oí Swedish architects, journalists, and other culture
proíessionals. 1he íormal íounding oí ClwB as an organization was supported by a number oí
institutions and prominent indi·iduals, among which are the Swedish National leritage Board, the
Swedish Association oí Architects, ·arious museum associations, and two Swedish MPs. 1he aim was
not only to sa·e and restore historical buildings, but also to promote reconciliation. A Frst Feld oíFce
was opened in Saraje·o to super·ise the projects initiated, in 2001 another Feld oíFce in Pristina,
Koso·o íollowed, and in 2009 a third was opened in 1irana, Albania. Also, three networks íostering
exchange concerning heritage-related issues were established in six oí the region`s countries in 2006.
lrom the onset, howe·er, ClwB`s íocus has been on the physical restoration oí damaged historical
monuments, in line with the highest international standards and irrespecti·e oí monument, period,
location, or ethnic or coníessional group identiFed with it. ClwB recognizes that capacity-building on
a multitude oí le·els is imperati·e íor its mission in Southeast Lurope ií the outcome is to be sustain-
able. ClwB projects are not concei·ed as cosmetic inter·entions, but as in·estments in de·elopment.
By helping to restore dignity to the communities aííected, and building conFdence, raising awareness,
and íostering social and economic de·elopment through the utilization oí local resources, ClwB aims
to promote a culture oí peace and reconciliation.
Rather than a mere academic pursuit, the coníerence Cevtre. ava ¡eri¡berie. iv Ottovav arcbitectvre: reai.·
corerivg a ßat/av beritage was similarly an exercise in capacity-building. It re·isited in greater detail some
problems addressed Frst in a workshop titled Ottovav arcbitectvre ava ívro¡eav beritage, organized in No-
·ember 2006 at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul ,SRII,. 1he Saraje·o coníerence`s concept
was íormulated between 200¯ and 2009 by Johan Martelius oí ClwB and Maximilian lartmuth. 1he
designated aim was to design an e·ent the theme oí which is meaningíul both to current international
debates in the Feld oí Ottoman and Luropean architectural history, and to the concerns surrounding
ClwB acti·ities in the Balkans, where it had built a network oí scholars and experts o·er the years. It
was also clear that the coníerence must bring together scholars írom the region and írom elsewhere
,the Fnal programme íeatured six speakers írom Bosnia-lerzego·ina, three írom 1urkey, two írom
Bulgaria, and one each írom the UK, Italy, lungary, and Sweden,. Similarly, that the coníerence itselí
was not to be held abroad but in the ·ery region that was its subject was intended as a signal. Gi·en
the nature oí ClwB`s past acti·ities in the region, it was also clear that the e·ent should be organized
in cooperation with local institutions. It íound Ftting partners in the Art listory Program established
in 2002 at Saraje·o Uni·ersity`s laculty oí Philosophy, and in laris Der·ise·ic, an assistant in that
program. In the preparations íor the symposium, which took place in the laculty oí Philosophy`s audi-
torium, Der·ise·ic worked closely with Adisa Dzino oí the ClwB Regional OíFce in Saraje·o, whose
12
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
organizational dexterity was compromised not e·en by an Icelandic ·olcano, the eruption oí which
coincided with the week oí the e·ent. 1he symposium`s opening e·ent was organized in cooperation
with, and on the premises oí, the Zemaljski Muzej in Saraje·o, with which ClwB had partnered on
pre·ious occasions,
Lastly, it was determined that the papers gi·en at the symposium must be published, and this brings
us back to the question oí capacity-building. 1he proceedings are not only meant as a record oí the
symposium, but also as a springboard íor íuture studies oí, and ultimately a renewed interest in, this
heritage. As lartmuth stresses at the beginning oí his paper, it has been a problem that this heritage
was, at least in recent years, more oíten addressed as an identity marker than as an object oí art-histor-
ical interest. In the past, ·arious kinds oí borders - linguistic, physical, methodological, or ideological
- had obstructed the íull appreciation oí these monuments in their artistic and historical contexts. Now
it is time to put the study oí this heritage back on the map and realign it with contemporary debates
in history and art history. lartmuth proposes an axis oí in·estigation along centres and peripheries as
one possible strategy íor rescuing this heritage írom in·isibility, hence the symposium`s theme. 1his,
lartmuth argues, has the potential oí in·esting the Balkan monuments with a no·el signiFcance in nar-
rati·es oí Ottoman architectural history, in which they ha·e been neglected. Similar issues are raised by
Martelius, who íocuses on the Balkan architectural heritage`s place in Luropean discourses on history
and culture. A key íor these monuments` better integration into the historical narrati·es oí \estern,
Luropean, Ottoman, or Islamic art is increased production oí knowledge, and it is hoped that this
·olume will be an instrument in this process.
1he contributors co·er a wide array oí subjects. lartmuth and Martelius start írom identiíying
the Balkan monuments` current place in histories oí art as a problem that deser·es attention. 1hey
point to the necessity oí rethinking the scope and methods oí pre·ious inquiry. 1he remainder oí the
papers contribute by pro·iding case studies which shed light on processes and phenomena rele·ant
to understanding the Ottoman architectural heritage outside Istanbul. Machiel Kiel presents the Frst
in-depth study oí the little-known lerzego·inian phenomenon oí minarets in the shape oí campanili.
Grigor Boyko· discusses the role oí architectural íoundations in three Balkan cities` de·elopment in
the early Ottoman period. Ibolya Gerelyes pro·ides a sur·ey oí past and present eííorts in the study
oí lungary`s Ottoman architectural heritage, including the promising Feld oí archaeology. lederica
Broilo similarly takes a Feldwork approach to the study oí Ottoman Balkan monuments, discussing
unknown or little known monuments in Greek Macedonia. Mehmet Z. Ibrahimgil turns our attention
to a rather curious compound that e·ol·ed around a mosque built in a seaman`s honour in the city oí
Rhodes. In a paper technically unrelated to the Balkans, but discussing a number oí themes touched
upon in this ·olume`s other papers, Marianne Boq·ist looks at the architecture oí Ottoman waystations
in historical Syria, and the question oí pro·incial ·s. metropolitan style. Cazim ladzimejlic discusses
one speciFc architectural element, the vibrab or prayer niche, and its theological and artistic signiFcance
in Bosnia and elsewhere. Mirza lasan Ceman addresses the question oí northern Bosnian urban
settlements planned by the late Ottoman state. 1hese towns, designed on a regular grid, were to house
13
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Muslims e·acuated írom neighbouring Serbia in 1862-3. Nenad Makulje·ic writes oí the architecture
in the post-1839 period oí Ottoman reíorms. Lejla Busatlic discusses the negotiation oí old` and
new,` oí traditions, sur·i·als, and re·i·als, in the architecture oí Bosnian city residences around 1900.
Zeynep Ahunbay and Vjekosla·a Sanko·ic Simcic, Fnally, report oí recent restorations oí two 16
th
-
century mosques - one in Koso·o, the other in lerzego·ina - and the challenges met in this process.
lor reasons outlined abo·e, it was imperati·e íor the organizers to publish the proceedings as swiítly
as possible, within the same year as the symposium. As a less time-intensi·e alternati·e to the proper
translation oí all texts and their simultaneous publication in the coníerence`s languages - Lnglish and
Bosnian,Croatian,Serbian - we ha·e opted íor bilingual abstracts composed by the editor, in which
the papers` main arguments are identiFed in both languages at each text`s beginning. In editing the
papers, we ha·e inter·ened to the least possible extent, allowing íor personal opinions and interpreta-
tions that may not renect the editor`s or ClwB`s ·iews. At long last, we would like to thank the project
participants and the contributors to this ·olume, and express our hope that the present publication
might trigger related initiati·es in the íuture. \hat the texts show us is how much can still be learned
about this heritage.
Margareta ív.ev ,Secretary General oí ClwB,
]obav Martetiv. ,ClwB board member,
Ma·ivitiav íartvvtb ,editor,
ív revevbravce of .varea. .aabt ;1·²º·200·), .cbotar ava ai¡tovat. ív tbe covr.e of bi. ai¡tovatic career,
.aabt beta ¡o.t. iv, ivter atia, írav ava ^ortb .frica. íe baa a tife·tovg ivtere.t iv tbe cvttvrat ava ¡otiticat
ivteractiov. betreev ívro¡e ava tbe Mv.tiv rorta, ivctvaivg tbe Ottovav ava í.tavic covtribvtiov. to tbe cvttvrat
beritage of ívro¡e. ív bi. rote a. cbairvav of tbe Círß boara betreev 200ó ava 200·, .aabt covtribvtea greatt,
to tbe aereto¡vevt of Círß actiritie. iv tbe !e.terv ßat/av.. 1be covferevce iv ´ara;ero, fvvaea b, tbe ´reai.b
ívtervatiovat Dereto¡vevt Coo¡eratiov .gevc, ;´iaa) ava covtribvtiov. frov tbe .aabt favit,, ra. orgavi¸ea b,
Círß iv bi. bovovr.
15
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
*$)+,+'-(.,+#/$0#-" citaocu predsta·iti publikaciju simpozijuma Centri i periíerije osmanske arhi-
tekture: pono·no otkri·anje balkanskog naslijeĀa` koja je organizo·ana od strane Kulturnog nasljeĀa
bez granica u Saraje·u, Bosna i lercego·ina, u periodu od 22. do 25. aprila. Za s·edsku íondaciju
ClwB, sam izbor lokacije za koníerenciju se cini najprikladnijim. Bosna i lercego·ina je zemlja u kojoj
je ClwB 1996. godine, u toku raspada Jugosla·ije, poceo s·oje akti·nosti kao odgo·or na unista·anje
kulturnog naslijeĀa: grupa s·edskih arhitekata, proíesionalaca u kulturi i no·inara se angazo·ala sto je
rezultiralo kreiranjem ClwB-a od strane S·edskog Nacionalnog odbora za nasljeĀe, clano·a S·edskog
parlamenta, muzejskih asocijacija i S·edske asocijacije arhitekata. Cilj nije bio samo da se sacu·aju i
restauriraju historijski objekti, nego da se podupre proces pomirenja. Pr·a kancelarija iz·an S·edske je
bila ot·orena u Saraje·u, gdje su akti·nosti kancelarije bile ·ezane za nadzor nad zapocetim projektima.
Kancelarija u Pristini na Koso·u je bila ot·orena 2001, a treca kancelarija je ot·orena 2009. godine u
1irani, Albanija. 1akoĀer, kreirane su i tri mreze koje cine organizacije,institucije, predsta·nici sest
zemalja u regiji a koje rade na razmjeni iskusta·a i sta·o·a na polju kulturnog naslijeĀa. Od samog
pocetka, íokus ClwB-a je bio na Fzickoj restauraciji ostecenih historijskih spomenika, u skladu sa
naj·isim meĀunarodnim standardima, bez obzira na period, lokaciju, etnicku ili religijsku zajednicu
kojoj pripadaju ti spomenici. Izgradnja kapaciteta na razlicitim ni·oima je prepoznata kao imperati· za
misiju ClwB-a u jugoistocnoj L·ropi, koja za cilj ima odrzi·ost. ClwB projekti nisu kozmeticke inter-
·encije, ·ec in·esticije u raz·oj. Pomazuci da se ·rati dostojanst·o razorenim zajednicama, izgraĀujuci
po·jerenje, radeci na podizanju s·ijesti, i pomazuci ekonomski raz·oj kroz koristenje lokalnih kapac-
iteta, ClwB promo·ira kulturu mira i po·jerenja.
Prije nego li samo akademska teznja, koníerencija Centri i periíerije osmanske arhitekture: pono·no
otkri·anje balkanskog naslijeĀa` je bila i íokusirana na samu izgradnju kapaciteta. Na koníerenciji su
u naj·ecoj mjeri diskuto·ani neki od problema koji su ·ec bili spominjani na radionici koja je organi-
zo·ana 2006. godine u no·embru od strane S·edskog istrazi·ackog instituta u Istanbulu, a koja se ticala
osmanske arhitekture i e·ropskog nasljeĀa.
Koncept koníerencije u Saraje·u je bio íormuliran izmeĀu 200¯. i 2009. godine od strane Johana
Marteliusa, ClwB i Maximiliana lartmutha. Cilj je bio da se dizajnira dogaĀaj cija tema ce obostrano
biti znacajna i sa aspekta meĀunarodnih diskusija na polju osmanske e·ropske arhitektonske histo-
rije i sa aspekta cilje·a ClwB-o·ih akti·nosti na Balkanu koje su nakon niza godina, izmeĀu ostalog
rezultirale i usposta·ljenom mrezom kontakata, ucenjaka i eksperata. Isto tako je postalo jasno da
koníerencija treba da spoji ucenjake iz regiona i sire. linalni program je bio sacinjen od preda·anja sest
go·ornika iz Bosne i lercego·ine, tri iz 1urske, d·oje iz Bugarske, i od po jednog go·ornika iz Velike
Britanije, Italije, MaĀarske i S·edske. Samim tim, koníerencija nije trebala biti odrzana u inostranst·u
·ec u regionu koji je i sam tema razmatranja. U skladu sa ClwB-o·im akti·nostima u regiji, sam
dogaĀaj je bio organizo·an u saradnji sa lokalnim institucijama. Partner za koníerenciju je bio Odjel
za historiju umjetnosti osno·an 2002. godine pri lilozoískom íakultetu, Uni·erziteta u Saraje·u, koji
je bio predsta·ljen larisom Der·ise·icem, asistentom na odjelu. U samim pripremama koníerencije,
koja se odrzala u amFteatru lilozoískog íakulteta, laris je usko saraĀi·ao sa Adisom Dzino iz ClwB
Predgovor
16
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Regionalne kancelarije u Saraje·u, ciju eFkasnost nije narusio ni islandski ·ulkanski pepeo, koji je erup-
tirao sedmicu prije same koníerencije. Samo ot·aranje koníerencije je bilo organizo·ano prostorijama
Zemaljskog muzeja u Saraje·u, dugogodisnjeg partnera ClwB-a.
Na kraju, prije samog pocetka koníerencije odluceno je da se preda·anja sa same koníerencije tre-
baju i obja·iti, i o·o nas pono·no do·odi na temu izgradnje kapaciteta. Namjera iza same publikacije ne
lezi u tome da se koníerencija samo zabiljeziti, ·ec je publikacija zamisljena kao zacetak buducih studija,
koje ce nadamo se obno·iti interes za o·aj tip naslijeĀa.
Kao sto lartmuth na·odi na samom pocetku s·og preda·anja, naj·eci problem predsta·lja to sto
je o·o naslijeĀe, barem u proslim godinama, bilo ·ise obiljezeno kao simbol za prepozna·anje iden-
titeta, nego li spomenik od arhitektonsko - historijskog znacaja. U proslosti, razne granice - jezicke,
metodologijske ili ideoloske - su narusile puno u·aza·anje o·og naslijeĀa u s·om umjetnickom i histori-
jskom kontekstu. Sada je ·rijeme da se same studije obno·e i da se usklade sa sa·remenim diskusijama u
historiji i historiji umjetnosti. U skladu sa samom temom simpozijuma on preporucuje mogucu strate-
giju spasa·anja o·og naslijeĀa od nepostojanja, kroz izradu niza istrazi·anja u centrima i periíerijama.
O·aj pristup, na·odi lartmuth, ima potencijal implementiranja ·aznih balkanskih spomenika u zapise
osmanske arhitektonske historije, a u kojima je do sada bila zaposta·ljena. Slicno na·odi i Martelius,
koji se íokusirao na poziciju balkanskog arhitektonskog nasljeĀa u e·ropskom diskursu o historiji i
nasljeĀu. Kljuc bolje integracije o·ih spomenika u historijske zapise o zapadnoj, e·ropskoj, osmanskoj
ili islamskoj umjetnosti znaci po·ecanje znanja, i nadamo se da ce o·a publikacija biti ·azno oruĀe u
samom procesu.
Sami preda·aci su pokrili sirok dijapazon tema. lartmuth i Martelius zapocinju identiFkaciju tre-
nutne pozicije balkanskih spomenika u historiji umjetnosti, prepoznajuci je kao problem koji zasluzuje
paznju. Oni ukazuju na neophodnost pono·nog promisljanja o nacinima i metodama prije raĀenih
istrazi·anja. Ostala preda·anja su doprinijela dajuci konkretne primjere koji bacaju s·jetlost na sam
proces koji je neophodno sh·atiti, kako bi se pojmio íenomen rele·antan za razumije·anje osmanskog
arhitektonskog nasljeĀa iz·an Istanbula. Machiel Kiel predsta·lja citateljima pr·u detaljnu studiju o
relati·no nepoznatim hercego·ackim munarama koje primaju oblik z·onika. Grigor Boyko· razma-
tra ulogu arhitektonskih uticaja u raz·oju tri balkanska grada u ranom osmanskom periodu. Ibolya
Gerelyes daje istrazi·anje proslih i trenutnih napora u studiranju osmanskog nasljeĀa u MaĀarskoj,
ukljucujuci i obeca·ajuce polje arheologije. Slicno, lederica Broilo preuzima terenski pristup studi-
ranju osmanskih balkanskih spomenika, razmatrajuci nepoznate ili malo znane spomenike u Grckoj
Makedoniji. Mehmet Z. Ibrahimgil nas u·odi u relati·no interesantan kompleks koji je nastao u okolini
dzamije koja je sagraĀena u cast moreplo·aca grada na Rodosu. U preda·anju tehnicki nepo·ezanim sa
Balkanom, ali raspra·ljajuci teme koje su dotakla i druga preda·anja, Marianne Boq·ist razmatra arhi-
tekturu osmanskih s·ratista u historijskoj Siriji i samo pitanje pro·incijskog naspram stila metropole.
Cazim ladzimejlic diskutuje o konkretnom arhitektonskom elementu, mihrabu ili molit·enoj nisi,
te teoloskom i umjetnickom znacenju koje ima u Bosni i drugdje.
17
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Mirza lasan Ceman, na·odi pitanje urbanih naselja planiranih u kasnoj osmanskoj drza·i, na sje·eru
Bosne. O·i grado·i, dizajnirani u krutoj semi, bili su raĀeni da bi prih·atili muslimane e·akuirane iz
susjedne Srbije 1862-3. Nenad Makulje·ic pise o arhitekturi osmanskih reíormi iza 1839. Lejla Busatlic
raspra·lja o sporazumu izmeĀu starog` i no·og`, tradicije, prezi·lja·anja i preobrazaja u arhitekturi
rezidentnih grado·a u Bosni oko 1900. godine. Zeynep Ahunbay i Vjekosla·a Sanko·ic Simcic, na
kraju, iz·jesta·aju o posljednjim restauracijama dzamija iz 16. ·ijeka - jedne na Koso·u, i druge u
lercego·ini - i o zahtje·ima sa kojima su se suocile tokom o·og procesa.
Iz gore na·edenih razloga, organizatori su nastojali obja·iti publikaciju u sto kracem ·remenskom
roku i u istoj godini u kojoj odrzana sama koníerencija. Kao manje ·remenski zahtje·na alternati·a
potpunom pre·odu s·ih teksto·a na jezike koníerencije - engleski i bosanski,hr·atski,srpski - mi smo
se odlucili za d·ojezicni sazetak koji je sacinjen od strane urednika, gdje su gla·ni argumenti s·akog
preda·anja identiFcirani na oba jezika na pocetku s·akog pojedinacnog teksta. U pregledu teksto·a,
probali smo inter·enisati sto je manje moguce, dopustajuci licna zapazanja i interpretacije, koje ne
predsta·ljaju neophodno misljenje urednika ili ClwB-a. I na samom kraju, zeljeli bismo se zah·aliti
ucesnicima u projektima i onima koji su doprinijeli o·oj publikaciji, i izraza·amo nadu da ce o·a pub-
likacija zapoceti rele·antne inicijati·e u buducnosti. Neki od teksto·a nas napominju koliko toga jos
u·ijek trebamo nauciti o o·om nasljeĀu.
Margareta ív.ev ,Generalni sekretar ClwB-a,
]obav Martetiv. ,clan odbora ClwB-a,
Ma·ivitiav íartvvtb ,urednik,
| .;ecav;e va .varea.a .aabta ;1·²º·200·), vcev;a/a i ai¡tovate.| to/v .ro;e ai¡tovat./e /ari;ere, .aabt
;e bio v .tv¸bi, i¸veĀv o.tatib, i v vi.i;ava v íravv i .;erervo; .frici. ^;egor ¸irotvi ivtere. ;e bio re¸av ¸a
vv;etvic/v i ¡otitic/v ra¸v;evv i¸veĀv írro¡e i í.tav./og .ri;eta, v/t;vcv;vci o.vav./i i i.tav./i ao¡rivo.
/vttvrvov va.ti;eĀv írro¡e. | vto¸i ¡rea.;eaara;vceg v¡rarvog oabora Círß·a v ¡erioav i¸veĀv 200ó i 200·,
.aabt ;e aao vev;ert;ir ao¡rivo. ra¸ro;v a/tirvo.ti Círß·a va ¸a¡aavov ßat/avv. Kovferevci;a v ´ara;erv ;e
bita orgavi¸orava oa .trave Círß·a v v;egorv ca.t, a fvav.irava ;e oa .trave ´rea./e veĀvvaroave agevci;e ¸a
ra¸ro; i .araav;v ;´iaa), i .a ao¡rivo.iva ¡oroaice .aabt.
18
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. ra,. iv rbicb tbe ßat/av Ottovav arcbitectvrat beritage cav be vaae vore reteravt to
Ottovav arcbitectvrat varratire. iv geverat. Ove ¡o..ibt, frvitfvt a·i. of ivre.tigatiov, be ctaiv., e·i.t. atovg
cevtre.·¡eri¡berie., av a¡¡roacb aeri.ea to ae.cribe ava e·¡taiv tbe .trvctvrat retatiov.bi¡ betreev av aaravcea
vetro¡oti., or cevtre, ava a te.. aereto¡ea ¡eri¡ber,. ív tbi. avat,ticat voaet, tac/ of .,vcbrov, ritb tbe
vetro¡oti. ;ivctvaivg ¡rorivciati.v) i. vot a..vvea a. a girev bvt a. ¡roavct of tbi. vverev retatiov.bi¡. Ratber
tbav to veret, te.t tbi. tbeor, for it. a¡¡ticabitit, to tbe Ottovav·ßat/av covte·t, be e·¡tore. tbe qve.tiov of to
rbat e·tevt ver /vorteage cav be geveratea b, tbi. avat,ticat voaet`. a·i. of ivre.tigatiov, ava to rbat e·tevt it
cav bet¡ trac/ ava e·¡taiv cbavge. 1be avtbor vttivatet, .vgge.t. tbat tbi. beritage i., to a gooa e·tevt, tbe rer,
re.vtt of cbavgivg cevtre·¡eri¡ber, retatiov. ritbiv tbe Ottovav reatv; be .ta/e. ovt fovr broaa ¡erioa. iv rbicb
cevtre·¡eri¡ber, retatiov. bare ivforvea covce¡tvat ae.igv iv tbe Ottovav ßat/av. iv aifferevt ra,..
.vtor ra¸vatra o vaciviva va /o;iva bi .e o.vav./o /vttvrvo va.ti;eĀa va ßat/avv ¡rea.tart;ato reteravt·
vi;iv v geveratviv varatiriva o o.vav./o; arbite/tvri. Ov trrai aa ;eava vogvce ¡toava o. i.tra¸irav;a ;e.te
av¸ cevtara·¡eriferi;a, ;eaav ¡ri.tv¡ o.vi.t;ev aa o¡i.e i ob;a.vi .trv/tvrve oavo.e i¸veĀv ra¸ri;eve vetro·
¡ote,¡ri;e.totvice iti cevtra i vav;e ra¸ri;eve ¡eriferi;e. | orov avatitic/ov voaetv veao.tata/ .ivbrovi;e .a
¡ri;e.totvicov ;v/t;vcv;vci ¡rorivci;ati¸av) vi;e ve.to .to ;e ¡ret¡o.tart;evo aa ;e ¡retboavo ¡taviravo, rec re¸vttat
verarvov;ervib oavo.a. Raai;e vego aa ¡ro.to te.tira orv teori;v i v;evv ¡riv;ev;iro.t va o.vav./o·bat/av./i
/ovte/.t, ov i.tra¸v;e ¡itav;e ¡ro.irev;a vorib ¸vav;a .troreva ,i¸a¸rava .ti;eaeci o.e i.tra¸irav;a /o;e ¡rovori.e
ora; avatitic/i voaet, i ao/te to vo¸e ¡ratiti i ob;a.viti ¡rov;evv. .vtor va /ra;v .vgerira aa ;e oro va.ti;eĀe /ao
ta/ro, aobriv ai;etov re¸vttat ¡rov;eve oavo.a cevtar·¡eriferi;a v O.vav./ov car.trv; ov ob;a.v;ara cetiri ¡erioaa
v /o;iva oavo.i cevtar·¡eriferi;a ob;a.v;ara;v /ovce¡tvatvi ai¸a;v o.vav./og ßat/ava va ra¸ticite vacive.
Maximilian Hartmuth
The hi st or y of cent r e- per i pher y r el a-
t i ons as a hi st or y of st yl e i n Ot t oman
pr ovi nci al ar chi t ect ur e
Hi st or i j a odnosa cent ar - per i f er i j a kao
hi st or i j a st i l a u ar hi t ekt ur i osmanski h
pr ovi nci j a
19
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
!"#$%&'%#(!$)&*$the coníerence titled Cevtre.
ava ¡eri¡berie. iv Ottovav arcbitectvre: reai.corerivg a
ßat/av beritage, which took place in Saraje·o on
April 22-25, 2010, and on which this paper was
Frst read, had been de·ised in consideration
oí some íundamental problems íaced by those
interested in the Balkan Ottoman architectural
heritage. One oí those problems is this heri-
tage`s instrumentalization in identity politics,
which has made cultural monuments a target in
armed connicts and deliberate go·ernmental or
municipal demolition campaigns, or - less dras-
tic but similarly consequential - simply resulted
in disinterest and neglect. On the one hand,
this has resulted in an incomplete architectural
record, a problem not íaced to a comparable
degree by, say, students oí Baroque architecture
in the \est. On the other hand, its study a. art
was oíten relegated to a position iníerior to its
appraisal as an identity marker. 1his coníerence
thereíore intended to contribute to a redisco·-
ery` oí this heritage, as stated in the subtitle, by
at.o promoting the study oí that architecture in
its historical and artistic dimensions. A second
key problem, and one that is this paper`s íocus,
concerns the place oí the Balkans and other
pro·inces in Ottoman architectural narrati·es.
1

Much oí this topic`s standard literature claims
1 On this heritage`s historiography, see also lartmuth, Maximilian.
Balkanlar`daki Osmanli mimari mirasi arastirmalari ·e lilibe`deki
Muradiye Camii üzerine,` in: íitibe ;Ptorair) Cvva Cavii /ovferav.i
bitairiteri. Lds. N. Mine \ar and Celaleddin Küçük. Istanbul: IBB,
2009, pp. 9-13, and iaev, Introduction: the man and his method,`
in: Movvvevt., ¡atrov., covte·t.: ¡a¡er. ov Ottovav ívro¡e ¡re.evtea to
Macbiet Kiet. Lds. Maximilian lartmuth and Ayse Dilsiz. Leiden:
Netherlands Institute íor the Near Last, 2010, pp. 5-14.
or implies that this body oí monuments does
not really merit inclusion in the canon. lrom
a mainstream perspecti·e, this is not entirely
without reason: Ottoman Balkan monuments
írom at least aíter the 15
th
century cannot com-
pete in size or sophistication with their Istanbul
counterparts. \ith the pre-eminent narrati·e
model being the e·olutionist, arguing that in-
di·idual pro·incial monuments did contribute
considerably to the stylistic de·elopment oí Ot-
toman architecture as a whole, and would thus
merit inclusion in the canon, is diíFcult. 1hese
mosques and market halls, bavvãvs and bavs,
are represented as pro·incial imitations oí the
capital`s larger and more elaborate prototypes.
2
One renex may be, and has been, to simply dis-
miss this heritage as íairly inconsequential íor Ot-
toman architectural history, and to íocus instead
on the well-studied and well-preser·ed monu-
ments oí Istanbul, Ldirne, and Bursa. Another
response could be to ask íor the reasons íor this
discrepancy. 1his paper seeks to take this question
one step íurther and ask bor monuments outside
the capital ,or capitals, cav be made rele·ant to the
historical narrati·e oí an Ottoman architecture oí
which they undoubtedly íorm part - a question
presumably dear to all students oí this pro·in-
cial` heritage. I will here suggest one possible axis
2 Austrian and lungarian commentators, íollowing the labsburg
annexation oí some oí the peninsula`s northern territories in the
18
th
and 19
th
centuries, in point oí íact seemed rather disappointed
that the Ottomans had not leít them something comparable to the
Alhambra, leít by the Moors to their Christian successors in Spain.
See lartmuth, Maximilian. InsuíFciently oriental· An early episode
in the study and preser·ation oí the Ottoman architectural heritage
in the Balkans,` in: Movvvevt., ¡atrov., covte·t., pp. 1¯1-84.
20
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
oí in·estigation, namely that along centres and
peripheries,` an analytical model originating in
the theoretics oí economics and imperialism thus
íar only marginally Fguring in art histories.
3
\et, I
must stress that my aim is not to merely test` this
approach íor its applicability to our context íor its
own sake. Rather, I seek to explore to what extent
ver knowledge can be generated by pursuing the
axis oí in·estigation promoted by this analytical
model, and to what extent it helps us track and
explain change. In doing so, I will suggest that
this heritage as such is to a considerable extent the
·ery result oí changing centre-periphery relations
within the Ottoman realm. Ultimately, I shall argue
that looking at this heritage írom the perspecti·e
oí centre-periphery dynamics has the potential to
in·est the Balkan heritage with a no·el signiFcance
in the history oí Ottoman art and architecture.
1he spatial metaphor oí centres-peripher-
ies` has been used to describe and explain the
structural relationship between an ad·anced
metropolis, or centre,` and a less de·eloped
periphery.` 1hese can be located within a single
country, e·en a single region within a country,
or can be applied more broadly, as has been the
norm in economics, to the relationship between
de·eloped and de·eloping societies, in which
case it íocuses on the domination oí one by the
other. \hether economics, sociology, or art his-
tory, a basic tenet oí the centres-peripheries`
paradigm is to regard backwardness, underde·el-
opment, retardation, or other íorms oí lack oí
synchrony with the metropolis not as a gi·en but,
quite to the contrary, as a product oí this une·en
relationship.
4
\et, centres-peripheries` must not
always be understood in purely spatial terms, that
3 lor a widely noted recent appraisal, see DaCosta Kauímann,
1homas. 1orara a geogra¡b, of art. Chicago: Uni·ersity oí Chicago
Press, 2004, esp. ch, 5.
4 Cí. e.g. Scott, John and Gordon Marshall. O·fora aictiovar, of
.ociotog,. Oxíord: Uni·ersity Press, 2005, pp. 60-1, Galtung, Johan.
A structural theory oí imperialism,` in: ]ovrvat of Peace Re.earcb,
Vol. VIII, No. 2 ,19¯1,, pp. 81-11¯. lor a now classic study which
applies these principles to the study oí 15
th
-century art in Italy, see
Ginzburg, Carlo and Lnrico Castelnuo·o. Domination symbolique
et géographie artistique dans l`histoire de l`art italien,` in: .cte. ae
ta recbercbe ev .cievce. .ociate., Vol. XL ,1981,, pp. 51-¯2 ,based on
Centro e periíeria,` in: ´toria aett`.rte ítatiava, Vol. I. Ld. Giulio
Carlo Argan. 1orino: Linaudi, 19¯9, pp. 283-352,, now also a·ailable
in an Lnglish translation by Maylis Curie as Symbolic domination
and artistic geography in Italian Art listory,` in: .rt iv 1rav.tatiov,
Vol. I, No. 1 ,2009,, pp. 5-48.
is, in the sense oí relationships between two ter-
ritorial units. It can also apply to discourse, as the
Greek art historian Nikos ladjinicolaou sought
to argue: \e say art history,` he wrote in 1982,
but what we really mean. is Luropean art
írom the Carolingians until today plus the art oí
the USA in the 20
th
century.`
5
1he relegation in
mainstream art history oí art produced by non-
\estern cultures to íolk art` ,as opposed to the
high art` or Fne art` produced in,by the \est,
is claimed by ladjinicolaou to be a result oí the
une·en relationship addressed by the centres-
peripheries model, with one being dominated by
the other.
Discussing centres and peripheries in dis-
course seems especially pertinent to the study
5 ladjinicolaou, Nikos. Kunstzentren und periphere Kunst,` in:
Kriti.cbe ßericbte, Vol. XI ,1983,, pp. 36-56, cit. p. 51.
|||. 1. S|cpjc, ´ncsquc¨ cf ´|sa 8cg, 1475/8, cnc cf |nc |as|
cxanp|cs cf T-snapcd nu||ifunc|icna| oui|dings in |nc O||cnan
dcnain. ||s inscrip|icn idcn|ifcs i| nc| as |ridaq ncsquc ou| as
´inarc| (cnari|ao|c/puo|ic oui|ding). |n |nc cndcuncn| dccd i|
is a|sc rcfcrrcd |c as a nan|an (dcrtisn |cdgc).
21
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
oí Ottoman architecture.
6
1raditionally, this ar-
chitectural heritage has been a periphery both in
the Feld oí Islamic art history, which pri·ileges
the Central Islamic lands` and the classical Is-
lamic` ,i.e. medie·al, period, and e·en more so in
that dealing with Lurope. In ·iew oí the Balkan
monuments` peripheral position in historical nar-
rati·es oí Ottoman architecture, we may argue
that they are so little known exactly because oí
this double-peripherality. Ií we consider, how-
e·er, how close Ottoman sites in Budapest, Banja
Luka, or Li·no are ,or were, to regions compara-
ti·ely pri·ileged in Luropean art histories, then a
purely geographical argument cannot pro·ide a
conclusi·e explanation. Con·ersely, consider the
architecture oí the Regional Museum oí Bosnia-
lerzego·ina, in which the opening e·ent oí this
symposium took place: its grand design írom just
beíore \\I stands in stark contrast to Bosnia`s
peripheral economic and cultural position in the
late labsburg monarchy. In terms oí style and
scale, this is clearly not a pro·incial` building,
instead, it is a statement by the centre in the pro·-
ince. Similarly we may ask why the Selimiye, the
building generally identiFed as the zenith oí ar-
chitect Sinân`s oeu·re, is not located in Istanbul,
the indisputable centre and showcase oí Otto-
man cultural production, but in Ldirne.
¯
1his was
a building neither expressi·e oí, nor necessitated
by, the conditions in 1hrace`s íormer Ottoman
capital. It was built according to a decision and
a design made at the centre ,Istanbul,, using the
resources oí the centre, and in a sophistication
worthy oí the centre. 1hese are only two exam-
ples oí why a purely spatial understanding oí the
centres-peripheries model does not always bring
us íurther towards a suíFcient explanation.
In what íollows, I aim to explore to what
extent the changing dynamics oí centres-periph-
eries relations ha·e innuenced the material out-
come oí an Ottoman architecture in the empire`s
Luropean pro·inces. 1his I intend to do by stak-
6 As íar as it pertains to orientalism` as one example, see also
Bozdogan, Sibel and Gülru Necipoglu. Lntangled discourses:
scrutinizing orientalist and nationalist legacies in the architectural
historiography oí the Lands oí Rum,`` in: Mvqarva., Vol. XXIV
,200¯,, pp. 1-6.
¯ lor one interpretation, see Necipoglu, Gülru. 1be age of ´ivav:
arcbitectvrat cvttvre iv tbe Ottovav ív¡ire. London: Reaktion, 2005, p.
238íí.
ing out íour broad periods oí centre-periphery
relations that determined the conditions oí ar-
chitectural production in the Ottoman Balkans,
and in terms oí style, scale, íunction, patronage,
and execution. 1his quadripartite scheme, how-
e·er, does not propose periods as temporal units
deFned by a legelian ¸eitgei.t, in which a general
culture` iníorms all oí its products, nor are they
solely based on perceptions oí structural change
in style. Rather, monuments ,and styles, are here
classed into periods according to challenges
íaced by the indi·iduals and communities which
sponsored or used these buildings. Some oí
these challenges, I argue, are spatially or tempo-
rally speciFc, whereby such a periodization may
promise a greater explanatory potential than nar-
rati·es organized solely along concepts such as
style,íorm or authorship.
8
I make no claim as to
this periodization`s ·alidity beyond the medium
oí architecture or the Balkan region.
1he Frst oí these periods, which one may
reíer to ·ariously as the early, late medie·al, or
perhaps e·en the írontier period, begins with the
Ottomans` establishment on Luropean soil in
the mid-14
th
century, and gradually starts to wane
aíter the 1453 conquest oí Constantinople. Prior
to this e·ent, which resulted in the institution oí
one undisputed capital, the early Ottoman polity
was polycentric. Bursa, and e·entually Ldirne,
were preíerred seats oí residence ,capitals`, oí
the Ottoman emirs and sultans, but next to them
also existed a number oí urban centres in Asia
Minor and the Balkans, the standing oí which
was also renected in the prominence oí their
monuments within the Ottoman realm`s broader
8 Art history as an artist history` has pro·en largely impossible in
the Ottoman case. \ith the exception oí Sinân and some oí his
successors, we know almost nothing about the li·es and works
oí Ottoman architects up to the 19
th
century. L·en where basic
iníormation is a·ailable, these architects` contribution to the design
and architectural process remains unsettled. lor a recent critique
oí íormalist scholarship, on the other hand, see Pancaroglu, Oya.
lormalism and the academic íoundation oí 1urkish art in the
early 20
th
century,` in: Mvqarva., Vol. XXIV ,200¯,, pp. 6¯-¯9.
Scholarship since the 1980s has increasingly íocused on the question
oí patronage, greatly augmenting our knowledge oí conceptual
design processes as a result. In her recent monograph .ge of ´ivav,
Necipoglu has systematized the architectural production in the
liíetime oí Sinân not in a chronological or geographical manner
but according to patronage le·els, thereby pro·ing that conceptual
design was consistently iníormed by Ottoman notions oí decorum.
22
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
íood.
12
Oítentimes, the 1-shaped ivãrets,¸ãri,es
ser·ed as nuclei íor de·eloping Islamic towns in
many a Balkan locale, among which was also Sa-
raje·o.
13
1hey were built by indi·iduals engaged
in expanding the Ottoman sphere oí domina-
tion on the Balkan írontier. 1hese were not yet
mere ser·ants oí the sultans dispatched to the
pro·inces, howe·er, as would be most architec-
tural patrons in the 16
th
century and beyond, but
írontier agents enjoying a great deal oí autonomy
in their respecti·e marches. 1he sultan recei·ed
a Fxed share oí the booty írom raids conducted
into neighbouring territories still under non-Ot-
toman rule, as a result oí which he may ha·e not
íelt the need to inter·ene as long as this system
was working and took place in a relati·ely com-
pact area.
14
1his relati·e autonomy must also be
a reason íor why the diííerence between monu-
ments in ·arious Ottoman towns in this era is not
as great as in later periods. Additionally, in terms
oí style and íorm, these patrons relied on models
imported írom Anatolia: the planners and build-
ers were apparently brought írom the Asian halí
12 An early, now classic study is Lyice, Sema·i. Ilk Osmanli de·rinin
dini-içtimai bir müessesesi: za·iyeler ·e za·iyeli camiler,` in: í.|.
í/ti.at ía/vtte.i Mecvva.i, Vol. XXIII, No. 1-2 ,1963,, pp. 3-80, who,
howe·er, mistakenly suggests that these structures initially ser·ed
as lriday mosques by reíerring to them as ¸ari,eti caviter. On the
problematic, see also Anhegger, Robert. Beiträge zur osmanischen
Baugeschichte III,` in: í.tavbvter Mitteitvvgev, Vol. XXVII ,196¯,, pp.
312-30, esp. part II ,Zur lrage der 1-Planmoscheen`,, pp. 324-
30, and íor a recent reappraisal: Boyko·, this ·olume. An excellent
study oí these institutions` workings in a 15
th
and 16
th
-century
Balkan context is Norman, \ork. Imarets, Islamization, and
urban de·elopment in Saraje·o, 1461-1604,` in: íeeaivg ¡eo¡te, feeaivg
¡orer: ivaret. iv tbe Ottovav ív¡ire. Lds. Nina Lrgin, Christoph K.
Neumann, and Amy Singer. Istanbul: LRLN, 200¯, pp. 81-94.
13 lere reíerence is made to the early 1460s ¸ãri,e sponsored by
Isâ Beg. On this building, including a note on its three-spaced`
,1-shaped·, layout as related in the ra/fi,e, see most recently Asceric,
Ines. Neke napomene o problemima iz historije Isabego·e tekije,`
in: Prito¸i ¸a ori;evtatvv ftotogi;v, Vol. LII,LIII ,2003,, pp. 339-50. On
the de·elopment oí Saraje·o and the agency oí Isâ Beg, see also
Norman, Saraje·o.`
14 Recent studies on the írontier dynasties` include Lowry, leath.
1be .ba¡ivg of tbe Ottovav ßat/av. ;1²:0·1::0): tbe covqve.t, .etttevevt
c ivfra.trvctvrat aereto¡vevt of ^ortberv Creece. Istanbul: Bahçesehir
Uni·ersity Publications, 2008, esp. ch. 1&2, and Kipro·ska, Mariya.
1he Mihaloglu íamily: ga¸i warriors and patrons oí der·ish
hospices,` in: O.vavti .ra,tirvatari, Vol. XXIII ,2008,, pp. 193-222.
architectural production.
9
Among these towns
we may count Iznik and Amasya, but also Skopje,
which emerged in the 15
th
century as an Ottoman
and Islamic town largely thanks to the inírastruc-
tural in·estments oí one írontier gentry íamily,
which had descended írom the town`s conqueror.
1his Skopje was not a mere outpost oí sultanic
power, its rulers were percei·ed by some oí their
non-Ottoman neighbours as leaders in their own
right. Skopje, thus, was their capital as much as
it was an Ottoman town.
10
1heir architectural
agency bolstered their legitimacy locally. 1he
ra/fs they established, and írom which grew this
architecture, created local dependencies through
the inírastructure they pro·ided.

A building type ía·oured by this class oí
patrons was not the lriday mosque but multi-
íunctional buildings, reíerred to in the sources as
ivãrets or ¸ãri,es ,ill. 1,.
11
In the older ,but not
yet entirely superseded, literature, these usually
domed and oíten 1-shaped buildings ha·e been
called mosques in the Bursa style,` írom the
Bursa period,` or, still misleadingly, mosques
with ¸ãri,es` ,¸ari,eti caviter,. L·entually it was
shown that they had not been built or concei·ed
as mosques at all, but initially ser·ed a great
·ariety oí íunctions, among which: space íor
prayer and ritual, accommodation oí der·ishes
and tra·ellers, and the pro·isioning oí clients, the
poor, and other dependents ,such as sla·es, with
9 On this point, see the pioneering study by Anhegger, Robert. Zur
Stellung einer Städte innerhalb der osmanischen Baugeschichte ·or
Sinan,` in: ívaa Kö¡rvtv arvagavi. Istanbul: |Ankara Uni·ersitesi| Dil
·e 1arih-Cograíya lakültesi, 1953, pp. 5-16.
10 On the case oí 15
th
-century Skopje, as well as on many aspects oí
this section`s problematic in general, see also Boyko·, this ·olume.
11 lor the backgrounds oí this phenomenon in medie·al Anatolia, see
also \olper, Lthel Sara. Politics oí patronage: political change and
the construction oí der·ish lodges in Si·as,` in: Mvqarva., Vol. XII
,1995,, pp. 39-4¯.
23
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
oí the Ottoman emirate,sultanate,
15
while most
oí the workíorce was certainly recruited locally
íor practical reasons.
1he processes triggered by the Ottomans`
conquest oí the long desired Byzantine capital in
1453 e·entually ga·e rise to a diííerent situation,
in terms oí architecture, we enter what is gener-
ally called the classical` period and style. \ith
this important conquest the Ottomans enter the
imperial phase oí their dynastic history, íurther
accelerated by the important conquests oí key
Islamic sites such as Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem,
and Mecca,Medina in the early 1500s. 1here de-
·eloped a centralized, absolutist state personiFed
by the sultan and in which there was little toler-
ance íor possible pro·incial contestants íor power.
O·er the course oí decades, military leaders with
a power-base in the Balkan pro·inces were re-
placed with an Istanbul-trained class oí military
go·ernors.
16
At a time oí heightened connict with
neighbouring Shiite Iran, the sultans turned to an
orthodox Sunni interpretation oí the Islamic íaith
and persecuted as heretics many oí the heterodox
groups which had pre·iously greatly aided them in
spreading their hegemony o·er the Balkans.
All this also had an eííect on the architecture
built thereaíter. Apparently as a result oí a greater
need íor new construction planning, especially in
their new capital - then still a ghost town Flled
with churches - the sultans gathered under them
a group oí architects to undertake work íor them
and their clients. \ithin this group, íor se·eral
generations, skill seems to ha·e been transíerred
írom íather to son.

lowe·er, with Sinân in the
15 1his is suggested not least by artist inscriptions,` as íor instance
in the case oí the early 15
th
-century vivãr 1ogan, son oí Abdullâh
,a con·ert·,, whose name is íound on the (elebi Mehmed mosque
in Didymoteichon ,Greek 1hrace, and the Bâyezid Pasa mosque in
Amasya. I do not consider laci I·az Pasa, similarly mentioned in
the Didymoteichon inscription ,as well as in buildings oí the \esil
complex in Bursa, to ha·e been an architect` in the proper sense.
Cí. Sonmez, Zeki. ßa,tavgiçtav 1ó. ,v¸,ita /aaar .vaaotv 1vr/·í.tãv
vivari.ivae .avatçitar. Ankara: 1ürk 1arih Kurumu Basime·i, 1995, p.
403í. ,Amasya,, 423í. Didymoteichon and Bursa,.
16 lor the basic tenets oí the 16
th
-century system and its consequent
transíormation, see Kunt, Metin. 1be .vttav`. .erravt.: tbe trav.forvatiov
of Ottovav ¡rorivciat gorervvevt, 1::0·1ó:0. New \ork: Columbia
Uni·ersity Press, 1983. lor the centralization under Mehmed II
and its impact on architecture, see Necipoglu, Gülru. .rcbitectvre,
cerevoviat, ava ¡orer: tbe 1o¡/a¡i ¡atace iv tbe ffteevtb ava .i·teevtb
cevtvrie.. Cambridge: MI1 Pres, 1991, ch. 1.
1¯ Cí. Necipoglu, .ge of ´ivav, p. 153 and ch. 5 in general.
|||. 2. S|cpjc, Mus|afa Pa¸a ncsquc (1492), cnc cf sctcra| cx-
anp|cs cf a sing|c-dcncd |ridaq ncsquc oui|| in |nc 8a||ans oq
O||cnan digni|arics in |nc pcricd cf 8aqczid ||. (r. 1481-1512).
O|ncr cxanp|cs frcn |nc sanc pcricd arc fcund in Scrrcs,
Kcrçc, 8i|c|a, Vcrrcia, and Onrid.
24
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
middle decades oí the 16
th
century emerged a
new type oí royal architect. Like most oí his era`s
administrators, he was a con·ert to Islam, ·ol-
untary or not. In the course oí his career he not
only worked in proíessions related to architecture
and other arts, but had to pro·e himselí in a great
·ariety oí jobs coníerred on him by the sultan.
18

\hen appointed head oí the royal architects, he
accepted a job íor liíe. lis duty was not only the
18 lor Sinan`s ·ita, cí. the ·ersiFed introduction to his ,auto,biographical
1e¸/iretv`t·ebvi,e, in: ´ivav`. avtobiogra¡bie.: fre .i·teevtb·cevtvr, te·t.. 1r.
and ed. loward Crane and Lsra Akin. Leiden: Brill, 2006, pp. 88-90
,transl., and 102-3 ,transcr.,. lor similarly non-artistic appointments
in the career oí one oí Sinân`s successors, the Albanian-born,
Mehmed Aga, cí. Ri.ãte·i vivãri,,e: av eart,·.erevteevtb·cevtvr, Ottovav
treati.e ov arcbitectvre: fac.ivite ritb trav.tatiov ava vote.. 1r. and ed.
loward Crane. Leiden: L.J. Brill, 198¯, pp. 6-15.
design and planning oí the sultan`s architectural
projects, theoretically, all construction acti·ity in
the capital and the pro·inces became his respon-
sibility.
19
le relegated jobs to architects working
under him and dispatched them to the pro·inces
where needed. le also saw to it that the plans
íor his institution`s architectural projects íor the
sultan`s ser·ants in the capital and the pro·inces
were commensurate with their patrons` rank.
1he architectural outcome thus depended not on
a patron or architect`s íolly, the number and di-
19 At least concerning his role in Istanbul, this job proFle seems to
ha·e remained unchanged until the late 18
th
century. Cí. the remarks
on the Mimar-Agha` in D`Ohsson, Ignatius Mouradgea. 1abteav
geverat ae t`ev¡ire otbovav: airi.e ev aev· ¡artie. etc.. Istanbul: ISIS,
|1¯8¯-1824| 2001, Vol. II, p. 199.
25
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
mensions oí íeatures such as minarets or domes
were regulated by this institution in the capital.
20

Concerning the Balkans, the preíerred types
oí architecture sponsored by ·arious patrons
change in accordance with these de·elopments.
1he multi-íunctional 1-shaped buildings disap-
pear, they are replaced by clusters oí buildings
centred on a lriday mosque, that is, not merely
a prayer room or oratory ,ve.cia, but a mosque
in which the lriday sermon ,bvtbe, is read by a
preacher ,batib, ha·ing undergone a proper ve·
are.e education. 1he batib was expected not only
to in·oke the so·ereign`s name, but also to spread
and consolidate with their preaching Orthodox
Islam in areas still under the innuence oí hetero-
dox leanings.
All this helps explain the spread oí a speciFc
type oí mosque in the 16
th
-century Balkans: the
single-spaced mosque with a hemispherical dome,
a steep minaret, and a portico with three or F·e
bays ,ills. 2-3,. 1he sultan expected his ser·ants
to share in his project oí spreading his policy on
íaith and oí centralized so·ereignty. 1he in·est-
ment had to be theirs - and it certainly was an
in·estment, as we well know that the establish-
ment oí ra/fs were not always based in entirely
philanthropic moti·es - but the sultan would
make a·ailable to his administrators the resources
oí the capital`s architectural institution. It would
send a plan commensurate with the project and
the patron`s status to the pro·inces íor it to be
executed by local workmen under the super·i-
sion oí skilled staíí similarly dispatched írom the
capital.
21
In this case, an older model had e·ol·ed
into a generic plan type íor high-ranking oíFcials
willing to build in the pro·inces. It is this model
that dominates mosque architecture in Bosnia,
with examples oí mosques in Saraje·o, loca,
Mostar, Cajnice, Pocitelj, Maglaj, Kladanj, Li·no,
and 1ra·nik, all built between the 1540s and
1620s, and showing ·ery little ·ariation írom this
prototype. Looking at the material írom this per-
specti·e, at a dozen almost identical mosques, the
20 Necipoglu, .ge of ´ivav, esp. ch. 3 on culture oí architecture and
decorum` and ch. 5 on institutional írameworks oí architectural
practice.`
21 lor such an example, cí. Necipoglu, .ge of ´ivav, p. 184í. In this
case, the vivãr lerhâd was dispatched írom Istanbul to o·ersee the
construction oí Ali Pasa`s mosque in Saraje·o ,1559-61,.
|||s. 3a-c. Sarajctc, A|i Pa¸a (1560/1), |crnad 8cg (1561/2),
and 8asĀarsijs|a ncsqucs. Tnc p|ans, dincnsicns, and
cxccu|icn cf |ncsc |nrcc ncsqucs arc a|ncs| idcn|ica|. Tnc
8asĀarsijs|a ncsquc appcars |c natc nad a prcnis|crq as a
ncscid fcundcd oq a ccr|ain Hcca Dura| in |nc 1520s, uncrcoq
i| is naoi|ua||q da|cd |c |na| dccadc. On |nc oasis cf s|ri|ing
sini|ari|ics ui|n |nc ncsqucs cf A|i Pa¸a and |crnad 8cg,
ncuctcr, i|s prcscn| fcrn nus| oc da|cd |c ca. 1560-5. A|| |nrcc
s|ruc|urcs arc rcprcscn|a|itc cf |nc ´gcncric¨ (Nccipcg|u) cr
´s|andard¨ (Andrcjctic) ncsquc p|an |qpcs cf |nc 16|n ccn|urq
rcfcrrcd |c in |nc |cx|. Tnc Hùn|ar/Carcta ncsquc, (rc)oui||
oq su||an Sù|cqnan arcund 1565, nas a signifcan||q nigncr
ninarc| and a|sc a |argcr dcnc |nan |ncsc |nrcc ncsqucs.
26
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
|||. 4. Suncn, ncsquc cf çcrif Ha|i| Pa¸a (1744/5).
27
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
íoundations oí Gâzi lüsre· Beg in Saraje·o and
oí Sokollu lerhâd Pasa in Banja Luka emerge
as remarkable exceptions, ·ery probably due to
their patrons` relati·e prominence.
22
Between the mid-1¯
th
and mid-18
th
century,
generally ·ery little new construction acti·ity on a
monumental scale can be tracked.
23
1he Lmpire
and its agents are busy Fghting wars, but the peri-
od oí serial triumphs is long o·er. 1he labsburg
army presses as íar as Macedonia, the Venetians
into peninsular Greece, both e·entually depart
again, but lea·e behind a trail oí destruction.
Much oí the Frst halí oí the 18
th
century`s ar-
chitectural acti·ity re·ol·es around restoration,
repair, and rebuilding. 1here are two outstanding
monuments írom the second quarter oí the 18
th

century in the central pro·inces - the mosque
complexes oí Serií lalil Pasa in Sumen ,Bulgar-
ia, ill. 4, and oí Dâmâd Ibrâhim Pasa in Ne·sehir
,Cappadocia, - but both must be considered ex-
ceptions. Still, the pattern is still much like that oí
the 16
th
century: these buildings are sponsored by
Ottoman oíFcials with careers re·ol·ing around
Istanbul, their buildings íollowing the centre`s
style closely, and ·ery probably making use oí its
inírastructure oí planning and design. In both
cases the monuments` patrons seemed to ha·e
desired to equip their ,relati·ely insigniFcant,
nati·e towns with some magniFcence írom the
capital, and to promote them as urban centres by
contributing to their prominence through their
inírastructure.
24

22 lor these buildings, their types and plans, see Ay·erdi, Lkrem
lakki. .rrv¡a`aa O.vavti vivãri e.erteri, Vol. II. Istanbul: Istanbul
letih Cemiyeti, 2000
2
, Andreje·ic, Andrej. í.tav./a vovvvevtatva
vvetvo.t `1í re/a v ]vgo.tari;i: /v¡otve a¸avi;e. Belgrade: SANU, 1984,
Mujezino·ic, Mehmed. í.tav./a e¡igraf/a ßo.ve i lercego·ine, 3 ·ols.
Saraje·o: Veselin Maslesa, 19¯4-1982.
23 lor some examples, mostly dating to the 18
th
century`s middle
decades, see my Lighteenth-century Ottoman architecture and the
problem oí scope: a critical ·iew írom the Balkan periphery`,` in:
1birteevtb ívtervatiovat Covgre.. of 1vr/i.b .rt. Lds. Géza leher and
Ibolya Gerelyes. Budapest: lungarian National Museum, 2009, pp.
295-308. 1here was considerable building acti·ity in areas newly
conquered by the Ottomans in what is now lungary and Romania
aíter the mid-1¯
th
century, but little oí that remained aíter these areas
were lost to the labsburgs. Beíore the mid-18
th
century, there was
also some reconstruction acti·ity in those areas oí southern Greece
temporarily lost to the Venetians.
24 lor the building in Ne·sehir, see Goodwin, Godírey. . bi.tor, of
Ottovav arcbitectvre. London: 1hames & ludson, 19¯1, p. 3¯0í, íor
Sumen, cí. lartmuth, Lighteenth-century Ottoman architecture,`
p. 299 and reíerences.
1he third period proposed here e·entually
pro·es to be ·ery diííerent. Lasting írom roughly
the mid-18
th
century to the mid-19
th
century, we
see monuments that are characterized not by
their standardized design but, to the contrary, by
their dissimilarity. 1his was the result oí chang-
ing centre-periphery relations, and with that
a change in patronage patterns. But e·en this
group oí patrons is quite ·aried, the only thing
they seem to ha·e in common is their claim to
control o·er a relati·ely compact area, howe·er
attained. 1hey are diííerent írom the early Ot-
toman írontier lords, whose transgenerational
impact oíten had them likened to a sort oí nobil-
ity. 1he power oí the pro·incial strongmen oí
|||. 5. Tc|ctc, ncsquc cf ´Aodurrannan Pa¸a (1833/4). |ac|ing
a dcnc, |nis rccfcd ncsquc oui|| oq a ncnocr cf |nc dcninan|
fani|q in prc-Tanzina| pcricd Ncr|n Maccdcnia nctcr|nc|css
acnictcs a dcgrcc cf iccnici|q |nan|s |c i|s cs|cn|a|icus dcccra-
|icn, cspccia||q in |nc in|cricr.
28
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
the later Ottoman period, by contrast, is more
local in character, their reputation not based on
conquests or spreading the true íaith, and they
or the extent oí their power may not always ha·e
been known to the centre, or perhaps e·en in
the next pro·ince. 1hey staííed local militias an-
swering to them and, at times, administered the
territories under them as ií they were the actual
so·ereigns. 1heir relationship with the centre was
not always connicting but not rarely ambiguous,
either. Some owed to it their ascent and legitima-
tion, others yet were keen ,and able, to minimize
inter·ention in local aííairs. 1heir sway o·er
these territories was oíten a result oí the rights to
tax collection granted to them rather than a po-
litical` appointment. Sometimes, it appears, they
also simply emerged as the only guarantors oí
security in their oíten mountainous or otherwise
remote nati·e regions, where they came to up-
hold a quasi monopoly on ·iolence. Lstablishing
their own miniscule capitals,` they also engaged
in architectural patronage, sometimes on a ·ery
considerable scale.
\et, looking at the mosques, íountains, and
palaces built by this highly ·aried group oí pa-
trons distinguished by a local power-base - be it
in Gradacac, 1eto·o ,ills. 5-6,, IŇannina, Shkodër,
or by their peers in Aydin, Dogubeyazit, or e·en
in Cairo - there is almost nothing that these
structures ha·e in common.
25
As an architecture
largely disconnected írom trends in the centre, it
is hard to speak oí style or styles. Choice oí type
and ornament diííer greatly írom one corner oí
the empire to the other. Depending on the case,
they are sometimes the product oí a dialogue
with the local ,incl. the pre-Ottoman, architectur-
al heritage, a limited adoption oí Istanbul trends,
a mere repetition oí established íorms associated
with authority, and certainly also to a great degree
simply renecting the indi·idual patron`s íancy
and the possibilities oííered to him by the local
human resources. 1he architecture írom this pe-
riod oí decentralized íorms oí rule may be said
to be distinguished by a localization,` perhaps
one could e·en say pri·atization,` oí style. It
contrasts most clearly with the standardized kind
oí architecture írom especially the second halí
oí the 16
th
century pre·iously discussed.
1he 1anzimât period in the 19
th
century
e·entually re-establishes the centre`s sway o·er
the pro·inces, and this is the last segment in the
periodization proposed here. 1he inírastructure
oí control and reíorm arri·es in the íorm oí
state-sponsored schools, railways and railway sta-
tions, banks, army barracks and new íortresses,
courthouses, prisons and other municipal insti-
tutions, but only rarely mosques.
26
In this sense
the new bureaucrats posted to the pro·inces
beha·e in a radically diííerent way írom their
16
th
-century peers, the .avca/begis and begterbegis
who, oíten oí Balkan background themsel·es,
sponsored much oí the region`s urban iníra-
structure pertaining to ritual, hygiene, education,
and hospitality. 1he new bureaucrats, by contrast,
generally do not engage in architecture patronage
in the pro·inces, which are now only way stations
25 lor some oí these buildings, see \enisehirlioglu, liliz. Architectural
patronage oí a,av íamilies in Anatolia,` in: Prorivciat etite. iv tbe
Ottovav ív¡ire. Ld. Antonis Anastasopoulos. Rethymnon: Crete
Uni·ersity Press, 2006, pp. 321-39. Behrens-Abouseií, Doris. 1he
Abd al-RahmĆn KatkhudĆ style in 18
th
century Cairo,` in: .vvate.
í.tavotogiqve., Vol. XXVI ,1992,, pp. 11¯-26, Ibrahimgil, Mehmet.
Kalkandelen ,1eto·o, Alaca Camii,` in: 1a/ifar Dergi.i, Vol. XXVI
,199¯,, pp. 249-66, Lyice, Sema·i. Iskodra`da Kursunlu Camii,` in:
ßetgeterte 1vr/ 1aribi Dergi.i, Vol. XVII ,1969,, pp. ¯3-6.
26 Lxceptions are the reíugee mosques` built by Ottoman sultans in
Dobrogea ,the Romanian Black Sea hinterland, and the Bosnian
Posa·ina, whereto Muslims írom Serbia and the Crimea were
resettled in the 1850s and 1860s.
|||. 6. Tc|ctc, ncsquc cf ´Aodurrannan Pa¸a (1833/4), nura|
dcpic|ing Mccca.
29
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
in their careers determined yet again in the capi-
tal. Next to this new, public inírastructure, now
Fnanced not by indi·idual ra/fs but by central
state institutions, the other major inno·ation to
the Balkan cityscapes is the return ,or perhaps
rather the ad·ent·, oí monumental church ar-
chitecture. Starting írom the 1820s, we see oíten
large but externally ·ery humble buildings. lrom
the 1850s onwards we already see ·ery daring
designs, undermining Islamic buildings` tradi-
tional prominence in most Ottoman cities. Just
as the state`s new inírastructural buildings, they
are increasingly distinguished by the borrowing
oí íorms írom western Luropean architecture,
sometimes entire types ,ill. ¯,.
1hereíore, íour periods emerge distinguished
by the relationship between the centre and the
periphery and e·idenced in its impact on archi-
tectural production. 1o emphasize this point I
shall name them as íollows: 1, polycentrism ,ca.
1350 to until aíter 1453,, 2, centralism ,late 15
th

to mid-18
th
ct.,, di·ided almost equally into a pe-
riod oí a, expansion and b, one oí relati·e stag-
nation, 3, aecentralization ,mid-18
th
-mid-19
th
ct.,,
and 4, recentralization ,mid-19
th
to \\I,. I lea·e
it up to the reader to judge ií the systematization
oí the material I propose here li·es up to the ex-
pectations I may ha·e raised at the beginning. But
what I belie·e is true, and perhaps signiFcant, is
that the Balkan monuments íorm part oí tbi. his-
torical narrati·e oí Ottoman architecture.
ƒ
|||. 7. Tncssa|cni|i, O||cnan Prcp Scncc| (´|dadiqc), oui|| in
1887 oq |nc Sici|ian-ocrn arcni|cc| Vi|a|ianc Pcsc||i (1838-
1918). Pcsc||i and Picrrc Arrigcni, a fc||cu ||a|ian arcni|cc|
ucr|ing in |a|c O||cnan Tncssa|cni|i, prctcd rcspcnsio|c fcr
a |argc nunocr cf arcni|cc|ura| prcjcc|s ccnnissicncd oq |nc
s|a|c, taricus rc|igicus ccnnuni|ics, ccnncrcia| cn|crpriscs,
as uc|| as uca||nq inditidua|s. (Pnc|cgrapn oq Scoan c ]ca||icr
fcr |nc a|ouns cf su||an ´Aodù|nanid ||, ca. 1890.)
30
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. tbe ¡tace of ßat/av Ottovav vovvvevt. iv varratire. of !e.terv ava í.tavic arcbi·
tectvre. Poivtivg to .ove Ottovav·¡erioa .ite. or to vovvvevt. recevtt, iv.cribea a. |^í´CO !orta íeritage
´ite., be fva. tbat tbe focv. .eev. to be ov .ite. ratber tbav ivairiavat vovvvevt.. 1bereb, i. ac/vorteagea tbe
Ottovav ¡erioa`. iv¡act; for ovt.tavaivg vovvvevt., borerer, ove rovta bare to go to í.tavbvt or íairve. ívai·
riavat vovvvevt. iv tbe ßat/av., be regret., are vot fovva iv .vrre,. of ívro¡eav or í.tavic arcbitectvre, or erev
iv .tavaara .vrre,. of Ottovav arcbitectvre, rbicb are traaitiovatt, target, re.trictea to vovvvevt. iv ¡re.evt·aa,
1vr/e,. írev tbovgb recevt .tvaie. ov tbe e·cbavge betreev ívro¡e ava Miaate ía.terv ava,or ..iav cvttvre.
abovva, tbe.e .tvaie. are t,¡icatt, tivitea to tbe e·cbavge betreev covrt. ava ca¡itat citie.. 1be avtbor a./. if
tbe Pata¸¸o Dvcate iv |rbivo, for iv.tavce, rbicb ra. bvitt b, av arcbitect frov Zaaar ;a 1evetiav cit, cto.e
to tbe tbev Ottovav boraer), ra. eqvi¡¡ea ritb tro vivaret·ti/e torer. a. a re.vtt of .vcb ivteractiov.. íe at.o
arar. ¡arattet. betreev tbe ßat/av .ivgte·aovea vo.qve. of tbe 1:
tb
·1¨
tb
cevtvr, ava tbe iaeat cbvrcb t,¡otog, iv
covtev¡orar, ítat,. .rovva 11ó0, for iv.tavce, Rivivi`. ´av íravce.co cbvrcb ra. to be covrertea, accoraivg to a
ae.igv b, .tberti, b, corerivg it ritb a bevi.¡bericat aove ava eqvi¡¡ivg tbe evtravce .iae ritb cotvvv., .o a. to
.vgge.t a cta..icat tev¡te. 1bovgb tbe ¡ro;ect ra. verer cov¡tetea, it i. a .tavaara referevce iv .vrre,. of !e.terv
arcbitectvre. 1be covtev¡orar, vo.qve bvitt b, Mebvea íí iv Pri.btiva, acro.. tbe .ariatic, fottor. .ivitar
¡rivci¡te. bvt revaiv. cov¡tetet, vv/vorv.
.vtor ra.¡rart;a o v;e.tv /o;e o.vav./i .¡ovevici .a ßat/ava ¡rea.tart;a;v v ¸a¡aavo; i i.tav./o; arbite/tvri.
|/a¸v;vci va ve/e o.vav./e graaitet;./e c;etive iti .¡ovevi/e /o;i .v veaarvo ¡rogta.evi ´r;et./iv /vttvrviv ao·
briva ¡oa ¸a.titov |^í´CO·a, ov .vatra aa ;e ;a/o ivtere.avtvo aa ;e fo/v. .tart;ev va graaitet;./e c;etive, a ve
va ivairiavatve .¡ovevi/e. 1ive ;e ¡ri¸vat vtica; o.vav./og ¡erioaa, veĀvtiv ¸a i¸ravreave .¡ovevi/e .e vora
otici v í.tavbvt iti íairve. ívairiavatvi .¡ovevici va ßat/avv, ov .e ¸ati, .e ve vogv ¡rovaci vi ¡regteaarav;iva
evro¡./e viti i.tav./e arbite/tvre, ca/ vi v .tavaaraviv ¡regteaarav;iva O.vav./e arbite/tvre, /o;a .v ¡rete¸vo
ograviceva va ¡ro.tor aava.v;e 1vr./e. Ca/ vi v ./ori;iv .tvai;ava ra¸v;eve i¸veĀv erro¡./e i .reav;o·i.tocve
i,iti bogatib a¸i;./ib /vttvra, ore .tvai;e .v ¡rete¸vo ograviceve va ra¸v;eve i¸veĀv arora i gtarvib graaora.
.vtor .e ¡ita aa ti ;e va ¡riv;er Pata¸¸o Dvcate v |rbivv, i¸graĀev oa .trave arbite/te i¸ Zaara ;1eveci;av./i
graa bti¸v gravice . O.vav./iv car.trov) vogao ivati ara vivareta - torv;ere /ao re¸vttat ta/rib ¡roce.a. Ov
ta/oĀe ¡oartaci ¡aratetv i¸veĀv bat/av./ib ;eavo/v¡otvib a¸avi;a i¸ ¡erioaa 1:.·1ó. ri;e/a i iaeatve cr/reve
ti¡otogi;e voaerve ítati;e. O/o 11ó0. g. cr/ra ´av íravce.co v Rivivi;v ;e trebata biti ¡reobti/orava ¡reva
ai¸a;vv .tberti;a, ¡o/rira;vci ;e ¡otv/rv¸vov /v¡otov i .tart;a;vci .tvbore .a vta¸ve .trave aa bi ¡oa.;ecata va
/ta.icvi brav. Maaa ¡ro;e/at vi;e vi/aaa ¸arr.ev, to ;e .tavaarava referevca v ¡regteaiva ¸a¡aave arbite/tvre.
Moaerva a¸avi;a i¸graĀeva oa .trave Mebveaa íí v Pri.tivi, . arvge .trave ]aarava, .ti;eai i.te ¡rivci¡e, ati o.ta;e
¡ot¡vvo ve¡o¸vata .iro; ;arvo.ti.
Johan Mårtelius
Ot t oman Eur opean ar chi t ect ur e
Osmanska eur opska ar hi t ekt ur a
31
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
!"#$ '+,#$ &)$ our Swedish íoundation, the
host oí this coníerence, has some implications.
\hat Cvttvrat íeritage ritbovt ßoraer. appears
to tell us is that, normally, cultural heritage is
thought oí as barivg borders. 1ypically, these
borders are identiFed with those oí nations.
1his is best exempliFed by the lrench term íor
what in Lnglish is rendered as heritage`: ¡atri·
voive. In·oking ta ¡atrie, that is, the íatherland,
we are reminded oí the íact that the concept
oí an architectural heritage is to a good extent
rooted in the 19
th
century process oí national
identity íormation. 1he íairly recent concept oí
a world heritage,` as propagated by UNLSCO,
implies that monuments and sites selected and
highlighted on a global map are indeed excep-
tions to the standard understanding oí heritage
as being primarily national.
lrom this point oí ·iew, the title oí an im-
portant 1999 Istanbul coníerence on the Otto-
man Lmpire`s built heritage is signiFcant, íor it
identiFed this architecture in the coníerence`s
·ery title, and the subsequent publication, as a
supra-national heritage.`
1
\hile such a label is
certainly appropriate íor a contextualization oí
the Ottoman heritage, it is hardly restricted to it.
Much the same could be said oí the heritage oí
Antiquity, the Gothic style, or the Mamluk and
1imurid polities. Like that oí the Ottomans,
some oí these were moreo·er not only supra-
national` but also supra-continental.` L·en
today, the modern nation oí 1urkey, the succes-
sor state to the Ottoman Lmpire, straddles two
1 ¨ Cevtvrie. of Ottovav arcbitectvre: a .v¡ra·vatiovat beritage |Istanbul,
25-2¯ No·ember 1999|. Lds. Nur Akin, AFíe Batur and Selçuk
Batur, Istanbul: \LM, 2000.
|||. 1. Uroinc, Pa|azzc Duca|c, scccnd na|f cf |nc 15
|n
ccn|urq.
continents. Its pri·ileged national` identiFca-
tion with the Ottoman heritage is íacilitated by
the íact that all three Ottoman capitals - Bursa,
Ldirne, and Istanbul - are located within the
borders oí the Republic, in a relati·ely compact
region where the two continents meet. 1hrough
these capitals, 1urkey has also inherited most
oí this architectural tradition`s prime expres-
sions, but monuments and sites outside 1urkey
32
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
must not be neglected. On the UNLSCO list
oí world heritage sites,` we now also Fnd the
Albanian historical towns oí Gjirokastra and Be-
rat ,inscribed in 2005, expanded in 2008, as well
as the 16
th
-century Ottoman bridges in Mostar
,2005, and Visegrad ,200¯,, both in Bosnia and
lerzego·ina. In 1urkey, oí nine inscribed sites,
we Fnd only two whose architectural heritage is
owed, and in one case only partially, to the Ot-
toman period: the historic areas oí Istanbul`
,1985, and the Old 1own oí Saíranbolu ,1994,.
1hat the íocus seems to be on sites rather than
indi·idual monuments is quite interesting. 1he
impact the Ottomans had on the shaping oí
built en·ironments is acknowledged in íour oí
these cases, in the two remaining ones, bridges,
the acknowledged achie·ement is similarly oí an
inírastructural nature. One may argue that, in the
Balkans, there cannot be íound an architectural
achie·ement at the le·el oí the principal monu-
ments oí Istanbul, at the same time, howe·er,
the prominence oí the Ottoman period`s impact
on this region`s built en·ironment and inírastruc-
ture is e·ident.
1his diííerence may, at least in part, account
íor the dominance oí the buildings in modern
1urkey in the standard representations oí Ot-
toman architecture. Not only did that country
inherit the Ottomans` three historical capitals, it
thereby also inherited the most iconic works at-
tributed to the distinguished Ottoman architect
Sinan. lis distinguished place in the architectural
narrati·e aside, it is signiFcant that only in the case
oí Sinan do we ha·e an author` comparable to
his counterparts in Luropean architecture írom
the Renaissance onwards. \ith so many monu-
mental buildings attributed to him preser·ed,
scholarship on Ottoman architecture has been
decidedly Sinanocentric.` A recent example oí
how this translates to
a more popular le·el is the new city museum oí
Kayseri in central Anatolia, the region in which
Sinan spent his childhood beíore resettling in
Istanbul. \hile Kayseri boasts a number oí pre-
Ottoman masterpieces, we Fnd there only one,
relati·ely minor, mosque attributed to Sinan. \et
the new museum, íunded by the pri·ate Kadir
las íoundation, has chosen to íocus on Sinan
and his works. Next to the well-known sites in
Istanbul and Ldirne, highlighted are also the
UNLSCO-listed bridges in Visegrad and Mostar.
1he íormer is indeed a work oí Sinan, the lat-
ter is presented as designed by one oí his pupils.
lere, central Anatolia is represented as the hub
oí Sinan`s work in a geography which extends to
his works in Balkan Lurope e·en in cases where,
as with Mostar, the connection is rather indirect.
As hinted at abo·e, increased recognition oí
Ottoman Lurope`s architectural heritage by insti-
tutions like UNLSCO`s world heritage commit-
|||. 2. Rinini, Tcnpic
Ma|a|cs|ianc, A|ocr|i´s
uninp|cncn|cd dcsign
frcn ccnncncra|cd cn
ccin, ca. 1450.
|||. 3. Rinini, Tcnpic Ma|a|cs|ianc, |cf| inccnp|c|c in 1461.
33
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
tee is now e·ident. At the same time, this heritage
continues to largely remain outside the discourse
oí Luropean architecture. lere the limiting
íramework shown, íor example, in Nikolaus
Pe·sner`s standard Ovttive of ívro¡eav arcbitectvre
,1943, is still more or less the rule.
2
A more re-
cent British sur·ey, !e.terv arcbitectvre ,1999, by
Ian Sutton, tries to go beyond traditional borders
by including some Nordic examples, and not
only in the section on modernism.
3
Sutton also
makes reíerence to ancient temples oí Baalbek
in present-day Lebanon and includes a section
on the lagia Sophia and later Byzantine achie·e-
ments, concluded with notes on Russian eccle-
siastical architecture oí the 16
th
-18
th
centuries.
lowe·er, Sutton`s sur·ey oí architecture in the
\est` includes not one example oí Ottoman
architecture or, íor that matter, the Muslim ar-
chitecture oí Spain ,Cordo·a is mentioned only
in relation to a 1¯
th
-century church,. Oí course
one may say that the term \estern,` as opposed
to Luropean,` implies something more cultural
rather than geographic, as does the signiFer Lu-
rope,` By excluding Spanish Islamic architecture,
howe·er, which in a literal geographical sense is
more western than most oí the rest oí Lurope,
as well as Ottoman contributions, it places these
architectural cultures in exile positions.
1his exclusion is sourced in the existence oí
another category in which these traditions are
usually culled together: Islamic architecture. One
can debate the problems caused by the binary
and, by implication, oppositional classiFcations
oí Lurope`s heritage into one that is \estern`
and the other being Islamic,` but it must be
noted that Ottoman Lurope is typically margin-
alized ií not excluded altogether írom both oí
these disciplinary traditions. \hen e·en God-
írey Goodwin`s standard sur·ey oí Ottoman
architecture largely excluded monuments outside
modern 1urkey,

4
it must not be expected to Fnd
2 Pe·sner, Nikolaus. .v ovttive of ívro¡eav arcbitectvre. London:
Penguin Books, 1943. Many later editions and translations ha·e
appeared. A re·ised edition was printed in 2009. 1he ·ery western
Luropean and not least British íocus oí the sur·ey may be explained
in part by Pe·sner`s position in British exile írom Nazi Germany.
3 Sutton, Ian. !e.terv arcbitectvre: a .vrre, frov .vcievt Creece to tbe ¡re.evt.
London: 1hames & ludson, 1999.
4 Goodwin, Godírey. . bi.tor, of Ottovav arcbitectvre, íovaov: 1hames
& ludson, 19¯1.
them in sur·eys themed on Islamic architec-
ture.` In these, the Ottoman chapter normally
co·ers around one tenth oí the book, or less,
ne·er ·enturing beyond Ldirne.
At the same time, studies on the exchange be-
tween Lurope and Middle Lastern and,or Asian
cultures ha·e abounded in recent years. Lspecially
Venice`s position as a hub íor exchange between
Italian Renaissance culture and the Ottoman
Lmpire has become a popular research subject.
Uníortunately, these studies are typically lim-
ited largely to the exchange between courts and
capital cities, thus excluding the Balkans.
5
1he
5 1evice ava tbe í.tavic rorta. Ld. Steíano Carboni. New la·en: \ale
Uni·ersity Press, 200¯.
|||. 4. Prisn|ina, ncsquc cf Mcnncd || |a|in (1460/1).
34
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Adriatic region as a Feld oí exchange in Renais-
sance culture remains to be explored. 1he role oí
Luciano Laurana ,d. 14¯9,, the Dalmatian-born
architect who designed the Palazzo Ducale in
Urbino with its minaret-like towers ,ill. 1,, may
be a case in point.
Other potentially interesting parallels between
the Balkan single-domed mosques oí the 15
th
-

th
centuries and the ideal church typology in
contemporary Italy exist. lere, one may reíer,
íor example, to the so-called 1empio Malates-
tiano in Rimini, on Italy`s Adriatic coast. Around
1450, the íamous Leon Battista Alberti designed
a project íor con·erting the church oí San lran-
cesco by co·ering it with a hemispheric dome and
íacing the entrance side with columns so as to
suggest a classical temple ,ill. 2,. 1he project was
abandoned halí-way when, in 1461, the project`s
patron Sigismondo Malatesta was o·erthrown,
and the dome was ne·er implemented ,ill. 3,.
1hat same year, across the Adriatic, the mosque
oí latih Sultan Mehmed in Prishtina was con-
structed, with its domed cubic structure íronted
by a columnar portico ,ill. 4,. Its typology oí
course, while basically coinciding with the 1em-
pio Malatestiano project, íollowed the Ottoman
single dome mosque tradition established in the
14
th

century. \hereas the uncompleted structure
in Rimini is a standard reíerence in all sur·eys oí
Renaissance architecture, and e·en oí Luropean
or \estern architecture in general, the building
still standing in the centre oí the Koso·ar capital
city remains unnoticed by historiographers oí
Luropean and Ottoman architecture alike.
A third topic suggesting an echo oí Ottoman
Luropean architecture in countries íurther west
or north might be the emphasis on the sacred
book and somewhat iconoclastic ·iew oí sacred
space in reíorm mo·ements such as 16
th
century
Lutheran Christianity. Could there, Fnally, ha·e
been a connection between architectural repre-
sentations in painted church interiors and the
immense popularity oí murals showing monu-
ments and landscapes in late Ottoman mosques,
such as the ones at 1eto·o or Gjako·a·
More generally, it seems that Islamic culture`s
impact on Lurope was more readily granted the
more distant in time or space the case, as with
Moorish Andalusia or with the results oí trade
along the Silk Road. Ií religion is what suppos-
edly justiFes the clear distinction into these two
categories - Islamic and Luropean,\estern -
one should point out that the three monotheistic
religions all originated in the Middle Last. lrom
there they spread, inter alia, to the Mediterranean,
in which their hegemony ,and thus their art, not
rarely o·erlapped. \et, one came to be identiFed
as \estern` and another as Lastern,` with a
supposedly unbridgeable gap between them.
1he discourse on Luropean architecture`s his-
tory has its roots in the 18
th
century and remains
closely attached to the concept oí modernity.
1his does not mean that the trajectory through
the centuries írom ancient to contemporary is
considered a uniíorm line oí progress. \hile in
diííerent periods commentators ha·e ía·oured
the rele·ance oí ·arious styles and,or periods
- sometimes the Gothic, sometimes the Renais-
|||. 6. Drauing cf
O||cnan ncsquc in
Pcs| oq |iscncr tcn
|r|acn, 1721.
|||. 5. Drauing cf O|-
|cnan nanan ´nc| far
frcn 8uda¨ oq |iscncr
tcn |r|acn, 1721.
35
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
sance, and sometimes the Baroque - a common
Luropean tradition is normally constructed
as a sequence oí these periods and,or styles.
Cultures not ha·ing participated in this e·olu-
tionary process, e·en when their architectural
output was admired, were understood as being
timeless or taking circular paths. In Sir Banister
lletcher`s classic sur·ey oí architectural history,
Frst published in 1896 ,and still in print a century
later,, a designation used íor architecture outside
oí Lurope was that oí non-historical styles.`
6

\hile this phrase is certainly outdated, by im-
plication the non-historical` label still seems to
justiíy the treatment oí non-Luropean historical
architecture as outside a paradigm oí progress.
Needless to say, what we may call Ottoman
Luropean architecture` was outside the scope
oí this concept. Ií any comparisons do appear,
Ottoman architecture, seen as opposed to Lu-
ropean progress,` represented the process not oí
history` but oí decline.
Another early account oí architectural history
should be remembered in this context. Johann
Bernhard lischer ·on Lrlach took a global ap-
proach to architecture and its history in his
ívtrvrff eiver bi.tori.cbev .rcbitectvr, a commented
collection oí prints issued in 1¯21. Lxamples íor
what he called an historical architecture` in-
cluded buildings írom many periods and regions,
but the Ottoman examples are ·ery prominent.
Besides the sultanic mosques oí Istanbul, seen to
culminate in that oí Sultan Ahmed I, we also Fnd
representations oí an Ottoman monument in
Bursa and two in lungary: a bavav near the cen-
tre oí Buda ,ill. 5, and a single-domed mosque
in Pest ,ill. 6,. A globalizing perspecti·e on ar-
chitecture and the connections between diííerent
parts oí the world can be said to íorm a theme
in late Baroque culture more generally, howe·er
short-li·ed. Much later, Baroque architecture`s
dynamism íound its place in deFning the trajec-
tory oí Luropean modernity, but based only on
strictly íormal analyses. SigniFcantly, lischer ·on
Lrlach, who is generally recognized as a highly
6 lletcher, Banister. . bi.tor, of arcbitectvre ov tbe cov¡aratire vetboa.
London: Athlone Press, 1896
prominent Central Luropean architect oí his
time, is not e·en mentioned in Pe·sner`s sur·ey.
¯
linally, that the scope oí architectural history
seems to be in the process oí change must be
recognized. Signs oí growing interest in expand-
ing the perspecti·e oí Luropean cultural history,
both geographically and typologically, are appar-
ent. In architectural history, traditionally domi-
nated by the study oí iconic single monuments,
the place oí housing and inírastructure is taking
on importance. lere, as noted, the Ottoman
period`s contribution to the built en·ironment
in the Balkans is critical, as was recognized also
by some modern architects, most íamously Le
Corbusier about one century ago. Much-needed
research on Ottoman Luropean architecture,
undertaken in recent decades by authorities like
Machiel Kiel and others, keeps adding to our
knowledge and understanding oí this heritage.
By design, this coníerence contributes to this
ongoing project.
ƒ
¯ Pe·sner`s PhD thesis, written in the 1920s, had been on German
Baroque architecture.
36
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. eart, Ottovav vrbav aereto¡vevt .trategie. tbrovgb arcbitectvrat fovvaatiov., ritb .¡eciat
regara to rbat a¡¡ear. to be a voaet covvov to tate veaierat .vatotia ava tbe ßat/av., ava a vvvber of Ot·
tovavi¸ea citie.. 1bi. i. aevov.tratea b, a cov¡aratire .tva, of vrbav trav.forvatiov iv tbree eart, Ottovav
torv. - íairve, Ptorair, ava ´/o¡;e - ritb attevtiov ¡aia to tbe tocatiov ava fvvctiov. of covvvvat vo.qve.
rer.v. tbe 1·.ba¡ea bo.¡ice., a t,¡e .¡ecifc to tbe 11
tb
ava 1:
tb
cevtvrie. ava fovva iv att tbree citie.. íor ´/o¡;e`.
ca.e be argve. tbat re bare before v. av e·av¡te of a a,va.t, of frovtier gevtr, a¡¡t,ivg tbe .ave ¡rivci¡te. a.
.vttavic ¡atrov. iv tbeir re.¡ectire .¡bere of ivfvevce.
.vtor ai./vtv;e o ravi;iv o.vav./iv .trategi;ava vrbavog ra¸ro;a /ro¸ arbite/tov./e ¸aav¸bive, .a ¡o.eb·
viv o.rrtov va ovo .to /a.vi;e ¡o.ta;e ¸a;eavic/i voaet /a.vo; .reav;or;e/orvo; .vaaoti;i i ßat/avv i vvogiv
o.vavi¸iraviv graaoriva. Oro ;e ¡rea.tart;evo /ov¡aratirvov .tvai;ov vrbavib trav.forvaci;a va ¡riv;erv tri
rava o.vav./a graaa - íairve, Ptorair i ´/o¡t;e - .a ¡a¸v;ov va to/aci;e fvv/ci;a v;e.vib a¸avi;a va.v¡rot
/ovaci.tiva 1·obti/a, ti¡ .¡ecifcav ¸a 11. i 1:. ri;e/ i ¡rovaĀev v .ra tri graaa. | .tvca;v ´/o¡t;a, ov trrai aa
ivavo ¡rea .obov ¡riv;er aiva.ti;e ¡ogravicvib ¡tev.tara /o;i ¡riv;ev;v;v i.ti ¡rivci¡ /ao i v;ibori .vttav./i
¡o/roritet;i v v;iboro; vtica;vo; .feri.
Grigor Boykov
Reshapi ng ur ban space i n t he Ot t oman
Bal kans: a st udy on t he ar chi t ect ur al
devel opment of Edi r ne, Pl ovdi v, and
Skopj e ( 14t h- 15t h cent ur i es)
Tr ansf or maci j a ur banog pr ost or a
na osmanskom Bal kanu: st udi j a o
ar hi t ekt onskom r azvoj u J edr ena, Pl ovdi va
i Skopl j a ( od 14. do 15. vi j eka)
37
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
!"#$,&'-&.$/'0+1/&'$oí Anatolia in the mid-
13
th
century undermined the centralized author-
ity oí the Seljuk sultans, replacing it with that
oí the emerging local aristocratic elites, who ac-
cumulated in their hands large landed properties
and acted to a great extent as independent rul-
ers. Scholars like loward Crane or Lthel Sara
\olper ha·e argued that the dramatic changes
in political power oí the mid-13
th
and early 14
th
-
century Anatolia resulted in a signiFcant shiít
in patronage patterns, in which poweríul local
evirs replaced the sultans as principal sponsors
oí architecture.
1
lurthermore, the types oí
institutions supported changed: the local lords,
rather than building íortiFcations, mosques,
or cara·anserais, íocused their patronage on
veare.es, tombs, and - most notably - der·ish
lodges.
2
1hey sought to transíorm the hierarchy
oí city space and to modiíy the existing spatial
order through a conscious attempt to shiít the
urban core away írom the Seljuk centre.
3
1he
instrument oí this urban transíormation was
the patronage oí der·ish lodges built near city
gates or market areas. 1hey maniíested the al-
liance between the local rulers and the itiner-
ant Anatolian der·ishes, who had enormous
1 1he research íor this paper has been made possible
thanks to generous grants by the Andrew \. Mellon
loundation and the 1urkish Cultural loundation.
Crane, loward. Notes on Saldjûq architectural patronage in
thirteenth century Anatolia,` in: ]ovrvat of tbe ícovovic ava ´ociat
íi.tor, of tbe Orievt, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1 ,1993,, pp. 1-5¯, \olper,
Lthel Sara. Citie. ava .aivt.: ´vf.v ava tbe trav.forvatiov of vrbav .¡ace
iv Meaierat .vatotia. Uni·ersity Park: Pennsyl·ania State Uni·ersity
Press, 2003.
2 \olper, Lthel Sara. Politics oí patronage: political change and
the construction oí der·ish lodges in Si·as,` in: Mvqarva., Vol. XII
,1995,, pp. 39-4¯.
3 Ibid., pp. 41-3.
innuence o·er the local 1urcoman population
alienated írom the Sunni practices promoted by
Seljuk central power.
4
1he Ottoman state, which appeared at the
edge between Christian and Muslim worlds,
emerged as a symbiosis between írontier elite
warriors, who embraced ga¸a as their leading ide-
ology, the abi brotherhoods, and the wandering
der·ishes, who dominated the spiritual liíe oí
the 1urcoman subjects under the leadership oí
the house oí Osman. 1he Ottoman rulers, like
the íormer Seljuk evirs or be,s oí the surround-
ing principalities, had to Fnd a voav. rirevai with
diííerent layers oí the border society ,including
the local non-Muslim population,, while try-
ing to strengthen and legitimize their claim íor
lordship.
5
Once the Frst sizable Byzantine cities
íell into the hands oí Osman Gazi`s young son
Orhan,
6
he began commissioning two distincti·e
types oí buildings that were meant to embody
the symbols oí ideology, power, and legitimacy
oí the new ruling dynasty. 1he newly conquered
4 Ibid., pp. 40-1.
5 Inalcik, lalil. Periods in Ottoman history: state, society, economy,`
in: Ottovav ciriti¸atiov. Lds. lalil Inalcik and Günsel Renda. Ankara:
Ministry oí Culture, 2004, pp. 41-59, Kaíadar, Cemal, ßetreev tro
rorta.: tbe cov.trvctiov of tbe Ottovav .tate. Berkeley: Uni·ersity oí
Caliíornia Press, 1995.
6 Inalcik has produced a number oí studies on the long lasting
blockade and subsequent conquest oí the principal Bithynian cities,
Nicaea and Prousa. lis latest ideas are presented in Inalcik, lalil.
1he struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines íor Nicaea,`
in: í¸vi/ tbrovgbovt bi.tor,. Lds. Isil Akbaygil et al. Istanbul: 1ürkiye
Is Bankasi, 2003, pp. 59-83, idem. Osmanli sultani Orhan ,1324-
1362,: A·rupa`da yerlesme,` in: ßettetev, Vol. LXXIII, No. 266 ,2009,,
pp. ¯¯-10¯. See also the works oí Lowry, leath \. Ottoman
Iznik ,Nicaea,: through the eyes oí tra·elers and as recorded in
administrati·e documents, 1331-1923,` in: í¸vi/ tbrovgbovt bi.tor,,
pp. 135-¯4, and Ottovav ßvr.a iv traret accovvt.. Bloomington,
Indiana: Uni·ersity oí Indiana: Ottoman & Modern 1urkish Studies
Publications, 2003.
38
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
urban space was to be Ottomanized` by, on
the one hand, the appearance oí a communal
mosque, either a con·erted church or a new
building, situated at a íocal point oí the city, and
on the other by a complex centered around a 1-
shaped multiíunctional ivaret,¸ari,e outside the
walled part oí the city.
¯

1he 1-shaped buildings, the íorm oí which
is claimed by some scholars to architecturally
deri·e írom Central Anatolian der·ish lodges
8
,
combined in a single structure an ele·ated prayer
hall in an either ·aulted or domed e,rav, a central
space, and two to íour side-rooms ,tabbaves, pro-
·ided with Fre places.
9
In contemporary sources
they are simultaneously reíerred to as ivaret and
¸ari,e. As a rule these buildings ne·er stood
alone, but were part oí complexes usually includ-
ing a veare.e, bavav, soup kitchen, and in many
cases the tomb oí the person who commis-
sioned its construction. 1he exact íunctions oí
these buildings are still debated in the scholarly
literature, but one could saíely assert that these
buildings were meant to pro·ide shelter íor im-
portant der·ish leaders ,such as Pustinpus Baba
or Geyikli Baba,, and to accommodate ·arious
wandering der·ishes, important tra·ellers, and
warriors oí the íaith. Moreo·er, these complexes
always pro·ided other important social ser·ices
such as pro·iding íood íree oí charge to the poor
¯ 1he standard reíerence works on Iznik and Bursa`s architectural
de·elopment are Gabriel, Albert. |ve ca¡itate tvrqve ßrov..e·ßrv.a.
Paris: L. de Boccard, 1958 and Ay·erdi, Lkrem lakki. O.vavti
vivãri.iviv it/ aerri, ó²0·º0: ,12²0·1102,. Istanbul: Baha Matbaasi,
1966, pp. 48-119 and pp. 158-83 on Iznik. See also Otto-Dorn,
Katharina. Da. i.tavi.cbe í¸vi/. Berlin: Dt. Archäolog. Inst., 1941,
Aslanapa, Oktay. 1urkish Architecture at Iznik,` in: í¸vi/ tbrovgbovt
bi.tor,, pp. 223-234, Alioglu, lüsun. Lrken Osmanli doneminde
Iznik kentinin Fziksel gelisimi,` in: í..a,. iv bovovr of .¡tvttab Kvrav,
Lds. (igdem Kaíesçioglu and Lucienne 1hys-Senocak. Istanbul:
\api Kredi \ayinlari, 1999, pp. 83-101.
8 Lmir, Sedat. ír/ev O.vavti vivartigivaa ço/·i,terti ,a¡itar: /evt.et
/otovi¸a.,ov ,a¡itari otara/ ¸ãri,eter, 2 ·ols. Izmir: Akademi Kitabe·i,
1994, Kuban, Dogan. O.vavti vivari.i. Istanbul: \em \ayin, 200¯,
pp. ¯5-122.
9 In the classical` work oí Kuran, these buildings are reíerred to as
e,rav mosques`. Cí. Kuran, Aptullah. 1be vo.qve iv eart, Ottovav
arcbitectvre. Chicago and London: 1he Uni·ersity oí Chicago Press,
1968, pp. ¯1-135. Sema·i Lyice introduced the term ¸ari,eti cavi`
in his Ilk Osmanli de·rinin dini-içtimai müessesesi zâ·iyeler ·e
zâ·iyeli-camiler,` in: í.tavbvt |virer.ite.i í/ti.at ía/vtte.i Mecvva.i, Vol.
XXIII, No. 1-2 ,1962-3,, pp. 3-80. lor an up-to-date sur·ey and
detailed discussion oí historiography, see Oguz, Zeynep. Multi-
íunctional buildings oí 1-type in Ottoman context: a network oí
identity and territorialization.` Unpublished MA thesis, Middle Last
1echnical Uni·ersity, Ankara, 2006.
subjects or tra·ellers, and supported religious
schools which had pro·ided the links to the vteva.
1he 1-shaped ivaret,¸ari,es were, as a rule, built
on empty land outside the conFnes oí the medi-
e·al city, without any other system or regularity
in planning Making use oí the topography, the
buildings were organically integrated in the city`s
landscape. In this respect the old capital Bursa,
where F·e consecuti·e sultans built such com-
plexes, not only could be seen as emblematic, but
also the great number oí 1-shaped buildings and
their magniFcence induced some art historians to
reíer to them as Bursa type mosques`.
10
Being a major íocus oí royal patronage the
1-shaped ivaret,¸ari,es became a key mechanism
used by the Ottomans to encourage and íacili-
tate the growth oí urban settlement. By extend-
ing the architectural e·idence oí the Ottoman
dynasty to outlying areas, the rulers marked the
conFnes oí the new Ottoman city. Located on
important strategic points, the 1-shaped ivaret,
¸ari,es and their complexes were most probably
meant to ser·e as a digniFed pre·iew oí the city
íor those coming in. 1hereíore they were in most
cases la·ishly decorated and imposing structures.
Lxpending ·ast resources, the Ottoman rulers
constructed a clear message demonstrating the
change and highlighting the leadership oí their
dynasty.
11
By examining the urban transíormation oí
important Byzantine cities such as Bursa and
Iznik, one could clearly distinguish a strategy oí
redesigning urban space repeatedly íollowed by
the sultans and their dignitaries. A new Muslim
core emerged at a íocal point where a big sultanic
mosque was instituted. Simultaneously, or soon
10 A comprehensi·e o·er·iew oí sultanic complexes in Bursa is íound
in Gabriel, |ve ca¡itate tvrqve, pp. 43-129, Goodwin, Godírey. .
bi.tor, of tbe Ottovav arcbitectvre. London: 1hames & ludson, 2003
2
,
pp. 34-92
11 Crane, loward. 1he Ottoman Sultan`s mosques: icons oí imperial
legitimacy,` in: 1be Ottovav cit, ava it. ¡art.: vrbav .trvctvre ava .ociat
oraer. Lds. Irene Bierman et al. New Rochelle: Aristide D. Caratzas,
1991, pp. 1¯3-243, Pancaroglu, Oya. Architecture, landscape,
and patronage in Bursa: the making oí an Ottoman capital city,`
in: 1vr/i.b ´tvaie. ...ociatiov ßvttetiv, Vol. XX, No. 1, pp. 40-55,
Kuran, Aptullah. A spatial study oí three Ottoman capitals: Bursa,
Ldirne, and Istanbul` in: Mvqarva., Vol. XIII ,1996,, pp. 114-131,
Kaíesçioglu, (igdem. Cov.tavtivo¡oti.,í.tavbvt: cvttvrat evcovvter.,
iv¡eriat ri.iov, ava tbe cov.trvctiov of tbe Ottovav ca¡itat. Uni·ersity Park:
Pennsyl·ania State Uni·ersity Press, 2009, pp. 129-31.
39
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
aíter, commercial buildings such as beae.tevs, ara.·
tas, or bavs surrounded the mosque, and in the
so-íormed commercial area se·eral smaller single
domed communal mosques appeared too. As al-
ready pointed out, depending on the importance
and magnitude oí the city, one or more 1-shaped
ivaret,¸ari,e complexes were placed in suburbs at
these cities` entrances. A ·ery similar pattern oí
urban transíormation, the product oí the íron-
tier vitiev oí Orhan`s state, was transíerred to
the Balkans íollowing the Ottoman ad·ance into
the region. lurthermore, the semi-independent
dynasties oí Balkan raider commanders ,a/ivci
vcbe,is,, who made their li·ing on the Ottoman
marches, employed the same pattern when they
needed to transíorm the conquered cities oí
their own domains or established new towns.
12

In this short coníerence paper I will brieny
examine the urban transíormation oí three
major Byzantine centres in the Balkans, looking
íor similarities in their de·elopment: 1, Ldirne,
the second Ottoman capital, 2, Plo·di·, the me-
tropolis oí Upper 1hrace - like Ldirne situated
on the medie·al Balkan highway known as the
1ia Mititari., and 3, Skopje, the principal city oí
western Macedonia, dominated by the mighty
dynasty oí the Ishakogullari.
12 1he dynasty oí Gazi L·renos Bey and its decisi·e role in the
de·elopment oí se·eral important cities on the 1ia ígvatia was
recently studied in a series oí publications by Lowry, leath \.
1be .ba¡ivg of tbe Ottovav ßat/av., 1²:0·1::0: tbe covqve.t, .etttevevt
c ivfra.trvctvrat aereto¡vevt of ^ortberv Creece. Istanbul: Bahçesehir
Uni·ersity Press, 2008, Lowry, leath \. and Ismail Lrünsal.
1be írrevo. a,va.t, of Yevice 1araar: vote. c aocvvevt.. Istanbul:
Bahçesehir Uni·ersity Press, 2010.
1. Majcr 15
|n
-ccn|urq O||cnan ncnuncn|s idcn|ifcd cn a 19
|n
-
ccn|urq p|an cf |dirnc.
40
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Edi rne ( Adri anopl e)
\e know ·ery little about the changes that
took place in Adrianople ,Ldirne, immediately
aíter Murad I took possession oí it in 1361.
13

Moreo·er, all the buildings he commissioned had
an uníortunate íate and did not make it to the
present day. \e could assert howe·er, that like
his íather, Murad con·erted a church located in
the walled part oí the city into the mosque oí
Aya Soíya, thus displaying the ·ictory oí Islam
and pro·iding the Muslim community with a
lriday mosque. Promulgating Ldirne as capital,
Murad ordered the construction oí a royal palace
13 Inalcik, lalil. 1he conquest oí Ldirne ,1361,,` in: .rcbirvv
Ottovavicvv, Vol. III ,19¯1,, pp. 185-210. lor other opinions,
arguing íor later date oí Adrianople`s íall into Ottoman hands, cí.
Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Irene. La conquête d`Andrianople par les
1urcs: la pénétration turque en 1hrace et la ·aleur des chroniques
ottomanes,` in: 1rarav· et Mevoire., Vol. I ,1965,, pp. 439-61,
Zachariadou, Llizabeth. 1he conquest oí Adrianople by the
1urks,` in: ´tvai 1eve¸iavi, Vol. XXII ,19¯0,, pp. 211-¯.
and a number oí ser·ice buildings, which in íact
must ha·e been the Frst Ottoman buildings out-
side the walls oí the old Byzantine Adrianople.
Uníortunately neither the con·erted Aya Soíya,
photographed in the 19
th
century,
14
nor Murad`s
palace, pulled down in the 16
th
century in order
to open room íor the magniFcent Selimiye, are
extant today.
15
1he expansion oí the city con-
tinued under Murad`s successor Bayezid I who,
in a Bursa manner,` placed a 1-shaped ivaret,
¸ari,e a considerable distance írom the city`s
walls, stretching the Ottoman presence beyond
14 1he con·erted Byzantine church oí lagia Sophia stood in the walled
part oí Ldirne until the early 20
th
c. Recent study on this building
and a reprint oí the 1888 photograph taken by Gh. Léchine, Russian
consul in the city, in Ousterhout, Robert and Charalambos Bakirtzis.
1be ß,¸avtive vovvvevt. of tbe írro.,Meriç Rirer 1atte,. 1hessaloniki:
Luropean Center íor Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Monuments,
200¯, pp. 16¯-¯1. Kuran, Spatial study oí three Ottoman capitals,`
p. 120.
15 libri, Abdurrahman. ívi.v`t·vv.ãviriv: íairve taribi, 1²ó0·1ó:0. Ld.
Ratip Kazancigil. Ldirne: 1ürk Kütüphaneciler Dernegi \ayinlari,
1996, p. 14, Ay·erdi. O.vavti vivãri.iviv it/ aerri, p. 295.
2. Yt|dtrtn (8aqczid |) inarc|/zatiqc (1390s), pnc|c oq |nc
au|ncr.
41
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
city`s natural border - the 1unca Ri·er.
16
Sultan
Bayezid`s Ldirne ediFce ,ill. 2, certainly lacked
the grandeur oí his Bursa complex, built a íew
years earlier, but he set an important trend. In
the íollowing 30 to 40 years íour more 1-shaped
ivaret,¸ari,e ·centred complexes commissioned
by Gazi Mihal,

the be,terbe,i \usuí Pasa,
18

Mezid Bey,
19
and Sultan Murad II
20
appeared at
the outskirts oí Ldirne ,ills. 3-5,. 1he growing
16 Kuran, Aptullah. Ldirne`de \ildirim camii,` in: ßettetev, Vol.
XXVIII, No. 111 ,1964,, pp. 419-38, Kuran, 1be vo.qve, pp. 105-9.
Ay·erdi. O.vavti vivãri.iviv it/ aerri, pp. 484-94, Aslanapa, Oktay.
íairveae o.vavti aerri ãbiaeteri. Istanbul: Uçler Basime·i, 1949, pp. 2-6.
1¯ Ay·erdi, Lkrem lakki. O.vavti vivãri.ivae Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa
aerri, º0ó·º:: ;110²·11:1). Istanbul: Istanbul letih Cemiyeti, 1989
2
,
pp. 386-93, Kuran, 1be vo.qve, pp. 86-¯.
18 Ay·erdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 3¯¯-81, Kuran, 1be vo.qve,
pp. 89-90.
19 Kazancigil, Ratip. íairve ivaretteri. Istanbul: 1ürk Kütüphaneciler
Dernegi \ayinlari, 1991, pp. 45-9, Ay·erdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa
aerri, pp. 39¯-400, Kuran, 1be vo.qve, pp. 126-¯.
20 Un·er, Suheyl. Ldirne Me·le·ihanesi tarihine giris` in: íairve:
.erbatta/i ¡a,itabt. Lds. Lmin Nedret Isli and M. Sabri Koz. Istanbul:
\api Kredi \ayinlari, 1998, pp. 623-¯, Ay·erdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav
Mvraa aerri, pp. 405-415, Kuran, 1be vo.qve, pp. 124-5.
3. Gazi Mina| inarc|/zatiqc (1422), pnc|c oq |nc au|ncr.
importance oí the city appealed íor the construc-
tion oí an imperial great mosque, which was built
by Bayezid`s sons in the Frst decade oí the 15
th

century and thus imitating Bursa`s de·elopment
the commercial core oí Ldirne shiíted to a new
location outside the walled city.
21
1he multi-
domed Lski Cami soon became too small íor the
rapidly expanding population oí the central area.
1wo decades later Murad II commissioned a new
imperial mosque in the central part oí town, the
Uç Sereíeli mosque, which not only ele·ated
Ldirne`s magnitude, but also re·olutionized the
design and construction techniques oí the great
,vtv, mosques oí the Ottomans.
22
Ldirne`s Ottomanization` greatly reminds
one oí the transíormation oí Bursa. A new ur-
ban core emerged around an imperial mosque
while a number oí 1-shaped ivaret,¸ari,es
21 Ay·erdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 150-162, Kuran, 1be
vo.qve, pp. 154-158.
22 Ay·erdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 422-62, Goodwin, Ottovav
arcbitectvre, pp. 9¯-102
42
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
patronized by the rulers or their dignitaries sur-
rounded the city. 1he transíer oí the symbols oí
Ottoman legitimacy onto Balkan soil, along with
the components oí the border society,` remod-
elled Ldirne in such a way that it truly deser·ed
the label serhattaki payitaht` or capital at the
írontier,` used as a title oí a ·olume dedicated to
city`s history.
23
1he Balkan lords oí the marches,
who in most cases were the dri·ing íorce behind
the Ottoman ad·ance in Lurope, attracted the
centriíugal íorces in the Ottoman state, which
took a slow, but persistent direction towards
centralization and gradual sunniFcation. Margin-
alized groups such as the itinerant heterodox`
der·ishes sought alliance with, and protection oí,
the poweríul raider commanders, who in many
instances commissioned íor them 1-shaped iva·
23 Isli and Koz. íairve: .erbatta/i ¡a,itabt.
ret,¸ari,es. Looking íor examples one could point
to the buildings oí the Mihalogullari in Ldirne
and Ihtiman, L·renos Bey`s ivarets along the 1ia
ígvatia, Ishak Bey`s and his son Isa`s ediFces in
Skopje, or a number oí ·anished buildings com-
missioned by other íamous íamilies. Sultans, on
the other hand, oííered their patronized com-
plexes to der·ish orders oí their choice. 1he
Muradiye in Ldirne, which ser·ed íor many years
as a verteribave, pro·ides an excellent example in
this respect.
4. 8cq|crocqi (Sinancddin Yusuf Pa¸a) inarc|/zatiqc (1428-9),
pnc|c oq |nc au|ncr.
43
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Pl ovdi v ( Fi l i be)
1he post-conquest years oí our second case,
the city oí Philipopolis ,lilibe,, are e·en more
obscure than Ldirne`s Frst decades in Ottoman
hands.
24
1he earliest standing Ottoman monu-
ment there is the multi-domed great mosque built
by Murad II in the mid-1430s ,ill. ¯,,
25
which was
almost 60 years aíter the city surrendered to Lala
Sahin Pasa.
26
It is hard to belie·e that íor more
than halí a century the Ottomans did not lea·e
their imprint on an important Byzantine city like
Plo·di·, which was the Rumelian be,terbe,i`s place
oí residence too. I would like to put íorward a
hypothesis as speculati·e as plausible. Certainly,
the Muradiye was not the earliest Ottoman build-
ing in the city. Constantine the Philosopher, also
known as Kostenecki, while describing the strug-
gle between Bayezid`s two sons, the princes Sül-
eyman and Musa in the early 1400s, mentions a
bavav in lilibe used by Süleyman íor his íeasts.


Undoubtedly the bath did not stand alone, but
must ha·e been a part oí a complex. Keeping in
mind the tradition according to which the con-
querors ,Orhan and Murad, con·erted a church
within the stronghold into a mosque while si-
multaneously starting construction outside the
walls, one could assume that the case oí Plo·di·
was not much diííerent. 1here is a good chance
24 Notes on Plo·di·`s post-conquest period in Kiel, Machiel. Urban
de·elopment in Bulgaria in the 1urkish period: the place oí 1urkish
architecture in the process,` in: ívtervatiovat ]ovrvat of 1vr/i.b ´tvaie.,
Vol. IV, No. 2 ,1990,, pp. ¯9-129 ,plus plates,, see pp. 8¯-91, Boyko·,
Grigor. Ltno-religiozniat oblik na osmanskia grad lilibe - kraya na
XV - nachaloto na XVI ·ek` in: ßat/av./i iaevticbvo.ti, Vol. III. Lds.
L·geni Radushe· and Steíka let·adjie·a. SoFa: londatsia Ot·oreno
obshtest·o, 2003, pp. 130-51.
25 I will deal with the dating oí the mosque in a íuture study.
26 1he proceedings oí the coníerence de·oted to Muradiye mosque
in Plo·di·, held in 2008 aíter the restoration oí the mosque was
completed, were recently published in a limited number by the
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. 1he ·olume íitibe ;Ptorair)
Cvva Cavii Kovferav.i ßiairiteri,íitibe ;Ptorair) Cvva Mo.qve Covferevce
Pa¡er., Lds. Celaleddin Küçük and N. Mine \ar. Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyüksehir Belediyesi, n.d. ne·er appeared on the market. Ay·erdi.
O.vavti vivãri.iviv it/ aerri, pp. 295-303, Rudloí-lile, Gertruda and
Otto Rudloí. Grad Plo·di· i nego·ite sgradi` in: í¸re.tia va batgar./ia
arbeotogicbe./i iv.titvt,ßvttetiv of ßvtgariav .rcbeotogicat ív.titvte, Vol.
VIII ,1934,, pp. 388-90.
2¯ 1he destructi·e actions oí the Ottoman princes Musa and Süleyman.
who sacked lilibe se·eral times, are best described by Konstantin
Kostenecki. íebev.be.cbreibvvg ae. De.¡otev ´tefav ía¸areric. 1r. and ed.
Maximilian Braun. \iesbaden: Otto larrassowitz, 1956, pp. 39-40,
Kastritsis, Dimitris, 1be .ov. of ßa,e¸ia: ev¡ire bvitaivg ava re¡re.evtatiov
iv tbe Ottovav cirit rar of 1102·1². Leiden: Brill, 200¯, pp. 152-3.
6. Majcr 15
|n
-ccn|urq O||cnan ncnuncn|s idcn|ifcd cn a p|an
cf P|ctdit, rcdraun oq |nc au|ncr af|cr Margari|a Harocta.
5. Muradiqc (Murad ||) inarc|/zatiqc (1435-6), pcs|card frcn
|nc car|q 1900s.
44
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
7. Muradiqc (Cunaqa) Mcsquc (nid-1430s), pnc|c frcn |nc
car|q 1900s, ccur|csq cf V|adinir 8a||cnct, P|ctdit.
that the town`s conqueror, Lala Sahin, built a
1-shaped ivaret,¸ari,e complex, part oí which
was the bath mentioned by Constantine the
Philosopher. It is diíFcult to pinpoint the exact
location oí the complex, but the logical guess, as
also implied by the text oí Constantine, would be
below the walls oí the íortiFed citadel. lurther-
more, because oí the destructi·e waríare oí the
Ottoman princes, the buildings might ha·e been
damaged and later disappeared, which is another
hint pointing to their extramural location.
1he large building acti·ity undertaken by Mu-
rad II and the be,terbe,i Sihabeddin Pasa, twenty
years later, must be seen as an attempt to rebuild
the ruined city. A great multi-domed mosque
commissioned by Murad marked the íocal point
oí the new commercial area, while a 1-shaped
building patronized by Sihabeddin ,ill. 8, stretched
city`s boundaries to the bridge o·er the Maritsa
,Meriç, Ri·er.
28
Placed purposeíully on the spot
28 1he bridge o·er Meriç,Maritsa is belie·ed to ha·e been built by Lala
Sahin Pasa shortly aíter the conquest. A short note in Nesri howe·er
makes this assumption questionable. According to the narrati·e, in
1389 while on his way to Koso·o with the ·anguard oí the Ottoman
army, (andarli Ali Pasa was íorced to spend two months in lilibe
because the Meriç had risen and could not be crossed. Cí. Mehmed
Nesri. Kitãb·i Cibav·vvva. Vol. I. Lds. laik Resit Unat and Mehmed
Koymen. Ankara: 1ürk 1arih Kurumu, 1949, p. 259.
where a tra·eller who íollows the 1ia Mititari.
would enter the city, and thus being the Frst thing
a person encountered when he or she walked into
Plo·di·, the complex oí Sihabeddin included also
a bath, veare.e, soup kitchen, and the mausoleum
oí its patron.
29
le also built a massi·e bath in the
central part, the so-called 1ahtakale lamami ,ill.
9,, which apparently was meant to ser·e the con-
gregation oí the Muradiye.
30
A large cara·anserai,
beae.tev, and a number oí single-domed mosques
which soon appeared in the central commercial
area, ga·e Plo·di· a more complete look, greatly
resembling, but at a smaller scale, the central areas
oí Ldirne and Bursa.
29 Ay·erdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 4¯9-485, Rudloí. Grad
Plo·di·,` pp. 390-393.
30 1he bath locally known as 1abta/ate ;tabtv`t·/a`tã) bavavi was
destroyed in the early 20
th
century, which depri·es us oí the
possibility to Fnd out its sponsor and date oí construction. An
accounting book ,vvba.ebe aefteri, oí Sihabeddin Pasa`s lilibe raqf,
dating írom A. l. 1042-3,1632-3 ,BOA 11 6513, í. 20, re·eals
that the bavav was supported by the raqf and in the course oí the
year some repair work was done. 1his íact con·incingly points to
Sihabeddin Pasa as the person who built the bavav. Since it was
apparently meant to ser·e the congregation oí the nearby Muradiye,
it is highly likely that the bath was built simultaneously with the
mosque, or shortly aíterwards, thus in the 1430s.
45
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Skopj e ( Üsküb)
1he modiFcation oí our last example, oí Byz-
antino-Sla·ic Skopje becoming Ottoman Usküb,
resembles e·en more greatly the transíormation
oí Bursa. Just as in Bursa under Orhan, soon
aíter the city íell into the hands oí Pasa \igit
Bey in the early 1390s,
31
the conqueror commis-
sioned a complex around which the new urban
core de·eloped later on. Uníortunately none oí
the buildings that Pasa \igit erected below the
íortress stands today, but their exact location
and certain details are well known. 1he com-
plex consisted oí se·eral buildings which stood
until 1943 when the Allied bombing oí Skopje
le·elled most oí them. 1he lonely minaret and
the mausoleum oí the patron sur·i·ed íor an-
other twenty years until the earthquake oí 1963
31 Gjorgie·, Dragi. ´/o¡;e oa tvr./oto o.ro;vrav;e ao /ra;ot va `1ííí re/.
Skopje: Institut za nacionalna istorija, 199¯, pp. 18-9, Bojanic-Lukac,
Dusanka. Kako turcite so prezele Skopje ,1393,` in: Zborvi/ va
Mv¸e; va graa ´/o¡;e, Vol. II-III ,1965-6,, pp. 5-18. On Pasa \igit Bey
and his descendents see Llezo·ic, Glisa. Skopski Ishako·ici i Pasa
Jigit Beg` in: Cta.vi/ ´/o¡./og ^avcvog Drv.tra, Vol. IX ,1932,, pp.
159-68.
8. çinaocddin Pa¸a´s ccnp|cx (1444), pnc|c cf 1878-9, ccur|csq
cf V|adinir 8a||cnct, P|ctdit.
9. Tan|a|a|c 8a|n (1430s), pnc|c cf 1892, ccur|csq cf V|adinir
8a||cnct, P|ctdit.
46
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
10. Majcr 15
|n
-ccn|urq O||cnan ncnuncn|s idcn|ifcd cn an
1898 p|an cf S|cpjc, ui|n idcn|ifca|icns cf quar|cr nancs oq
Mcnnc| |noa¸t.
47
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
11. Pa¸a Yigi| 8cq/Mcddan 8aoa Mcsquc (1390s?), pcs|card cf
un|ncun da|c.
12. |sna| 8cq (A|aca) inarc|/zatiqc (1438-9), pnc|cgrapn frcn
|nc 1910s, cc||cc|icn cf Dini|ris |cupis, A|ncns.
destroyed them completely.
32
Old photographs,
howe·er, can oííer an idea concerning what has
remained írom these buildings. 1he so-called
mosque oí Pasa \igit Bey, which on an early
twentieth-century postcard ,ill. 11, appears as a
square building with a tile rooí, was also locally
known as Meddah Baba Camii. Meddah Baba,
whose tombstone is still extant, seems to ha·e
been a real historical Fgure. Most likely he was a
der·ish írom the close entourage oí Pasa \igit
and who participated in the conquest oí the city,
which makes the patron`s dedication oí his buil-
dings to the der·ish plausible.
33
1he íact that L·-
liya (elebi reíers to it as a ¸ari,e, in addition to the
presence oí a holy spring in its courtyard, lea·es
little doubt that the so called mosque oí Pasa
32 Kumbaraci-Bogoye·iç, Lidiya. |./v¡`te O.vavti vivari e.erteri.
Istanbul: LNKA, 2008, pp. 168-¯1.
33 Llezo·ic, Glisa. 1vr./i .¡ovevici v ´/o¡t;v. Beograd: Rodoljub, 192¯,
pp. 4-9, Ozer, Mustaía. |./v¡`te 1vr/ vivari.i ;`í1.·`í`. ,v¸,it).
Ankara: 1ürk 1arih Kurumu, 2006, pp. 18¯-8.
48
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
the patron, and most likely also a soup kitchen
and a bath in its close ·icinity.
35
1he exploding population growth oí Skopje,
just as in Bursa, ·ery soon turned Pasa \igit`s
1-shaped complex into a íocal point oí a new
commercial neighbourhood which grew around
it.
36
lis descendents Ishak Bey and Isa Bey added
their own 1-shaped ivaret,¸ari,e. that pushed the
city`s dimensions íurther to the northeast ,ills.
35 Bogoje·ic, Lidija. Les turbés de Skopje,` in: .tti aet .ecovao covgre..o
ivteva¸iovate ai arte tvrca. Napoli: Istituto Uni·ersitario Orientale
Seminario di 1urcologia, 1965, pp. 31-9, cit. p 36-¯, Kumbaraci-
Bogoye·iç, |./v¡`te O.vavti vivari, p. 1¯2, Ozer. |./v¡`te 1vr/
vivari.i, pp. 220-221, Llezo·ic, 1vr./i .¡ovevici v ´/o¡t;v, pp. 6-¯.
36 Gjorgie·, ´/o¡;e, pp. 3¯-59.
\igit was actually built as a der·ish con·ent.
34

Analogies deri·ed írom other Ottoman cities
that saw similar transíormation strongly sug-
gest that Pasa \igit`s complex was built around
a multiíunctional 1-shaped structure which saw
signiFcant remodelling in later times, maybe as
a result oí the labsburg assault on the city. 1he
complex also had a veare.e, the mausoleum oí
34 írti,a Çetebi .e,abatvãve.i. 1. /ita¡: 1o¡/a¡i ´ara, Kvtv¡bave.i ßagaat
²0¨ vvvarati ,a¸vaviv trav./ri¡.i,ovv·ai¸ivi. Lds. Kahraman, Seyit
Ali, \ücel Dagli, and Ibrahim Sezgin. Istanbul: \api Kredi \ayinlari,
2001, p. 301.
13. |sa 8cq inarc|/zatiqc (1475-6), pnc|c oq |nc au|ncr.
49
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
12-13,.

1he large imperial communal mosque,
which Skopje needed, was built by Murad II only
a íew years aíter he completed a similar structure
in lilibe.
38
1he city oí Skopje, during the period in ques-
tion, was entirely dominated by the members oí
one dynasty oí raider commanders, the mighty
Ishakogullari íamily, but the city`s remodelling
and íurther de·elopment imitated at a smaller
scale processes in Bursa or Ldirne, which were
patronized by the ruling Ottoman dynasty. Just as
the Frst Ottoman rulers used the 1-shaped iva·
ret,¸ari,es as key mechanisms to encourage the
growth oí urban settlement, the vcbe,is who at-
3¯ Kumbaraci-Bogoye·iç, |./v¡`te O.vavti, pp. 61-¯5, 90-101, Ozer.
|./v¡`te 1vr/, pp. 51-¯, 62-9.
38 Ay·erdi, Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 564-569, Kumbaraci-
Bogoye·iç, |./v¡`te O.vavti, pp. 44-52, Ozer. |./v¡`te 1vr/, pp.
44-50.
tracted the periphery íorces oí the time adopted
the style oí the Frst sultans and employed it in
the cities under their control. Moreo·er, the per-
ception oí a city as an entity in which, on the one
hand, there was a central area with a communal
mosque and surrounding commercial buildings,
and on the other a complex oí a multiíunctional
1-shaped building in the suburbs, comprised
the ·ery íoundation oí a marcher lord`s concept
íor establishing new towns. In this respect the
modern city oí Saraje·o, created írom scratch
by Ishakoglu Isa Bey, might be another excellent
example.
ƒ
50
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ¡roriae. a .vrre, of .cbotar.bi¡ covcervivg Ottovav vovvvevt. iv ¡re.evt·aa, ívvgar,, ava
ivforvatiov abovt recevt ai.corerie. covcervivg tbi. beritage. írev tbovgb iv tbe batf·cevtvr, after tbe íab.bvrg
covqve.t of Ottovav ívvgar, after 1óº² arovva ·0º of tbe bvitaivg. rere /voc/ea aorv, aata covcervivg
tbe.e vovvvevt. i. ¡re.errea to v. iv te·tvat .ovrce. ava va¡. ¡roavcea iv tbi. ¡erioa ava before. Of tbe forver
2:0·²00 vo.qve. ava mescid. for e·av¡te, toaa, ovt, eigbt vo.qve. .vrrire iv rbote or iv ¡art. íorerer, .ivce
at tbe tive tbe rar·aera.tatea regiov veeaea av, .erriceabte bvitaivg rbat.oerer, vav, Ottovav bvitaivg. rere
¡vt to v.e. í·av¡te. of Mv.tiv bov.e. of ror.bi¡ tbat rere tater covrertea ivto cbvrcbe. ivctvae tbe 1o,gvv
Pa,a Cavii iv ßvaa, tbe .ti Pa,a Cavii iv ´¸igetrar, tbe Ca¸i Ka.iv Pa,a Cavii iv Pec., ava tbe .o·cattea
.go.tov ter mescid, .ivitart, iv Pec.. !itb regara to tbe .tva, of Ottovav bvitaivg. or ¡art. tbereof vtiti¸ea
.vb.eqvevtt,, ver /vorteage ba. beev gaivea tbrovgb a vvvber of recevt e·caratiov.. íor e·av¡te, tbe 2001-:
arcbaeotogicat ava art bi.toricat re.earcb at ßvaa`. Rvaa. ßatb covta ctarif, .ove i..ve. regaraivg tbe .trvctvre`.
arcbitectvrat bi.tor,. 1be batb`. bric/·bvitt aove ra. .borv to be Ottovav ror/, covtrar, to tbe e.tabti.bea rier.
ív 200¨-º, ivre.tigatiov. rere carriea ovt at tbe C.a.¸ar ßatb ;ti/eri.e iv ßvaa), avrivg rbicb it. .¡ecifcatt,
Ottovav ¡art. rere iaevtifea ava .tvaiea. 1be ,ear 200º .ar tbe re.vv¡tiov of e·caratiov. iv í.¸tergov at av
Ottovav batb ovce cov¡tetet, bvriea vvaer eartb; it ra. fovva to be .vr¡ri.ivgt, ivtact v¡ to tbe ravttivg`. .v¡¡ort..
.vtorica ¡rv¸a ¡regtea a/aaev./ib .tvai;a o o.vav./iv .¡oveviciva aava.v;ice v MaĀar./o; i ivforvaci;e o
veaarviv ot/riciva v re¸i orog va.ti;eĀa. Do/ ¡ota .tot;eca va/ov íab.bvr./og o.ra;av;a o.vav./e MaĀar./e
¡o.ti;e 1óº².goaive o/o ·0º graĀeriva ;e bito ¡orv.evo, ao/ .v ¡oaaci v re¸i orib .¡ovevi/a .acvravi v ¡i.aviv
i¸roriva i va¡ava i¸ orog iti ravi;eg ¡erioaa. Oa ravi;e 2:0·²00 a¸avi;a i ve.a¸iaa, aava. va ¡riv;er .avo
o.av a¸avi;a ;e .acvravo v ¡ot¡vvo.ti iti ai;etov. Ka/o ;e bita reti/a ¡otra¸v;a ¸a v.tv¸viv ob;e/tiva v regi;i
vvi.teviv v ratviv ra¸arav;iva, .aaa ;e eriaevtvo aa .v .e vvogi ob;e/ti o.vav./e arbite/tvre ¡ovoro ¡oceti
/ori.titi. Priv;eri cr/ri /o;e .v ravi;e fvv/ciovi.ate /ao vv.tivav./e r;er./e bogovot;e .v: a¸avi;a 1o;gvv·¡a.e
v ßvaivv, ¸v¡va cr/ra vvvtra.v;eg graaa v Pe.ti, .ti¡a.iva a¸avi;a v ´igetrarv, a¸avi;a Ca¸i Ka.iv·¡a.e
v Pecvbv, i ta/o¸ravi ve.a¸ia va·.go.tov trgv, ta/oĀer v Pecvbv. Porea .tvai;e o ¡ovorvo; v¡otrebi o.vav./ib
graĀeriva iti v;iborib ai;etora vora .a¸vav;a o orov va.ti;eĀv vogv biti ao.tv¡va /ro¸ veaarva arbeoto./a
i.tra¸irav;a. ^a ¡riv;er, i.tra¸irav;a v ¡ot;v arbeotogi;e i i.tori;e vv;etvo.ti obart;eva 2001. i 200: goaive va
;arvov /v¡atitv,bavavv Rvaa. v ßvaivv, bi vogta ¡o;av.iti ve/a .¡orva ¡itav;a o v;egoro; /ov.trv/ci;i.
´v¡rotvo ravi;e v.ro;evov vi.t;ev;v, ao/a¸avo ;e aa ;e /v¡ota oa o¡e/e va bavavv bita i¸graĀeva oa .trave
O.vavti;a. | 200¨. i 200º.goaivi .v ta/oĀer /revvta i.tra¸irav;a va Carerov bavavv, .ticvo /ao i v ßv·
aivv, va vaciv va /o;i .e origivatvi ai;etori i¸ o.vav./og ¡erioaa vogv iaevtif/orati i i.tra¸iti. | 200º.goaivi
¡ovorva i.tra¸irav;a va /v¡atitv,bavavv v O.trogovv, ve/aaa ¡ot¡vvo .¡at;eviv ¡oa ¸evt;ov, ;e i¸vevaĀv;vce
¡rovaĀevo aa ;e graĀeriva ¡ot¡vvo veta/vvta .re ao vo.aca .roaa.
Ibolya Gerelyes
Ot t oman ar chi t ect ur e i n Hungar y: new
di scover i es and per spect i ves f or r esear ch
Osmanska ar hi t ekt ur a u Mađar skoj : nova
ot ki ća i per spekt i ve za i st r aži vanj a
51
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
*#1#+*%"$/'!&$"2'-+*341$Ottoman architec-
ture dates back more than a century. lowe·er,
despite the continual enrichment oí our knowl-
edge oí its structures by successi·e generations
oí scholars, until the 19¯0s it seemed as though
the number oí sur·i·ing or known examples oí
Ottoman architecture in lungary was ne·er go-
ing to increase.
1
A highly signiFcant problem íor research into
Ottoman-origin buildings in lungary is the tiny
number oí such buildings that ha·e sur·i·ed, in
whole or in part. 1here is a clear disparity be-
tween the data in the contemporary sources and
the number oí buildings that ha·e come down to
us. One reason íor the mismatch is that examples
oí Ottoman architecture in lungary ha·e disap-
peared almost completely o·er the last 300 years.
More speciFcally, in the Frst F·e decades íollow-
ing the expulsion oí the Ottomans - namely, in
the period írom the mid-1680s to the mid-1¯30s
- more than 90 percent oí the buildings erected
by the Ottomans in lungary during the 150
years oí their rule were knocked down or other-
wise destroyed.
1he data emerging írom the Ottoman sources
indicate considerable architectural acti·ity, and
this is also pro·ed by labsburg military sur·eys
made oí towns at the time they were recaptured.
1 lor the history oí the research and íor the known buildings that
still stand, see Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ`s monograph published in 1980, it is still
a key work: Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ. .¸ o.¸vav·törö/ e¡íte.¸et Mag,aror.¸agov.
;D¸.avi/, tvrbe/, fvraŋ/.) Mť·észettorténeti lüzetek 12. Budapest:
Akadémiai, 1980. 1hanks are due to him íor supplementing the
history oí the research with new data: Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ. 1he history
oí Ottoman-1urkish archaeological research in lungary,` in:
.rcbaeotog, of tbe Ottovav ¡erioa iv ívvgar,. Lds. Ibolya Gerelyes and
Gyongyi Ko·acs. Budapest: lungarian National Museum, 2003, pp.
1¯-22.
Based on source material írom both sides, the to-
tal number oí mosques ,cavis, and ve.cias ,prayer
houses, operating on lungarian territory under
Ottoman rule has been put at between 250 and
300.
2
In contrast to this Fgure, on the territory
oí today`s lungary we know oí just eight cavis
sur·i·ing in whole or in part. 1he memory oí
another two ,in Lger and in Lrd, is preser·ed by
a minaret in each case.
3
1he picture is similar when we examine the
data relating to baths ,bavavs and iticas,. Accord-
ing to research work conducted in recent years
on the basis oí the ·arious historical sources,
¯5 Ottoman baths existed in 4¯ diííerent settle-
ments.
4
By contrast, in Buda there are now just
íour standing Ottoman baths, we know oí an-
other two baths, one in Buda and one in Pest, that
were demolished but the íoundations oí which
sur·i·e. Major parts oí two baths ha·e sur·i·ed
in Lger, once a rita,et centre. Remains oí a bath
ha·e also sur·i·ed in Gyula and in Pécs respec-
ti·ely, each is a íormer .avca/ centre. In addition,
researchers know oí another such building that
was demolished.
5
lence, oí these ¯5 baths we
know about 11 only.
\ith the exception oí two examples that are
still standing, lungary`s tvrbes ha·e ·anished
without trace, as ha·e its veare.es, ve/tebs, bavs,
and cara·anserais.
2 Sudar, Balazs. Osmanli Macaristan`inda camiler ·e mescitler,` in:
1birteevtb ívtervatiovat Covgre.. of 1vr/i.b .rt. Proceeaivg.. Lds. Géza
Da·id and Ibolya Gerelyes. Budapest: lungarian National Museum,
2009, pp. 63¯-50, cit. p. 639.
3 Gerŋ. .¸ o.¸vav·törö/ e¡íte.¸et, pp. 38-¯5.
4 Sudar, Balazs. Baths in Ottoman lungary,` in: .cta Orievtatia
.caaeviae ´cievtiarivv ívvgaricae, Vol. LVII ,2004,, pp. 391-43¯.
5 Gerŋ. .¸ o.¸vav·törö/ e¡íte.¸et, pp. 81-116.
52
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
The afterl i fe of the
bui l di ngs and thei r use for
di fferent purposes
In the years aíter the reconquest and in the
early 18
th
century, the aíterliíe oí these buildings
was largely determined by the uses to which they
were put. In a region impo·erished and de·as-
tated by war, there was clearly a need íor e·ery
building that was in ser·iceable condition. In the
case oí churches con·erted to mosques, the Ro-
man Catholic Church still knew which building
had belonged to which religious order prior to
their con·ersion. Local tradition, too, was impor-
tant in establishing whether a cavi or ve.cia had
been a Christian church pre·iously, as indeed was
the building itselí. Ií its condition permitted it,
these buildings were, in most cases, again used
as Christian churches. In the period immediately
íollowing the reconquest, e·en cavis and ve.cias
that were Ottoman írom their íoundations up-
wards were used íor Christian worship. 1he same
continuity applied in the case oí bath buildings,
90 percent oí which continued to be used as
baths. 1here were, howe·er, a íew exceptions,
some oí which we shall now mention.
One oí the Fnest Ottoman buildings on the
Danube embankment in Buda was the mosque
oí Sokollu Mustaía Pasa, it is íound on a list oí
buildings designed by Mimar Sinan.
6
lor many
reasons, the present author is inclined to identiíy
this building with a structure recorded in 1686
as the Osman Bey Camii, which was standing
until the 1¯80s. 1he íate oí this building is in-
dicati·e oí how works oí Ottoman architecture
were treated in the 18
th
century. In 1698, the
town council oí Buda requested that the imperial
treasury gi·e the cavi to it íor con·ersion into a
parish church. 1he request was also made to the
loíkammer in Vienna, where it was e·entually
rejected, probably because oíFcials there could
not decide whether the building should be a
parish church or whether it should be gi·en to
the Pauline order, which had likewise requested
6 Cí. Necipoglu, Gülru. 1be age of ´ivav: arcbitectvrat cvttvre iv tbe
Ottovav ev¡ire. London: Reaktion, 2005, p. 560, see also Ágoston,
Gabor. Muslim cultural encla·es in lungary under Ottoman rule,`
in: .cta Orievtatia .caaeviae ´cievtiarivv ívvgaricae, Vol. XLV, Nos.
2-3 ,1991,, pp. 181-204, cit. p. 184.
a site. In the end, the building was obtained by
Janos Lnczinger, a Buda townsman and gunpow-
der manuíacturer, who simply mo·ed in and used
it íor storing saltpetre. As a result, it was known
íor many decades as the Saltpetre Mosque.` It
was still being used íor storing saltpetre as late as
1¯60. L·entually, the building was demolished, in
the late 18
th
century.
¯

Another emblematic building put up in Ot-
toman times was the Sultan Süleyman Camii in
Sziget·ar. Its construction began immediately
aíter the capture oí Sziget·ar Castle by the Ot-
tomans. According to tradition, it was completed
in just a íew weeks, an almost unbelie·ably short
period. Sziget·ar Castle was surrendered to
labsburg imperial troops by its Ottoman gar-
rison in 1689. Initially, the Süleyman Camii was
used by the castle commander as his residence.
Later, in the next decades, the building íunc-
tioned as a military storage íacility and as a hos-
pital. Between 1¯60 and 1¯¯0, it ser·ed as the
chapel íor the garrison. In the early 19
th
century,
it was used as a granary and accommodation íor
a bailiíí was built onto its south-western side.
8
It
was at this time that Joseph lammer Purgstall
studied the original Ottoman inscriptions on the
inside oí the building.
9
Our list oí cavi buildings used íor secular,
oíten practical, purposes can be continued. A
íurther example could be the Malkoç Bey Camii
at Siklós. In the mid-19
th
century, this building
opened on to the courtyard oí what was then
the Pelican Inn and was presumably a part oí the
inn itselí, ser·ing as a residential building. Later,
it was used as Siklós`s poor house.
10
Gyula`s Süleyman Camii, to be discussed be-
low, later ser·ed as the house oí an estate stew-
ard, according to a description írom 1¯84.
11
¯ Némethy, Lajos. 1örö/ vec.ete/ ßvaav. Budapest: Athenaeum, 18¯8.
8 Molnar, Józseí. Szülejman szultan dzsamija Sziget·arott,` in:
Mťre.¸ettörteveti írte.ítŋ, No. 2 ,19¯6,, pp. 91-2.
9 B. lammer Purgstall, Józseí. Némely Pécs kornyékén talalható
torok, arab és perzsa íeliratról,` in: Mag,ar .caaeviai írte.itŋ, Vol.
VII, No. 11 ,184¯,, pp. 365-9.
10 Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ. A siklósi Malkocs bej dzsami,` in: í¡íte.·
í¡íte.¸ettvaovav,, Vol. XV, Nos. 1-4 ,1983,, pp. 11¯-18.
11 Petik, Ambrus. ße/e. veg,e teíra.a. Gyula: Lrkel lerenc Múzeum,
1961, p. 18.
53
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Clearly, it was real and practical need that
prompted the town íathers to establish a school
in the Ottoman bath building in Gyula in the ear-
ly 18
th
century. 1he most authoritati·e descrip-
tion so íar oí the building has come down to us
írom a local historian who li·ed in the early 19
th

century and who spent his school years there. It
is worth mentioning that this ediFce, which has
been altered many times since then, still rests on
Ottoman íoundations. It is in use as a school
e·en today.
12
\e should note that in the abo·e cases it was
precisely their use íor practical purposes that
sa·ed the buildings írom total destruction.
The begi nni ngs of schol arl y
research
Scholarly interest in lungary`s standing Ot-
toman buildings started around 1850. Lasting
until the Frst halí oí the 20
th
century, this pe-
riod was characterised by a distinct duality. On
the one hand, the Archaeological Committee oí
the lungarian Academy oí Sciences pro·ided,
írom as early as 1868, considerable support íor
the exca·ation and study oí Ottoman-era build-
ings. On the other hand, the process oí demol-
ishing such buildings continued. Oíten out oí
necessity, Ottoman buildings
in a good state oí repair were
demolished during urban re-
de·elopment work, which was
then intensiíying. Also knocked
down were other Ottoman
structures, Frst and íoremost
castle walls, bastions, and towers
belonging to one-time íortiFca-
tions. Characteristically, in the
decades preceding the interest
oí the Archaeological Commit-
tee, two cavis were demolished:
one at Lger and one at Lrd. As
a memento, the minaret was
leít in each case. 1hese sur·i·e
to this day. \ith the beginning
oí the 20
th
century, signiFcant
12 Ibid., p. 1¯.
summary works were published: in 1906 a list oí
historical monuments and in 1918 an architec-
tural sur·ey oí the Ottoman buildings that were
still standing.
13
lowe·er, the real breakthrough
came only in the 1930s and 1940s. It is írom this
time onwards that we can speak oí methodical
research acti·ity aimed at sol·ing particular prob-
lems, and oí the links between archaeological
work and wall in·estigations. It was at this time
that scientiFc exca·ation oí Pécs`s Gazi Kasim
Pasa Camii, one oí lungary`s most prominent
Ottoman monuments, was conducted.
14
1he re-
search work períormed in lungary during the
second halí oí the 20
th
century is largely associ-
ated with the architect Józseí Molnar
15
and the
archaeologist Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ. \ith all due respect
to them, in what íollows I should like to speak
not about their work, but rather about the Fnd-
ings oí the last decade.
13 Gerecze, Péter. Mag,aror.¸ag vťevte/ei, Vol. 2. Budapest:
lornyanszky, 1906, loerk, Lrnŋ. 1örö/ evte/e/ Mag,aror.¸agbav: .
ßvaa¡e.ti Mag,ar .ttavi íet.ŋ í¡ítŋ í¡ari./ota 1·1¨. eri .¸vviaei fetretetei.
Budapest: Kor·in 1est·érek, 1918.
14 Gosztonyi, Gyula. . raro.tev¡tov e¡íte.törtevete. Pécs, n. d.
15 Molnar, Józseí. Macari.tav`aa/i 1vr/ .vittari · Movvvevt. tvrc. ev
íovgrie. Ankara: 1ürk 1arih Kurumu Basime·i, 19¯3.
|||. 1. |n|cricr cf |nc R4c 8a|n in 8uda, during cxcata|icn ucr|.
Pnc|cgrapn oq ]udi| |4szaq
54
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Recent di scoveri es
Gathering pace in the past 25 years ,and espe-
cially the last ten,, archaeological research work
has helped increase, to an unexpected degree, the
number oí Ottoman buildings known to us, Frst
and íoremost on the territories oí Buda and Pest.
In each case, these newly íound buildings sur·i·e
only in part, although sometimes their remains
are substantial. Lea·ing aside a gate tower ,dis-
cussed below,, remains oí buildings oí two types
,cavis and baths, ha·e been unearthed.
Some oí our new Fndings stem írom the
exca·ation oí buildings already known, but con-
ducted on a larger scale, in a more detailed way,
and using methods appropriate íor the 21
st
cen-
tury. Lxamples are the Fndings írom the recent
exca·ation oí a series oí Ottoman baths along
Buda`s Danube embankment. 1he íour baths in
question are well known and were identiFed ·ery
early on. Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ was able to conduct minor
research work on three oí these íour baths in the
late 1950s, in the Frst halí oí the 1960s, and in
the mid-19¯0s.
16
lowe·er, within the íramework
oí major reconstruction work at the baths, two
young researchers e·entually had the opportunity
to conduct more serious research there.
Similar to the research into Buda`s baths, the
íull exca·ation oí two cavis has begun in the
last íew years, on the basis oí historical data
already known and smaller-scale research work
períormed some decades earlier. Contrary to
expectations at the outset, both exca·ations ha·e
16 It was likewise Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ who conducted ,small-scale, research
on the site oí the steam-bath belonging to the 1oygun Pasa Camii
in Buda`s \ater 1own in 19¯3. lis Fndings there were conFrmed
by an exca·ation períormed by Andras Végh in 1998. Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ.
A Buda - ·ízi·arosi 1ojgun pasa dzsami és a 1ojgun pasa mahalle,`
in: ßvaa¡e.t Regi.egei, Vol. XXXVII ,2003,, pp. 19¯-208, cit. p. 19¯,
201. Also, Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ took part in the exca·ation in the 1960s oí
the pasa oí Buda`s pri·ate bath. See Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ. 1he residence
oí the pasas in lungary and the recently disco·ered pasasaray írom
Buda,` in: .rt tvrc , 1vr/i.b art. 10tb ívtervatiovat Covgre.. of 1vr/i.b
.rt , 10
e
Covgre. ivtervatiovat a`art tvrc. .cte. · Proceeaivg.. Lds. lrançois
Déroche, Charles Genequand, Günsel Renda, and Michael Rogers.
Gene·e: londation Max Van Berchem, 1999, pp. 353-¯.
|||. 2. |n|cricr cf |nc Cs4sz4r 8a|n in 8uda, during cxcata|icn
ucr|. Pnc|cgrapn oq 8cncc Tinanqi.
55
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
produced positi·e Fndings. 1he ediFces - the
Oziçeli laci Ibrahim Camii in Lsztergom and
the lerhad Pasa Camii in Pécs - ha·e, despite
earlier reconstruction work, preser·ed their origi-
nal shapes, as well as signiFcant details írom the
original Ottoman buildings.

Likewise, careíul
archaeological research work conducted o·er a
wider area in the early 21
st
century has pointed
out the Ottoman origins oí a steam-bath on the
Danube embankment in Pest. Pre·iously, this
had been considered a bath írom the Roman
era.
18
I shall now discuss some oí the buildings
in greater detail.
Çemberci Aga Camii (Buda)
1he íoundations oí a minaret oí a building
known írom the historical sources came to light
on the territory oí Buda`s \ater 1own district in
1998. Its identiFcation as an Ottoman structure
was made possible by the unco·ering oí a írame-
work oí beams in combination with limestone.
19

Rudas Bath (Buda)
Known in 1urkish as \esil Direkli Ilicasi, it
was built in 15¯1,2 by the go·ernor oí Buda, So-
kollu Mustaía Pasa. According to archaeological
Fndings, it stood on the site oí a medie·al bath.
Aíter the recapture oí Buda, it passed into the
possession oí the town. In the centuries since, it
has been in continual use as a bath. Although the
Rudas Bath íeatures e·erywhere in the specialist
literature, it was only in 2004-5 that substantial
archaeological and art historical research work
could take place at the building. In the course oí
this, numerous issues were clariFed. 1he domed
pool space and the three rooms to the north oí it
are all structures írom the Ottoman period. 1he
dome itselí was destroyed in 1686 ,during the
1¯ Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ. 1he place oí Lsztergom`s Oziçeli laci Ibrahim
Cami in the Ottoman architecture oí lungary,` in: 1birteevtb
ívtervatiovat Covgre.. of 1vr/i.b .rt. Proceeaivg.. Lds. Géza Da·id and
Ibolya Gerelyes. Budapest: lungarian National Museum, pp. 253-
64. lor the researching oí the lerhad Pasa Camii in Pécs, see below.
18 Beszédes, Józseí and Judit Zador. Budapest, V. ker. Pesti Barnabas
utca 1., lrsz: 24312,` in: .qvivcvvi ív¸ete/ 13 ,200¯,, p. 266.
19 lekete, Lajos. ßvaa¡e.t a törö//orbav ßvaa¡e.t törtevete ííí. Budapest:
Kiralyi Magyar Lgyetemi Nyomda, 1944, p. 93, Bencze, Zoltan.
Recent research into Ottoman-period remains in Buda,` in:
.rcbaeotog, of tbe Ottovav ¡erioa iv ívvgar,, pp. 55-9.
capture oí Buda,, but the walls oí the ·estibule
were knocked down only in the mid-20
th
century.
In contrast to earlier assumptions, the brick-built
dome oí the bath turned out to be írom the Ot-
toman era. 1his last disco·ery is completely new,
ha·ing been made last year.
20
Rác Bath (Buda)
Küçük Ilica in Ottoman, it was built beíore
15¯2. In 1958, Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ períormed small-
scale research work on the dome and next to the
southern wall oí the building. During research
work conducted in 2005-¯, two young colleagues
clariFed the ground plan oí the bath. 1hey es-
tablished that the ·estibule oí the building, the
warm room connected to it ,ill. 1,, the octagonal
hot room, and a small pri·ate bath to the north
oí it ha·e all remained intact. An interesting
íeature oí the bath is that its three Ottoman-era
pools and most oí the 16
th
-century nooring in
the central space ha·e sur·i·ed intact.
21
Császár Bath (Buda)
1his monument is known írom late 1¯
th
-cen-
tury sources as the Veli Bey Bath, but a sur·i·ing
inscription pro·es that originally it was another
íoundation by Sokollu Mustaía Pasa and was built
in 15¯4,5. Since the end oí the Ottoman period,
too, it has been in continual use as a bath. 1he
building underwent major alterations in the mid-
19
th
century and in the 19¯0s. On account oí its
obsolete technical equipment, it was closed in the
late 20
th
century. 1his allowed research work to
take place in 200¯-8. According to the Fndings,
the hot room in the building has sur·i·ed intact
,ill. 2,, along with the íoundations oí the pool
and the lowermost steps oí it. In each oí the
íour corners oí the building there used to be a
20 G. Laszay, Judit and Papp, Adrienn. A budai torokíürdŋk kutatasa
az é·ezred elején,` in: Mťevte/reaetev, Vol. LII, No. 5 ,2009,,
pp. 194-201. Data on the medie·al baths on Buda`s Danube
embankment beíore the 1urkish period are to be íound in early 16
th
-
century tithe records and in Georg \ernher`s treatise ,De aaviravai.
ívvgariae aqvi.., written in 1556 on the waters oí lungary. lor a
íacsimile edition oí this, see \ernher, Juraj. O ¡oairvboavýcb roaacb
|bor./a. Martin: Os·eta, 19¯4. See also Végh, Andras. Buda ·aros
kozépkori helyrajza I.,` in: Movvvevta íi.torica ßvaa¡e.tivev.ia, Vol.
15. Budapest: Budapesti 1orténeti Múzeum, 2006, pp. 10¯-8.
21 Laszay and Papp, A budai torokíürdŋk,` pp. 202-8.
56
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
small pri·ate pool. 1he original nooring has to all
intents and purposes perished. 1he ·estibule and
most oí the warm room ha·e been destroyed.
22
Lukács Bath (Buda)
An Ottoman gunpowder mill with íour
corner-towers stood on part oí this bath`s site in
the 16
th
century. Oí the towers, the south-eastern
one was incorporated into the bath, which was
built in the mid-1860s. lollowing the le·elling oí
the north-eastern tower, the space it had occu-
pied was likewise incorporated into the bath. 1he
other two towers, likewise le·elled, are íound un-
der the road in íront oí the bath. During research
work períormed in 200¯, it turned out that the
incorporated tower and a wall connected to it are
indeed Ottoman and íeature three original Fring
positions ,embrasures,. 1he inner space oí the
tower was transíormed into a smaller bath in the
19
th
century ,ill. 3,.
23
22 Ibid., pp. 206-13.
23 Laszay, Judit and Papp, Adrienn. Kutatasok a budaíelhé·ízi
íürdŋkben,` in: Rege.¸eti /vtata.o/ Mag,aror.¸agov. Budapest: Magyar
Nemzeti Múzeum, 200¯, pp. 63-¯0.
Small Bath (Lsztergom)
In the \ater 1own district oí Lsztergom, we
can report an astonishing exca·ation. 1his in-
·estigated a bath which was likewise known but
which had sunk into obli·ion - literally, since it
had been buried under earth. \e do not know
the precise time oí the bath`s construction, on
the basis oí related data, it may ha·e been built
between 1605 and 1663. L·liya (elebi identiFed
its precise location within the settlement. 1his
small building, measuring 8 x 8 metres and sur-
mounted by a dome, was completely buried in
the mid-19
th
century when the area around it was
Flled with earth. 1he ediFce, howe·er, continued
to be used, access was by way oí a specially-built
stairway. Light íor the inner space was ensured
by a lantern structure built on the top oí the
dome which rose abo·e the le·el oí the earth.
Aíter 1891, the dome íell in under the weight oí
the earth on top oí it, and the inner space oí
the building was then Flled with earth. 1he bath
remained in this condition íor a century. In 1969,
the archaeologist Ist·an lor·ath conducted an
exploratory exca·ation and established the build-
ing`s precise location. 1he last two years ha·e
witnessed the digging out and archaeological
exca·ation oí the ediFce, which is almost com-
|||. 4. |n|cricr cf |nc Sna|| 8a|n in |sz|crgcn, during cxcata-
|icn ucr|. Pnc|cgrapn oq |s|t4n Hcrt4|n.
|||. 3. Tnc cnc-|inc O||cnan gunpcudcr |cucr discctcrcd a|
|nc |u|4cs 8a|n in 8uda. Pnc|cgrapn oq ]udi| |4szaq
57
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
pletely intact up to the supports íor the ·aulting
,ills. 4-5,.
24
Sultan Süleyman Camii (Gyula)
1his building is reíerred to as early as the .av·
ca/ register oí 15¯9, it is, oí course, mentioned
by L·liya (elebi in his 1663 tra·elogue. 1he
building`s precise location, and its condition in
the early 18
th
century, can be clearly seen on a
1¯22 sur·ey made by the army engineer Leopold
lranz Roseníeld. Later on, it íeatured on many
prints, right up to its demolition at the end oí
the 18
th
century. An archaeological exca·ation in
the mid-1980s unco·ered a building oriented in a
southeast-northwest direction which was 21.5 m
long and 12.5 m wide. It had been le·elled to its
íoundations. In these we íound a íramework oí
beams, this is characteristic oí Ottoman build-
ings and has been obser·ed elsewhere as well.
25
24 lor·ath, Ist·an, l. Kelemen, Marta, and 1orma, Ist·an. Kovarov
veg,e rege.¸eti to¡ografa;a. Budapest: Akadémiai, 19¯9, pp. 124-5.
25 Gerelyes, Ibolya. Ottoman architecture in the town oí Gyula,` in:
.rcbaeotog, of tbe Ottovav ¡erioa iv ívvgar,, pp. 1¯3-80, cit. p. 1¯6-¯.
Gate tower (Gyula)
1he baroque mansion erected on the site
oí Gyula`s outer castle in the early 18
th
century
incorporated an Ottoman gate tower that was
unknown to researchers íor a long period. Only
in 2000 did archaeological and wall-research in-
·estigations clariíy the origins oí this building. In
the Frst halí oí the 18
th
century, a baroque tower
was built on top oí the gate entrance, which was
originally on one le·el. 1his tower is still stand-
ing. Sur·eys made oí Gyula Castle beíore and
aíter it was occupied by the Ottomans pro·e that
between 1562 and 1¯22 the entrance to the outer
castle was located to the north oí the south side.
Ne·ertheless, only archaeological exca·ation was
able to pro·e that this relocation occurred during
the period in which the castle was occupied by the
Ottomans. lramed by the rampart oí the outer
castle, the single-le·el gate structure íeatured a
rectangular ground plan. 1his structure was built
partly írom dressed stone and partly írom brick,
to its east wall was joined a small stone building
that is now demolished ,ills. 6-¯,.
26
Ierhad Pa¸a Camii (Pecs)
lerhad Pasa was be,terbe,i oí Buda between
1588 and 1590. Clearly, it was during these two
years that the Pécs íoundation bearing his name
was established to which belonged, apart írom
the cavi, a bath and a der·ish lodge, too. 1he
bath was demolished in the 19
th
century, the lo-
cation oí the der·ish lodge is unknown. 1he cavi
was acquired by the Dominican order aíter 168¯
and was transíormed into a church. 1he ediFce
later passed out oí ecclesiastical possession. In the
second halí oí the 20
th
century, it operated as the
premises oí Pécs`s Ci·ic Club. 1he loít space oí
this building preser·es ·aulting on its northwest
wall up to the beginning oí the one-time dome ,ill.
8,. Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ períormed small-scale research
there in the 1980s. Later on, an exca·ation oí the
entire building took place. 1his work was, howe·-
er, períormed by another colleague: Laszló Gere.

26 Ibid., pp. 1¯8-9.
2¯ Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ. A pécsi lerhad pasa dzsami épületegyüttese és a
lerhad pasa mahalle,` in: Mťevte/reaetev, Vol. XLIX, No. 6 ,2005,,
pp. 350-6.
|||. 5. |n|cricr cf |nc Sna|| 8a|n in |sz|crgcn, during cxcata-
|icn ucr|. Pnc|cgrapn oq |s|t4n Hcrt4|n.
58
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Concl usi on
I am con·inced that there are more undis-
co·ered Ottoman buildings on lungarian soil,
those that are known írom the written sources
plus those that research has not disco·ered and
that are not mentioned in the sources. 1heir loca-
tion and unearthing would clearly be sensational.
\e cannot rule out entirely the possibility that
buildings íully unknown earlier on may yet come
to light. 1he best example oí such a building is
the abo·e-mentioned gate tower, which I myselí
unearthed.
At the same time, because oí the large-scale
demolitions, what in other countries belongs to
the remit oí monument protection, in lungary
lies beneath the ground as archaeological mate-
rial. \e can be sure that in the coming decades
archaeologists will unco·er remains oí more
and more Ottoman buildings. \e ha·e only to
bear in mind that since the appearance oí books
by Proíessor Ay·erdi
28
and Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ thirty
years ago, the archaeological remains oí three
additional cavis and three baths ha·e been un-
co·ered. \ith due respect to the generation oí
researchers preceding us, it seems that the history
oí Ottoman architecture in lungary must, in the
light oí recent research, slowly be rewritten.
\ith regard to hidden Ottoman ediFces, those
Christian churches that were rebuilt in the early
18
th
century appear to be the most promising
area. Most standing cavi structures that sur·i·e
are Christian churches still in use today. Lxamples
are the 1oygun Pasa Camii in Buda, the Parish
28 Ay·erdi, Lkrem, lakki. .rrv¡a`aa O.vavti vivari e.erteri, Vol. 1
,Romanya, Macaristan,. Istanbul: Istanbul letih Cemiyeti, n.d.
|||. 7. Ncr|ncrn ua|| cf |nc in|cricr cf |nc O||cnan ga|c |cucr
in Gqu|a. Pnc|cgrapn oq |s|t4n |c|d.
|||. 6. Scu|ncrn ua|| cf |nc in|cricr cf |nc O||cnan ga|c |cucr
in Gqu|a. Pnc|cgrapn oq |s|t4n |c|d.
59
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Church oí the Inner 1own in Pest, the Ali Pasa
Camii in Sziget·ar, the Gazi Kasim Pasa Camii in
Pécs, and the so-called Ágoston tér ve.cia, also in
Pécs. 1he number oí Ottoman buildings sur·i·-
ing in part will surely be higher. \ith regard to
numerous Christian churches either con·erted
írom Ottoman cavis or recon·erted to Christian
use aíter ser·ing as cavis earlier on, we know íor
certain, on the basis oí the archi·al sources, that
during reconstruction work in the 18
th
century
certain elements oí the earlier buildings were
incorporated into new ones that are still standing.
In this way, the number oí sur·i·ing Ottoman
monuments may increase in the íuture. Below I
shall mention only a íew outstanding examples.
lor instance, the Church oí St. Catherine - at
one time the Mustaía Pasa Camii - in the 1aban
district oí Buda preser·es certain parts oí the
earlier cavi.
29
1he Church oí the lranciscans
in Pest contains parts oí the íormer Sinan Bey
Camii, and the Uni·ersity Church, likewise in
Pest and one oí the Fnest baroque churches in
the lungarian capital, preser·es parts oí a cavi
which as yet is unidentiFed.
30
In Székesíehér·ar,
signiFcant parts may sur·i·e oí the one-time
Veli Bey Camii, which was rebuilt by the Jesuits
in 1¯44, although the extent oí the cavi`s demo-
lition is unclear.
31
Since 1813, the reconstructed
building has been used by the Cistercian order.
Likewise deser·ing oí the attention oí the next
generation oí researchers is Lsztergom`s Parish
Church oí the \ater 1own, the one-time Mah-
keme Camii, which was undoubtedly still standing
in 1594.
32
1he building was slightly altered in the
early 18
th
century beíore being modiFed signiF-
cantly in 1¯¯8. Its ground plan today is, howe·er,
practically the same as that oí the earlier building.
\idely known is Pécs`s íormer Memi Pasa Bath,
which was exca·ated by Gyŋzŋ Gerŋ. \orth re-
searching is the Church oí the lranciscans next
29 Schoen, Arnold. A bvaa·tabavi ´¸evt·Katativ ¡tebaviatev¡tov. Budapest:
Katolikus 1orténetírók Munkakozossége, 1936.
30 Nagy, Lajos. Budapest torténete 1686-1¯90,` in: ßvaa¡e.t törtevete
a törö/ /iť¸e.etŋt a varciv.i forraaatovig. Ld. Domokos Kosary.
Budapest: Akadémiai, 19¯5, pp. 2¯-254, cit. p. 221.
31 Gerŋ, Gyŋzŋ. Istolni Beograd építészeti emlékei,` in: ´¸e/e.feberrar
er.¸a¸aaai ². 1örö/ /or. Székesíehér·ar: Ist·an Kiraly Múzeum
Kozleményei. A. sorozat. No. 15 ,19¯¯,, pp. 105-25, cit. p. 110.
32 lor·ath, l. Kelemen, and 1orma. Kovarov veg,e, pp. 122-3.
to it, the one-time Memi Pasa Camii.
33
linally, we
should mention the Church oí the lranciscans
in Lger. According to 18
th
-century sources, this
conceals a 1¯
th
-century cavi, the name oí which
is íor the moment unidentiFable.
34
I should like to end with a thought, that those
oí lungary`s íunctioning baroque churches
which in their íoundations and standing walls
conceal one-time Ottoman cavis represent part
oí a common cultural heritage.
ƒ
33 Sudar, Balazs. Megjegyzések a pécsi dzsamik torténetéhez,` in:
1avvtvav,o/ Pec. törtevetebŋt 19. Lds. Zoltan Kaposi and Mónika
Pilkhoííer. Pécs: Pécs 1orténete Alapít·any, 200¯, pp. 62-3.
34 Molnar, Józseí. íger törö/ vťevte/ei. Budapest: Képzŋmť·észeti,
1961, p. 11.
|||. 8. |as| and ncr|n ua||s cf |nc |crnad Pa¸a Canii in Pccs.
Pnc|cgrapn oq |4sz|c Gcrc.
60
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. tbe .qvare·.ba¡ea vivaret ¡bevovevov of íer¸egoriva. . featvre atiev to tbe Ottovav
traaitiov, tbe cav¡avite vivaret. are ivaeea re.trictea to tbi. vortb·re.terv ßat/av regiov. 1be, bare beev
revar/ea v¡ov b, .ererat avtbor., bvt vo .e¡arate .tva, ba. erer beev rrittev. 1beir forv ba. beev traaitiovatt,
tiv/ea to tbe cav¡avite. of tbe vearb, .ariatic coa.t, rberefrov tbe.e vo.qve.` bvitaer. vv.t bare cove. De.¡ite
tbe aiffcvttie. cav.ea b, tbe ae.trvctiov of .o vav, cav¡avite vivaret vo.qve e·av¡te., e.¡eciatt, iv tbe 20
tb

cevtvr,, tbe avtbor ra. abte to iaevtif, fovrteev vovvvevt. rbicb baa tbi. featvre. .vovg tbe.e i. tbe ´efer .ga
vo.qve iv Dabrica vear ´totac, rbicb aate. to 1:¨1,: or 1ó10,1, ava tbe .o·cattea .raic vo.qve iv Ptava
vear ßiteca ;1ó1¨,º). 1be, .bare a. featvre. vot ovt, a .qvare vivaret bvt at.o a ¡,raviaat .tate·corerea roof,
rbicb i. a t,¡icat íer¸egoriviav featvre. 1be vo.qve iv Ptava ra. cov¡tetet, ae.tro,ea iv tbe recevt rar; of tbat
iv Dabrica ovt, tbe ratt. revaiv. 1be vo.qve of ía.av Pa.ba ;Preao;eric) at Pot;e vear ßiteca, bvitt ca. 1:¨0,
vv.t bare too/ea rer, .ivitar before it ra. aavagea iv !!íí. íor botb vo.qve. vear ßiteca, it i. tocatt, .aia tbat
tbeir Mv.tiv fovvaer. baa at.o erectea cbvrcbe. for tbeir votber. rbo revaivea Cbri.tiav.
.vtor ai./vtv;e o fevovevv vivareta .a ¡rarovgaovov o.vorov va teritori;i íercegorive. Pot¡vvo ve¡o¸vato
v o.vav./o; traaici;i, vivareti·¸rovici .v ¡o;arov .v¸evi va orv regi;v .;ereroi.tocvog ßat/ava. ´¡oviv;avi .v
oa .trave ¡ar avtora, ati vi;eava ¡o.ebva .tvai;a vi;e i/aa va¡i.ava. ^;ibora forva ;e traaiciovatvo ¡ore¸ava .a
cr/reviv torv;eriva obti¸v;e ]aarav./e obate, oaa/te .v aota¸iti graaitet;i /o;i .v graaiti ore a¸avi;e. |.¡r/o.
¡ote./ocava /o;a .v v¸ro/orava vvi.tev;ev be¸bro;vib ¡riv;era vivareta·¸rovi/a ¡o.ebvo v 20.ri;e/v, avtor
;e v.¡io aa iaevtif/v;e 11 .¡ovevi/a /o;i iva;v orv o.obito.t. MeĀv v;iva .v: ´eferagiva a¸avi;a v Dabrici
bti¸v ´toca, /o;a aatira i¸ 1:¨1,: iti 1ó10,1, i ta/o¸rava .raicera a¸avi;a v Ptavo; ¡orea ßitece ;1ó1¨,º).
^;ibora ¸a;eavic/a o.obevo.t ;e ¡orea ¡rarovgaovog vivareta i ¡iraviaatvi /ror ¡o/rirevev /avevov ./rit;cev,
ti¡icviv ¸a íercegorivv. D¸avi;a v Ptavi ;e bita ¡ot¡vvo vvi.teva v ./ori;ev ratv; a oa a¸avi;e v Dabrici .v
o.tati ;eaivo ¸iaori. ía.av·¡a.iva ;Preao;eric) a¸avi;a v Pot;v bti¸v ßitece, ;e bita i¸graĀeva oa ¡riti/e o/o
1:¨0.g. i r;eroratvo ;e i¸gteaata .ticvo ¡ri;e vego .to ;e vvi.teva rec v Drvgov .r;et./ov ratv. Kara/teri.ticvo i
tv¸vo ¸a ob;e a¸avi;e v o/otici ßitece, ;e.te to aa .v v;ibori vv.tivav./i o.viraci ta/oĀer i¸graaiti i cr/re ¸a .ro;e
va;/e /o;e .v o.tate /atot/iv;e.
Machiel Kiel
The campani l e- mi nar et s of t he sout her n
Her zegovi na: a bl end of I sl ami c and
Chr i st i an el ement s i n t he ar chi t ect ur e of
an out l yi ng bor der ar ea of t he Bal kans,
i t s spr ead i n t he past and sur vi val unt i l
our t i me
Zvoni ci - mi nar et i u j ugoi st očne
Her cegovi ne: spoj el emenat a i sl ama i
kr i šćanst va u ar hi t ekt ur i pogr ani čnog
poj asa Bal kanskog pol uost r va, nj i hovo
ši r enj e u pr ošl ost i i opst anak do
sadašnj eg vr emena
61
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
)&*$!"#$&!!&,+'$Lmpire and its art, almost
the entire \est Balkans - Bosnia-lerzego·ina,
Albania, Greek Lpirus, and inland Dalmatia
- was a írontier area into which the classical
Ottoman architecture did not penetrate deeply.
Dzemal Celic, the long-time director oí the
Bosnian Ser·ice íor Monuments oí Culture,
once remarked that, oí the roughly 1000 histor-
ical mosques in Bosnia-lerzego·ina, only 30 or
so were true representati·es oí classical Otto-
man architecture,` while the remainder showed
proíoundly local trends.
1
# In Albania, classical
Ottoman architecture is under-represented as
well. 1his not because oí a lack oí buildings,
to be clear, but because oí the íact that there
Islam only started to spread ·igorously írom
the 1¯
th
century onward. Unlike Macedonia or
1hrace, Albania aíter the Ottoman conquest
saw no signiFcant innux oí 1urkish-speaking
Muslim colonists. Numerous and large mosques
were needed only írom the 1¯
th
century onward,
when classical Ottoman architecture was already
past its summit. In Albania, the largest and most
remarkable works oí this architecture were cre-
ated in the 18
th
century.
2
#In neighbouring Greek
Lpirus, Islam was mainly concentrated in two
1 1he author would like to thank Dr. Amra ladzimuhamedo·ic oí
the Commission to Preser·e National Monuments ,Saraje·o, íor
helping us with iníormation not to be íound elsewhere. \e also
liked to thank the young Ottomanist Grigor Bojko· ,SoFa, íor
accompanying him during the oíten diíFcult Feldwork oí 2010.
Celic, Dzemal. Domace i orijentalno u materijalnom kulturnom
nasledju bosansko-hercego·ackih muslimana,` in: Prito¸i ¸a
Ori;evtatvv íitotogi;v, Vol. 41 ,1991,, pp. 34¯-5¯, cit. p. 356í.
2 lor Albania, see Kiel, Machiel. Ottovav arcbitectvre iv .tbavia.
Istanbul: IRCICA, 1990.
important towns: Arta and Ioannina.
3
Bosnia
and lerzego·ina were among the íew areas in
the Balkans where Islam started to spread widely
and relati·ely quickly not through colonization
but through con·ersion oí the local popula-
tion. Although in Bosnia the process oí Islam`s
acceptance was also gradual, it started much
earlier than in Albania. In regard to the causes
íor this phenomenon, ·ery diííerent ·iews ha·e
been proposed. 1he idea that this was due to an
instant and íorced con·ersion engineered by the
Ottoman authorities, or a collecti·e con·ersion
by members oí the heretical so-called Bosnian
Church oí the Middle Ages, is reíuted by the
Ottoman census and taxation registers írom the
15
th
-1¯
th
centuries.
4
1hey show not a sudden but
a ·ery gradual process oí Islamization.
5
1he
connection between the spread oí Islam and the
3 In Arta only one mosque escaped the íury oí the re-lellenization`
oí the area. More monuments are preser·ed in the capital oí
Ottoman Lpirus, Ioannina, but they all belong to the 1¯
th
and 18
th

centuries, when the classical` period oí Ottoman architecture was
o·er. lor the Ottoman buildings oí Ioannina see the excellent study
oí Smyris, Giorgos. 1a Mousoulmaniki temeni ton Ioanninon kai
i poleodomia tis Othomanikis polis,` in: í¡eiroti/a Cbrovi/a, Vol. 34
,2000,, pp. 9-90.
4 lor the .avca/ oí lerzego·ina ,lersek,, which is the íocus oí this
study, they are preser·ed íor the years 1468,69, 14¯¯, 1499, 1519,
1530, and 1585. 1here must at least ha·e been one more írom the
early 1540s, but it appears to be lost. 1hese registers treat ·illage
by ·illage, household by household. 1hey also contain a learned
estimate oí the local agricultural production.
5 1ake íor example the well-documented case oí Central Bosnia. 1he
sample oí three towns ,lojnica, Krese·o, and Visoko, in the /a¸a
oí Visoko show the íollowing de·elopment as documented in the
Ottoman registers: 1468 ,0° Muslim,, 1489 ,11°,, 1516 ,31°,,
1528 ,46°,, 1540 ,68°,, 15¯0 ,83°,, 1604 ,86°,. lor this and other
examples, see Kiel, Machiel. Ottoman sources íor the demographic
history and the process oí Islamization oí Bosnia-lercego·ina in
the 15
th
-1¯
th
centuries: old sources - new methodology,` in: Ottovav
ßo.via: a bi.tor, iv ¡erit. Lds. Markus Koller and Kemal Karpat.
Madison: Uni·ersity oí \isconsin Press, 2004, pp. 93-119. lor ·ery
similar processes in lerzego·ina, see below.
62
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
disappearance oí the Bosnian Church
remains an unresol·ed issue. As it
has been connected to the Bosnian
Muslims` ethnogenesis, it is also a
problematic one. Concerning the
phenomenon oí the Bogomils` and
the tens oí thousands oí íunerary
monuments ,.tecci, they are belie·ed
to ha·e leít all o·er the Bosnian me-
die·al kingdom, íoreign scholars ha·e
not rarely come to completely dií-
íerent conclusions than local ones.
6

\ithout being able to go into detail,
the geographic o·erlap between the
mysteriously Islamicized region in
the Northwest Balkans, the main
area where .tecci are íound, and one
isolated phenomenon in Ottoman ar-
chitectural history which I am about
to discuss is certainly interesting.
1his issue is that oí the mosques
with square-shaped minarets on the
territory oí lerzego·ina. Alien to the
Ottoman tradition, their odd íorm has
been remarked upon by se·eral local
historians. Dzemal Celic has seen in the
minarets` style retarded` Romanesque
and Gothic íorms.
¯
Amir Pasic, in his
work on the architecture oí Bosnia-lerzego·ina,
aptly likened these minarets to the campaniles oí
the Adriatic region, and had no diíFculty discuss-
ing them as Christian architectural elements in
mosques.`
8
#Lkrem lakki Ay·erdi, on the other
hand, ·ehemently opposed this idea. le based
6 A key to the ·ast literature on the subject is Dzaja, Srecko M.
Kovfe..iovatitat vva ^atiovatitat ßo.viev. vva aer íer¸egoriva. Munich:
Oldenbourg, 1984. lor older literature in Lnglish, see the classic by
Obolensky, Dimitri. 1be ßogovit.: a .tva, iv ßat/av veo·vavicbaei.v.
Cambridge: Uni·ersity Press, 1948. lor a diííerent o·er·iew oí
the problem and its sources, see Malcolm, Noel. ßo.via: a .bort
bi.tor,. New \ork: Uni·ersity Press, 1996. A classic reíutation oí
the Bogomil thesis` is line, John V. A. 1be ßo.viav Cbvrcb: a ver
ivter¡retatiov; a .tva, of tbe ßo.viav Cbvrcb ava it. ¡tace iv .tate ava .ociet,
frov tbe 1²
tb
to tbe 1:
tb
cevtvrie.. Boulder: Last Luropean Quarterly,
19¯5. lor the Bogomil tombs` and the ·ast literature about them,
see \enzel, Marian. Bosnian and lercego·inian tombstones: who
made them and why,` in: ´vao.t·íor.cbvvgev, Vol. 21 ,1962,, pp. 102-
43. A large number oí Bogomil cemeteries` ha·e been published
by SeFk Beslagic in the rich periodical ^a.e ´tarive ,Saraje·o 1953-
1990,.
¯ Celic, Dzemal. Domace i orijentalno,` p. 354.
8 Pasic, Amir. í.tavic arcbitectvre iv ßo.via ava íercegoriva. Istanbul:
IRCICA 1994, p. 191-2.
his opinion on one example only, namely the
mosque at Dabrica ,ills. 2-3,.
9
#It could not ha·e
been a minaret, he held, rather, it must ha·e been
the belíry leít o·er írom an old church. Ay·erdi
was neither acquainted with the rich architectural
tradition oí the Dalmatian coast, nor did he use
the equally rich 16
th
-century Ottoman documen-
tation. lrom such sources we ha·e learned that
Ottoman go·ernors and oíFcials írequently sum-
moned master builders írom the coastal regions,
and especially írom their ·assal state, Dubro·nik.
1he ashlar blocks used to build the íamous
Aladza mosque in loca, íor example, were mea-
sured not with the Ottoman ar,iv·i vivãri,e ,¯5.8
cm,, but with the Dubro·nik cubit, which is 55
9 Ay·erdi, Lkrem lakki. .rrv¡a`aa O.vavti vivãri e.erteri, Vol. 3.
Istanbul: letih Cemiyeti, 1981, p. 483.
|||. 1. Tnc gccgrapnic dis|riou|icn cf ´canpani|c ninarc|s¨ in
Scu|ncas| Hcrzcgctina.
63
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
cm. Another example is íound in a register oí
important correspondence írom 15 Sa`ban 9¯3
,¯ March 1566,, which documents an order to
the lords oí Dubro·nik to send skilled masons,
together with their tools and utensils, to Mostar
to work on the construction oí the well-known
Mostar Bridge. Another order írom the same
day, sent to the /aai oí lerceg-No·i, commands
him to send a suíFcient number oí masons írom
the vabi,e oí Popo·o ,Popo·o polje, to work on
the same project.
10
1he money íor the salaries
oí the Popo·o and Dubro·nik masters was kept
ready by the pro·incial Fnances inspector resid-
ing in Mostar, the well know Karagoz ,KaraĀoz,
Mehmed Bey, who was also the íounder oí ler-
zego·ina`s most important group oí Ottoman
buildings.
11

\hile a comprehensi·e study oí the square-
shaped minaret mosques is seriously impeded
by the íact that many oí them were damaged or
destroyed by Serb extremists in \\II and in the
recent war ,1992-5,, and that more examples may
ha·e ·anished as a result oí Venetian in·asions
oí the area and local uphea·als in the 1¯
th
-19
th

centuries, I was able to tentati·ely identiíy no less
than íourteen campanile-minarets in the Dabar-
sko polje, the Ne·esinjsko polje, and adjacent
areas írom a ·ariety oí sources ,see table 1,.
10 1he Plain oí Popo·o is, as the crow nies, only eight kilometres
inland írom Dubro·nik. O·er the diíFcult mountain road, howe·er,
it is 32 km, or a íull day`s journey. 1o the place where the work was
done, Mostar, it was a three days journey íor the Popo·o masters and
íour days íor those írom Dubro·nik.
11 lor these two documents, cí. Ahkam Deíter 2¯¯5 in the Basbakanlik
Osmanli Arsi·i, Istanbul, p. 1061. lor the masters oí Dubro·nik and
the Dalmatian coast working íor the Ottomans, see lisko·ic, C·ito.
Dubro·acki primorski graditelji XIII-XVI stoljeca u Srbiji, Bosni i
lercego·ini,` in: Peri.tit, Vol. 5 ,1962,, pp. 36-44, or Zlatar, Behija.
Utjecaj primorskih majstora na izgradnju nekih objekata i Bil u
osmansko doba,` in: Zva/ori rreveva, No. 20 ,2003,, http:,,www.
ibn-sina.net,znako·iVremena,·ID~1¯&tekstID~234.
|||. 2. Daorica (ncar S|c|ac), |nc ncsquc cf Scfcr Aga (8cgctic),
1574/5 cr 1610/1, cn 1970s pnc|cgrapn (ccur|csq cf Anir
Pasic).
|||. 3. Daorica, ncsquc cf Scfcr Aga, ocfcrc dcs|ruc|icn in 1992.
(ccur|csq cf Anra Hadzinunancdctic).
64
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Table 1: List of mosques with square-minarets
in Herzegovina
Place Location Name, date, state of preservation.
1
Donja
Bijenja
Nevesinjsko
polje
Čelebić/Surković džamija (ill. 12); undated; destroyed in 1992 but perfectly
reconstructed in 2006-7.
2 Bileća Predojevića džamija (ill. 13), ca. 1575; still standing as a roofless ruin.
3 Bijeljani Dabarsko polje
Village mosque (ill. 8), first half of the 17
th
century; set on fire in WW II; still
standing today as a roofless ruin, unprotected.
4 Dabrica Near Stolac
Mosque of Sefer Ağa (ills. 2-3), 1610/1; half destroyed in 1992-5,
reconstructed in 2004-5 and reopened in October 2005.
5 Glavatičevo Konjic district
Identified by Amra Hadžimuhamedović; no further details. The present
mosque of Glavatičevo has a minaret of a circular form.
6 Hatelj Dabarsko polje Ca. 1600-30; demolished in 1960.
7 Kljuni
Nevesinje
district
Undated; destroyed in 1992-5; rebuilt after 2000 in a different style.
8 Kružanj
Podvelež,
Mostar district
Undated mosque; in 1975 the square minaret (ca. 10 m high) was
demolished and in the following year replaced by a concrete one in the
usual form; destroyed in 1992.
9 Korita Bileća district 17
th
century (?); destroyed.
10 Kruševljani
Pridvorci,
Nevesinje
district
Village mosque (ill. 10), mid-16
th
century; destroyed in 1992 and
completely reconstructed in 2007.
11 Mostar
Mosque of Fatima Kadun Šarić; built shortly before 1620, demolished in
1947.
12 Nevesinje
Perkušića Džamija; built sometime between 1664 and 1769, demolished
around 1960.
13 Plana Bileća district
Avdića džamija, built in 1617 (ill. 9), destroyed during the 1992-5 war, the
site having been made unrecognizable.
14 Svinjarina
Podvelež,
Mostar district
Village mosque built before 1766, when an imam from Svinjarina
is mentioned in the Mostar court records. The square minaret was
demolished in 1975 and in the following year replaced by a new one, built
of concrete and with an octagonal shaft; destroyed in 1992.
|||s. 4-7. Ccn|ras|ing cccncnics. |nc ncnc|arq ta|uc cf |nc agricu||ura|
prcduc|icn in Daorica and Prcdc|jc in 1477 and 1585.
65
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
A íew more examples are mentioned in the lit-
erature but they appear to be based on mistakes.
12

Ií the íourteen examples oí clock tower-minarets
are plotted on a map ,ill. 1,, we see that they are
íound o·er a relati·ely large area in the southern
halí oí the lerzego·ina, with Gla·atice·o near
Konjic as the northernmost point and Bileca at
the Montenegrin border as the southernmost.
\e can be sure that many more once existed,
especially in the plain oí Ne·esinje where, by
1585, almost all ·illages were Muslim ,cí. ill. 16,
and must ha·e had houses oí worship. Due to
reasons described abo·e, and an extent oí de-
struction that is hard to estimate, exactly how
widespread the square minarets phenomenon
actually was must remain unclear.
1he classical Ottoman minaret has a slender
round or polygonal shaít, ne·er a square one. Only
in south-eastern Anatolia, in important cities like
Diyarbakir, are such cases known írom Umayyad
times onward.
13
In the Balkans, outside Bosnia-
lerzego·ina, there is only one square minaret
known: that oí the Old Mosque oí \ambol on
the ri·er 1undza in Bulgarian 1hrace. 1he íorm
12 Celic ,Domace i orijentalno` p. 354, wrote that Mostar once
had three mosques with church tower minarets: the Sinan Pasina
Dzamija in Mostar, probably the oldest mosque in the lercego·ina,`
the mosque oí Cej·an Cehaja ,Key·an Kethüda,, 1552, and the
Mosque oí latima Kadun Saric írom the Frst decades oí the 1¯
th

century. Pasic, in his useíul sur·ey, mentions one more example
in the ·illage oí Oplicici near Capljina on the lower course oí the
Neret·a, and also has Cej·an-cehajina and Sinan Pasha mosques in
Mostar. 1he latter, howe·er, must be a slip oí the pen. Sinan Pasha`s
mosque, the Old Mosque` oí Mostar, was demolished in 1949,
howe·er, good photographs oí it show a standard Ottoman minaret
as integral part oí this building. Cej·an`s mosque still stands and also
has the normal Ottoman minaret, a polygonal shaít on the square
basis ,/aiae,. 1he mosque oí latima Kadun Saric in Mostar, also
mentioned by both Celic and Pasic ,Islamic architecture,` p. 191,,
did indeed ha·e a square clock tower minaret until it was demolished
in 194¯. Some good photographs oí it remain preser·ed. lor
Oplicici we ha·e to take in account that a church tower minaret
could ha·e existed there, which was replaced by a normal` one
somewhere in the early 20
th
century. 1his is what actually happened
with the two examples on the Pod·elez plateau o·erlooking Mostar.
Besides the iníormation gi·en by Celic and Pasic, numerous
details could be íound in the works oí the local historian li·zija
lasandedic: see his Mv.tivav./a ba.tiva v i.tocvo; íercegorivi. Saraje·o:
Ll-Kalem, 1990, and Mv.tivav./a ba.tiva ßo.v;a/a v ;v¸vo; ;.reav;o;)
íercegorivi. Mostar: Islamski Centar, 199¯.
13 1he type was still used by the 1urcoman dynasty oí the Ak Koyunlu
that preceded the Ottomans in what is now Southeast 1urkey. In
art-historical terms, this area was outside the core area oí Ottoman
art, it had an Islamic building tradition oí its own, dating back to
the Umayyad period. Cí. Sozen, Metin. Di,arba/ir`aa 1vr/ vivari.i.
Istanbul: Simurg, 19¯1.
oí this structure`s minaret, dating to early Otto-
man times ,13¯0,80,, was ne·er repeated again.
14
#
\hat southern lerzego·ina`s clock-tower mina-
rets ·i·idly illustrate is that the source oí inspira-
tion was not the art oí the íully Ottomanized cities
oí the land`s interior, like Mostar or Saraje·o, but
the much nearer Gothic and Renaissance build-
ing traditions oí the Christian Dalmatian coast,
whose ·ery same masters constructed them. In
the Predoje·ic Mosque in Bileca-Polje, e·en the
vibrab has a Gothic-looking proFle.
In the íollowing sections more will be said
about the buildings and the people who built
them, as well as some aspects oí their history
and the economy that supported them, begin-
ning with the ·illage oí Dabrica.
Dabr i ca
1oday, as in the past, Dabrica ,pop. 1981: ¯¯0,
is one oí the largest ·illages oí the area between
the towns oí Stolac and Bileca. It still is a predomi-
nantly Muslim settlement. As the crow nies, the
·illage is ten km north-north-east oí Stolac in a
hilly and wooded area, but more than twenty km
o·er the ·ery bad road. Although Dabrica, .tricto
.ev.v, is not situated in the Dabarsko polje, it is
directly linked with this district through its name,
which translates as Little Dabar.` Dabrica is be-
lie·ed to be the successor oí the medie·al íortiFed
settlement oí Kostun.
15
1he ruins oí this sizeable
castle# can still be seen at about one hour`s walk-
14 Kiel, Machiel. Some early Ottoman monuments in Bulgarian
1hrace: Stara Zagora, Jambol and No·a Zagora,` in: ßettetev, Vol.
38, No. 152 ,19¯4,, pp. 635-56 ,easier accessible in: idem, ´tvaie.
ov tbe Ottovav arcbitectvre of tbe ßat/av.. Aldershot: Variorum, 1990,.
Ay·erdi, in his great work on early Ottoman architecture, missed this
important building.
15 1he name Kostun is thought to be a corruption oí the Greek
/a.trov. In 960, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his De .avivi.travao
ív¡erio, mentions a castle named Dobriskik.` Marko Vego ,in
^a.et;a ßo.av./e ´reav;ere/orve Dr¸are, Saraje·o: S·jetlost, 195¯, p.
29, suggested that this place was identical with Kostun.!In the!12
th

century,!Pop Dukljanin mentions the ¸v¡a ,district ruled by a ¸v¡av,
oí Dabar. In the time oí Lmperor Manuel I Komnenos ,r. 1143-80,,
the castle was one oí the Byzantine strongholds in the wider area.
Dabrica,Dabar is mentioned a íew times in the sources ,in 1285,
1384, 1404, and 1421, but it is not entirely clear ií the notes reíer
to the Zupa oí Dabar or to its largest settlement, Dabrica. In 1404,
an important local nobleman, Radic Sanko·ic, born in Dabrica, died
in misery in the prison oí the íamous ro;roaa Sandalj lranic ,1392-
1435,, predecessor oí lerceg Stjepan, the man who ga·e his name
to the entire land.
66
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
ing distance to Dabrica`s east.
16
1he medie·al
Christian population`s memory is still kept ali·e
by the necropolis called Crk·iste` ,Church Place,
outside the ·illage, containing 145 .tecci. A small
church`s íoundations still stand in the necropolis`
centre. Dabrica and its territory became an Otto-
man possession in 1466. 1he ·illage is mentioned
in the oldest preser·ed Ottoman census,taxation
register oí 1468,9 as ha·ing 23 Christian house-
holds.

1he register oí 14¯¯ shows 3¯ households,
still all Christians.
18
In 1508 an Ottoman ro,roaa is
mentioned as ha·ing his seat in Dabrica.
19
By 1530
Islam had made much progress: the ·illage had 33
Muslim and 23 Christian households. 1his was ap-
parently due to pri·ileges granted to it by the state.
1he register mentions explicitly that the tithes
and taxes and the customary tax on sheep as well
as the tax on the land oí the Muslim inhabitants
and the arari¸ tax are le·ied according to an Impe-
rial Order |bv/v·i bvva,vv|.`
20
1his was clearly a
measure to encourage the ·illage`s growth. In íact,
it did not, it declined, like many other ·illages oí
the plain below. In 1585 there were 23# Muslim
16 1he castle oí Kostun is 210 m. long and 50 m. wide. 1he walls
and six towers are still standing to the height oí six meters. See
Krese·ljako·ic, lamdija and lamdija Kapidzic, Stari hercego·acki
grado·i,` in: ^a.e ´tarive Vol. 2 ,1954,, pp. 9-22, cit. p. 14.
1¯ 1he 1468 register is preser·ed in the Atatürk Kitapligi ,Belediye
Kütüphanesi,, Muallim Ce·det \azmalari, O.¯6. It was integrally
published in a Serbo-Croat translation by Ahmed S. Alicic as ´vvarvi
¡o¡i. .ava¸a/a ßo.va i¸ 11óº,ó·. goaive. Mostar: Islamski Kulturni
Centar, 2008.
18 1apu Deíter No 5 in the Basbakanlik Osmanli Arsi·i ,BOA,.
Istanbul, p. 413 íor Dabrica, p. 414 íor Predolje.
19 Jirecek, Konstantin. Die íavaet..tra..ev vva ßergrer/e rov ´erbiev vva
ßo.viev rabreva ae. Mittetatter.. Prague: Bohmische Gesellschaít der
\issenschaíten, 18¯9, p. 2¯.
20 1.D. 16¯, p. 495.
households in Dabrica, the Christians` increasing
to se·enteen.
21
#
In 15¯4,5 or 1610,1, Seíer Aga ,Bego·ic,
built in Dabrica a - íor local standards - sizeable
mosque ,ills. 2-3, nanked with a typical clock
tower` or campanile minaret.` 1he coníusion
o·er its date is due to the íollowing situation:
abo·e the entrance oí the mosque was an in-
scription in Arabic, car·ed onto a stone slab ,60
x 35 cm,, which in íour lines praised the builder.
It ga·e the date oí construction in the íorm oí
a chronogram - va`beav`t·abrãr ra aãrv`t·.ãtibiv -
which yields the date oí l. 982 ,15¯4,5 AD,.
1he text is oí high calligraphic quality, local lore
holds that it actually was written in Istanbul and
sent írom there to Dabrica, where it must ha·e
been used as a catqve by the local stone-cutter.
1his implies that there was no skilled calligrapher
in Dabrica or its district. Below the text another
date is gi·en, not in a chronogram but in num-
bers: l. 1019 ,that is, between March 1610 and
March 1611 AD,. In my opinion the slab is the
work oí a halí-ignorant stone cutter who added
the date in numbers as a kind oí aíterthought,
while using a stencil íor the rest oí the text. 1he
text is too good to belie·e otherwise. 1he íact
that by the mid-16
th
century more than halí
oí the ·illage population was Muslim ,cí. ill.
20, would also support an earlier date íor the
mosque`s construction.
Seíer Aga must ha·e had some pretensions.
lis title suggests that he was a military man, a
21 1he content oí the 1585 register oí the lersek .avca/, preser·ed
in the diíFcult archi·e oí the 1apu ·e Kadastro Genel Müdürlügü
in Ankara, was published in a summarical íorm by Ahmed
Alicic in his Pri·redna i koníesionalna struktura stano·nist·a
u lercego·ini krajem XVI stoljeca,` in: Prito¸i ¸a ori;evtatvv
ftotogi;v, Vol. 40 ,1990,, pp. 125-92, p. 166 íor Dabrica. 1he
original is 1.K.G.M. Kuyudu Kadime No ¯ ,Lski No 484,.
Aíter \.\.II, which saw many ·ictims among the Muslim
population oí Dabrica, the ·illage was still large, ha·ing in 1948
853 inhabitants and, in 19¯1, 842. 1he census oí 1991 shows that
the total number had decreased considerably due to emigration, to
4¯8 people. 1he composition now was 269 Muslims, 12¯ Serbs, ¯¯
Croats, and some oí undeclared nationality ,cí. ´tavorvi.tro ßo.ve i
íercegorive. Zagreb: Drza·ni Za·od za Statistiku, 1995, pp. 232-3,. In
1991 Dabrica, thus was mostly Muslim, as it had been in the 1¯
th
and
18
th
century. During the Bosnian war, in 1994, the Dabrica mosque
was set on Fre by the Croat nationalist íorces ,lVO, but the walls
remained standing. 1he Muslims and the Serb inhabitants oí the
·illage were dri·en away. ¯0° oí the Muslims returned some years
ago, and in 2005 the mosque was íully reconstructed, exactly as it
had been beíore.
67
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
captain, with a good education. According to local
lore, he came írom Anatolia and settled in Dab-
rica. lis descendants still li·e in Dabrica today,
and a number oí them are buried in the mosque`s
gra·eyard.
22
Next to the mosque, Seíer Aga had
constructed a small bavav, a bav íor tra·ellers,
and a ve/teb íor the education oí the children.
1ogether they constitute one oí the /vtti,e. built
by Ottomans in this area. 1he other buildings do
not exist anymore, they were demolished during
\\I. 1he name lanine` still marks the place
where the bav once stood, and the bavav`s site
is also remembered locally. lowe·er unusual,
the mosque more closely íollows the orthodox
Ottoman style than other examples in the area.
1he íour-centred arches abo·e the windows, íor
instance, are purely Ottoman. Local elements in-
clude the pyramid-shaped wooden rooí, co·ered
with hea·y stone slabs, rhombic slates in the spe-
ciFc lerzego·inan manner, íollowing the more
stately buildings oí Mostar.
1he detailed vvfa..at registers oí 14¯¯ and
1585 pro·ide us with some iníormation on the
economies oí Dabrica and the ·illages oí the
Dabarsko polje. 1hey list the tithe on the main
agricultural products ·illage by ·illage and the
a·erage Fxed prices ,varb, per product. 1he mea-
sures used were the local ones, the relation oí
which to the Imperial Bushel oí Istanbul ,26.5
kg., is not known, but can be hypothetically re-
22 1he text oí the inscription oí the mosque and some oí the old
gra·estones were published by Mehmed Mujezino·ic in his í.tav./e
e¡igraf/a v ßo.vi i íercegorivi Vol. 3. Saraje·o: Veselin Maslesa,`
1982, pp. 390-2.
constructed by way oí comparison.
23
In 14¯¯ the
total tax ·alue oí the main products oí Dabrica
,wheat, barley, millet, and oats, was 2.¯09 a/çe.
1hese products` economic importance íor the
·illage economy can easily be seen in the total
tax ·alue`s percentage. It should be remembered
that in many hundreds oí ·illages in the íertile
plains oí Macedonia, 1hessaly, 1hrace, and
Danubian Bulgaria, wheat and barley together
oíten accounted íor 50 or 60° oí the total, with
sheep and wine making up the bulk oí the rest
oí the economy. lere, in dry and stony southern
lerzego·ina, wheat was only thirteen percent
oí the total, while barley was íourteen percent.
Iníerior cereals like millet and oats made up ten
percent together. 1he products that sustained the
economy were grape must, comprising 43°, íol-
lowed by sheep at íourteen percent, and honey,
with six percent, Flling the gap. 1hus, wine and
sheep were the pillars oí the Dabrica economy.
A tax oí 405 a/çe was taken as customary sheep
tax.` 1his means a total oí 1.215 heads oí sheep,
23 Very oíten, the great Ottoman population and land registrations are
preceded by sur·eys oí the local laws and rules, usually including
the relation oí the local measure to Istanbul`s bushel. lor the
lerzego·ina this iníormation was not a·ailable to us. A detailed
/avvvvãve írom 1585 exists but it does not mention the size oí the
local measures. I ha·e compared Dabar`s agricultural yield with that
oí two other districts with a similar climate and the same mediocre
soil: the íormer /a¸a oí Athens-Attica and the island oí Lgriboz,
Luboia. 1he /a¸a oí Athens contained the City oí the Sages`
and 55 ·illages oí ·arious sizes. 1he island oí Luboia contained
the town oí Chalkis and ,in 1506, 1¯6 ·illages. 1he load ,bivt, oí
Attica and Lgriboz was the equi·alent oí 205 kilograms. In 1490 the
price oí a load oí wheat in Lgriboz was 30 a/çe, in Dabar 24 a/çe.
1he load used in Dabar was thus around one Fíth lighter than the
load on Luboia, calculating to about 165 kg. 1he price oí a load oí
Attican barley or millet was 20 a/çe, in Dabar Fíteen, and that oí the
iníerior grain ,vtaf ,oats, was nine a/çe. \ine was taxed as must oí
crushed grapes ,,ire, and the price per veare was Fne a/çe. In 1506,
the price oí a veare in Athens and Lgriboz was ten a/çe, in Dabar
Fne a/çe. 1he weight oí an Lgriboz veare was ¯0 kg. 1hus, the Dabra
veare must ha·e been about 35 kg. In the 15
th
century one Akçe per
three sheep was taken as tax. One a/çe was taken íor one pig íattened
at home, and halí an a/çeíor an animal roaming around íree. 1wo
a/çe were taken íor a sheaí oí nax and one íor each beehi·e. 1he
/avvvvãve oí the pro·ince oí lersek írom 1585 ,published by
Akgündüz, states that the tithe on grape must was one se·enth íor
Christian producers and one eighth íor Muslims. \e ha·e to assume
that in 14¯¯ this rule was also in íorce. \ith this knowledge we can
now ·enture to reconstruct the ·illage economy oí the Dabarsko
Polje, remembering, howe·er, that this is but a rough estimate.
68
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
or 33 sheep per household.
24
1he economy oí
Dabrica in 1585 shows remarkable changes.
\ine production had increased írom 43 to 66°,
but at the expense oí cereals, sheep, and honey.
1he three cereals had declined írom 3¯ to 28°,
sheep írom íourteen to F·e percent, and honey
had almost disappeared. A comparison with the
numbers oí the other Dabar ·illages shows that
this was indeed the general tendency. \ine be-
came the pillar oí the local economy, and sheep
breeding came second.
1he economy oí one settlement we can study
in more detail is Predolje, on the western edge
oí the Plain oí Dabar. Now a hamlet oí Fíteen
houses, in the 1¯
th
century it was a small /a.aba
with a beautiíul mosque, two ve.cias, one te//e,
a small bavav, a bav, and 15 shops,` as is related
in 1664 by L·liya (elebi.
25
In 1519 Predolje had
grown to 118 houses, oí which 40 were inhabited
by Muslims, in 1585 the Muslims already made
up the ·ast majority oí the population ,see also
ills. 18-21,. In 14¯¯ and 1585 Predolje had an
economy that, at ¯9° ,in both years,, was e·en
more based on wine production than Dabrica
,see ills. 4-¯,. Predolje, sur·i·ing on wine that was
sold elsewhere to buy bread grains had almost
no wheat and barley and íew sheep. 1hat the
/a.aba`s economy did not change between 14¯¯
and 1585, and that the change oí religion had no
innuence on the pattern oí production is nota-
ble.
26
\ith minor ·ariations, the same pattern can
be seen in most oí the Dabra ·illages such as
latnica or Dazilj.

24 In this context it is good to remember that during the 1960s the
a·erage íamily oí mountain nomads in eastern 1urkey could li·e
írom 50-60 sheep. Cí. lütteroth, \olí-Dieter. ßergvovaaev vva
Ya,tabaverv iv vittterev /vrai.cbev 1avrv.. Marburg: Geogr. Inst. d.
Uni·., 1959. During an inter·iew with Ulla Johansen, the other great
expert on \ayla economy, Proí. Johansen suggested 60 sheep as
minimum. Peasants ha·ing no more than 50 animals were really ·ery
poor. 1he same was told us in 2009 by nomads on the 1ien Shan
mountains in central Kyrgyzstan.
25 írti,a Çetebi ´e,abatvãve.i, Vol. 6. Lds. \ücel Dagli and Seyit Ali
Kahraman. Istanbul: \api Kredi \ayinlari, 2001, p. 261.
26 It appears somewhat ironical that the economic basis oí the Islamic
cultural institutions in this part oí the empire was íormed by wine,
called grape juice` ,,ire, in the records, but in íact this is green wine.
Grape juice cannot be kept longer than a íew weeks. 1his is just
another example oí the old Ottoman state`s pragmatism.
2¯ It could be added that an experienced man and great tra·eller as
L·liya (elebi extolled the superb quality oí Predolje`s musk-smelling
juicy grapes and the delicious wine that could be made írom them.
During the long war with the loly League
,1683-99,, Predolje was thoroughly plundered
and destroyed by a gang oí highwaymen in Ve-
netian ser·ice and under command oí the ter-
rible harambasi` Bajo Pi·ljanin.
28
Predolje ne·er
reco·ered. Its role as a sizeable district`s small ur-
ban centre was taken o·er by Stolac, which would
be hea·ily íortiFed as a precaution and still is the
district`s main centre.
The vi l l ages of the
Pl ai n of Dabar
Bi j el j ani
1he ·illage oí Bijeljani on the edge oí the
Dabarsko polje lies on the road írom Di·in and
Berko·ica to Stolac. Until \\II it was the centre
oí a municipality which included the nearby ·il-
lages and hamlets oí Kljenci, Kuti, Mila·ici, Pris-
oje, Vrijeka, and Zasada. Until 18¯5, a number
oí íamilies that originally had come írom lerceg
No·i, 1rebinje, and Bileca li·ed in Bijeljina. Only
the íamily oí 1elare·ic, one oí the oldest Muslim
íamilies oí the entire Dabarsko polje, belonged
to the original` inhabitants oí Bijeljani, it was
the only Muslim íamily that was still li·ing in the
·illage in 1991. As Bijeljani is not mentioned in
the Ottoman tabrirs oí 14¯¯, 1520, and 1585,
it must ha·e been íounded at a later point - or
it had been disguised behind a diííerent name.
1he presence oí a cemetery comprised oí some
dozens oí .tecci outside the ·illage, on the road
to Stolac, testiFes to the presence oí a medie·al
settlement on the site.
In the early-1¯
th
century, a mosque was built in
Bijeljani. It was a well-constructed ediFce mea-
suring 10 x 8 metres. It had a square, clock-tower-
like minaret twel·e metres high. A ve/teb must
ha·e been built with it. 1hese buildings` íounder
is not known, it may well ha·e been a member oí
the 1elare·ic íamily, as is held by local tradition.
In 1885, during the Austro-lungarian period, the
28 1he e·ent made a deep impression on the people. Popular songs
recording the e·ent were still sung at the beginning oí the 20
th

century. See also Stoce·ic, St. Bajo Pi·ljanin i Limo· larambasa
pala dzamiju u Predolju,` in: ßo.av./a rita, No. ¯ ,1892,, pp. 222-223.
69
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
mosque was demolished. It was rebuilt in exactly
the same size and íorm in the 1890s by Ahmed
Zeco. As a result oí the \\II ·iolence in the
Dabarsko polje, the mosque was badly damaged.
1he rooí collapsed and only the íour walls and
the curious minaret remained. As the Muslim
inhabitants were almost gone, there was no need
to rebuild the old mosque. In 1991 Bijeljani had
only two Muslim inhabitants and 136 Serbs.
In 1994 Amir Pasic published a photograph
oí Bijeljani`s mosque ,ill. 8, taken about 30 years
earlier. On a ·isit in July 2006, I redisco·ered
the building, with the help oí Bijeljani`s inhab-
itants, at the ·illage`s southern extremity, below
the main road and beyond the ·illage`s last un-
inhabited houses and barns. 1he site was totally
o·ergrown with i·y and prickly shrubs. Only the
atev on top oí the minaret still appeared abo·e
the lea·es. Sections oí the walls up to íour me-
tres high also looked through the greenery. 1his
mosque`s remains ha·e sur·i·ed the systematic
destruction oí all traces oí the area`s Islamic past
by nationalist bands. 1he Bijeljani mosque was
simply íorgotten by them, but it was not íorgot-
ten by the ·illage`s Serb inhabitants, who were
·ery íriendly and helpíul in guiding me to this
rare specimen oí Islamic` architecture.
Hat el j
\ith about 500 inhabitants in the late 20
th

century, the ·illage oí latelj, situated on the
asphalt road írom Stolac to Bileca, midway be-
tween Berko·ici and Bijeljani, was the second
largest in the Dabarsko polje. 1he Ottoman
aefters írom 1468 to 1520 do not mention lat-
elj. 1he ·illage Frst appears in the 1585 register
with three Muslim households. latelj, howe·er,
is e·idently oí medie·al origin. About 300 me-
tres outside the ·illage oí Mila·ici, down in the
Dabarsko polje, is one oí the largest ,but terribly
o·ergrown, medie·al necropolises oí the lerze-
go·ina, counting 352 .tecci. One oí them has a
Bosancica inscription mentioning a Bogdan oí
latelj. 1his Bogdan ,d. ca. 1400, was a ser·ant
oí the Dabrica-born nobleman Radic Sanko·ic.
29
#
1his shows with certainty that latelj existed in
the 14
th
century. It must ha·e been re·i·ed during
the 1560s or ¯0s, but was still quite unimport-
ant in that time. latelj came to nourish only in
the 1¯
th
and 18
th
centuries, by which time it was
partly or largely Muslim and had one important
mosque. Light great Muslim cemeteries around
the ·illage still testiíy to its íormer importance as
a Muslim settlement. In 1981 and 1991 the popu-
lation oí latelj was entirely Serbian Orthodox,
showing that dramatic changes must ha·e taken
place here.
lasandedic collected some iníormation about
latelj`s mosque, which he describes as a 500-year
old building constructed by a member oí the
Gül Baba íamily which, according to local tradi-
tion, li·ed here írom the time oí the Ottoman
conquest ,1466, onward.
30
Gül Baba must ha·e
been the sheikh oí a der·ish order whose de-
scendants settled here. 1he whole story sounds
apocryphal, howe·er. 1he 1585 register# re·eals
no identiFable members oí the Gül Baba íam-
ily li·ing in latelj.
31
Ií the local legend has an
element oí truth, then it must ha·e its origins
29 More details in Vego, Marko. Nadgrobni spomenici porodice
Sanko·ica u selo Biskupu kod Konjica` in: Cta.vi/ ¸evat;./og vv¸e;a
1955, pp. 15¯-215. lor an edition oí the Mila·ici text, see Stojano·ic,
Ljubomir. ´tari .r¡./i ¸a¡i.i i vat¡i.i. Belgrade: Srpska kralje·ska
akademija, 1908, no. 4835. lor Radic Sanko·ic, see also íootnote 15.
30 lasandedic, Mv.tivav./a ba.tiva v i.tocvo; íercegorivi, pp. ¯6-¯.
31 Ankara,1.K.G.M. No ¯, íol. 85b, where we Fnd that latelj
numbered only three small inheritable and inhabited estates ,ba,tiva,.
|||. 8. 8ijc|jani, ncsquc (car|q 17
|n
ccn|urq) cn 1960s pnc|c-
grapn (ccur|csq cf Anir Pasic).
70
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
much later. 1he mosque oí latelj, as described
by lasandedic, was a rectangular structure mea-
suring 8 x ¯ metres. It was co·ered with the usual
lerzego·inian pyramid rooí oí great rhombic
slates, and had a square stone-built minaret about
ten metres high. It must ha·e looked similar
to the mosque oí lasan Pasha in Bileca ,see
below,,
32
but is likely to ha·e been built at a later
point in time, probably the early 1¯
th
century, and
thus around the time the mosque in Plana ,161¯,
was built. 1he latelj mosque`s íate was diííer-
ent írom other mosques in the area, howe·er.
During the 19
th
century`s wars and re·olts, the
mosque was damaged but not destroyed. Aíter
18¯8, the Austro-lungarians used it as a station
íor the gendarmerie. lollowing \\I, the lat-
elj mosque was wholly rebuilt, but it was again
damaged in \\II. Post-\\II, the mosque was
used as primary school íor the ·illage. It was
Fnally demolished in 1961. 1his suggests that
the Muslim community oí latelj had ·anished
by then, presumably a result oí the interethnic
·iolence during \\II.
Pl ana
1he small ·illage oí Plana ,1991: 120 inhabit-
ants, three quarters Muslim, is situated on the pla-
teau just F·e km south oí latnica plain`s southern
end, on the main road going south írom the plain
to Bileca. Until 1992 Plana had a small mosque ,ill.
9, with a slate-co·ered pyramid rooí in the area`s
usual style as well as a conspicuous church-tower-
like minaret. Between 1948 and 1991, Plana, situ-
ated on dry and uníertile land, declined rapidly.
lrom the ·illage`s 319 inhabitants in 1948, two-
thirds ha·e since departed íor a better liíe in the
surrounding towns.
33
Plana`s mosque was one oí
the smallest in the entire district, measuring only
5.¯0 x 5.35 inside. Unlike most other mosques
with campanile-like minarets, it is well dated. An
inscription in Ottoman 1urkish prose preser·ed
abo·e the entrance mentions that the original
mosque was built in l. 102¯ ,161¯ AD, and that
32 In the summer oí 2006, this mosque was still standing as a ruin. It
was indeed built by lasan Pasha Predoje·ic, perhaps shortly aíter
15¯5 when he had become a pasha, but in any case prior to his death
in the Battle oí Sisak on June 22, 1593. lor more on lasan Pasha
and Bileca, see below.
33 ´tavorvi.tro ßo.ve i íercegorive, pp. 56-¯.
it was renewed in the year l. 1210 ,1¯95, at the
expense oí Plana`s inhabitants.
34
1he mosque`s
íounder was a man called A·do, the oííspring oí
an originally Orthodox íamily oí the district who,
aíter con·erting to Islam, built the structure. 1he
building was thereíore known as A·dica dzamija.
A·do was the íounder oí the A·dic íamily that,
until 1992, still li·ed in Plana. Se·eral members
oí this old íamily are buried in the Muslim
gra·eyard just south oí the ·illage. A·do is said
to ha·e also built a small church íor his mother
500 meters írom the mosque. During the Cretan
war, Plana, like many other ·illages oí Dabar,
suííered írom the de·astating raids oí irregulars
in Venetian ser·ice.
35
#1he mosque`s 1¯95 inscrip-
tion is similarly related to another raid by ba;av/s
and Montenegrins írom the south. In 1992, the
Muslim inhabitants oí Plana were expelled and
their mosque, a registered monument oí cul-
ture,` was blown up. In spring 200¯, the ·illage
looked depressing, most oí its 25 houses still in
34 lor the inscription see: Mujezino·ic, í.tav./a e¡igraf/a, Vol. 3, p.
356.
35 An account írom 1661 mentions three people írom Plana, a mother
oí 35 years with two children oí ten and eight years old, sold at
the sla·e market oí Venice. Cí. Solo·je·, Aleksandar. 1rgo·anje
bosanskim robljem do godine 1661,` in: Cta.vi/ ¸evat;./og vv¸e;a
|New series|, Vol. 1 ,1946,, pp. 139-62 ,Plana on p. 161,.
|||. 9. P|ana, Atdica ncsquc (1617) cn 1960s pnc|cgrapn
(ccur|csq cf Anir Pasic).
71
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
ruins. 1he Muslim cemetery, howe·er, was leít
undisturbed and a gra·estone oí a Der·is A·dic
írom 2004 shows that the tie with history is still
not entirely broken.
36
Nevesi nj e and the vi l l ages
of Kruševl j ane and Donj a
Bi j enj a i n the Pl ai n of
Nevesi nj e
So íar we ha·e discussed places with mosques
with church-tower minarets situated in the
Dabarsko polje, that is, the Plain oí Dabar. In
the íollowing we shall cross o·er the diíFcult
mountain pass east oí the ¡ot;e and descend into
the Plain oí Ne·esinje, east oí Dabar. 1his plain
is situated much higher than Dabar and is much
colder, the higher peaks are oíten snow-capped
until early May. 1he centre oí the Ne·esinsko
polje is the little town oí Ne·esinje ,1991: 4.068
inhabitants,. It is the only urban centre in both
plains and, in spite oí its ·ery small size, has
produced a long line oí politicians, scholars, and
men oí letters. As it also had some stately Otto-
man buildings, we shall include some words on
this remarkable place.
Ne·esinje is situated on Ne·esinjsko polje`s
western edge, at an altitude oí 890 metres abo·e
sea le·el, below high and hea·ily wooded moun-
tains. A place by that name is Frst mentioned
in the mid-12
th
century in the chronicle oí Pop
Dukljanin, but as the name oí a district ,¸v¡a,, not
a settlement. In the 13¯0s it is mentioned as an
open suburb below the castle oí Vinocac, ruled
by Gradoje Sanko·ic, a well-known and poweríul
supporter oí the Bogomil` mo·ement.

1he
Ottomans took the settlement in June 1465. 1he
small hilltop castle íell into disuse, and the sub-
urb grew into a small town where Sultan Bayezid
II íounded a small domed mosque, a school, a
bathhouse, and a hospice. Shortly beíore 1635,
Ali KaF Líendi ,Ne·esinjac,, brother oí the in-
nuential Ruznâmeci Ibrahim Líendi - a patron
36 lor more on Plana, see A·dic, Camil. Plana kod Bileca,` in: ^ori
ßebar, Vol. 6, No. ¯-8 ,1932,, p. 100, also: Interesantna dzamija kod
Plane,` in: ´toboaa |Mostar|, No. 31 ,1955,, p. 358.
3¯ Vego, ^a.et;a, pp. 11-2 with íurther reíerences.
oí architecture in Mostar - íounded a Dar ül-
ladis ,hadith school, and a Dar ül-Kurra ,school
íor Koran readers, next to the sultan`s mosque.
Ali died in 1653 in Mostar, where he had ser·ed
many years as /aai. 1he ra/f,e oí these schools is
preser·ed in the archi·es oí the lranciscan Mon-
astery in Mostar, a copy is íound in the .icitt oí
Blagaj.
38
According to this ra/f,e, se·en well-paid
men worked as teachers in these two schools,
while the students also recei·ed two a/çe pocket
money per day.
In the course oí the 16
th
century, when the
town`s population was predominantly Muslim,
laci Veliüddin ,Bakrac, had the town`s second
mosque built on the site where, halí a century
later, Ne·esinje`s clock tower would also rise. Ve-
liüddin is also credited with the construction oí a
veare.e, but the íoundation charter ,ra/f,e, is not
preser·ed. L·liya (elebi handed down the text
oí the inscription oí the mosque oí Veli Aga`
as ha·ing been built in l. 921 ,1515,6 AD,. 1his
date, contained in a chronogram, must be wrong,
howe·er, íor there exists other iníormation ac-
cording to which laci Veliüddin had a Ne·esin-
je-born son called Saban Líendi who, aíter a
steep career in Istanbul and elsewhere, died in
the late 1650s. Another son oí Veliüddin added a
bavav, a bav, and a number oí shops. 1he third
historical mosque oí Ne·esinje was that oí the
/aai Sinan Líendi. Situated halí-way between the
mosque oí Sultan Bayezid and that oí Veliüd-
din, it cannot be securely dated, but L·liya called
it an old mosque.` lasandedic suspected that
one oí the town`s ve/tebs was built next to it.
In the past this mosque was co·ered with lead.
1he íourth historical mosque oí Ne·esinje was
the so-called Perkusica Mosque, situated in the
Vakuí Mahala. It is not mentioned by L·liya.
1he oldest mention oí this vabatte is írom 1¯69,
but the mosque must be older. It existed as a ruin
until about 1960, with íour decaying walls and
a square church-tower minaret, still F·e meters
high.
39

38 SBK No. 1025, p. 6¯ ··. Cí. lasandedic, Mv.tivav./a ba.tiva v i.tocvo;
íercegorivi, pp. 12¯-59, and Basagic, Saí·et-beg. Zvaveviti írrati,
ßo.v;aci i íercegorci v 1vr./o; carerivi. Zagreb: Birotiskak, |1931| 1994,
p. 9 íor Ali KaF.
39 írti,a Çetebi ´e,abatvãve.i, Vol. 6, p. 260, lasandedic, Mv.tivav./a
ba.tiva v i.tocvo; íercegorivi, pp. 135-¯.
72
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
In 18¯5 Ne·esinje was occupied by rebellious
Montenegrins and largely burnt down. 1hree oí
the mosques were also burnt. Veliüddin`s mosque
was repaired in 1880, but the top oí the minaret
was changed. It got no ,erefe but a conical cap and
openings in the shaít reminiscent oí the cam-
panile minarets oí the earlier age. 1he mosque
ser·ed until the years between the two \orld
\ars and was then used a depot. 1he mosque oí
Sinan Dede was also burnt down in 18¯5. It was
restored in 1880 and deFniti·ely closed in 1930.
In 1990 lasandedic only saw the íour walls still
standing. During the 1992-5 war, the mosque
oí Sultan Bayezid, the only one still acti·e, was
dynamited. In 2008 I íound its debris at a dump
oí building material, eight km north oí the town,
on the road to Prid·orci and Preseka. Veliüddin`s
mosque suííered the same íate as the sultanic
building. Its site is now occupied by a parking lot.
Only the ruin oí Sinan Dede`s mosque has sur-
·i·ed. In 2008 it was in course oí rebuilding, and
had again a door, windows, and a new wooden
ceiling. 1he íour walls and their speciFcally Ot-
toman windows show that it is a 16
th
century
building.
Kr uševl j ane
1he small and scattered ·illage oí Kruse·ljane
,in 1991: 33 Muslim and three Roman Catholic
households,, is situated on sloping ground at
Ne·esinjsko polje`s northern end, twenty km
írom the town and at a site as beautiíul as the
world on the day oí creation. 1he occasional ·isi-
tor gets the íeeling that the world also ends here.
1here is no road whatsoe·er o·er the mountains
to the districts north and east. A bit abo·e the
last houses oí Kruse·ljane, surrounded by cen-
turies old trees, is the mosque ,ill. 10,. 1his is a
rectangle oí 15.30 x ¯.96 metres with walls built
oí neatly cut, good quality ashlar, ¯0 cm thick.
1he minaret measures two metres in square and
reaches a height oí ten metres. 1here are no dec-
orati·e elements at all, but the building`s setting
makes up íor the missing architectural qualities.
It is ·isible írom miles away.
A table gi·ing the number oí ·illage house-
holds pro·ides an indication concerning when
the original mosque must ha·e been built. In the
Frst 35 years oí the Ottoman period not a single
Muslim li·ed in the ·illage. In 1519 one quarter
oí the population was Muslim, and in 1585 all
oí the ·illage`s residents were Muslim, no Chris-
tian remaining. Arguing in light oí this data, the
mosque must ha·e been íounded around the
1540s. 1o this date also points the mosque`s ori-
entation towards Mecca at 140`` oí the compass,
or South-South-Last, which is not correct. At the
end oí the 16
th
century a de·ice was de·eloped
gi·ing the correct orientation. 1he building must
thus be írom beíore 1590. At the same time, these
numbers illustrate the ·ery limited possibility íor
agriculture in this region, which could not sup-
port more than more than 200-250 people. Aíter
the peak oí 1519 the ·illage gra·itated around
|||. 11. Krusct|janc, inscrip|icn cn ncsquc af|cr 2007 rcccn-
s|ruc|icn, c|aining a da|c cf ccns|ruc|icn arcund 1300.
|||. 10. Krusct|janc, ncsquc (nid-16
|n
ccn|urq?), af|cr ccnp|c|c
ccns|ruc|icn in 2007.
73
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
30 households until more ad·anced agricultural
methods made a slight increase possible.

Table 2: population of the village of
Kruševljane (in households)
1477 1499 1519 1585 1910 1991
Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr.
0 25 0 25 13 36 31 0 28 2 33 3
Total: 25 Total: 25 Total: 49 Total: 31 Total: 30 Total: 46
Muslim: 0% Muslim: 0% Muslim: 26% Muslim: 100% Muslim: 93% Muslim: 91%
1he mosque was destroyed in 1992 and the
·illagers were dri·en out.
40
It was rebuilt in 200¯
exactly as it had been beíore, in authentic íorm, and
on the same íoundations. 1he local Muslims had no
idea how old the building was and placed the time
oí construction in the end oí 13
th
- beginning oí
14
th
century,` which was written on the marble slab
Fxed in the wall near the entrance ,ill. 11,.
The Čel ebi ć or Surkovi ć
džami j a of Donj a Bi j enj a.
A second example oí a campanile minaret`
mosque`s total reconstruction is the Celebic or
Surko·ic dzamija oí Donja Bijenja ,ill. 12,, to
Kruse·ljane`s south. 1his mosque stands on
a steep slope abo·e the plain`s edge and, like
Kruse·lane, is ·isible írom miles away. 1he
building is small, a square oí 8.90 x 8.90 metres,
with the minaret on the entrance`s right side. 1he
mosque has windows only in the vibrab wall and
in the right lateral wall. 1he leít side wall is blind
because oí the steep slope on which the mosque
stands. It is build oí the same quality white,
Fne grained ashlar as Kruse·ljane. 1he minaret
is slightly smaller than that at Kruse·ljane, but
thanks to the large open porch, the mosque
ne·ertheless makes a monumental impression.
1he inner space oí 55 square metres can house
60-¯0 worshippers. As the ·illage oí Gornja Bi-
jenja ,Upper Bijenja`, had its own mosque, and
40 Most Muslim inhabitants returned to their nati·e homes in 2006 and
200¯. 1he three Catholic households oí Kruse·ljane did not return.
1heir little church, a bit outside the ·illage, remained untouched.
taking into account that our population numbers
take both sister ·illages together, this means that
our mosque could accommodate all, or almost
all, worshippers during lriday prayers and those
accompanying the great íeasts.
|||. 12. Dcnja 8ijcnja, ncsquc (car|q 17
|n
ccn|urq?), dcs|rcqcd
in 1992, rcccns|ruc|cd in 2007.
According to local tradition, the mosque was
built by the Celebic or Surko·ic íamilies. 1he
architects who reconstructed the mosque aíter
the Bosnian \ar suggested that the mosque was
built in the 1¯
th
century`s Frst decades. 1he popu-
lation numbers ,households, as contained in the
Ottoman registers gi·e the íollowing picture and
suggest an earlier date:
74
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Table 3: Population of the village of Donja and
Gornja Bijenja (in households)
1477 1499 1519 1585 1910 1991
Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr. Musl. Chr.
0 41 53 60 61 53 72 6 100 0 69 33
Total: 41 Total: 113 Total: 114 Total: 78 Total: 100 Total: 102
Muslim: 0% Muslim: 47% Muslim: 53% Muslim: 92% Muslim: 100% Muslim: 68%
1hese numbers and dates suggest a construc-
tion time in the last decade oí the 15
th
or the Frst
decade oí the 16
th
century. It would indeed ha·e
been unbearable íor a Muslim majority to be
without a mosque. In a good number oí cases
- íor example Stolac ,the Bayezid II mosque, or
Knezina ,the Selim I mosque, - we see that the
state inter·ened and built a mosque when the per-
centage oí Muslims in a small settlement reached
25-35° oí the whole population. In other cases
local Ottoman oíFcials acted in the same way.
1he numbers gi·en abo·e also make clear that
both Upper and Lower Bijenja had much more
arable land at their disposal than Kruse·ljane and
could thereíore sustain a much larger population.
Between 14¯¯ and 1499 Bijenja reached a peak
beyond which no íurther expansion was possible,
and e·en in the 1990s did not surpass 1519`s le·el.
In 1992 the mosque was blown up and its
debris cleared out. It was wholly reconstructed
in 200¯-8, and in the same careíul manner as
Kruse·ljane. 1he latter was rebuilt at the initia-
ti·e and support oí the local ·illage population
and Fnancial help írom outside. 1he Bijenja
mosque, howe·er, was reconstructed under the
Bosnian National leritage íoundation`s guidance
and with support írom Brussels.` 1he Luro-
pean Community also cared íor the enormous
old cemetery containing hundreds oí beautiíully
car·ed gra·estones crowned with turbans and
adorned with calligraphed inscriptions, írom the

th
-19
th
centuries. 1he whole yard was surround-
ed with an 800 metres-long wall, also Fnanced
by the Luropean Community. 1he gra·eyard is a
poignant reminder oí Islam`s íormer importance
in this íaraway corner oí the old Islamic world.
Bi l eća and the Mosque of
Hasan Pasha Predoj evi ć
Bileca is situated at the edge oí a plain at an al-
titude oí 4¯0 metres, and is southern lerzego·i-
na`s largest urban centre. It is one oí the íew local
places that grew to importance in the 20
th
century.
1he Baedeker tra·el guide Osterreich-Ungarn`
oí 1913 lists the place as ha·ing only 1.500 in-
habitants. In 1991 it had 13.284 ,!, inhabitants,
oí which almost 2000 were Muslims.
41
Nonethe-
less, Bileca is an old settlement, Frst mentioned
in 138¯ in the Dubro·nik archi·es and again in
1403, 1430, and 1438 as the name oí a ¸v¡a.
42
#
1he town lies on the old cara·an road írom Du-
bro·nik ·ia 1rebinje to Gacko, and írom there
·ia 1jentiste to the trading centre loca on the
Drina, and íurther into the Balkan interior and
e·entually Istanbul. A cemetery Flled with .tecci at
the town`s western edge testiFes to its medie·al
existence. In August 1388 an Ottoman in·ading
party, joined by a íorce oí George Stracimiro·ic
Balsic, a lord írom nearby Northern Albania,
was wiped out in the plain below Bileca by one
oí the leading nobleman in lum ,southern
lerzego·ina,, Vladko Vuko·ic Kosaca. 1he íol-
lowing year`s pi·otal battle on the Koso·o polje
íound its direct cause in the Ottoman deíeat at
41 ´tavorvi.tro, pp. 54-5.
42 Vego, ^a.et;a, pp. 11-2, with íurther reíerences.
75
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Bileca.
43
Bileca e·entually became part oí the
Ottoman territories in 1466, together with the
rest oí southern lerzego·ina. 1he settlement is
not mentioned in the tabrirs írom 1468 to 1585,
probably because they are not preser·ed in their
entirety. It must ha·e been described in detail in
the 1585 tabrir but Vol. III oí it, mentioned in
an old manuscript catalogue, is missing. L·liya
(elebi passed the place along the cara·an road
but also does not mention it by name.
Around 15¯5 Gazi,Deli lasan Pasha
,Predoje·ic,, a colouríul character born in the
direct neighbourhood oí Bileca, constructed a
small but well-built mosque in the local lerze-
go·inan style, with a slate-co·ered pyramid rooí
and campanile-minaret.` 1he mosque sur·i·ed
the 20
th
century wars as a ruin ,ill. 13,, and with
its characteristic minaret íully erect. 1he build-
ing is situated in a large íenced plot oí land in
the Polje` oí Bileca, at the town`s northern
outskirts, and is a listorical Monument pro-
tected by the State.` lasan Pasha is the builder
oí a mosque with a church-tower minaret about
whose liíe and works we know more than all
the others combined. le came to Istanbul as a
aer,irve recruit, his Christian name was locally
remembered as Nenad. le con·erted to Islam,
later became ça/irciba,i ,lead oí the lalcon-
ers,, and in 1562, be, oí lülek .avca/ in Upper
lungary. lrom 15¯3 onward, Austrian sources
knew oí him as .avca/be,i oí lerzego·ina and
Montenegro. le had also been .avca/be,i oí
lerceg-No·i on the Adriatic coast. Se·eral tra·-
ellers during the second halí oí the 16
th
century
mention that he had a cara·anserai built in Bileca,
as well as a big cistern íor water storage and a
tvrbe íor his íamily. In 15¯3 the cara·anserai was
mentioned by Philippe Duíresne-Canaye as
newly built by lasan Bey, lord oí lerceg No·i.
It is mentioned again in 1580 by Paolo Contarini,
43 line, John V. A. 1be tate veaierat ßat/av.: a criticat .vrre,
frov tbe tate tretftb cevtvr, to tbe Ottovav covqve.t. Ann Arbor:
Uni·. oí Michigan Press , 198¯, p. 408, Imber, Colin. 1be
Ottovav ív¡ire, 1²00·11º1. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1990. p. 35.
lor the complicated political history beíore and aíter the Battle
oí Koso·o see especially: Lmmert, 1.A. 1be ßattte of Ko.oro: a
recov.iaeratiov of it. .igvifcavce iv tbe aective of Meaierat ´erbia. Ann
Arbor: Uni·. oí Michigan Press, 19¯3. A solid o·er·iew oí the
medie·al rulers oí lum ,lerzego·ina, is gi·en by Dinic, Mihajlo.
ívv./o·trebiv;./a rta.teta. Beograd: SANU, 1932.
and in 158¯ by lans Ludwig ·on Lichtenstein.
44
#
Later, lasan Pasha became .avca/be,i oí Szeged
in lungary, and in 1591 rose to the loíty rank
oí be,terbe,i ,Go·ernor-General, oí Bosnia. It
was in this capacity, in 1592, that he conquered
the important íortress oí Bihac in what was then
Croatia, only 60 km south oí Zagreb, together
with the strongholds surrounding it. 1he Bihac
district was to become the northernmost reach
oí Bosnia and has remained part oí it until today.
In June 1593, during the íateíul Battle oí Sisak,
lasan Pasha, along with other pashas and a large
part oí the Ottoman army, drowned in the Kupa
ri·er`s swollen water. lis liíe and deeds leít a
deep imprint in the people`s memory, howe·er.
Many legends are told about him and íolk ballads
about him were still sung in the early 20
th
century.
Nine letters oí lasan Pasha to Pa·le Prido·ic, an
44 1he career oí lasan Pasha can be pieced together írom the notes by
Mehmed Süreyya, ´icitt·i O.vavi, 6 ·ols. Ld. Nuri Akbayar. 1r. Seyit
Ali Kahraman. Istanbul: Kültür Bakanligi,1ürkiye Lkonomik ·e
1oplumsal 1arih Vakíi, 1996, p. 631. Kohbach, Markus. Die írobervvg
rov ívte/ avrcb aie O.vavev, 1::1. Vienna: Bohlau, 1994, p. 295,
Krese·ljako·ic, lamdija. íavori i /ararav.ara;i v ßo.vi i íercegorivi.
Saraje·o: NRBil, 195¯, p. 55, Dinic, Mihajlo. 1ri lrancuska
putopisca 16. ·ijeka o nasim zemljama,` in: Coai.v;ica ^i/ote Cv¡ica,
Vol. 49 ,1940,, pp. 45-116, cit. p. 9¯. lor the tra·ellers see also the
originals: Le ·oyage du Le·ant de Philippe du lresne-Canaye. Ld. M.
l. lauser. Paris: Lrnest Leroux, 189¯, p. 24, Contarini, Paolo. Diario
aet 1iaggio aa 1eve¸ia a Cov.tavtivo¡oti, Venezia: 1eresia Gattei, 1856,
p. 14, Lichtenstein, lans Ludwig ·on. Cro..e Rei.ev vva ßegebevbeitev
aer íerv !otf Cbri.to¡b rov Rotevbav etc.. ea. lermann lreiherr ·on
Rotenhan. Munich, 1902.
|||. 13. 8i|cca, ncsquc cf Dc|i Hasan Pasna (Prcdcjctic), ca.
1575, as pnc|cgrapncd oq |nc au|ncr in 2007.
76
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Ottoman spy in Dubro·nik, are preser·ed.
45
#An
anonymous poet wrote a panegyric in Ottoman
1urkish about him.
46
#
Locally it is told that lasan Pasha also con-
structed a church íor his mother in the ·illage oí
Prije·or, íour km írom Bileca near the road to
Plana and Gacko. 1he local population called the
place Predoje·ica crk·a,` aíter lasan`s purport-
ed íamily name. At the end oí the 19
th
century,
people still sang about the construction oí the
mosque and the church by Nenad Pasha.`

1he
ruins oí this church can still be seen, its land reg-
istered as Orthodox Church property. Ottoman
dignitaries who were said to ha·e built mosques
as well as churches are ía·oured characters in
local íolklore ,compare Plana,. lere, howe·er,
we seem to ha·e an actual case.
48
lolk traditions
written down at the 20
th
century`s beginning
attribute e·en more churches to Deli lasan
Pasha, including the great monastery churches
oí Mostanica and Rmanj in northern Bosnia,
directly íacing Croatian territory. According to
a note in the Old Church Sla·onic Patervi/ 1¯2
in the Serbian monastery oí lilendar on Mount
Athos, the great church oí Mostanica was com-
pleted in 15¯9. Gazi lasan Pasha is said to ha·e
conquered the Croatian íortress oí Petrinje ,50
km south oí Zagreb, in 15¯5. It is suggested
that he constructed the churches oí Mostanica
and Rmanj as symbols oí his ·ictory o·er the
Catholics at Petrinje. Most strikingly, Mostanica`s
great church shows strong innuence írom Otto-
man construction techniques and decorati·e el-
45 See I·ic, Aleksa. Pisma lasan-pase lercego·ackog iz 15¯3,` in:
´¡ovevi/ ´r¡./e Krat;er./e ./aaevi;e, Vol. 44 ,1910,, pp. 20-6.
46 A copy oí it is preser·ed in the ·ast collection Zbornik Ln·eri
Kadic in the Gazi lusre·-beg library in Saraje·o. Cí. Sabano·ic,
lazim. Kv;i¸ervo.t vv.tivava ßo.ve i íercegorive va ori;evtatviv ;e¸iciva.
Saraje·o: S·jetlost, 19¯3, p. 86. 1he original work oí the panegyric
was in the pri·ate library oí the well-known Bosnian scholar Osman
Sokolo·ic, now in the Gazi lusre·-beg library, Saraje·o.
4¯ Cí. Knez Bajagic i Nenad Pasa ,narodna pjesma,,` in: ßo.av./a rita,
Vol. 9 ,1894,, pp. 199-201 ,sung with support oí a gv.ta by Janko
Cerinic,.
48 More about this building by Kojcic, Desimir. Crk·a ·ezira,` in:
´toboaa, Vol. 16, No. 352 ,1954,.
ements.
49
During \\II Croat nationalist íorces
blew up the Orthodox monastery oí Rmanj and
hea·ily damaged the Orthodox Mostanica as
re·enge` íor the 16
th
century deíeats, and as an
endea·our to correct a mistake oí history.`
50

Kazanci
During the endless Cretan \ar ,1645-69, the
Ottoman part oí Inner Dalmatia ,the Klis .avca/,,
and much oí lerzego·ina`s southern and west-
ern parts, suííered terribly írom plunder, destruc-
tion, and depopulation. \hen aíter the war Os-
man pasha promoted his birth place, the hamlet
oí Kazanci ,whence his epithet Kazanac`,, into
a small Ottoman /a.aba by íounding a mosque, a
veare.e, a ve/teb, stables, a ,aairrav, and a row oí
shops, he also brought íresh water to the settle-
ment through a special underground building,
locally know as stubanj.` lor himselí he had a
/ova/ erected. 1his all took place in the 16¯0s, in
the decade immediately aíter the terrible war had
ended and Osman had been ele·ated to the post
oí Damascus go·ernor. In 1684, during the new
long war with the Christian coalition ,1683-99,,
a íorce oí 800-900 ba;av/s and Montenegrins
under the much-íeared Bajo Pi·ljanin destroyed
Osman`s entire new /a.aba and killed or carried
oíí as sla·es its population. Osman himselí íell
in 1685 as Vizier oí Bosnia, deíending the Otto-
man írontier at Lgri,Lger in northern lungary.
Kazanci`s local population long remembered its
destruction. lolk songs about it were collected
49 lor the mentioned monasteries see the pro·oking study oí
Andreje·ic, Andrej. Prilog prouca·anju islamske uticaja na
umetnost XVI i XVII ·eka kod Srba u Saraje·u i Bosni,` in: Prito¸i
¸a ¡rovcarav;e i.tori;e ´ara;era, Vol. 1 ,1963,, pp. 51-¯1, iaev, Manastir
Mostanica,` in: ´tarivar, Vol. 13,14 ,1965,, pp. 163-¯5. lor the
Orthodox monasteries in eastern Bosnia in general there are two
excellent works: Se·o, Ljiljana. Mova.terie. ava rooaev cbvrcbe. of tbe
ßav;a ív/a í¡arcb,. Banja Luka: Glas Srpski, 1998 ,121 pages, richly
illustrated,, and Suput, Marica. ´¡ovevici .r¡./og cr/revog graaitet;.tra
`1í·`1íí re/, Belgrade: Institut za istoriju umetnosti, 1991.
50 Mostanica has been restored in the 1960s. 1he totally destroyed
Rmanj ,on the ri·er Una, twel·e km south oí Kulen Vakuí, in
northern Bosnia was careíully reconstructed in the 1980s. At that
occasion some íragments oí íresco painting were disco·ered that
stylistically point to the end oí the 15
th
or the early decades oí the
16
th
century. 1here are also some historical notes írom the late-15
th

and early 16
th
century but it is not certain ií they pertain to Rmanj
or to another monastery. lor details ,and the appalling state oí
the building aíter 1945,, see Suput, ´¡ovevici, pp. 235í., who deals
with the problem oí the date ·ery careíully and pro·ides íurther
reíerences.
77
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
|||. 14. Sc|||cncn| pa||crn and pcpu|a|icn in |nc |aza cf
Nctcsinjc in 1475, acccrding |c T.D. 5 in |nc 8a¸oa|an|t|
Osnan|t Ar¸iti (8OA)
|||. 16. Sc|||cncn| pa||crn and pcpu|a|icn in |nc |aza cf
Nctcsinjc in 1585, acccrding |c T.K.G.M. Nc. 7c8 in |nc
8OA.
|||. 15. Sc|||cncn| pa||crn and pcpu|a|icn in |nc |aza cf
Nctcsinjc in 1519, acccrding |c T.D. 96 in |nc 8OA.
|||. 17. Sc|||cncn| pa||crn and pcpu|a|icn in |nc fcrncr |aza cf
Nctcsinjc in 1991, acccrding |c S|anctnis|tc 8csnc i Hcrcc-
gctinc (ci|cd in fcc|nc|c 21).
78
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
as late as 1906.
51
In the 19¯0s lasandedic still
saw the íoundation oí the stables and the /ova/
oí Osman Pasha. In 2008, other than the mina-
ret and the stubanj,` I íound nothing more at
this deserted place. 1he minaret oí the Kazanci
mosque ,ill. 23,!stands lonely outside the hamlet,
almost immediately at the border between ler-
zego·ina and the Republic oí Montenegro. It
shows no longer the church-tower íorm but the
real Ottoman round shaít and balcony, with the
top end ,¡ete/, crowned by a lead-co·ered conical
cap ,now missing,. \e may take this symbolically
as a sign that, aíter the terrible Cretan \ar, the
Muslims oí lerzego·ina, e·en those outside
the great centres, more strongly realized their
religion`s ·alues and chose to build the most con-
spicuous symbol oí Islam in the orthodox` way,
51 Details on the career oí Osman Pasha oí Kizansa` can be íound in
´icitt·i O.vavi, p. 1304. 1he íolk songs on the destruction oí Kazanci
were published in the journal ßo.av./a rita, Nos. 2 and 3 ,1906,. lor
the destructi·e acti·ities oí Bajo Pi·ljanin, see 1omic, Jo·an. Po.teav;e
are goaive ¸irota i raaa baravba.e ßa;a ^i/otica Pirt;aviva ;1óº1·1óº:
goa.), ¡o arbir./iv ¡oaaciva. Belgrade: Stamparija Kralje·ine Srbije,
1901 ,a booklet oí 34 pages,.
as a true minaret had to be. 1he Kazanci minaret
thus presumably marks the end oí the curious
campanile-minaret` construction.
Concl udi ng remarks
\ith help oí solid data, I ha·e shown that
the spread oí Islam in the vabi,e. oí Dabra and
Ne·esinje was a process which stretched íor
more than a century ,see ills. 14-21,. lrom zero
in 1468, it rose to almost 80 percent in the late
16
th
century. 1he emergence oí the little town oí
Predolje at the edge oí the Dabarsko polje, the
íoundation oí the /a.aba oí Kazanci in the íor-
mer vabi,e oí Gacko, and the town oí Ne·esinje`s
de·elopment, were expressions oí a clear urban-
ization policy, which was only to be undone by
external íactors in late Ottoman times. lowe·er,
there is a considerable diííerence between the
de·elopment oí Islamic culture in the plains oí
Dabar and Ne·esinje, and that culture`s íate in
the 20
th
century. Disregarding Bijeljani, Bileca,
and Dabrica, the monuments oí Dabar`s Islamic
culture can only be retraced in written sources
and in·estigation on the spot. Many more such
monuments must ha·e existed in the past, but
the e·idence is lost. In the plain oí Ne·esinje,
many more buildings still stood in 1992, but this
was also only a part oí a much greater produc-
tion. 1he spread oí Islam in the district was, as
elsewhere in Bosnia-lerzego·ina, spontaneous,
·oluntary, and, most importantly, quite gradual.
1he campanile-minarets` phenomenon, oí
which only two original examples sur·i·e and
three can be reconstructed, ·i·idly illustrates the
íact that the southern lerzego·ina was really at
the ·ery edge oí the Islamic world, not only in
the geographical, but also in the cultural sense.
Iníormation on the district`s cultural institutions
has been assembled piecemeal. In a poor and
stony district such as the Dabarsko polje they
could only be small and unimpressi·e. In the like-
wise poor, but high and cold plain oí Ne·esinje
the situation was much the same. More remains
to be learned about this subject. 1he question oí
why some people opted to ha·e a church-tower
minaret and others - basically in the towns,
like Mostar, Konjic, or Pocitelj on the Neret·a
- wanted to ha·e a true` Ottoman minaret at
|||. 23. Kazanci, ninarc| cf 1670s ncsquc cf Osnan Pasna
79
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
their mosques, is such a problem. Most oí the
patrons had a ·illage background, but at least two
oí them, Seíer Aga oí Dabrica and Deli lasan
Pasha oí Bileca, knew the outside world. Deli
lasan spent his íormati·e years in the capital, Is-
tanbul, and thus was acquainted with the style oí
its monuments, or did he gi·e the order to build
a mosque and pro·ide the money to do it with-
out ha·ing the opportunity to o·ersee the work
himselí· Moreo·er, what about the mosque oí
Lady latima Saric in Mostar, a city íull oí highly
sophisticated and purely Ottoman` mosques·
\e ha·e to lea·e these questions open and hope
only to ha·e succeeded, on paper at least, to ha·e
retrie·ed some aspects oí the little known and
almost íorgotten Islamic history oí the \estern
Balkans.
ƒ
|||. 22. Pcpu|a|icn and rc|igicn in |nc Daoars|c pc|jc, 1961-
1991, acccrding |c Yugcs|at ccnsus rcccrds (as rc|a|cd in
S|anctnis|tc 8csnc i Hcrccgctinc).
|||s. 18-20. Tnc naniqc cf Daora in 1477, 1499, and 1585.
|||. 21. Pcpu|a|icn and rc|igicn in |nc Daoars|c pc|jc, 1468-
1585, acccrding |c O||cnan arcnita| rcccrds.
80
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. tbe graavat ivtegratiov of Dava.cv. ¡rorivce ivto tbe Ottovav .,.tev iv tbe 1ó
tb
cevtvr,,
ava arcbitectvre`. rote iv tbi. ¡roce... ´be focv.e. ov vovvvevt. ov tbe ´,riav .ectiov of tbe iv¡eriat roaa., rbicb
tiv/ea tbe ca¡itat to tbe Rea ´ea a. rett a. to tbe tbree bot, citie.. .. a re.vtt of ivcrea.ea traffc ov tbe.e roaa.,
tbe .vttav. ava tbeir bigb offciat. bvitt a vvvber of ra,·.tatiov. to ¡roriae ¡rotectiov ava facititie. for att /iva.
of traretter.. ívtere.tivgt,, iv terv. of .t,te tbe.e cov¡te·e. rere cto.er to tbe Ottovav iv¡eriat .t,te of í.tavbvt
tbav to tbat of Ottovav Dava.cv., tbovgb it at.o ivctvaea featvre. of tbe tatter. ´¡eciat attevtiov i. aerotea to
ßo.viav·borv íata Mv.tafa Pa.ba`. fovvaatiov iv Qvva,tra, begvv iv 1:ó², rbicb ivctvaea a íriaa, vo.qve, ava
tbe evaorvevt aeea of rbicb ¡roriae. a great aeat of ivforvatiov abovt tbe cov¡te·`. fvvctiov..
.vtorica ai./vtv;e ¡o.te¡evv ivtegraci;v ¡rorivci;e Dava./ v o.vavti;./i .i.tev v 1ó. .tot;ecv i vtogv arbi·
te/tvre v orov ¡roce.v. Ova .e v.reaocara va .¡ovevi/e va .iri;./ov ai;etv .vttav./ib ce.ta, /o;e ¡ore¸v;v
¡ri;e.totvicv i Crrevo vore, /ao i tri .reta graaa. Kao re¸vttat ¡o;acavog ¡roveta va oriv ¡vteriva, .vttav i v;egori
ri.o/i .tv¸bevici graae bro;va .rrati.ta aa bi ¡vtviciva .rib rr.ta obe¸b;eaiti ¸a.titv i arvge v.tvge. ívtere.avtvo,
v ¡ogteav .tita ori /ov¡te/.i .v bti¸i o.vav./ov car./ov .titv í.tavbvta vego .titv v o.vav./ov Dava./v,
vaaa .v /a.vi;e v/t;vcevi v i.ti. Po.ebva ¡a¸v;a ;e ¡o.receva ¸aav¸bivava íata Mv.tafa Pa.e, /o;i ;e bio roĀev
v ßo.vi, a v/t;vcirate .v a¸avi;a v Kvveitri i¸ 1:ó².goaive, ¸ativ a;eto ¸aav¸bive /o;e ¡rv¸a bro;ve ivforvaci;e
o fvv/ci;ava /ov¡te/.a.
Marianne Boqvist
“Cent r e” and “per i pher y” i n t he
Syr i an count r ysi de: t he ar chi t ect ur e of
mosques i n gover nment al f oundat i ons
on t he Ot t oman i mper i al r oads
“Cent r i ” i “per i f er i j e” u Si r i j skoj
pokr aj i ni : ar hi t ekt ur a džami j a u
zadužbi nama upr avi t el j a na sul t anski m
cest ama
81
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
I ntroducti on
&!!&,+'$ ,&152#1$ /'$ newly conquered cities
were, when sponsored by patrons who were
part oí the central power structures in Istanbul,
typically built according to a rşvĩ or Ottoman`
canon, sometimes reíerred to as the Ottoman
imperial style.`
1
One oí the most characteris-
tic examples oí this style was the single domed
mosque, íeaturing a centralized prayer hall
surmounted by a hemispherical, lead-co·ered
dome, preceded by a domed portico, and
nanked by a slender minaret ,or two in the case
oí royal patrons, crowned by a pointed cap. In
Damascus, the most signiFcant mosques oí this
type were part oí great Ottoman raqfs ,endow-
ments, íounded by Ottoman go·ernors in the
second halí oí the 16
th
century. 1heir impact on
the architecture and urban organization oí the
1 1his paper is part oí an ongoing research project, íunded by the
Swedish International De·elopment Cooperation Agency ,Sida,.
My gratitude goes to the Syrian ministry oí 1ourism and Culture,
the Syrian Department oí Antiquities and Museums as well as
the 1urkish ministry oí Culture, whose authorisations ha·e been
crucial íor this work, as well as to the organizers oí the coníerence
and ClwB who ga·e me the opportunity to present this paper.
See íor instance Kaíesçioglu, (igdem. In the image oí Rşm:
Ottoman architectural patronage in 16
th
century Aleppo and
Damascus,` in: Mvqarva., Vol. XVI ,1999,, pp. ¯0-96, \atenpaugh
Zeitlian, legnar. 1be ivage of av Ottovav cit,: iv¡eriat arcbitectvre ava
vrbav e·¡erievce iv .te¡¡o iv tbe 1ó
tb
ava 1¨
tb
cevtvrie.. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
city is íairly well known and acknowledged as
part oí a local Ottoman architectural heritage.
2

1he aim oí this paper is to discuss buildings
that were part oí these waqís but which were
located in strategic places along the Syrian sec-
tion oí the imperial roads towards Palestine,
Cairo, and the Red Sea ,the Via Maris, and the
two holy cities ,darb al-ʡajj al-shĆmĩ,, namely

that
oí LĆlĆ MuʞʙaíĆ Pasha in Qunayʙra ,now in the
Syrian part oí the Golan leights,, íounded in
9¯1 h.,1563, and those in Quʙayía ,40 km east oí
Damascus, and Sa`sa` ,near Qunayʙra, íounded
by SinĆn Pasha around 996 h.,158¯-88.
3
L·en
though these complexes were commissioned
by the sultan to secure the saíe passage oí mail,
pilgrims, and commercial cara·ans, and thus held
the particular status oí imperial imarets` ,imĆra
2 See, íor instance, Pascual, Jean-Paul. Dava. a ta fv av `1íe .iecte
a`a¡re. troi. raqf. ottovav.. Damascus: IlD, 1983, \eber, Steían.
1he creation oí Ottoman Damascus: architecture and urban
de·elopment oí Damascus in the 16
th
and 1¯
th
centuries,` in:
.R.M, Vol. IX,X ,199¯-8,, pp. 431-4¯0, Meinecke, Michael, Die
osmanische Architektur des 16. Jahrhunderts in Damaskus,` in: íiftb
ívtervatiovat Covgre.. of 1vr/i.b .rt. ;ßvaa¡e.t, 1·¨:). Ld. Géza lehér.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 19¯8, pp. 5¯5-95, Kaíesçioglu, In the
Image oí Rşm`, Boq·ist, Marianne. Architecture et dé·eloppement
urbain a Damas de la conquête ottomane ,922 l.,1516-1¯,
a la íondation du waqí de Murad Pasha ,101¯ l.,160¯-08,,`
Unpublished dissertation, Uni·ersité de Sorbonne, Paris IV, 2006.
3 LĆlĆ MuʞʙaíĆ Pasha, the conqueror oí Cyprus, held the go·ernorship
oí Damascus íor F·e years ,9¯1-¯6 h.,1563-68, where he íounded a
great raqf together with his wiíe, lĆʙima KhĆʙşn, the granddaughter
oí the last Mamluk sultan. SinĆn Pasha, the conqueror oí \emen,
was appointed go·ernor oí Damascus twice between 988 h.,1580
and his death in 1004 h.,1596, when he had held the position oí
grand ·izier F·e times.
82
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e al-`amĩra,, they ha·e not attracted much scholarly
,or other, attention to date.
4
1hese stops are today in urgent need oí
some kind oí preser·ation action. 1he mosque
in Qunayʙra is an empty shell in the middle oí
a deserted town,
5
that in Sa`sa` has recently been
restored, but is located in the centre oí a ruined
íortiFcation. Only that in Quʙayía, which was
4 Mardam Bek, Khalil. íirvĆv tirĆ ´aiaĆ ra ´bĆv bi Kbv.ş. raqf
íĆtĆ Mv.tafĆ ßa.bĆ ra ¸arĩ;atvbv íĆʗiva KbĆtşv bivt .vtʗĆv at·Ğşr.
Damascus: al-matbaqa al-`umşmĩya, 1385 h., 1956, p. 22, 1his
term, also used íor the sultanic íoundations in Damascus indicates
the imperial in·ol·ement in the íoundation. It can that can be put in
contrast with the term ta/ĩ,a that was used íor the other complexes
in the pro·ince, some oí which included public kitchens. See, Meier,
Astrid. lor the sake oí God alone· lood distribution policies,
takiyyas and imarets in early Ottoman Damascus,` in: íeeaivg ¡eo¡te,
feeaivg ¡orer: ivaret. iv tbe Ottovav ív¡ire. Lds. Nina Lrgin, Christoph
Neumann, and Amy Singer. Istanbul: Lren, 200¯, pp. 121-149, cit. p.
141-142.
5 According to Schumacher, Gottlieb. 1be ]avtãv: .vrre,ea for tbe Cervav
´ociet, for tbe í·¡toratiov of tbe íot, íava. London: R. Bentley & son,
1888, it was entirely rebuilt in the 1920s. lor íurther iníormation, see
Zakarĩya, Ahmad. .t·Rĩf at·´şrĩ, Vol. II, Damascus: al-BayĆn, 1955,
p. 540.
|||. 1a. Qunaqʝra, ncsquc sccn frcn |nc ninarc|. (A|| pnc|c-
grapns arc oq |nc au|ncr.)
|||. 1o. Qunaqʝra, ncsquc sccn frcn |nc cas|.
83
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
already quite well preser·ed, is presently being
restored through pri·ate initiati·e. One oí the
aims oí this paper is to gi·e an example oí how
íurther iníormation about these structures can
be obtained through the comparati·e study oí
written source material such as tra·el accounts,
historical photos, and my own obser·ations oí
the material remains.
6

lor instance, in Qunayʙra, where ·ery little oí
the original íeatures remain, the interpretation
oí its composite parts is mainly based on the in-
íormation pro·ided by the waqíĩya ,endowment
charter,.
¯
L·en though it does not indicate any
measures or ·olumes, it speciFes the intended use
oí space as well as some oí the building material.
lor the buildings in Sa`sa` and Quʙayía, the situ-
ation is quite the opposite, the íounder`s, SinĆn
Pasha`s, waqíĩyas that I ha·e come across so íar
only pro·ide summary building descriptions, but
the complexes are still in place. 1his is problem-
atic, especially in the case oí Sa`sa`, where the
mosque was recently thoroughly restored.
8
But
e·en in Quʙayía, where the structures are bet-
ter preser·ed and a ground plan was published
by Sau·aget in 193¯, it would still be helpíul to
know more about the use oí space and the origi-
nal building material.
1his paper will consider the innuence oí the
Ottoman centre on the local architectural tradi-
tion as apparent in the case oí these mosques,
how these buildings distinguished themsel·es
írom the local architectural tradition in the pro·-
ince oí Syria, and how they relate to the architec-
6 1here are howe·er some exceptions such as Sau·aget, Jean. Les
Cara·ansérails Syriens du ladjdj de Constantinople, in: .r. í.tavica,
Vol. IV ,193¯,, pp. 98-121, Kiel, Machiel, 1he cara·ansaray and
ci·ic center oí Deíterdar Murad Celebi in Ma`arrat an-Nu`man and
the külliye oí \emen latihi Sinan Pasha in Sa`sa`,` in: ¨ cevtvrie. of
Ottovav arcbitectvre: a .v¡ra·vatiovat íeritage. Lds. Nur Akin et al.
Istanbul: \LM, 1999, pp. 103-110. 1he íoundation has pre·iously
been studied and published by Arna`out, Muhammad. Mv`ĩ,at av
Diva.bq ra ßitĆa at·´bĆv at·]avşbĩ,a fĩ viʘa,at at·qarv at·´Ćai.a a.bara,
Damascus: DĆr al-ʡaʞʞĆd1993. Pascual, Dava.. lor more speciFc
iníormation on the sultan`s in·ol·ement in the íoundation, see
leyd, Uriel. Ottovav aocvvevt. ov Pate.tive 1::2·1ó1:: a .tva, of tbe
frvav accoraivg to tbe Mvbivve Defteri. Oxíord: Uni·ersity Press, 1960,
pp. 18¯-188. lor tra·el accounts, see íor instance L·liya (elebi,
´e,batvave.i, Vol. IX. Lds. \ücel Dagli et al. Istanbul: \api Kredi
\ayinlari, 2005, pp. 264-65.
¯ Mardam Bek, íirvĆv; Vakinar Genel Müdürlügü ,hereraíter VGM,
¯4¯-216 ,LĆlĆ MuʞʙaíĆ Pasha,, VGM ¯4¯-134, ,lĆʙima ʢĆʙşn,.
8 VGM 599-63,VGM 583-188 SinĆn Pasha, !aqfĩ,a ´ivĆv Pa.ba,
Damascus, IlLAD,Mudĩrĩya al-awqĆí 1948,
ture oí the subsequent centres oí the pro·ince
and the empire. 1his is a step towards a recon-
sideration oí these buildings as a signiFcant local
Ottoman-period heritage.
Vi sual i zati on of Ottoman
presence
1he exposed situation oí these three sites, on
the border between sedentary and Bedouin terri-
tory, was closely connected to their íoundation,
9

an urgent response to a need íelt by the sultan
to protect tra·ellers and pilgrims against Bedouin
attacks and to demonstrate Ottoman presence.
10

As a result, the deteriorated stops ,vev¸it) on the
9 Qunayʙra and Sa`sa` were only a íew kilometres to the south west oí
Damascus, on the road towards Palestine and Cairo, and Quʙayía
was on the road towards loms and Aleppo.
10 Bahit, Adnan. 1be Ottovav ¡rorivce of Dava.cv. iv tbe 1ó
tb
cevtvr,.
Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1982, p. 20 íí, leyd, Ottovav aoc...,p. 101,
126-2¯.
|||. 2. Quʝaqfa, grcund p|an cf ccnp|cx, frcn Sautagc|, ´|cs
caratanscrai|s¨, p. 119.
84
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
sites were enlarged into complexes along with a
íortress and a permanent garrison, horses and
their caretakers íor the postal system,
11
and in the
case oí Sa`sa`, which was particularly exposed, an
additional population oí peasants was ordered to
settle in the neighbouring area.
12

Despite the acti·e in·ol·ement oí the sultan
in the construction oí these complexes and their
designation as imperial imarets, they were built
on a smaller scale than monumental complexes
11 According to a frvav írom 985 h.,15¯¯ these 45 íamilies oí
caretakers in each stop were exempted írom paying taxes. See leyd,
Ottovav aocvvevt., pp. 126-2¯, Bahit, 1be Ottovav ¡rorivce, p. 9¯.
12 1he order to relocate these íamilies was placed in 989 h.,1581,
and they were exempted írom taxes. See ibid.., p. 101, Bakhit, 1be
Ottovav Prorivce, p.221.
such as those in Payas or Damascus,
commissioned írom Mi`mar SinĆn`s
oíFce.
13
Despite the diííerence in scale,
one can sense this institution`s in·ol·e-
ment in the layout oí the complexes
- and the íact that they were just as
much miniature Ottoman towns in the
middle oí the countryside, including
kitchens ser·ing Ottoman íood, mar-
kets, baths, caíés, storage space, rooms
íor tra·ellers, stables and, last but not
least, single domed lriday mosques,
another no·elty to Syrian roadside ar-
chitecture.
The l ayout of
bui l di ngs
1he ground plan oí the mosques,
also perhaps determined by the royal
architects` oíFce in these cases, was dií-
íerent in Qunayʙra and the two other
locations. \hile that in Qunayʙra had
a rectangular base, pro·iding a square
íor the central dome through arches
on pillars nanked by lateral galleries ,ill.
1,,
14
the domes in Sa`sa` and Quʙayía
were supported on pendenti·es on a cubic base
,ill. 2,.
15
1he Frst plan ,ill. 3, is similar to the
Darwĩshĩya and SinĆnĩya mosques in Damascus,
oíten compared with the mosque oí Mihrimah
Sultan in Istanbul.
16
1he closest examples oí
square ground plans can be obser·ed in the
1akĩya SulaymĆnĩya ,ill. 4,, or the mosques oí
MurĆd Pasha and that oí SiyĆğush Pasha in Da-
mascus.
Concerning the domes, only that in Quʙayía
is still in place. It has the local, bulbous` shape
and was plastered. 1hese were íeatures as-
sociated with the local architectural tradition
13 Necipoglu, Gülru. 1be age of ´ivav: arcbitectvrat cvttvre iv tbe Ottovav
ív¡ire. London: Reaktion Books, 2005, 1akĩya SulaymĆnĩya on p.
222, Payas on p. 355.
14 Mardam Bek, íirvĆv, p. 23.
15 1his can be iníerred írom photographs dating to beíore the
restoration oí the mosque in Sa`sa`.
16 See Meinecke, Die osmanische Architektur,` p. 584í., and \eber,
1he creation oí Ottoman Damascus,` p. 436.
|||. 3. Danascus, Sinœnūqa ncsquc, grcund p|an, frcn la|z-
ingcr c lu|zingcr, Danas|us, p. 79, fg. 14.
85
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
|||. 4. Danascus, ncsquc cf |nc Ta|ūqa Su|aqnœnūqa.
|||. 5. Qunaqʝra, ncsquc.
that continued to be used in most Damascene
Ottoman-period mosques, and contrasted with
the hemispherical lead-co·ered domes associated
with the central Ottoman power ,ill. 5,.

All three mosques originally had a loggia
,rirĆq), surmounted by F·e cupolas, preceding
the prayer hall.
18
In Qunayʙra it also pro·ided
access to the minaret, while in the other two
mosques the minarets were accessible írom the
prayer hall ,ills. 6-¯,. Apart írom the diííerences
in position, the minarets had the shape oí the
contemporary Damascene minarets, that is, they
1¯ In Damascus, the only mosques co·ered with these traditionally
Ottoman lead sheets are the 1akĩya SulaymĆnĩya and the SinĆnĩya.
18 1races oí the rirĆq in Sa`sa` can be seen on photos írom the archi·es
oí historical monuments.
86
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
were polygonal with a pointed cap, but íar írom
as slender as those oí the 1akĩya SulaymĆnĩya.
19

In conclusion, the layouts oí the three mosques
represent two ·ariations oí the Ottoman export
model`: one is rectangular with lateral galleries,
the other square with the minaret accessible írom
the riwĆq or írom the prayer hall. Both models
can be traced to Ottoman Damascus and e·en
loosely to Istanbul. lowe·er, although they
diííer radically írom the traditional Damascene
mosques, both in terms oí the organisation oí
space and the shape oí domes and minarets, they
are mainly built oí local materials and according
to local building techniques, and thus probably
under the super·ision oí local ,possibly Dama-
scene, master builders.
Bui l di ng materi al
and decorati on
1he main building material in the three sites
was adapted to the geological situation oí the
region: we Fnd basalt in Qunayʙra, limestone and
basalt in Sa`sa`, and limestone in Quʙayía. lor
the deFnition oí material used íor particular ele-
ments, the raqfĩ,a íor Qunayʙra has pro·en to be
the most iníormati·e source. It indicates the use
19 1oday only the minaret in Quʙayía has the characteristic pointed cap,
although they possibly all did originally.
|||. 7. Sa´sa´, ncsquc.
|||. 6. Quʝaqfa, ncsquc.
oí costly building material rarely seen beyond the
city limits, a testimony to the particular status oí
this complex. 1he most outstanding elements are
predominantly in the interior decoration.
1he minbar in Qunayʙra was made oí wood
and was crowned by a small cupola, painted with
a copper halí moon in imitation oí gold.
20
\hile
minbars in marble seem to ha·e been preíerred
in Ottoman mosques in the capital and its Ru-
melian and Anatolian hinterlands, elaborate
wooden minbars were common in pre-Ottoman
Syria and Lgypt. Nothing íurther is known, how-
e·er, oí the shape or elaboration oí the minbar
at Qunayʙra. 1he limestone minbar in Quʙayía
is clearly an imitation oí the marble minbar in
the SinĆnĩya mosque in Damascus, while that in
Sa`sa` ,ill. 8, was completely diííerent: cut in lime-
stone and shaped like a staircase attached to the
20 Mardam Bek, íirvav, p.23
87
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
qibla wall o·er an Ottoman arch, was this a local
interpretation oí Ottoman elements·
1he mosque in Qunayʙra had a wooden mah-
Fl with painted decoration and was supported
by stone columns.
21
Nothing similar has been
íound in the mosques oí Sa`sa` or Quʙayía, but
in Damascus both the SinĆnĩya and the 1akĩya
SulaymĆnĩya were íurnished with mahFls entirely
sculpted oí marble and supported by granite
and porphyry columns. A wooden mahFl with
painted decoration can be seen, howe·er, in the
mosque oí SinĆn Ağa.
22
1he waqíĩya oí Qunayʙra íurther mentions
the use oí marble panels in the secluded space
íor women. Such panels remind us oí those in
the prayer halls oí the SinĆnĩya or Darwĩshĩya
in Damascus that almost certainly were reused
building material.
1he mihrab in Qunayʙra was composed oí
diííerent types oí stone and painted,coloured
,manqşsh,.
23
1his establishes an aíFliation with
the Damascene architecture oí the same pe-
riod, where the majority oí mihrabs included
two or three types oí coloured stone and were
21 Ibid., p 23.
22 An Ottoman oíFcial on post in Damascus at the same time as
LĆlĆ Muʞʙaía Pasha, responsible íor the construction oí the 1akĩya
SulaymĆnĩya.
23 Mardam Bek, íirvav, p. 23.
decorated with sculpted medallions and írames
enhanced with colour paste. Although there is
currently no trace oí the original mihrab, reused
building material located in the northern íacade
inside the riwĆq contains se·eral reused stones
with sculpted motiís that can be connected with
contemporary Damascene architectural decora-
tion ,ill. 9,.
24
Similar motiís ha·e been obser·ed
in Sa`sa`, where the red paste, applied during a re-
cent restoration, creates a bi-colour eííect around
the mihrab, and red and black paste has been
24 In this context, it is particularly interesting to contrast the colour
paste decoration in Qunayʙra, executed in basalt, with the expensi·e
building materials to be used in this mosque as described in its
raqfĩ,a.
|||. 8. Sa´sa´, ninoar cf ncsquc.
|||. 9a. Qunaq|ra, rcuscd cc|cur pas|c ncda||icns.
|||. 9o. Qunaq|ra, rcuscd cc|cur pas|c ncda||icns.
88
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Flled into the polygonal íraming oí the decora-
ti·e panel ,ill. 10,. 1hese medallions and írames
were part oí the original construction and show
the connection not only between Qunayʙra and
Sa`sa`, but also to Ottoman Damascene architec-
tural decoration ,ill. 11,.
Another Ottoman no·elty obser·ed in these
buildings is the arched lunette crowning the rect-
angular windows, commonly used in Ottoman ar-
chitecture. In Damascus lunettes were írequently
decorated with tiles, but could elsewhere be Flled
in with moulded gypsum or just leít blank, as on
the exterior oí the three mosques studied in this
paper. In the interior oí the mosque in Quʙayía,
the lunettes contain the most interesting decora-
ti·e element obser·ed in that mosque. 1hey are
Flled with a gypsum co·er and painted with noral
or epigraphic designs that could be a local ,and,
or later, interpretation oí the Damascene tiles oí
the 16
th
century, maybe a pro·incial interpreta-
tion oí the Damascene tile production ,ill. 12,.
1hat the collaboration between workmen
írom the royal architects` oíFce and Damascene
workmen on the building site oí the 1akĩya
SulaymĆnĩya in the 1550s produced an Ottoman
Damascene architecture incorporating íoreign`
and local building material and the rele·ant tech-
niques is recognized. According to chronicles
and Ottoman archi·al sources, workmen were
sent írom Damascus to work on imperial build-
ing sites such as the Dome oí the Rock and the
al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem as well as on com-
plexes and íortresses on the imperial routes in
the region.
25
1hese sources iníorm us that there
was a stock oí imperial building material in Jeru-
salem and that the person in charge oí it was the
go·ernor oí Damascus. As the representati·e oí
the sultan, he was also responsible íor the em-
ployment oí skilled workmen and the execution
oí imperial building projects. It is thus possible
that building material írom these stocks could
ha·e been used in Qunayʙra and Sa`sa`, and that
25 lor íurther details on these works, see Bakhit, 1be Ottovav ¡rorivce,
p. 213, who mentions repairs at al-Zizĩya, on the road between
Damascus and Mecca, as ordered by the sultan and executed by
workmen and material írom Damascus under the responsibility
oí Damascene notables. Laoust, lenri. íe. govrervevr. ae Dava..
Damascus: IlD, 1952, p. 181, mentions repairs oí the íorts at al-
Aʠʟar ,in 938 h.,1531,.
|||. 10. Sa´sa´, ninrao cf ncsquc.
specialised workmen could ha·e been employed
there while they were tra·elling, íor instance, be-
tween Damascus and Jerusalem.
26
1his could also be an explanation íor the costly
material used in Qunayʙra. Another reason could
be that this was the only lriday mosque íounded
by LĆlĆ MuʞʙaíĆ Pasha, since his complex in Da-
mascus only contained a small va.;ia located in
the centre oí the courtyard oí his khan.

1his
also makes sense in comparison with the íounda-
tion oí SinĆn Pasha, whose mosque in Damascus
was similar in shape and material to that used in
26 L·liya Celebi, ´e,abatvave.i, Vol. IX, p. 235.
2¯ \atzinger, Carl and Karl \ulzinger. Dava./v., aie í.tavi.cbe ´taat,
Berlin: \alter de Gruyter & co,, 1924, pp. 53-55.
89
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Qunayʙra, while the ones in his rural complexes
were relati·ely simple.
28

1hus, despite the diííerences between these
three mosques, they are all clearly aíFliated with
architectural trends írom both the Ottoman cen-
tre and Ottoman Damascus as much through ar-
chitectural elements ,such as the shape ií domes,
minarets, windows, and vivbars, as through the
use oí decorati·e elements, such as colour paste
medallions and polygonal or moulded írames.
Moreo·er, although tiles do not seem to ha·e
been produced outside Damascus, there is an
awareness oí their existence, and motiís deri·ed
írom them are seen in the lunettes oí painted
gypsum in Quʙayía. Something similar can be
said about the vivbar in Sa`sa`: a local interpre-
tation oí Ottoman elements introduced to this
rural context through collaboration between
Damascene and local workmen.
28 leyd, Ottovav aocvvevt., p. 156, discusses in 984 h.,15¯6 the
material held in the go·ernmental stocks and which is not used due
to the lack oí competent workmen. Ibid. p. 15¯, is mentioned the
transport írom Istanbul oí lead íor the rooís oí al-Aqsa, the Dome
oí the Rock, and the Umayyad mosque in 98¯ h.,15¯9.
|||. 12. Danascus, |unc||c cf Sinœnūqa ncsquc.
Concl usi on
1he building complexes studied in this paper
were part oí íoundations sponsored by high-
ranking Ottoman oíFcials closely related to the
central authorities in Istanbul, and which were
promoted and,or commissioned by the sultan as
a response to the insecure situation on these roads
at the end oí the 16
th
century. 1hese complexes
simultaneously pro·ided íacilities and protection
íor pilgrims and tra·ellers, promoted settlement
in the surrounding area, and ·isualized Ottoman
presence on the imperial roads. In a conceptual
way, these roadside complexes were closer to the
Ottoman architectural canon oí the centre than
to its echoes in Damascus. Notwithstanding the
ob·ious architectural innuence oí the Otto-
man centre, building materials and construction
techniques continue the local tradition. Despite
their designation as imperial imarets, no building
material was sent írom the capital to build these
complexes. In íact, it seems that the íounders
completely relied on local workmen`s skills and
the quality oí the a·ailable building material in a
context where Damascus was the rele·ant cen-
tre. 1hese buildings can pro·ide us with more
iníormation on the processes through which
Ottoman imperial architecture was adapted to a
local,peripheral context e·en íurther away írom
the actual centre oí the empire than the Syrian
metropolis.
ƒ
|||. 11. Drauings frcn la|zingcr c lu||zingcr, Danas|us, p.
107, fg. 28.
90
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. fovr Ottovav bvitaivg. atovg tbe avcievt 1ia ígvatia ;re)ai.corerea avrivg ber fetaror/
iv tbe regiov iv 200¨. ív ítoriva, a torv iv Cree/ Maceaovia of rbicb tbe Ottovav beritage ba. vot beev .vf·
fcievtt, .tvaiea, .be ba. iaevtifea tbree bvitaivg. frov tbe Ottovav ¡erioa: tbe revaiv. of a vo.qve ;of Ya/vb
ßeg.) of rbicb ovt, tbe ba.evevt of a vivaret revaiv.; a forver bavav vear cotta¡.e; ava a bvitaivg of ,et
vviaevtifea fvvctiov, rbicb re.earcber. a¡¡ear to bare orertoo/ea .o far. ív .¡ottovia íovtra ov ía/e 1otri. .be
ba. iaevtifea av Ottovav tbervat batb of octagovat .ba¡e.
.vtorica ai./vtv;e o cetiri o.vav./e graĀerive /o;e .e vata¸e av¸ .tarog riv./og ¡vta 1ia ígvatia i /o;e
.v ¡ovoro ot/rireve to/ov v;evog terev./og raaa v regi;i v 200¨.g. | ítorivv, graav v íge;./o; Ma/eaovi;i,
ci;e o.vav./o va.ti;eĀe vi;e aorot;vo i.tra¸iravo, avtorica ;e iaevtif/orata tri graĀerive /o;e ¡oticv i¸ o.vav./og
¡erioaa: o.taci a¸avi;e ;]a/vb·bega.), oa /o;e ;e ¡reo.tao ;eaivo ¡oarvv vivareta; ve/aaa.v;i bavav /o;i ;e bti¸v
/ota¡.a; ¸ativ graĀeriva /o;o; .e ;o. vi;e iaevtif/orata fvv/ci;a, /o;a ;e r;eroratvo bita i¸o.tart;eva oa .trave
i.tra¸iraca ao .aaa. | .¡otovia íovtra va ;e¸erv 1otri. avtorica ;e iaevtif/orata o.vav./o tervatvo /v¡atito
va o.vovgaovo; o.vori.
Federica Broilo
The f or got t en Ot t oman her i t age of
Fl or i na on t he Ri ver Sakoul evas, and
a l i t t l e known Ot t oman bui l di ng on
t he shor e of L ake Vol vi s i n Gr eek
Macedoni a
Zabor avl j eno osmansko nasl i j eđe
Fl or i na na r i j eci Sakoul evas i manj e
poznat a osmanska gr ađevi na na obal i
j ezer a Vol vi s u Egej skoj Makedoni j i
91
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
/'$ +2-21!$ 67789$ as part oí my doctoral re-
search, I had the opportunity to tra·el along
the Via Lgnatia.
1
1he main purpose oí the
trip was to understand the current situation oí
the Ottoman-Islamic architectural heritage in
countries located along this ancient highway,
which íorms part oí the inírastructure created
by the Romans in and aíter the second century
B.C.
2
1he Via Lgnatia structured the millenary
route that ran írom the south-eastern shores
oí the Adriatic, o·er the Balkan Peninsula, to
the northern Aegean hinterlands, thus ensur-
ing communication írom Last to \est. As a
sort oí extension oí the Via Appia, starting
írom Rome, it pro·ided Southern Italy and the
\estern Mediterranean with a short land route
to the Aegean, the Lastern Mediterranean, the
Black Sea, and Asia.
3
lollowing 1raian Stoia-
no·ich, I employ the name Via Lgnatia in the
Ottoman context not in relation to the pa·ed
Roman road`s exact track, but in a looser sense,
including stretches oí roads that de·iated írom
the Roman road but still ran through central Al-
1 1his Feldwork was made possible thanks to support by the Barakat
1rust ,Oxíord,.
2 1he scholarly literature on the Roman-period Via Lgnatia is rather
extensi·e. lor a recent bibliography, see A·ramea, Anna. 1racé et
íonction de la 1ia ígvatia du IIe siecle a·ant J.-C. au VIe Apres
J.-C.,` in: 1be 1ia ígvatia vvaer Ottovav Rvte ;1²º0·1ó··): íatc,ov
Da,. iv Crete íí 1··1. Ld. Llizabeth Zachariadou. Rethymnon:
Crete Uni·ersity Press, 1996, pp. 3-¯, lasolo, Michele. ía 1ia
ígvatia í: aa .¡ottovia e D,rracbivv aa íera/te,a í,v/e.tiao., |Viae
Publicae Romanae 1|. Rome: Istituto GraFco Lditoriale Romano,
2005, Guttormsen, 1orgrim S. 1ransregional historical roads in
local landscapes: Via Lgnatia in Macedonian Greece,` in: Die írae
|Special issue: Meaiterraveav íava.ca¡e|, Vol. 138, No. 1 ,200¯,, pp.
9¯-116.
3 O`Sulli·an, lirmin. 1be ígvatiav !a,. Newton Abbott: Da·id &
Charles 19¯2, pp. 11-13.
bania, and in particular the stretch írom Durrës
to 1hessaloniki and thence to Constantinople.
4
Fl ori na
llorina is the capital oí a homonymous
northern Greek preíecture that borders the re-
gion around Korçë in Albania, the l\R Mace-
donia at Lake Prespa ,south oí Bitola,, and that
lies between the Greek cities oí 1hessaloniki and
Kastoria. llorina is also the nearest Greek town
to the l\R Macedonian border ,only thirteen
kilometres away, and stands on slightly rising
ground about 680 m. abo·e sea le·el. 1he his-
toric ígvatia is situated to the town`s east. llorina
was built on the site oí the ancient Melitonus,
5

while archaeological Fnds ha·e pro·en the area`s
continuous habitation since prehistoric times. Its
present name, howe·er, is perhaps related to a
Byzantine settlement named Chloron, which
came under Ottoman rule in 1385 and remained
so until 1912.
4 Stoiano·ich, 1rajan. A route type: the Via Lgnatia under Ottoman
Rule,` in: 1be 1ia ígvatia vvaer Ottovav Rvte, pp. 203-16, cit. p. 203.
5 1his is without doubt e·en in the complete absence oí archaeological
e·idence írom this period, since the number oí Roman miles írom
leraclia Lyncestis ,modern Bitola, to Melitonus ,llorina, and the
number oí statute miles ,1¯, almost coincide.
92
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
In a Venetian gentleman`s account oí 1591,
6

llorina was described as a town where the tra·el-
ler could not Fnd a place to eat, drink, or sleep.
Visiting llorina 60 years later, the Ottoman tra·-
eller L·liya (elebi reported six neighbourhoods,
6 In 1591 the Venetian representati·e ,baito, at Constantinople,
Girolamo Lippomano, was accused oí high treason and sentenced
in absentia to death by the Council oí the 1en. Senator Lorenzo
Bernardo, himselí a íormer Venetian ambassador to Constantinople
,1584-¯,, was charged with tra·elling to the Ottoman capital to carry
out the sentence. Bernardo set out írom Venice by boat. On his
arri·al in Albania, he chose the rarely used route o·erland through
the country so as to maintain the secrecy oí his mission. 1he
accused Lippomano was e·entually arrested and sent back to Venice.
1his account, written by his secretary Gabriele Ca·azza, oííers many
interesting details oí liíe along that road at the time, as experienced
on his secret journey. See Broilo, lederica A. Pane, ·ino e ca·arzera:
la Via Lgnatia nel XVI secolo secondo l`Itinerario di Gabriele
Ca·azza,` in: .a Orievte.: riaggiatori reveti tvvgo te rie a`Orievte. Lds.
Gianni Pedrini and Montecchio Vicentino ,íorthcoming in 2010,.
1500 houses, se·enteen mosques and ve.cias,
three veare.es, se·en ve/tebs, one te//e, two bavs,
and two bavavs.
¯
Oí all these buildings, only íew
traces ha·e sur·i·ed to today.
8
In what is the ma-
jor study oí the Ottoman town, Kiel`s short en-
try on llorina` in the 1D1 í.tav .v.i/to¡eai.i,
two mosques were reported as still standing in
1959, while in 19¯6 that author saw only a small
¯ írti,ã Çetebi .e,abatvãve.i, Vol. 5. Lds. \ücel DaJli et al. Istanbul:
\api Kredi \ayinlari, 2006, p. 310.
8 1here is no mention oí Ottoman buildings on oíFcial websites such
as http:,,www.norina.gr or http:,,www.culture.gr.
|||. 1. ||crina, pic|urc pcs|card cf nain s|rcc| a| |nc |urn cf |nc
ccn|urq.
|||. 2. ||crina, |nc ruins cf |nc ninarc|, pcssio|q cf Ya|uo 8cg´s
!"#$%&'
93
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
bavav.
9
Biçakçi, in his book on 1urkish` archi-
tecture in Greece, reíers to a minaret`s remains
as the city`s only Ottoman relic.
10
In addition to
these two structures I identiFed a third building
during my Feldwork.
One oí the most interesting ·isual sources íor
llorina`s history is a picture postcard dating to
the end oí the 19
th
century or the early 20
th
cen-
tury ,ill. 1,. 1his photograph presents a ·iew oí
the íormer Ottoman main street in llorina, lined
on each side with both single-storey and two-sto-
rey buildings. It illustrates the market area with
the clock tower ,.aat /vte.i, in the background,
9 Kiel, Machiel. llorina,` in: 1vr/i,e Di,avet 1a/fi í.tãv .v.i/to¡eai.i,
Vol. 13. Istanbul: 1ürkiye Diyanet Vakíi, 1995, p. 164.
10 Biçakçi, Ismail. Yvvavi.tav`aa 1vr/ vivari e.erteri. Istanbul: ISAR,
2003, p. 89.
and behind it an unidentiFed minaret`s silhouette.
Both buildings - mosque and clock tower - no
longer exist. 1he photograph hardly allows us to
Fnd similarities between the clock tower in llo-
rina and still standing ones, such as that in nearby
Bitola, which dates to the 18
th
century, but at
least we can conclude that llorina was once also
equipped with such a building. As íor the extant
structures, in 200¯, the city`s only three Ottoman
buildings were the íollowing:
1he Frst is the basement oí a íormer minaret
,ill. 2, located at Papakon Nou Neretis No. 6.
Built according to the so-called o¡era vi.ta tech-
nique, in this particular case the masonry íeatures
three rows oí bricks alternating with a layer oí
stone, e·ery stone separated írom the other by
se·eral ·ertical bricks. 1he photograph suggests
that the remains oí the minaret`s shaít were simi-
|||. 3. ||crina, |nc rcnains cf |nc sc-ca||cd ´8qzan|inc |as|c||cs¨.
94
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
larly made oí brick. 1he minaret`s basement has
six equal sides, while the se·enth side ,originally
attached to the mosque, is larger and hosts the
access door. Part oí the winding staircase is still
·isible e·en ií the access is iníested by huge
growing thistles.
1he second building ,ills. 3-4, is situated not
íar írom the minaret and is located at the inter-
section oí louledaki and Lleítherias street, basi-
cally at the bank oí the Sakoule·as Ri·er. Locals
call it the Byzantine Castle,` probably íor its
masonry. 1his is a particularly interesting build-
ing, the simple exterior oí which is íormed out
oí two irregular stonework walls. 1he side oí the
building located on Lleítherias is adorned with
a small window, surmounted by an arch made
oí 33 bricks. 1he original wooden lintel is still
·isible. 1he abundant ·egetation growing on the
ediFce renders ·iewing the side towards louleda-
ki Street diíFcult. Access to the building`s interior
is, moreo·er, restricted by barbed wire. Nonethe-
less, a ·aulted or domed space could be identiFed
in its interior, as well as two-and-a-halí pointed
arches decorating the wall. 1he Frst pointed arch
is really a niche in the wall. 1he ceiling and walls
are made oí Fne brickwork. Scholarly literature
contains no reíerence to this building. Consider-
ing its ·icinity to the ruined minaret, one may
surmise that they were both part oí the same pi-
ous íoundation, and possibly that they were part
oí the \akub Beg complex. In a source reíerred
to by Ay·erdi as the Mava.tir taribçe.i ri.ate.i,
there are reíerences to three ediFces related to
\akub Beg: a mosque, an ivaret, and a ve/teb.
11

11 Ay·erdi, Lkrem lakki. .rrv¡aaa O.vavti vivãri e.erteri, Vol. 4.
Istanbul: Istanbul letih Cemiyeti, |1982| 2000, p. 224.
|||. 4. ||crina, |nc in|cricr cf |nc ´|as|c||cs¨.
95
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Uníortunately, in the absence oí any archaeologi-
cal sur·ey on the surrounding area, and only in
anticipation oí a more substantial study oí the
sources a·ailable, we cannot go beyond mere as-
sumptions and an e·ocati·e hypothesis.
1he third building is situated íarther írom the
other two but is also located near the bank oí
the ri·er Sakoule·as, along which the Ottoman
city had de·eloped ,ill. 5,. Co·ered by ·egetation,
once used as a shelter íor poor people and now
employed as a public dumping ground, the build-
ing is a small bavav near collapse. 1he exterior
is made out oí stonework. Vertical bricks írame
the entrance door. In the right wall, next to the
entrance, is a small rectangular niche. 1wo rooms
compose the interior oí the bavav, which is
plastered. Lighting is pro·ided by square-shaped
openings in the dome. 1hese openings íorm an
interesting decorati·e motií: designed according
to a geometrical pattern, these light channels pro-
|||. 5. ||crina, |nc s|i||-s|anding nanan.
|||. 6. Apc||cnia |cu|ra, |nc cc|agcna| oui|ding, cx|cricr.
96
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
·ided a diííuse light which constantly changed its
orientation. Such square shaped openings ha·e
also been íound in the bath at Zambeliou and
Douka streets in Chania ,Crete,, and in a bath
at Methoni ,Modon, castle in the Peloponnesus.
Apol l oni a Loutrà
1he Mav.io .¡ottovia `í, as it is reíerred to in
the early 16
th
-century Pevtivger 1abte, corresponds
to the site oí the modern ·illage Nea Apollonia.
Apparently, it had been íounded in the íourth
century by the Macedonian king Perdiccas as an
outpost against the 1hracians and Athenians on
the ri·er Strymon. 1he modern ·illage is near
Lake Vol·is ,known as Besik Golü in Ottoman
times, on the sedimentary land íormed by the
Kholomendas stream, upon the upper course oí
which stands the ·illage oí Melissurgos. 52 kilo-
metres írom 1hessaloniki is Loutra, where there
are hot and sulphurous medicinal waters ·isited
by the well-known Ottoman tra·ellers Mehmed
Asik ,1586, and L·liya (elebi ,166¯,.
12
1he Ottoman building in question ,ills. 6-¯, is
located in an abandoned area between the cur-
rent thermal baths and the ·illage oí Nea Apol-
lonia, on the shore oí Lake Vol·is. Its location
almost on the shore oí the lake is quite unusual:
12 1ranslations and transcriptions oí their short accounts are now
íound in Lowry, leath. 1be .ba¡ivg of tbe Ottovav ßat/av. ;1²:0·
1::0): tbe covqve.t, .etttevevt c ivfra.trvctvrat aereto¡vevt of ^ortberv
Creece. Istanbul: Bahçepehir Uni·ersity Publications, 2008, pp. 248-
9. L·liya records the íollowing obser·ations about its architecture:
\hile in truth there is a dome o·er this bath, unlike the hot springs
oí Bursa, it does not ha·e an elaborate series oí domed buildings
surrounding it.`
|||. 7. Apc||cnia |cu|ra, nicncs and |nc cc|agcna| oasin.
97
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
the distance between the lake and the building
is approximately 30 meters. Also unusual is its
isolated location: the ·illage, with the remains oí
the Ottoman \eni Bazar, is not in close proxim-
ity. Aíter the Ottomans leít, the local Greeks
continued to li·e where they had li·ed beíore,
letting the Ottoman settlement disappear, as was
the case with Pazargah ,Pazaroudha,, outside
the present ·illage oí Apollonia.
13
1he date oí
its construction is not certain, diííerent opinions
date the building to the mid-15
th
century or to
the beginning oí the 16
th
century. 1he building
has an octagonal shape, probably originally co·-
ered by a brick dome supported by an octagonal
drum. 1he exterior`s masonry, mixing bricks and
irregular stonework, is ·ery diíFcult to read. 1o-
day, no proper entrance is ·isible, so the building
is accessed through a large hole in the wall. In
the structure`s centre is an octagonal water basin,
the walls are decorated with eight pointed arches
within which there are eight small pointed niches.
Both arches and niches are made oí brickwork.
L·en this area requires at least an archaeologi-
13 See Kiel, Machiel. Ottoman building acti·ity along the Via Lgnatia:
the case oí Pazargah, Ka·ala and lerecik,` in 1be 1ia ígvatia vvaer
Ottovav rvte, pp.143-58. And íor the only sur·ey existent on the ruins
oí \eni Bazar, see ladjitryíonos, L·angelia., Othomaniko Loutro
stin Apollonia tis Vol·is,` in: Ma/eaovi/a, Vol. 26 ,1988,, pp. 141-
68, and more recently: Kanetaki, Lleni, 1he still existing Ottoman
hamams in the Greek territory,` in: Mí1| ]ovrvat of .rcbitectvre,
Vol. 21, No. 1-2 ,2004,, pp. 81-110 ,also a·ailable online at http:,,
jía.arch.metu.edu.tr,archi·e,0258-5316,2004,cilt21,sayi_1-2,81-
110.pdí,.
cal sur·ey beíore any work oí consolidation or
restoration.
1his intriguing building, which I disco·ered
during the summer 200¯ sur·ey, was then pub-
lished by leath Lowry in one oí his recent books,
in a chapter on the Ottoman hot spring culture
in Macedonia.
14
Beíore Lowry`s texts, the only
reíerence to that building I am aware oí was a
proposal íor restoration by a young Greek archi-
tect.
15
1his project, presented in 200¯, proposed
the building`s total reconstruction rather than its
restoration. 1his would certainly compromise
the peculiar charm oí this little building set in the
beautiíul landscape surrounding the lake.
ƒ
14 Lowry, leath. 1be .ba¡ivg of tbe Ottovav ßat/av., pp. 24¯-50.
15 Dikas, Nikos. Architectural dialogues: reuse oí Ottoman bath in
N. Apollonia, Greece,` in: .rcbitectvre traaitiovvette veaiterraveevve:
¡re.evt et fvtvr ;ßarcetove, av 12 av 1: ;vittet 200¨). Barcelona: Collegi
d`Aparelladors i Arquitectes 1ecnics, 200¯, pp. 606-¯. 1he paper is
also a·ailable online at http:,,www.rehabimed.net,Documents,
docs,actes,9_experi_rehab_integr_medi.pdí.
98
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. tbe recevt re.toratiov of Pocitet;`. ;íer¸egoriva) 1ó
tb
·cevtvr, íaa¸i .ti;a vo.qve. ..
ra. tbe ca.e ritb otber bvitaivg. ai.cv..ea iv tbi. rotvve, tbi. vo.qve ra. .ereret, aavagea avrivg tbe rar iv
1··², iv riotatiov of tbe íagve Covrevtiov for tbe Protectiov of Cvttvrat Pro¡ert, iv tbe írevt of .rvea
Covfict ;1·:1), rbicb baa beev .igvea b, tbe Yvgo.tar .tate. 1be avtbor re¡ort. ov tbe aavage cav.ea to tbe
bvitaivg, ava ov tbe ¡robtev. ava .vcce..e. of tbe rebabititatiov ¡roce.., rbicb begav iv 2001.
.vtorica ai./vtv;e o veaarvo; re.tavraci;i íaa¸i .ti;ive a¸avi;e i¸ 1ó..tot;eca v Pocitet;v ;íercegoriva). Kao
.to ;e bio .tvca; i .a o.tativ graĀerivava ¡ovevvtiv v orov i¸aav;v, i ora a¸avi;e ;e bita te./o o.teceva to/ov
rata 1··².g., /r.ev;ev íag./e /ovrevci;v o ¸a.titi /vttvrvog va.ti;eĀa v ratviv /ovfi/tiva ;1·:1), /o;a ;e
bita ¡ot¡i.ava oa .trave ]vgo.tari;e, /ao ar¸are. .vtorica v/a¸v;e va o.tecev;a /o;a ;e graĀeriva ¡retr¡;eta, ¸ativ
¡robteve i v.¡;ebe ¡ro;e/ta obvore /o;i ;e ot¡oceo 2001.goaive.
Vjekoslava Sanković Simčić
The r est or at i on of t he mosque of Hadži
Al i j a i n Poči t el j
Rest aur aci j a Hadži Al i j i ne džami j e u
Poči t el j u
99
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Pocitelj is a small historic íortiFed town lo-
cated to the south oí Mostar on the leít bank
oí the Neret·a Ri·er ,ill. 1,. As a spatially and
topographically deFned urban en·ironment, it is
mentioned íor the Frst time in written documents
oí the mid-15
th
century. Although Pocitelj`s
signiFcance has changed throughout history, its
role has continued to be mainly strategic, due to
its location on a dominant cliíí that grants ·is-
ibility o·er the Neret·a Ri·er towards the south
and the north.
1
Like many other historical towns
in Bosnia and lerzego·ina, this settlement has
lost inhabitants due to economically-moti·ated
out-migration. A persistent neglect oí the upper
sections oí this old historic centre by the state,
a constant deterioration oí buildings, and a lack
oí inírastructure in the old parts ha·e caused
the remaining inhabitants to relocate outside the
1 lor the history oí Pocitelj, see Celic, Dzemal. Pocitelj na Neret·i`,
in: ^a.e .tarive, Vol. ¯ ,1960,, pp. 5-49.
city walls in the Neret·a ·alley. 1he recent war in
Bosnia and lerzego·ina ,1992-5, also contrib-
uted to the deterioration oí Pocitelj.
Although the lague Con·ention íor the
Protection oí Cultural Property in the L·ent
oí Armed Connict ,1954, was ratiFed by the
lederal People`s Republic oí \ugosla·ia on 29
December 1955, the recent war witnessed a
brutal destruction, degradation, and demolition
oí cultural heritage. Pocitelj`s ·aluable historic
buildings were also aííected by this atrocious
de·astation. 1his is painíully illustrated by the
se·erely damaged mosque oí ladzi Alija which,
completed in 1562,3, is artistically the most ·alu-
able building in Pocitelj. 1his domed 16
th
-century
building, targeted in 1993, was one oí the most
beautiíul in Bosnia and lerzego·ina. 1his be-
comes quite apparent when one considers the
proportions oí its íormal building elements, the
delicacy oí their appearance, and the Fne orna-
ments car·ed in stone and the precision oí their
execution. 1he dynamite explosion that occurred
())*+
100
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
during the recent war caused immense damage to
the mosque ,ills. 2-6,. A study carried out in July
2001 reported the íollowing damage:
^ the main cupola dome collapsed into the
praying area and only parts oí the tambur,
which supported it, remained partially un-
damaged,
^ the porch partially collapsed ,1 ' small
cupolas, broken arches, two columns with
bases and capitals,. Consequently, the
se·ere deíormations oí its iron joists and
shiíted weight caused serious damage at
the base and on the middle column`s capital
,leít oí the entrance to the mosque,,
^ the minaret almost completely collapsed
except íor one oí the turret`s polygon-
shaped íoundation stones and a íew stone
steps,
^ extensi·e and dangerous cracks were íound
in the walls, tromps, embrasures, and win-
dows adjacent to the minaret,
^ the stone window írames were broken and
displaced,
^ the vabrit ,1urkish vabft, collapsed, the
vivber ,vivber, was partly demolished and
the trav¸evas were broken,
^ the wall decorations írom 1988 were dam-
aged,
^ the crown oí the centuries-old cypress in
íront oí the mosque was signiFcantly dam-
aged,
^ as the result oí long exposure to rain, sun,
wind, írequent earth tremors, growing
weeds, and stone theíts ,írom the building
and surrounding area, the le·el oí damage
has increased since 1995 when this area was
Flmed.
Considering the signiFcance oí Pocitelj as a
·aluable cultural and historic en·ironment, and
íollowing the initiati·e oí the lederal Ministry oí
Physical Planning, the Go·ernment oí the Bil
())'*,
())'*-
101
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
lederation has adopted a programme íor the
continuous protection oí Pocitelj.`
2
1his pro-
gramme immediately led to the production oí a
detailed plan íor this signiFcant historic centre`s
protection and restoration, in accord with se·en
established priorities.
3
A team oí experts was also
2 Vlada lederacije Bosne i lercego·ine, V.broj: 3¯4,2000, 24.11.2000.
Saraje·o.
3 On the re·italization oí historic Pocitelj more generally, see Barakat,
Sultan and Craig \ilson. 1be Reritati¸atiov of tbe bi.toric .etttevevt
Pocitet;1#\ork: Uni·ersity oí \ork, 199¯, Begic, Azra and Vjekosla·a
Sanko·ic Simcic. ívtervatiovat art cotov, Pocitet;. Saraje·o: Udruzenje
liko·nih umjetnika Bil, 2000, Sanko·ic, Vjekosla·a. Re·italizacija
starog grada Pocitelja`, in: ^a.e .tarive, Vol. 14,15 ,1981,, pp. 203-
32, eadem, La Ri·italizazzione della citta di Pocitelj`, in: Dieci te.i
ai re.tavro# ;1·¨0·1·º1). Rome: Uni·ersita degli studi di# Roma La
Sapienza , 1986.
instituted to coordinate construction and imple-
mentation oí this plan, its main responsibility
being proíessional, objecti·e, and non-partisan
deliberation on all rele·ant issues.
The gui di ng pri nci pl es
of conservati on and
restorati on
In July 2001 a programme íor the rehabili-
tation oí the ladzi Alijina mosque` was drawn
up with the possibility oí the ediFce`s being
put to use again. 1he principles and guidelines
íor its reno·ation were precisely deFned. 1hey
were based on widely recognized international
|||. 4
|||. 5
102
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
recommendations,
4
these stated, inter alia, that
applied to the case oí the mosque at Pocitelj:
^ all conser·ation, restoration, recomposi-
tion, partial reconstruction, and structural
impro·ement procedures were to be sup-
ported by structural e·idence and proper
documentation,
^ extensi·e research, analysis, and documen-
tation oí the building and its original írag-
ments were to be carried out,
4 \ashington Charter - Charter íor the Conser·ation oí listoric
1owns and Urban Areas, 198¯, Burra Charter - 1he Australia
ICOMOS Charter íor Places oí Cultural SigniFcance, 19¯9
,re·ised in 1981, 1988, 1999,, Amsterdam Declaration, 19¯5, Nara
Document on Authenticity, 1994, Principles íor the Recording oí
Monuments, Groups oí Buildings and Sites, 1996, Con·ention íor
the Protection oí the Architectural leritage oí Lurope, Granada,
1985.
^ all tests regarding construction and struc-
ture, as well as necessary laboratory analysis
oí the original íragments, were to be car-
ried out,
^ a detailed technical study oí the building`s
existing condition was to be carried out,
showing all rele·ant damage,
^ during the restoration process, the original
de·astated stones and other materials were
to be utilized as much as possible,
^ during the restoration process, only au-
thentic materials and techniques were to be
used,
^ horticultural impro·ements were to be car-
ried out as well as physical protection oí
the centuries-old cypress.
|||. 6
|||. 7
103
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
The documentati on and
i mpl ementati on of the
proj ect, and the processes
of restorati on and parti al
reconstructi on ( i l l s. 7- 14)
In order to select a team íor the production oí
all necessary technical documentation and super-
·ision oí the ladzi Alijina mosque re·italization
process, an open international tender was an-
nounced, with the selection process`s rele·ant cri-
teria precisely deFned. 1he competition was won
by the least expensi·e project, proposed by the
City oí Mostar`s Institute íor Protection oí Cul-
tural and listoric leritage. Because it was less
comprehensi·e than the other projects, occasion-
al inter·ention by the team oí experts was nec-
essary to ensure implementation in accordance
with international standards in heritage protec-
tion and restoration. \hile not all eííorts were
crowned with complete success, the catalogue oí
retrie·ed íragments írom the mosque deser·es a
commendation. 1his detailed documentation oí
all scattered parts speciFes their dimensions and
|||. 9
|||. 8
104
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
all other rele·ant details. Uníortunately, the po-
tential oí this comprehensi·e catalogue was not
exhausted by the architects during the process
oí restoration. In the project`s documentation
they chose not to indicate the exact placement
oí e·ery identiFed íragment. 1his omission po-
tentially endangered proper restoration and ana-
stylosis. In order to a·oid detrimental results it
was necessary íor the team oí experts to become
acti·e at stages oí the work process they were
not initially assigned to, íor it was imperati·e to
a·oid the serious conser·ation and restoration
mistakes made in the past. 1hese had included
an inadequate treatment oí important historic
monuments by rather íree-style impro·isations.
5
5 International Charter íor the Conser·ation and Restoration oí
Monuments and Sites ;1be 1evice Cbarter) - 1964, article 9.
|||. 10
())'*++
105
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
())'*+,
106
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
**********())'*+-
|||. 14
Restoration processes ha·e the potential oí
pro·oking debate, especially when the society in
question is not entirely acquainted with modern
techniques and approaches in cultural heritage
management.
6
In regard to the principles oí pro-
tection and reconstruction, ensuring the unity oí
6 lor such, see e.g. Ceschi, Carlo. 1eoria e .toria aet re.tavro, Rome:
Mario Bulzoni Lditore, 19¯0, De Andelis D`Ossat, Guglielmo.
Cviae to tbe vetboaicat .tva, of vovvvevt. ava!cav.e. of tbeir aeterioratiov"!
Rome: ICCROM, 1982, leilden, M. Bernard. |roa v /ov¸errirav;e
/vttvrvog va.t;eĀa. 1r. I·o Maroe·ic. Zagreb: Drust·o konzer·atora
lr·atske, 1981, ít vavvate aet re.tavro arcbitettovico. Ld. Luca Ze·i.
Rome:,Mancosu Lditore, 2000
2
, Maroe·ic, I·o. Kov¸errator./o voro
irer;e. Petrinja: Matica hr·atska Petrinja, 2000, Bruno, Andrea. Ottre
it re.tavro ~ Re.toratiov ava be,ova. Milan: Ldizioni Lybra Immagine,
1996, Sanko·ic Simcic, Vjekosla·a. Reritati¸aci;a graaitet;./e ba.tive:
ivtegraci;a .taro·voro.!Saraje·o: NNP Nasa rijec d.o.o., 2000, Schuller,!
Maníred.!ßvitaivg arcbaeotog,. Munich: ICOMOS, 2002.
107
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
a building when combining retrie·ed and new
parts is essential. Moreo·er, it is desirable to re-
·eal, in a realistic way, all phases oí a building`s
construction and later inter·entions in order to
preser·e its integrity. 1he damage caused to the
ladzi Alijina mosque required extremely com-
plicated and delicate work, and the reno·ation
process` implementation demanded considerable
expertise. It was anticipated that the restoration
process would be carried out in se·eral phases.
1he quality oí each implementation phase de-
pended greatly on the a·ailable Fnancial means
and the legal tender process. In order to preser·e
the unity oí the centuries-old mosque`s numer-
ous de·elopment phases, it was decided that both
the cupola and walls would not be plastered, only
painted. 1he same principle was applied while
reconstructing the cupola abo·e the porch. Re-
painting the interior`s murals would ha·e been
a pseudo-historical interpretation oí its original
decoration ,which has not sur·i·ed,, as was the
case during one inter·ention in the 1980s, which
had considerably compromised the authenticity
oí the ladzi Alijina mosque.
Despite all these problems, the ladzi Alija
mosque deser·es the attention oí both the
general public and conser·ation and restoration
experts. Consequently we should be ·ery satis-
Fed with the results achie·ed. 1he reconstructed
mosque will, in its beauty, bequeath a particular
spirituality and comíort to its many ·isitors and
to those who worship there. 1he desired unity
was achie·ed in accordance with contemporary
approaches and techniques in cultural heritage
management. Considering the many instances
in which historic buildings destroyed in the war
ha·e been reno·ated and transíormed in an ama-
teurish way, we hope that this example will ha·e
a positi·e impact and raise awareness oí the cur-
rent standards in conser·ation, restoration and,
in particular, reconstruction work.
ƒ
108
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. tbe recevt re.toratiov of tbe íaaiv ´vte,vav .ga vo.qve iv C;a/ora, tocatt, /vorv
a. tbe íaavv Mo.qve, rbicb ra. avovg tbe bvitaivg. aavagea iv tbe 1··º,· arvea covfict iv Ko.oro. .v
ivitiatire to re.tore tbe aovea tate·1ó
tb
·cevtvr, vo.qve ra. tavvcbea b, tbe |´·ba.ea Ko.oro Cvttvrat íeritage
Pro;ect, .v¡¡ortea b, tbe Pac/ara íovvaatiov; tbe, cbo.e Cvttvrat íeritage ritbovt ßoraer. ;Círß) a. tbeir
iv¡tevevtivg ¡artver ;tbi. ¡ro;ect .v¡er.eaea av eartier ove b, ´avai iv.titvtiov. rbicb aivea at bvitaivg ver
vo.qve. ratber tbav re.torivg bi.toricat ove.). 1be ror/ ov tbe .ite, .v¡erri.ea b, tbe Ko.oro Círß offce, .tartea
ritb tbe vrgevt re¡air. ava tbe .earcb for re.toratiov vateriat.. ´ererat e·¡ert. rere ivrotrea iv tbe cov.erratiov of
rooa ava .tove, ¡aivtea aecoratiov., ava g,¡.vv rivaor.. íortvvatet,, tbe vo.qve aia vot bare .eriov. .trvctvrat
¡robtev.. !or/.bo¡., .vcb a. for .tove cov.erratiov or teaa·ta,ivg, rere orgavi¸ea ov·.ite to traiv tbe ¡ro;ect
ror/er.. Recov.titvtiov of vi..ivg etevevt. ¡roriaea a aifferevt cbattevge, a. tbe vo.qve baa vot beev tborovgbt,
recoraea before tbe rar. ´ivitart, cbattevgivg ra. tbe cov.erratiov of ¡aivtea ratt .vrface., rbicb accovvt to a
great e·tevt for tbe vo.qve`. art·bi.toricat .igvifcavce. Dativg to tbe 1·
tb
cevtvr,, rbev tbe, rere ¡aivtea orer a

tb
·cevtvr, ta,er ai.corerea iv tbe covr.e of tbe re.toratiov ¡roce.., tbe.e vvrat. ae¡ict tava.ca¡e. ava at.o tocat
etevevt., .vcb a. tbe fortifea re.iaevce. /vorv a. /vtta, ¡aivtea b, rbat vv.t bare beev a tocat arti.t. 1be
¡ro;ect ra. .vcce..fvtt, cov¡tetea iv 200·.
.vtorica ai./vtv;e o veaarvo; re.tavraci;i a¸avi;e íaavv ´vte;vav·age v đa/orici, to/atvo ¡o¸vato;
/ao íaavv a¸avi;a, /o;a ;e /ao i bro;ve arvge bita ;a/o vvi.teva v orv¸avov .v/obv 1··º,· va Ko.orv.
ívici;atira ¸a re.tavraci;v ¡ot/v¡otve a¸avi;e i¸ 1ó. ri;e/a ;e ao.ta oa .trave averic/e vertaaive orgavi¸aci;e
KCí,¡oar¸avov oa .trave Pa/ara fovaaci;e; /o;i .v i¸abrati fovaaci;v Kvttvrvo va.ti;eĀe be¸ gravica ¸a .rog
¡artvera v iv¡tevevtaci;i. ;Ora; ¡ro;e/at ;e ¸avi;evio ravi;i ¡ri;eato¸ev oa .trave .avai;./e iv.titvci;e /o;a ;e
bt;eta raai;e aa i¸graai vorv a¸avi;v vego aa obvori bi.tori;./i .¡ovevi/). Raaori va graĀerivi .v biti vaagte·
aavi oa .trave Círß /avcetari;e va Ko.orv, a ¸a¡oceti .v bitviv ¡o¡rar/ava i ¡otragov ¸a re.tavrator./iv
vateri;ativa. ^e/oti/o .trvcv;a/a ;e bito v/t;vcevo v ¡roce.. re.tavraci;e arreta i /aveva, .ti/avib ae/oraci;a,
i gi¡.avib ¡ro¸ora. ^a .recv, a¸avi;a vi;e ivata recib /ov.trv/tirvib ¡robteva. Raaiovice . cit;ev obvcarav;a
va;.tora va teve, /ao .to .v /ov¸erraci;a /aveva iti .tart;av;e ¡o/riraca oa otora va /v¡otv .v bite orgavi¸orave
va .avov graaiti.tv. Re/ov.trv/ci;a veao.ta;vcib ai;etora ;e ¡rea.tart;ata ra¸ticite i¸a¸ore, ;er a¸avi;a vi;e bita
.vivt;eva ¡ri;e rata. ]eava/o i¸a¸orvo ;e bita i re.tavraci;a .ti/avib ¸iavib ¡toba, /o;e .v ¡rea.tart;ata reova
ra¸av .egvevt v vv;etvic/o·bi.tori;./ov ¸vaca;v a¸avi;e. Datira;v i¸ 1·.ri;e/a /aaa .v bite ¡re.ti/ave ¡re/o
.to;a i¸ 1ó.ri;e/a, /o;i ;e ot/rirev a;etivicvo to/ov ¡roce.a re.tavraci;e, ae/oraci;v cive .titi¸oravi ¡e;¸a¸i i
to/avi etevevti, /ao .to .v traaiciovatve /vce /vte, ta/o aa .v r;eroratvo va.tate oa .trave to/atvib vv;etvi/a.
Pro;e/at ;e v.¡;e.vo fvati¸irav v 200·.g.
Zeynep Ahunbay
Ot t oman ar chi t ect ur e i n Kosova and
t he r est or at i on of Hadum Mosque i n
Gj akovo ( Ðakovi ca)
Osmanska ar hi t ekt ur a na Kosovu i
r est aur aci j a Hadum džami j e u Đakovi ci
109
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
!"#$+*#+$%&,(*/1/'-$modern Koso·a became
part oí the Ottoman state between the late 14
th

and the mid-15
th
century. Se·eral urban centres
were de·eloped with the íoundation oí reli-
gious and educational íacilities, baths, bridges,
and cara·ansaries. Prishtina, Peja ,Pec,, Prizren,
and Gjako·o are towns with signiFcant Otto-
man monuments stemming írom the 15
th
to the
19
th
centuries. Aíter the retreat oí the Ottomans
írom the Balkans, Koso·a underwent a period
oí turmoil and Fnally became part oí \ugosla-
·ia. Under \ugosla· rule, some oí the Ottoman
monuments were registered as national monu-
ments and protected by the state. Some, which
were not regarded as worthy oí classiFcation,
were maintained by the local people and raqf..
Monuments in Koso·a were not aííected
by the war in Bosnia. Aíter the Dayton Peace
Agreement, Koso·a remained within a truncated
\ugosla·ia, renamed Serbia and Montenegro in
2003. Koso·a íormed part oí the Serbian halí
oí this state that would be dissol·ed in 2006.
Between 1999 and 2008, when Koso·a declared
independence írom Serbia, the pro·ince was un-
der UN administration. lollowing the break-up
oí \ugosla·ia, the registered historic buildings
sustained their status and were protected by the
local Institutes íor the Protection oí Monuments
administered írom Belgrade. 1owards the end oí
the 20
th
century, as tension escalated between the
Serbian go·ernment and the Albanian majority
in Koso·a, the Ottoman monuments became
targets.
Many historic buildings were attacked and
razed to ground during the 1998,9 armed con-
nict in Koso·a. 1his called íor international
solidarity. Lííorts were concentrated to restore
|||. 1. Hadun Mcsquc, ocfcrc dcs|ruc|icn (ccur|csq cf |PM
Gja|cta).
110
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
the partially or completely destroyed monu-
ments. 1he mosque oí ladim Süleyman Aga,
locally known as the ladum Mosque, was only
one oí these, its artistic importance called íor
careíul documentation, analysis, and restoration
design. \ith Fnancial and expert support írom
international sources, sal·aging the mosque and
its ·aluable decorations became possible. 1he
Koso·o Cultural leritage Project,` a US-based
NGO íounded by the lar·ard librarian,bibliog-
rapher Andras Riedlmayer and the architect An-
drew lerscher, stro·e to impro·e the conditions
íor the cultural heritage oí Koso·a. 1hey were
supported by the Packard loundation írom the
USA. Among other acti·ities, the Koso·o Cul-
tural leritage Project` initiated the restoration oí
ladum Mosque. 1hey chose Cultural leritage
without Borders ,ClwB, as their implementing
partner, working in cooperation with the heritage
di·ision oí the Ministry oí Culture, the Institute
íor Protection oí Monuments, and the Islamic
Society in Gjako·a.
Hadum Mosque i n Gj akova
Gjako·o is a historic town with a rich urban
heritage consisting oí religious, commercial, and
industrial buildings. ladum Mosque, located
in the heart oí the historic core oí the town, is
accepted as the íounding structure oí the settle-
ment. 1he mosque was built by Bizeban ,mute,
Süleyman Líendi, who originated írom Goska,
a ·illage located in this region oí the Ottoman
Lmpire. Süleyman Líendi ser·ed as the aga oí
|||. 2. Pcrcn af|cr rcs|cra|icn.
111
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
eunuchs at the 1opkapi Palace in Istanbul.
1
Con-
structed around 1595, the mosque, a modest-
sized monument in the context oí Ottoman
architecture, consisted oí a domed structure
with a three-bay portico and a minaret. A com-
plex comprising a library, a primary school, and
a gra·eyard de·eloped around the mosque. An
outer porch was added to the mosque at a later
point, probably in 1844,5, as noted by the 1260
hegira date recorded abo·e the entrance to the
mosque.
1he mosque`s signiFcance deri·es írom its
decorations, which date írom the 19
th
century.
Decoration oí houses and mosques with noral
arrangements and landscapes became a trend in
Ottoman architecture during the 18
th
century.
2

1he impact oí Luropean Baroque was renected
in the period`s architectural details and decora-
tions. lirst, Luropean artists working íor the
Ottoman court painted landscapes in the pri·ate
apartments oí the sultan and his íamily,
3
later,
local artists were employed íor similar projects.
1 1º·ó ;íicri 1²11) Ko.ora 1ita,eti ´atvave.i ;|./v¡, Pri,tive, Pri¸rev,
í¡e/, Yevi¡a¸ar, 1a,tica). Ld. l. \ildirim Aganoglu. Istanbul: Rumeli
1ürkleri Kültür ·e Dayanisma, 2000, p. 298, Ay·erdi, Lkrem lakki.
.rrv¡a`aa O.vavti Mivari í.erteri: Yvgo.tar,a, Vol. III, Book 3.
Istanbul: Istanbul letih Cemiyeti, 1981, pp. 313-4.
2 Arik, Rüçhan. ßatitita,va Dövevi 1vr/ Mivari.i Orve/terivaev
.vaaotv`aa |ç .b,a¡ Cavi. Ankara: Ankara Uni·ersitesi Basime·i,
19¯3, pp. ¯-8.
3 Renda, Günsel. ßatitita,va Dövevivae 1vr/ Re.iv ´avati 1¨00·1º:0.
Ankara: lacettepe Uni·ersitesi \ayinlari, 19¯¯, pp. ¯9-108.
Usually, the landscapes painted on the walls and
ceilings oí mansions and mosques included pan-
oramas oí Istanbul embellished with images oí
lagia Sophia, and imperial mosques and palaces.
In Koso·a and Albania, some new mosques
were built, and others reno·ated, in the 19
th

century.
4
1he painted decoration oí these monu-
ments renects the style oí the era. 1he quality
oí the work and the subject oí the landscape
depended on the artist. 1he artist who decorated
ladum Mosque was Ahmed Receb lari, he may
ha·e been írom the region or one oí se·eral tra·-
elling artists engaged in decorating buildings. As
4 Kiel, Machiel. Ottovav .rcbitectvre iv .tbavia, 1²º:·1·12. Istanbul:
IRCICA, 1990, p. ¯0, 251-2.
|||. 3. |n|rancc |c ncsquc ui|n tcs|igcs cf frc danagc frcn |nc
uar
|||. 4. Dc|ai| cf dcccra|icn ctcr pcr|a| af|cr rcs|cra|icn
112
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
the decoration in the upper parts oí the ladum
Mosque in·ol·ed many local architectural ele-
ments like /vttas ,tower houses,, the artist could
well ha·e been írom the region.
War damage to
Hadum Mosque
At the end oí March 1999, a Fre was set in the
timber outer porch ,ba,at, oí the mosque. lortu-
nately, it was stopped beíore it could cause dam-
age to the interior. In May 1999, the top oí the
minaret was destroyed by Serbian armed íorces.
1he collapse oí the minaret o·er the library dam-
aged the northern part oí the 18
th
century struc-
ture. 1he primary school, a two-storey traditional
building with a timber rooí, was also damaged
during the attacks.
Aíter the war in Koso·o, relieí aid was pro-
·ided írom Saudi Arabia to repair the damages.
Uníortunately, some oí the work carried out
with Saudi íunds did not meet the international
standards oí preser·ation. 1he Saudis intended
to establish modern mosques instead
oí restoring the historic ones. 1hey had
a kind oí iconoclast approach to deco-
rated mosques and historic cemeteries. In
Gjako·o they remo·ed the halí-damaged
library next to the ladum Mosque and
broke down the old gra·estones in the
cemetery adjoining the mosque. 1hese
kinds oí oííensi·e undertakings resulted
in opposition írom local leaders and the
Saudi project íor the ladum Mosque
was halted.
During the years beíore the war, the
educational and proíessional capacities
oí the Albanian population in Koso·a
were restricted. 1he period aíter the war
was a diíFcult time, there were short-
comings in bringing together the work-
íorce. 1he number oí teams capable oí
preparing proper documentation and
de·eloping restoration proposals íor monuments
was ·ery limited. \ith the break írom Belgrade, a
new administrati·e system had to be established.
In the post-war period, international assistance
was pro·ided írom diííerent sources. Among
them, the Koso·o Cultural leritage Project`
was interested in pro·iding technical assistance
|||. 5. O||cnan c|assica| pcricd dcccra|icn cn |nc dcnc ctcr |nc
cn|rancc oaq (ccur|csq cf pain|ing rcs|crcr Ninad Ccngic).
|||. 6. |nscrip|icn da|cd 1260 H. (1844/5).
113
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
íor urgent repairs and the establishment oí a
cultural heritage in·entory. In the íall oí 2000,
a workshop titled Rebuilding Koso·o`s Archi-
tectural leritage`#was organized at the Prishtina
School oí Architecture. Lxperts írom se·eral
countries came to discuss the situation and de-
·elop proposals. As the president oí ICOMOS
1urkey and an expert in Ottoman architecture, I
was asked by the 1urkish Chamber oí Architects
to take part in the international workshop. At the
end oí this important gathering, the participants
were taken on an excursion to ·isit se·eral war-
damaged heritage sites, among them Gjako·a
and the ladum Mosque.
At the site, the ruins oí the 18
th
century li-
brary had been remo·ed, the reconstruction oí
the primary school was under way. 1he outer
porch ,ba,at, oí the mosque had disappeared
and the top oí the minaret was damaged, but
the mosque continued to íunction. Aíter the de-
struction oí the timber ba,at, the porch did not
ha·e a proper cornice and was exposed to the
elements. \ithout any preparation íor putting up
a new co·ering, the local Institute íor Protection
oí Monuments was trying to remo·e the remain-
ing parts oí the lead rooí oí the porch. lrom
the way they had treated some mosques aíter the
war, it was clear that the technical staíí oí the In-
stitute lacked the expertise to lead and super·ise
the serious work essential íor the restoration oí
a signiFcant monument like the ladum Mosque.
At this point, Riedlmayer and lerrscher oí-
íered íunding írom the Packard loundation íor
the de·elopment oí a proper restoration project.
1hey asked me to contribute to the reco·ery
oí this important monument. My suggestion
was to engage the oíFce oí Istanbul architect
Mustaía Pehli·anoglu íor the de·elopment oí a
restoration proposal, Pehli·anoglu subsequently
accepted the oííer to work on the restoration
project. 1he Frst step was the documentation
phase oí the mosque and its courtyard. \ith a
team consisting oí architects and a sur·eyor, the
monument and the gra·eyard were sur·eyed in
the summer oí 2001. A photographic documen-
tation and material analysis oí the monument
was carried out. 1he restoration proposal was
Fnalized and submitted in due time, but the proj-
ect could not be put into action immediately.
In the autumn oí 2003, the Koso·o Cultural
leritage Project` made an agreement with ChwB
to carry out the restoration project. 1he architect
Dick Sandberg, ClwB`s Koso·a Branch coordi-
nator, in·ited me to re·iew the project prepared
by Pehli·anoglu and to help with its implementa-
tion. I accepted the in·itation and ·isited the site
at the end oí January 2004. Only small re·isions
needed to be made in the project, so it was pos-
sible to start its implementation. Sezair Gaíurri,
|||. 7. |n|cricr ocfcrc rcs|cra|icn.
114
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
a ci·il engineer, was engaged as the site manager.
1he Koso·a branch oí ClwB, in consultation
with the author, super·ised the restoration work.
1he work on the site started with the urgent
repairs and the search íor restoration materials.
Se·eral experts were in·ol·ed in the conser·a-
tion oí wood and stone, painted decorations, and
gypsum windows. lortunately, the mosque did
not ha·e serious structural problems. loundation
repair and the installation oí a drainage system
around the base oí the mosque was important in
stopping the rising damp. 1he acquisition oí new
materials íor the restoration oí broken elements
and the conser·ation oí deteriorated stone was
another important task. In order to restore the
structure`s missing parts and to replace some
deteriorated or broken blocks, it was necessary
to Fnd the suitable materials and craítsmen. Site
manager Gaíurri was able to gain access to quar-
ries írom which natural stones similar to the ones
used in the minaret were acquired. le also íound
a kiln which could produce hexagonal bricks.
1hus it was possible to carry out the repairs to
the minaret and the portico noor.
lor training stone conser·ators, a course was
organized at the site. Stone conser·ator Simon
\arrack was in·ited to educate the trainees,
showing them the proper way to repair and con-
solidate damaged columns and íaçade elements.
5

Se·eral kinds oí stone had been used in the
construction oí the mosque. 1he columns oí
the portico were made oí a special alabastrine
limestone. lor the íaçades, a Fne grained sand-
stone, a breccia, a conglomerate, and a calcareous
limestone were used.
Reconstitution oí missing elements pro·ided
a diííerent challenge. 1he mosque had not been
thoroughly recorded beíore the war. Missing
elements such as the cornices oí the porch and
the top oí the minaret were important details to
restore.
1he minaret oí ladum Mosque was quite
high and its balcony had a íorm which probably
dated írom a reconstruction aíter a late 18
th
-
century earthquake. During the war in Koso·a,
5 \arrack, Simon. ...e..vevt ava recovvevaatiov for tbe cov.erratiov ava
re.toratiov of tbe .tove at tbe íaavv Mo.qve, C;a/ora ,report, 2004,.
the part abo·e the balcony ,,erefe, was destroyed,
so the missing part oí the minaret shaít and the
arched door leading to the balcony had to be re-
constructed.
lor the reconstitution oí the missing details,
the sur·i·ing pieces oí the minaret were sur-
·eyed. 1hese lay in a heap in the southwest part
oí the courtyard. 1he pieces oí the parapet slabs
were sorted out and brought together like pieces
oí a jigsaw puzzle to Fnd out the actual size and
details oí the shattered slabs. 1here were some
old photos oí the minaret, showing its ,erefe and
cap, but these did not help much when it came to
details like the mouldings and the car·ed decora-
tion. 1he scattered blocks and íragments were
sorted out, in an attempt to bring together the
sur·i·ing íragments oí the parapets. Luckily, it
was possible to assemble the broken pieces oí
the parapets. \ith complete data about the size,
|||. 8. Minarc| af|cr rcs|cra|icn (ccur|csq cf Ninad Ccngic).
115
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
thickness, and the decorati·e patterns oí the
parapet, it was possible to car·e the new parapet
slabs írom a natural stone similar to that used in
the destroyed minaret.
In old photos, the minaret shaít terminated
with a cornice. At the ·ery top oí the minaret,
just below the cornice, there were small open-
ings placed on e·ery other side oí the 16-sided
shaít. Uníortunately, no original íragments írom
this part oí the minaret could be íound on site.
\hether these small openings went through the
whole depth oí the shaít, or were only deep re-
cesses, was an open question. 1his kind oí open-
ing is not common in the minarets in and around
the Ottoman capital. In order to learn more
about the detailing and íunction oí the open-
ings, we did research on other mosques in the
region. In Prishtina and Peja, it was possible to
Fnd minarets with similar detailing. In Peja, the
Bayrakli Mosque was chosen íor close study. 1he
openings at the top oí the minaret shaít were in-
spected írom inside and out. 1he openings were
deep, they went through the whole thickness oí
the shaít. 1his iníormation was ·aluable íor de-
·eloping the restoration proposal. 1hus, with the
help oí old photos and the iníormation acquired
írom Bayrakli Mosque, it was possible to Fnalize
the detailing oí the minaret`s top.
Restorati on of the l ead
roof
1he lead on the main dome had been dam-
aged by shooting and long years oí neglect.
1he replacement oí the lead co·ering seemed
to be a diíFcult ·enture. 1he material was not
easily a·ailable in the local market. 1he craít oí
lead-laying was almost íorgotten in Koso·a. Ini-
tially, lead sheets írom a íactory in Serbia were
|||. 9, Signa|urc cf pain|cr ctcr a uindcu frcn |nc in|cricr.
116
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
obtained, but the quality oí the metal was not
·ery good, the material was hard and diíFcult to
work. A craítsman írom Bosnia was engaged to
work with lead and succeeded in co·ering the
minaret cap, but it was understood that he did
not ha·e enough experience to carry out the
work on the main dome. Subsequently, bringing
in Semih Uçar, an experienced lead-layer írom
Istanbul, made it possible to train local craítsmen
and renew the rooí co·ering on the high dome
with good quality workmanship. le built a ladder
íor climbing to the ·ery top oí the dome, and
demonstrated how to remo·e the old lead sheets
and prepare the mud plaster layer which acts as
a cushion under the lead co·er. 1o speed up the
work, some good quality lead was imported írom
1urkey.
The conservati on of the
pai nted surfaces
In addition to the rich painted decorations on
the walls and the domes, ladum Mosque had
·aluable painted decoration on its timber vab·
ft. 1he columns, cupboards, and ceiling oí the
vabft were decorated with bright colours. 1he
decoration oí the timber elements, especially the
ceiling oí the vabft and the cabinets are note-
worthy. 1he background is gilded and the red
nower buds with lea·es ha·e a ·i·id appearance.
1he type oí decoration and colour scheme reíers
to the Ldirne tradition oí wood painting. 1he
columns and the balustrades oí the vabft, on the
other hand, were painted in a more popular style
connected with íolk art tradition, which one can
see in horse carts, cradles, and toys.
At the beginning oí the project, conser·ator
1ody Cezar was engaged, and she restored the
entrance door which had suííered írom the 1999
Fre. She also prepared reports about the condi-
tion oí the painted decoration and her recom-
mendations íor impro·ement.
6
6 Cezar, 1ody. ...e..vevt of vvrat ¡aivtivg. iv Ko.oro ,report, 2002,,
idem, ívteriv a..e..vevt ava recovvevaatiov. for tbe cov.erratiov ava
re.toratiov of tbe ¡aivtea .vrface. at `bavia e íaavv, C;a/ora, Ko.ora
,report, 2004,.
1he conser·ation oí the painted wall suríaces
and ·aults was a challenging operation. 1he local
Institute íor the Protection oí Monuments had
conducted a restoration operation in ladum
Mosque beíore the war. Aíter the loss oí the
ba,at, the portico`s decorations were exposed
to rain, and some oí the top paint layers were
washed away. 1his brought to light some oí the
original 16
th
century Ottoman Classical style
decorati·e íeatures. It was possible to see the
sur·i·ing pieces oí the original painted decora-
tion on the portico`s central bay pendenti·e. In
contrast to the elaborate 19
th
century decoration
on the dome oí the same bay, the 16
th
century
decoration on the pendenti·es consisted oí wide
bands oí red, with white lilies in relieí, placed at
the corners.
|||. 10. Uppcr uindcu frcn 19
|n
ccn|urq.
117
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
1he painted decoration at the upper le·els oí
the interior required long and careíul work con-
ducted on scaííolding. As the íunding írom the
Packard loundation could not co·er the restora-
tion oí all the painted suríaces the completion oí
the porch and interior`s restoration was possible
by Fnancial support írom UNLSCO. A team
led by painter-conser·ator Nihad Cengic, and
assisted by young trainees írom Koso·a, carried
out this restoration. 1he suríaces were examined
with care, and the quality and authenticity oí the
paint layers were e·aluated critically. Repairs and
Fllings with cement mortar and unseemly paint
layers were remo·ed. 1he close range examina-
tion oí the paintings on the dome re·ealed new
iníormation about the details and layers. 1he
landscapes in the upper zones oí the mosque
included, at the base oí the dome, cypress trees,
nowers, /vttas, and a big structure with ·aults and
minarets, implying a monumental mosque, prob-
ably an imperial structure with double minarets
and ,erefes. It was interesting to see that the mina-
ret shaíts had small openings at their tops, like
the ladum Mosque`s minaret. 1he caps oí the
minarets were depicted with gold crowns, instead
oí traditional atevs.
The upper wi ndows
1he upper le·el windows on the íaçades had
been totally lost e·en beíore the war. Probably
íor security reasons, some were barred with iron
rods. 1o protect the mosque`s interior and its
decorated upper windows írom rain and sleet,
it was decided to produce new outer windows
with gypsum írames in the 16
th
-century style and
Fx them in position. 1hus the exterior oí the
mosque would be restored to its íormer appear-
ance as well.
1he upper windows oí the interior date írom
the 19
th
century and are genuine pieces showing
the art oí gypsum window making in late Otto-
man period. 1he window abo·e the vibrab had a
special design with a six-cornered star. 1he oth-
ers had a grid oí lozenges. 1he upper windows
had also suííered írom the war, some were totally
destroyed. During the conser·ation work, the
damaged windows were repaired and the miss-
ing ones were replaced by new ones made oí
gypsum.
The graveyard
Aíter completion oí the drainage system and
the conser·ation oí the deteriorated stones on
the íaçades, the gra·es in the backyard oí the
mosque were treated with care. 1he gra·eyard`s
landscaping was carried out in cooperation with
the Islamic Society oí Gjako·a and the Institute.
A pa·ed pathway was laid to enable ·isitors to
go into the peaceíul atmosphere oí the gra·eyard
and ·isit the tombs.
Concl usi on
ladum Mosque is an outstanding monu-
ment with a richly decorated interior. Riedlmayer
and lerscher laboured strenuously to start and
complete the ladum Project. 1heir insight in
establishing links with ClwB was íollowed
by a successíul cooperation. 1he contribution
írom UNLSCO was ·aluable in conser·ing
and impro·ing the presentation oí the painted
suríaces. Careíul inter·entions in line with inter-
national principles saíeguarded the historical and
artistic qualities oí the 16
th
-century monument.
1he leadership oí ClwB in bringing together
experts írom diííerent Felds to work on a sig-
niFcant project is praiseworthy. I would like to
congratulate all the sponsors, the experts, and the
trainees who ha·e contributed to the success oí
the project.
ƒ
118
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
.vtor ra.¡rart;a o graaitet;./iv a/tirvo.tiva v bat/av./iv ¡rorivci;ava O.vav./og car.tra v ¡erioav
i¸veĀv 1av¸ivat./ib reforvi i¸ 1º²·. i 1º¨º.goaive, ¡o.ebvo v re¸i .a ar¸arviv ¡ore¸iva i vevv.tivav./iv
.tavorvi.trov. | orov ¡erioav o¡v. .vare;a Dav;avora, va/eaov./og graaitet;a ;e ;eaav oa re¡re¸evtatirvib
¡riv;era ¡o¸voo.vav./e arbite/tvre ;1º1²·¨º). í¸veĀv 1º²0tib i ó0tib Dav;avor ;e bio roĀeci ¡vtv;vci graaitet;
/o;i ;e i¸graaio vvoge cr/re va ¡ro.tora ßat/ava ;´/o¡t;e, 1ete., ´veaerero, Mo.tar, ´ara;ero, ita). | ´ara;erv,
Dav;avor ;e i¸graaio vorv o.vav./v /a.arvv ¸a o.vav./v ¡rorivci;./v aavivi.traci;v i ¸arr.io ;e graĀev;e
.roaa va /atotic/o; cr/ri. | 1ºó0tiv, i v ´ara;erv i v ßeograav i¸graĀevi .v vori /ovaci ¸a ¡otrebe ¡rorivci;./ib
rati;a i ¡a.a. Kova/ v ´ara;erv, i¸graĀev oa .trave ara graaitet;a i¸ Datvaci;e, ;e .acvrav, ao/ ;e /ova/ v ßeo·
graav vvi.tev v í ´r;et./ov ratv. O.tate .v ri;et/e fotograf;e i /rat/i o¡i.i va¡rart;evi oa .trave íeti/.a Kavica,
/o;i ;e v /ova/v riaio erro¡./i vreĀev .atov.
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. cov.trvctiov actirit, iv tbe Ottovav ßat/av ¡rorivce. betreev tbe 1av¸ivat íaict`. ¡roc·
tavatiov iv 1º²· ava ca. 1º¨º ritb regara to covvi..iov. b, tbe .tate or it. vov·Mv.tiv .vb;ect.. 1bi. ¡erioa at.o
coivciae. ritb tbe career of revorvea Maceaoviav·borv arcbitect,bvitaer .vare;a Dav;avor ;1º1²·¨º). ßetreev
tbe 1º²0. ava 1ºó0., be ra. tbe teaaer of av itiveravt bvitaer.` ror/.bo¡ tbat bvitt ivcrea.ivgt, vovvvevtat
cbvrcbe. iv vav, ßat/av tocate. ;´/o¡;e, 1ete., ´veaerero, Mo.tar, ´ara;ero, etc.) ív ´ara;ero, Dav;avor at.o
bvitt ver barrac/. for tbe Ottovav ¡rorivciat aavivi.tratiov ava cov¡tetea a Catbotic cbvrcb`. ravttivg. ív tbe
1ºó0., botb iv ´ara;ero ava ßetgraae, ver /ova/. rere bvitt for tbe ¡rorivciat gorervor.. 1be konak iv ´ara;ero,
bvitt b, tro Datvatiav., .vrrire., bvt ßetgraae`. ra. ae.tro,ea iv !!í. ít .vrrire. iv rare ¡botogra¡b. ava a
ae.cri¡tiov b, íeti· Kavit¸, rbo .ar iv it a .atov fvrvi.bea iv tbe ívro¡eav vavver.
Nenad Makuljević
Dr žava, dr ušt vo i vi zuel na kul t ur a:
poznoosmanska ar hi t ekt ur a u Sr bi j i ,
Makedoni j i i Bosni i Her cegovi ni
St at e, soci et y, and vi sual cul t ur e:
l at e Ot t oman ar chi t ect ur e i n Ser bi a,
Macedoni a, and Bosni a- Her zegovi na
119
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
(&1.#:';/$ 0#<$ &1,+'1<#$ imperije obelezen
je reíormama koje su imale ·elikog uticaja na
kreiranje ·izuelne kulture. 1anzimatske reíorme
u·edene 1839. omogucile su intenzi·nu gra-
diteljsku akti·nost i uslo·ile bogatu arhitekton-
sku produkciju za potrebe razlicitih ·erskih i
etnickih zajednica. Sirom Osmanske imperije, pa
i na podrucju Srbije, Makedonije i Bosne i lerce-
go·ine u obliko·anju i kreiranju ·izuelne kulture
akti·no ucest·uju drza·a i drust·o. Predsta·nici
drza·nih institucija i pred·odnici razlicitih
drust·enih zajednica postaju nosioci i ·odeci pa-
troni poznoosmanske arhitektonske produkcije.
No·a arhitektonska praksa pr·obitno se
raz·ijala u prestonici Osmanske imperije da bi,
posle u·oĀenja tanzimatskih reíormi, ona imala
znacajnu ulogu u obliko·anju identiteta Balkana.
1o je znacilo prih·atanje i primenu razlicitih
stilskih izraza, kao i mogucnost angazo·anja
stranih arhitekata. U skladu sa sa·remenim
e·ropskim toko·ima primenjuje se arhitektura
istorizma i akademizma, a u ja·nim objektima
se postepeno napustaju stariji osmanski oblici.
Izmenjene drust·ene okolnosti uticali su da se
·elika graditeljska produkcija od·ija za potrebe
hriscanskih zajednica. Isto·remeno zapocinje i
S|. 1. Pasin |cna| na Ka|cncgdanu u 8ccgradu na s|arcj
fc|cgrafji.
120
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
proces arhitektonske transíormacije osmanskih
ja·nih objekata.
Jedan od reprezentati·nih pokazatelja poz-
noosmanske arhitekture nastale za potrebe
hriscanskih zajednica u Srbiji, Makedoniji i Bosni
i lercego·ini pruza opus Andreje Damjano·a, iz
Velesa u Makedoniji. Andreja Damjano· ,1813-
18¯8, je st·arao upra·o u ·reme spro·oĀenja
tanzimatskih reíormi na Balkanu. Ǜn je obra-
zo·an u porodicnoj graditeljskoj tajF i zajedno
sa clano·ima s·oje porodice podigao je crk·e
S·ete Bogorodice u Skoplju 1835, S·etog Jo·ana
u Krato·u 1836, S·etog Pantelejmona u Velesu
1840, S·ete 1rojice u Vranju 1858-1859, S·etog
Nikole u No·om selu kod Stipa 1850, S·etog
Nikole u Kumano·u 1851, S·etog Georgija u
Smedere·u 1851-1854, S·ete 1rojice u Mostaru
18¯3 ,ill. 4,, S·ete 1rojice u Saraje·u 1863-1868,
kao i hramo·e u manastiru S·etog Joakima Os-
ogo·skog 184¯-1851, Gornom Cice·u 1861,
Pecenje·cima 1844. i 1ureko·cu 1845.
Uz rad za pra·osla·ne opstine sirom Balkana,
Andreja Damjano· je gradio i za druge hriscanske
zajednice, kao i za potrebe osmanskih ·lasti. Jedna
od njego·ih poznatih proíanih graĀe·ina je no·a
osmanska kasarna u Saraje·u ,ill. 2,. Damjano· je
u ·reme ·lasti lursid pase 1854-1856, izgradio
no·i ·ojni objekat. Izgradnja kasarne je pri·ukla
·eliku paznju. 1o je prema recima ruskog konzula
Aleksandra Giljíerdinga bila najistaknutija «naj-
solidnija» graĀe·ina u Saraje·u. Majstor Andreja
je postao poznata licnost, pa je ostala sacu·ana
prica da je on uradio maketu saraje·ske kasarne,
zbog koje je bio nagraĀen od sultana pocasnim
nosenjem sablje. 1okom izgradnje kasarne, Dam-
jano· je za·rsio graĀenje s·oda na katolickoj crk·i
S·etog Ante Pado·anskog u Saraje·u.
Uz rad graditelja iz unutrasnjosti Osmanske
imperije stizu i arhitekti iz susednih zemalja. Za
potrebe bosanskog ·alije 1opal Serií Osman age
izgraĀuje se, tokom sedme decenije XIX ·eka,
no·i konak u Saraje·u. Konak je za·rsen 1869. , a
graditelji konaka bili su Splicani lranjo Linardo·ic
i lranjo Moise. U Bosni su bili prisutni i drugi gra-
ditelji sa Jadrana. 1ako je katolicku crk·u u Gucoj
gori izgradio majstor iz 1rogira Ante Sicilian. On
je tu napra·io crk·u bazilikalne osno·e, po ugledu
na trogirsku stolnu crk·u. Opis o·e crk·e, u ·reme
njene izgradnje, donosi I·an Kukulje·ic Sakcinski,
koji istice da ce ona biti jedna od najlepsih u Bosni.
On naglasa·a da je unutrasnjost crk·e trebala da
bude reprezentati·na i da graditelj zeli da izgradi
·eliki oltar i propo·edaonicu.
Poznoosmanska arhitektura na Balkanu i s·i
njeni akteri nisu do·oljno istrazeni. Brojni ·ojni
i administrati·ni objekti su skoro sas·im nestali.
Jedan od malo poznatih objekata je pasin konak
na Kalemegdanu u Beogradu ,sl. 1,. Sredinom
XIX ·eka, dr·eni konak izgradjen krajem XVIII
·eka je bio u losem stanju, pa je doslo do izgrad-
nje no·og administrati·nog objekta oko 1860.
O·aj konak je srusen tokom bombardo·anja
Beograda od strane Austro-Ugarske, pocetkom
Pr·og s·etskog rata. Zato o njego·oj arhitekturi
s·edoce pr·enst·eno ocu·ani íotograíski snimci.
No·i pasin konak na Kalemgedanu je bio
izgraĀen od c·rstog materijala i kon-
cipo·an prema akademskim arhitek-
tonskim koncepcijama. Konak je bio
podignut kao spratno zdanje, a jedan
od njego·ih kratkih opisa donosi le-
liks Kanic. On istice da se u njemu
nalazio e·ropski ureĀen salon.
Primeri Andreje Damjano·a i
primorskih graditelja u Bosni i ler-
cego·ini pokazuju karakteristike poz-
noosmanske arhitekture na Balkanu.
Rad Andreje Damjano·a nastajao
je sirom balkanskog prostora, od
Makedonije do Bosne i lercego·ine.
Velika mobilnost Damjano·a bila
je uslo·ljena njego·om recepcijom
S|. 2. Ncta csnans|a |asarna u Sarajctu na s|arcj fc|cgrafji.
121
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
S|. 4. Saocrna cr|ta u Mcs|aru na s|arcj razg|cdnici.
ture, sto s·akako ne odgo·ara njego·om znacaju.
Poznoosmanska arhitektura Makedonije, Srbije i
Bosne i lercego·ine predsta·lja ·aznu celinu u
graditeljskom nasleĀu Osmanske imperije. Ona
pokazuje dinamicnu transíormaciju arhitek-
tonske kulture i us·ajanje sa·remene e·ropske
graditeljske prakse, sto je bila jasna posledica
promena u drza·i i drust·u.
ƒ
S|. 3. Saocrna cr|ta u Nisu na s|arcj razg|cdnici.
u balkanskom drust·u. On je ocigledno bio pre-
poznat kao najsposobniji arhitekta na podrucju
Makedonije, Srbije i Bosne i lercego·ine. Njego-
·a sakralna i proíana zdanja pokazuju da je on pri-
menji·ao istoristicku i akademsku arhitektonsku
poetiku koja je odgo·arala zahte·ima narucilaca.
Velikom graditeljskom produkcijom Damjano· je
izmenio ·izuelni identitet Balkana. Isto·remeno,
on je ost·ario jedinst·eni opus u poznoosmans-
koj arhitekturi i doprineo da balkansko podrucje
postane ·azan kulturni prostor, uprkos burnim
politickim dogadjanjima.
U poznoosmanskoj arhitekturi Balkana is-
taknuto mesto imaju i graditelji koji su stizali iz
susednih - stranih drza·a. Oni su, poput lranje
Linardo·ica, lranje Moisa i Ante Siciliana, dono-
sili i primenji·ali arhitektonsku poetiku nastalu
iz·an Osmanske imperije. Na taj nacin je dolazilo
do kulturnog transíera i usklaĀi·anja sa·remene
osmanske i e·ropske graditeljske prakse.
Posttanzimatsko graditeljsko nasleĀe na
Balkanu bilo je potpuno marginalizo·ano u
dosadasnjim prouca·anjima osmanske arhitek-
122
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
.vtorica ra.¡rart;a o trav.forvaci;ava graa./e /vce i¸ o.vav./og ¡erioaa v ßo.vi i íercegorivi, va/ov aot·
a./a íab.bvrgoraca, /ro¸ tri eriaevtva ¡riv;era: ´rr¸iva /vca i De.¡ica /vca v ´ara;erv, ¸ativ /vca faviti;e
ív.ea¸ivoric v ßav;a ívci. Kvca De.¡ica faviti;e v ´ara;erv ;e va ¡riv;er ¡ro.ta /ro¸ bro;ve trav.forvaci;e
v ¡erioav i¸veĀv /a.vog 1º. i /a.vog 1·. .tot;eca. | cetrrto; fa¸i v ra¸ro;v ob;e/ta, .re reci vtica; ßeca ¡o.ta;e
ocigteaav. ]eaav aio /vce ;e aoaav i /ori.tev ¸a ¡otrebe teatra; va ¸iaoriva .v .e r;e.ati faviti;arvi ¡otreti vraĀevi
oa .trave ivo.travib .ti/ara. ^a.v¡rot ¡ovevvtib, /vca faviti;e ív.ea¸ivoric v ßav;a ívci ;e .agraĀeva 1·1².
goaive ¡reva ¡ro;e/tv a/aaev./i obra¸oravog av.trovgar./og arbite/te ]o.i¡a 1avca.a, v veo·traaiciovatvov
.titv /a.vi;e va¸ravov bo.av./i .tog. Ob;e/at ;e va.tao iv.¡iraci;ov traaiciovatve bo.av./e arbite/tvre .
;eave .trave, ao/ .v ri.iva .to¡ora i arvgi a.¡e/ti /vce biti ¡ritagoĀevi voaervo; arbite/tvri tog rreveva. Poa;eta
/vce va ¸ev./i i vv./i aio ;e bita ;o. vr;e/ ¸aar¸ava. ´rr¸iva /vca ;e ¡riv;er avtevtic/e /vce ori;evtatvog
ti¡a, .a traaiciovatvov ¡oa;etov .tavbevog /ov¡te/.a, /o;a ;e /a.vi;e te/ o¡revt;eva .a ¡ove/iv voaerviv
¸a¡aav;ac/iv ai;etov vobiti;ara, /o;i vi.v varv.arati i¸rorvv traaiciovatvv /ovfgvraci;v /vce.
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. trav.forvatiov. tbe Ottovav·¡erioa vrbav bov.e vvaerrevt fottorivg tbe aarevt of
íab.bvrg rvte, a. eriaevcea b, tbree e·av¡te.: tbe ´rr¸iva ava De.¡ic bov.e. iv ´ara;ero, ava tbe ív.ea¸ivoric
favit, bov.e iv ßav;a ív/a. 1be De.¡ic favit, bov.e iv ´ara;ero, for iv.tavce, .ar a vvvber of trav.forva·
tiov. betreev tbe tate 1º
tb
cevtvr, ava tbe tate 1·
tb
cevtvr,. ív tbe fovrtb cov.trvctiov ¡ba.e, 1ievva`. ivcrea.ivg
ivfvevce becove. eriaevt. Ove .¡ace ra. aaaea ava v.ea for tbeatre ¡erforvavce.; ov tbe ratt. rere bvvg favit,
¡ortrait. ¡aivtea b, a foreigv arti.t. 1be ív.ea¸ivoric bov.e iv ßav;a ív/a, b, covtra.t, ra. bvitt ovt, iv 1·1²
ava accoraivg to a ¡ro;ect b, av .v.tro·ívvgariav arcbitect iv a veo·traaitiovat voae tbev cattea tbe ßo.viav
.t,te. !bite iv.¡irea b, traaitiovat ßo.viav arcbitectvre, beigbt. ava otber a.¡ect. rere aaa¡tea to tbe voaerv
arcbitectvre of tbe aa,. ´titt, vate,fevate .e¡aratiov ra. retaivea. ´rr¸o`. íov.e, fvatt,, ra. a traaitiovat
bove ov a cov.erratire ¡tav, iv rbicb a fer !e.terv etevevt. rere veret, aaaea to a ba.ic covfgvratiov tbat
revaivea traaitiovat.
Lejla Bušatlić
Tr ansf or maci j e gr adske kuće
or i j ent al nog t i pa u post osmankom
per i odu na podr učj u Bosne i
Her cegovi ne
The t r ansf or mat i on of t he or i ent al - t ype
ur ban house i n post - Ot t oman Bosni a
and Her zegovi na
123
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Uvod
*5$'6.$ .8ü$ 25,-(17$/12* tipa u Bosni i
lercego·ini sa s·im s·ojim umjetnickim, am-
bijentalnim, arhitektonskim ·rijednostima je
izuzetno zanimlji·, speciFcan dio graditeljskog
naslijeĀa. Njenu tipologiju, nastanak i raz·oj u
sklopu karakteristicne strukture orijentalnog
grada s·akako treba sagledati i u kontekstu raz-
·oja o·ak·og tipa stambene arhitekture na Bal-
kanu kao speciFcnom podrucju gdje se susrecu
razliciti kulturoloski uticaji na razmeĀu Istoka i
Zapada. Porijeklo o·ak·og tipa gradnje se ·eze
za osmanski period, meĀutim korijeni i paralele
se mogu pronaci i u arhitekturi mesopotamske,
grcke
1
i bizantske kuce.
2
Osno·ni elementi
prostorne organizacije, kao sto su grupisanje
prostorija oko centralne sobe poput atrijuma,
sistem di·anhana koje podsjecaju na bizantske
i anticke trijemo·e, te bondrucna graditeljska
tehnika ukazuju na orijentalne iz·ore o·ak·og
tipa gradnje. Osmanska kuca se oslanja na
o·e tradicije ali je njena arhitektura originalno
rjesenje koje se treba sagledati u kontekstu
speciFcnih kulturoloskih odrednica. Dolaskom
osmanske ·lasti tipicna gradska kuca na Balkanu
dozi·lja·a dalji raz·oj i usa·rsa·anje orijentalne
1 U podjeli na prostorije za prijem orijentisane prema ulici i intimni
dio kuce u kojem se od·ija porodicni zi·ot orijentisan prema
d·oristu u grckoj stambenoj arhitekturi moze se prepoznati koncept
osmanske kuce. Po Vitru·iju obje grupe prostorija u grckoj kuci
sadrze ista odjeljenja, ali je polozaj grupa razlicit, prema ulici je
orijentisana grupa prostorija andronitis, dok je grupa odjeljenja
za zene ,ginekonitis, pozadi u d·oristu. Bogdan N. Nestoro·ic,
Arhitektura starog ·eka, Naucna knjiga,Beograd, 1952., str. 390.
2 C·ijic klasiFcira na podrucju Balkana cetiri tipa gradskih kuca:
dalmatinsko-mletacki, grcko-mediteranski, bizantsko-turski i
arbanaski tip. I drugi autori ,Soldo i Deroko, smatraju da je stara
gradska kuca na podrucju kontinentalnog dijela Balkana nastala
direktno pod uticajem Orijenta, a preko Bizantije.
koncepcije, sa naglaskom na osobenosti ·ezane
u pojedinim kraje·ima za prostorne, klimatske,
drust·ene u·jete. Proces orijentalizacije zah-
·ata goto·o s·e síere zi·ota. Osmanski period
na o·o podrucje do·odi no·u orijentalnu kul-
turu koja prozimanjem sa lokalnim tradicijama
raĀa no·a originalana rjesenja u graditeljst·u
pa tako i stambenoj arhitekturi Nara·no treba
imati u ·idu i odreĀene po·eznice sa seoskom
kucom. Pr·obitna gradska kuca je imala pro-
stornu strukturu seoske kuce, jer je izgraĀena
oko jezgre, sredisnje prostorije sa ognjistem u
kojoj se bora·ilo u toku dana i spa·alo. Kas-
nijom diíerencijacijom osno·no jezgro ce se
podijeliti na d·ije prostorije, hajat-predsoblje
i hal·at-sobu oko kojih se ·remenom grupisu
ostali prostori. Imajuci u ·idu s·e speciFcnosti
stambene arhitekture osmanskog perioda u
Bosni i lercego·ini, uticajima naslijeĀenog
lokalnog graditeljst·a moze se go·oriti o
íenomenu ¸bosanske kuce Ona nosi obiljezja
osmanske kuce ali i elemente lokalne naslijeĀene
tradicije stambene arhitekture. Njena posebnost
·ezana je za speciFcnost podneblja na kojem
se raz·ija. Analizirajuci s·e elemente koji su
deFnisali i uticali na raz·oj o·ak·og tipa gradnje
moze se zakljucii da se radi o posebnoj poja·i u
ok·iru osmanske arhitekture na podrucju Bal-
kana. Dolaskom austrougarske ·lasti dolazi do
znacajnih transíormacija u arhitektonskim i
urbanistickim rjesenjma na o·om podrucju. 1aj
proces prilagoĀa·anja tradicionalnih arhitek-
tonskih íormi no·im europskim standardima
se od·ijao postupno unosenjem pojedinih
dijelo·a mobilijara ,ogledala, sato·a, stolica,, da
bi na kraju kompletan enterijer dobio izgled u
skladu s no·im europskim standardima kulture
stano·anja. O·ak·im transíormacijama gubi se
124
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
jedno od najznacajnijih obiljezja unutrasnjeg
prostora tradicionalne kuce njego·a adaptibil-
nost i neksibilna íunkcionalnost. I spoljasnja
arhitektonska maniíestacija se mijenja zat·aran-
jem kamerija i di·anhana te obliko·anjem no·og
íasadnog platna u skladu s no·im stilskim ten-
dencijama. O·aj slozeni proces europeizacije se
od·ija u d·a smjera, kroz transíormaciju objekta
iz osmanskog perioda koji razlicitim inter·enci-
jama kako u arhitektonskim rjesenjima tako i u
unutrasnjem ureĀenju mijenjaju s·oj karakter i
poja·u no·osagraĀenih objekata u bosanskom
slogu, djela skolo·anih arhitekata koji kreati·nim
pristupom elemente tradicionalnog graditeljst·a
po·ezuju s su·remenim tendencijama.
S·e speciFcnosti o·ak·ih íenomena mogu se
ilustrirati kroz komparati·nu i íormalnu analizu
sacu·anih objekata i enterijera koji s·jedoce o
meĀusobnom prozimaju i susretanju razlicitih
stilskih i kulturoloskih orijentacija. 1ri ob-
jekta, S·rzina kuca i Despica kuca u Saraje·u te
porodicna kuca lusedzino·ica u Banjoj Luci na
zoran nacin go·ore o razlicitim íazama transíor-
macije tradicionalnog graditeljst·a kroz proces
europeizacije.
S|. 1a. |n|crijcr tc|i|cg na|ta|a u zcns|cn dijc|u Strzinc |ucc
u Sarajctu, prinjcr uncscnja c|cncna|a curcpcizacijc u |radi-
cicna|nc co|i|ctani prcs|cr ocsans|c |ucc.
S|. 1o. |n|crijcr tc|i|cg na|ta|a u zcns|cn dijc|u Strzinc |ucc
u Sarajctu, prinjcr uncscnja c|cncna|a curcpcizacijc u |radi-
cicna|nc co|i|ctani prcs|cr ocsans|c |ucc.
125
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Karakteri sti ke, nastanak
i razvoj gradske kuće
ori j ental nog ti pa u Bosni i
Hercegovi ni
Kao simbol ·isoko raz·ijene kulture
stano·anja, bosanska kuca je obliko·ana na
principima posti·anja pri·atnog prostora, pra·a
na ·idik, po·ezi·anja prirode i arhitekture, kulta
·ode i kulta komsiluka. Radi se najcesce o jedno-
spratnoj graĀe·ini obliko·anoj od tradicionalnih
materijala, dr·eta, kamena i cerpica. Koristi se
kontrastni bondruk sistem, cerpic ,cigla susena
na suncu,, ispuna u kombinaciji sa dr·enim gre-
dama hatulama koje cine konstrukciju c·rscom.
Kro· je pokri·en sindrom ili ceramidom. U
lercego·ini se kao materijal koristi kamen.
3

Cistocom geometrijskih íormi kubusa i íasa-
3 U tipologiji stambene arhitekture orijentalnog tipa u Bosni i
lercego·ini izd·ajaju se tri skupine: neraz·ijeni oblik kuce sje·erne
i zapadne Bosne, centralno-bosanski i hercego·acki oblik
Neraz·ijeni oblik ne poznaje diíerenciranje ja·ne i intimne zone
kuce. Kuca je jednosta·nog korpusa jednospratnog rjesenja sa
kro·om prekri·enim sindrom. Ima skromni doksat, poluzat·orenu
di·anhanu i manje prozore.GraĀena je od dr·eta i cerpica.
Centralno-bosanski oblik karakterise naglaseno isticanje doksata,
ograĀi·anje od ulice ·isokim zidom, bogati prostorni odnosi
,narocito po horizontali, te od·ajanje ja·nog i intimnog dijela kuce.
Kro· je najcesce nizak pokri·en ceremidom ili sindrom. Primjere
kuca o·ak·og tipa nalazimo u loci, Saraje·u, 1ra·niku. Materijali
koji se koriste pri izgradnji su dr·o, cerpic i ceremida.
lercego·acki oblik kuce orijentalnog tipa je slican centralno-
bosanskom. Razlike su ugla·nom posljedice razlicitih klima i
raspolozi·ih osno·nih materijala. U hercego·ackoj gradskoj kuci
poluot·oreni prostori ,trijemo·i, di·anhane, kamerije, su ·eci,
kro· je nizak, pokri·en kamenim plocama. Zbog tijesnje ·eze sa
jadranskim zaleĀem na hercego·ackoj kuci se osjeca naglaseniji
e·ropski uticaj koji je u osno·i sekundaran. Ahmet ladro·ic,
Gradska kuca orijentalnog tipa u Bosni i lercego·ini, Saraje·o 1993,
str.40.
S|. 2. Pczcrisna scoa u Dcspica |uci u Sarajctu.
126
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
dom bez naglasnih dekorati·nih elementana,
o·aka· tip gradnje je s·ojim konceptom blizak
rjesenjima moderne arhitekture. Radi se o sjajnoj
sintezi prirode, arhitekture i co·jeka. Visoki zid
od·aja stambeni kompleks sa bastama, a·lijama,
magazama, di·anhanama, kamerijama, mut·a-
kom, hal·atima i hajatima, od ja·nog zi·ota ulice.
Podjela na haremluk ,zenski intimni porodicni
dio kuce, i selamluk ,gospodarski muski dio
kuce, je dio kulture stano·anja obiljezenog is-
lamskim s·jetonazorom. Unutrasnje ureĀenje je
obiljezeno neksibilnom íunkcionalnoscu pros-
torija i malobrojnim uniFciranim namjestajem.
UgraĀene musandere, neka ·rsta dr·ene okolice
plakara za drzanje posteljine s zidanom peci , kaz-
anom za grijanje ·ode ,pesnjak, i hamamdzikom,
banjicom, su Fksirane uz zido·e. Nasuprot
musandere su secije, najcesce smjestene ispod
prozora. Sredisnji prostor je prazan i zastrt
cilimom. Unosenjem mangale, soíre ili prostiran-
jem duseka mijenja se i íunkcija sobe. U skladu
s karakterom islamske kulture u muslimanskim
kucama, bogata dekoracija dr·orezbarije, ·eza,
kaligraFje i obrade metala s·edena je na biljni i
geometrijski ornament bez Fgurati·nih sadrzaja.
O·aka· tip kulture stano·anja je prih·acen i
kod nemuslimanskog stano·nist·a. Razlike su
bile minimalne. U enterijeru krscanskih kuca ja-
·ljaju se slike religioznog sadrzaja, ikone, kandila,
te se koriste prostirke na secijama razlicite boje.
Nema tradicionalne podijele na muski i zenski
dio, secije su ·ise i uze u odnosu na musliman-
ske kuce gdje su one prilagoĀene uobicajenom
nacinu sjedenja «alla turca». U skladu s tradicijom
njego·anja kulta ·ode i cistoce unutrasnjeg pro-
stora, proizaslom iz islamskog s·jetonazora i re-
ligijskog obrednog pranja pred molit·u ,uzimanje
abdesta, neizbijezan dio enterijera muslimanskih
kuca je abdestluk. 1o je jos jedna od razlika u
unutrasnjem ureĀenju i kulturi stano·anja mus-
S|. 3. Spataca scoa iz Dcspica |ucc u Sarajctu.
127
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
limanskog i krscanskog stano·nist·a. S·rzina
kuca u Saraje·u
4
, biser bosanskohercego·ackog
graditeljskog naslijeĀa reprezentati·an je primjer
4 U neposrednoj blizini Jahija-pasine dzamije smjestena je S·rzina
kuca. Radi se o izuzetnom spomeniku orijentalne stambene
arhitekture u Bosni i lercego·ini. Izgradila ju je porodica GloĀo
ali je kasnije zenidbenim ·ezama dospijela u posjed porodice S·rzo.
Posljednji ·lasnik iz porodice GloĀo bio je Ahmet Munib-eíendijja
koji je zbog neposlusnosti bosanskom ·eziru 1848. godine , sa jos
nekim Sarajlijama, prognan na Kretu, gdje je umro d·ije godine
kasnije. Nije imao muskih potomaka pa je kuca zenidbenim ·ezama
presla u ·lasnist·o porodice S·rzo, koja je sezdesetih godina XX
stoljeca kucu prodala Muzeju grada Saraje·a.
gradske kulture stano·anja u osmanskom perio-
du. Zadrzala je goto·o u potpunosti autenticnost
gradske kuce orijentalnog tipa u s·im njenim
aspektima i karakteristikama. 1radicionalni ma-
terijali, uobicajena podjela stambenog kompleksa
na salemluk i haremluk ,ja·ni i pri·atni prostor,,
hajat, hal·ati, kah·eodzak, di·anhana, kamerija,
doksat, mut·ak s ·odnicom, neksibilnost i
·isestruka íunkcionalnost unutrasnjeg prostora,
arhitektura kao dio prirode i priroda kao dio
arhitekture s·e su to prepoznatlji·e karakteristike
tradicionalnog graditeljst·a. Unutrasnji prostor
je organiziran i opremljen na uobicajen nacin.
Radi se o Fksnom namjestaju secijama i musan-
derama s hamamdzikom i duseklukom posta·-
ljenim uz zido·e prostorija. Bogata dr·orezbarija
s geometrijskom i noralnom ornamentikom,
ljepota ·eza, bakarno posuĀe, sahani, dzugumi,
ukraseni tehnikom sa·ata, le·he upotpunjuju
cjelokupni dojam speciFcnog enterijera o·e kuce.
Dominatni su orijentalno-islamski uticaji s ·rlo
rijetkim primjerima, prije s·ega u unutrasnjem
ureĀenju, poja·lji·anja mobilijara koji ukazuje
na proces europeizacije. U enterijeru ·elikog
hal·ata no·ijeg dijela zenske kuce, namijenjenom
za okupljanje porodice za ·rijeme bajrama, ií-
tara i me·luda iznenaĀuje poja·a ·enecijanskog
ogledala kao primjer postepenog prodiranja eu-
ropskih standarda i po·ezi·anja s tradicionalnim
graditeljst·om. O·ak·i predmeti s·jedoce o bo-
gatim trgo·ackim ·ezama ne samo s Carigradom
·ec i s znacajnim europskim centrima kao sto su
Venecija i Bec .
S·ojim stilskim karakteristikama i dimenzi-
jama, o·ak·i dijelo·i namjestaja ne uklapaju se
u ambijent tradicionalnog graditeljst·a i njego·
koncept antropometricnosti.
Prostor obliko·an po mjeri co·jeka nije
kompatibilan s mobilijarom koji ga s·ojom
masi·noscu zagusuje i opterecuje sto nije slucaj
sa S·rzinom kucom koja uspije·a sacu·ati iz·orni
izgled tradicionalne stambene arhitekture iz os-
manskog perioda.
S|. 4. Kuoc|ija, prcs|crija na||ritcna |upc|cn u Dcspica |uci
u Sarajctu, stcjin unu|rasnjin urcācnjcn u|azujc na prcp|i-
|anjc |radicicna|nin i srcdnjccurcps|in s|andarda u |u||uri
s|anctanja.
128
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Proces transformaci j e kroz
usvaj anj e novi h europski h
standarda u kul turi
stanovanj a
S·akako o·u problematiku raz·oja i modi-
Fkacija stambene arhitekture treba analizirati u
jednom sirem kontekstu íormiranja orijentalnog
grada sa podjelom na podrucje stano·anja ,ma-
hale, i poslo·nu zonu ,carsije,, te promjena koje
se desa·aju na o·om podrucju u urbanistickim
i arhitektonskim rjesenjima pod uticajem su·re-
menih desa·anja u europskoj arhitekturi s na-
glaskom na uticaj Beca.
Interkulturalni dijalog i meĀusobna prepli-
tanja razlicitih tradicija mozda se na najbolji nacin
mogu pratiti i ·idjeti u bogatst·u graditeljskog
naslijeĀa. Dolaskom austrougarske upra·e
europski graditeljski standardi transíormisu
urbanisticka rjesenja orijentalnog grada. Dok se
orijentalni grad bazira na amFteatralnom koncep-
tu s od·ojenim stambenim cet·rtima ,mahalama,
na padinskim dijelo·ima i trgo·ackim poslo·nim
sredistem ,carsijom, u centru, te jednom ·rstom
organskog urbanistickog rjesenja s kri·uda·im
sokacima koji se radijalno sire iz carsije prema
mahalama prelazeci u sokacice i cikme, osno·no
obiljezje urbanizma modernog europskog grada,
bio je ortogonalni sistem saobracajnica, gradnja
u bloko·ima s ·iseetaznim objektima. U osman-
skom periodu urbana jedinica je mahala, a u aus-
trougarskom to postaje ulica. Ja·ni objekti i stam-
bena arhitektura iz o·og perioda nose obiljezja
akademizma neostilo·a i secesije. Uticaji islamske
arhitekture mogu se prepoznati na graĀe·inama
projekto·anim u neomaurskom stilu, arhi-
tekturom koja nikada nije bila karakteristicna
za o·aj prostor. U skladu s po·ecanjem broja
stano·nist·a ja·lja se i potreba za ·ecim brojem
stambenih objekata. Oni se grade u sistemu
bloko·a ili u nizu uz nastojanje maksimalnog
koristenja zemljista i spratnosti. Najcesce su to
najamne, poslo·no-stambene zgrade, stambene
palate i ·ile
5
. Ako se radilo o tipu poslo·no-stam-
bene zgrade, u prizemnoj etazi se obicno nalaze
poslo·ni prostori dok se na sprato·ima stano·a-
lo. Dispozicija je organizirana tako da se saloni
i reprezentati·ne prostorije za prijem orijentiraju
ka ulici, dok se spa·aca soba, trpezarija s kuhin-
jom i kupatilo orijentisu ka d·oristu. U sredistu
je hodnik koridorskog tipa. Vile su graĀene kao
slobodnostojeci objekti okruzeni zelenilom.
Raskosna rjesenja íasade i enterijera go·ore o
drust·enom statusu ·lasnika. S·e to ukazuje na
promjene drust·eno-ekonomskih i politickih
prilika u Bosni i lercego·ini i u skadu s tim
poja·u no·og nacina zi·ota, kulture stano·anja
i ukusa graĀana. Najbogatiji drust·eni stalez,
mlada burzoazija, nastoji da se uklopi u su·re-
mena stremljenja i standarde srednjeeuropskih
kulturnih krugo·a. Nara·no da se s·a o·a burna
desa·anja, promjene, arhitektonsko-urbanisticki
sok koji se desa·a dolaskom austrougarske ·lasti
renektira i kroz proces transíormacije i euro-
peizacije gradske kuce orijentalnog tipa. Ona se
desa·a postupno, unosenjem pojedinih dijelo·a
mobilijara: stolica, ogledala, da bi na kraju po-
jedine prostorije dobijale izgled koji potpuno
odgo·ara no·oj zapadnoj kulturi stano·anja u
skladu s su·remenim importo·anim stilskom
orijentacijama.
Prih·acanjem no·ih europskih obrazaca u
kulturi stano·anja desa·aju se znacajne promjene
u karakteru tradicionalne stambene arhitekture.
lleksibilnost íunkcionalnosti unutrasnjeg prosto-
ra se gubi unosenjem mobilijara karakteristicnog
za srednjeeuropske obrasce unutrasnjeg ureĀenja.
Na taj nacin njego·a íunkcija se Fksira i on gubi
s·oju adaptibilnost i ·isestruku íunkcionalnost.
5 Borisla· Spasoje·ic, Arhitektura stambenih palata austrougarskog
perioda u Saraje·u, Saraje·o 1988.,str.25.
S|. 5. Trpczarija u Dcspica |uci u Sarajctu.
129
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Dobija europsku organizaciju i deFniran je
odgo·arajucim namjestajem.
6
U·oĀenjem moderne inírastrukture, kupa-
tila, ·odo·odnih instalacija, narusa·a se integ-
ritet objekata sto do·odi do njego·ih ostecenja
propadanja dr·ene konstrukcije i ugroza·anja
stabilnosti kuce. Gradska kuca orijentalnog tipa
sa prostornim odnosima neprilagoĀenim no-
·om nacinu zi·ota, prih·ata no·u organizaciju
stano·anja. S·aka etaza postaje cjelina za sebe
tj. no·i stan, ·elike ot·orene po·rsine postaju
6 Ahmet ladro·ic, Gradska kuca orijentalnog tipa u Bosni i
lercego·ini, Saraje·o 1993, str.42.
luksuz pa se zat·araju i pret·araju u sobe.
¯
Stoga
se posta·lja pitanje da li europeizacija predsta·lja
degradaciju, destrukciju ili no·i k·alitet u kulturi
stano·anja i arhitektonskim rjesenjima·
¯ Namjestaj koji odgo·ara srednjeeuropskim standardima unutrasnjeg
ureĀenja se moze posmatrati kao zasebna cjelina u odnosu na
prostor koji deFnise. Veza izmeĀu tradicionalnog Fksnog namjestaja
u bosanskoj kuci i prostora koji on deFnise je c·rsca. Secije se mogu
okarakterisati i kao izdignuti dio poda, a musandere kao ugraĀeni dio
zida.
S|. 6. |n|crijcr araps|c scoc, pcrcdiĀna |uca Huscdzinctica u
8anjcj |uci.
130
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Despica kuca
8
je mozda i najstariji primjer
znacajnijeg prodora no·ih standarda u kulturi
stano·anja pod uticajem srednjeeuropskog kul-
turnog kruga. Objekat je nastao po·ezi·anjem
d·ije kuce nastale u osmanskom periodu i nak-
nadnom dogradnjom. Njen arhitektonski raz·oj
8 Kuca se nalazi u nekadasnjoj mahali Latinluk u kojoj je bila
dubro·acka kolonija. Pretposta·lja se da su graditelji danasnjeg
objekta Despica kuce isti oni koji su bili autori ja·nih objekata sa tz·.
europskom orijentacijom, nastalih u Saraje·u od 1865. do 1866.g.
,zgrada Vakuíske bolnice, nekadasnje Vojne bolnice i Vezirskog
konaka,. 1o su bila d·a graditelja iz Splita lranjo Lindaric, koji je
iz·odio sanacione rado·e na temeljima Visegradskog mosta 18¯5.g.
i lranjo Moise. Despica kuca je sezdestih godina XX stoljeca
pret·orena u muzej na temelju ugo·ora izmeĀu opcine i porodice
Despic. U toku ratnih desa·anja 1992-95. g. objekat je u nekoliko
na·rata bio ostecen ,od posljedica granatiranja 1993. g. nastala su
ostecenja na kro·noj konstrukciji, pokro·u od bakarnog lima,
okapnici íasadi i u enterijeru uslijed uticaja ·ode,. Objekat je u cjelini
saniran 2001.g uz pomoc s·edske íondacije Kulturno naslijeĀe bez
granica, Vlade Kantona Saraje·o i Za·oda za zastitu spomenika u
sasta·u lederalnog ministarst·a kulture i sporta. Danas se objekat
nalazi u ·lasnist·u Muzeja grada Saraje·a.
od·ijao se od 1¯80. g. do kraja XIX stoljeca kroz
cetiri íaze. U pr·oj íazi se dograĀuje sprat na
mut·aku, u drugoj dolazi do spajanja kamene
kuce i mut·aka jedinst·enim kro·om i di·anha-
nom. 1reca íaza je ·ezana za izgradnju no·e kuce
pocetkom XIX st., ·elike sobe s pozorisnom
namijenom i salona, te njiho·o spajanje jedinst-
·enim kro·om i íasadom s arkadom u prizem-
lju i na spratu.U cet·rtoj íazi krajem XIX st. se
zat·araju luko·i na spratu i zastakljuju arkade u
prizemlju cime cijelo íasadno platno dobija jedin-
st·en arhitektonski izraz u duhu neorenesanse i
akademizma
9
.
9 U ·elikom pozaru 18¯9. stradao je kro· kuce, dio íasade i rastinje
u d·oristu. 1adasnji ·lasnik , Makso Despic, do·eo je majstore iz
Broda i obno·io kucu. S obzirom na porijeklo majstora i na elemente
koji su primjenjeni na íasadi ,duboka rustika uglo·a, proFlacija
doprozornika, pilastri i njiho·i postamenti, nacin obrade prozora
itd., moglo bi se reci da je to pr·a primjena akademske eklektike u
Saraje·u. Despica kuca, Muzej Saraje·a, Saraje·o, 2009., str. 42.
S|. 7. Ditannana u zcns|cn dijc|u pcrcdiĀnc |ucc
Huscdzinctica u 8anjcj |uci.
131
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Ocito je da objekat mijenja s·oj izgled
kroz historiju kao odraz razlicitih drust·eno-
ekonomskih, politickih i kulturoloskih prilika.
Jezgra stambenog objekta orijentalnog karaktera
iz osmanskog perioda dobija ogrtac íasade u duhu
europskih tendencija akademizma i eklektike u
XIX st. Sam proces europeizacije se primjecuje i
u unutrasnjem ureĀenju, sa sobama namjestenim
potpuno u duhu tradicionalnog graditeljst·a
,mamina
10
i babina soba
11
,, preko prostora gdje
se susrecu orijentalno-islamske tradicije s europs-
kim standardima ,kubelija
12
, i enterijera ureĀenih
potpuno u skladu s su·remeneim tendencijama
pod uticajem srednjeeuropskim kulturnih centara
s posebnim naglaskom na Bec. Posebnost o·e
kuce ·ezana je za pocetke pozorisnog zi·ota u
10 Mamina soba kao dio najstarijeg dijela kuce gdje je najcesce bora·ila
supruga Makse Despica je manja prostorija s omalterisanom
ta·anicom na cijoj sredini je dr·ena greda oslikana noralnim
ormanentom. Moze se pretposta·iti da je pr·obitno bila natkri·ena
dr·enom ta·anicom. Interijer s dolaíom, secijom, musandrom,
cilimom ima s·a obiljezja orijentalno-islamskih uticaja. Neki od
detalja kao sto je uza i ·isa secija prekri·ena bordo somotom ,u
krscanskim kucama koristila se kao prostirka za seciju bordo coha,
dok je u muslimanskim kucama bila razlicitih boja,, ikona s kandilom
i ¸za·jesom ukazuje da se radi o kuci pra·osla·ne porodice. Brusali
s·ileni jastuci kao statusni simbol go·ore da se radi o bogatoj
porodici. Despica kuca, Muzej Saraje·a, Saraje·o, 2009., str 92.
11 Babina soba u kojoj je bora·io ladzi Makso Despic ,Babo, se
nalazi u prizemnom dijelu kuce preko puta mamine sobe s zeljeznim
·ratima na ulazu. U lije·om uglu sobe je pec s loncicima, rezbarena
musandera s ot·orom iza kojeg su uske dr·ene stepenice kao ·eza
s ¸kubelijom prostorijom koja se nalazi iznad ¸babine sobe.
Na suprotnoj strani ispod prozora i uz susjedni zid je secija u
obliku slo·a L s ¸kaluni jastucima. Iznad secije na zidu nalazi se
skupocijena srebrena ikona. U sredisnjem prostoru je posta·ljena
soíra - demirlija. Uz zid do ·rata je sanduk za ruho. Despica kuca,
Muzej Saraje·a, Saraje·o, 2009.,str. 94.
12 Kubelija je jedna od najneobicnijihi i najinteresantnijih prostorija
u kuci. Dobila je nazi· po oslikanoj kupoli kojom je natkri·ena.
Radi se o nekoj ·rsti gostinske sobe. U stambenoj arhitekturi
o·aka· tip natkri·anja kupolom nije uobicajen. Cesce se koristi u
monumentalnoj arhitekturi ja·nih i ·jerskih objekata - dzamije,
hamami, hano·i-1aslihan je imao magaze natkri·ene kupolama.
U unutrasnjem ureĀenju se ·ec jasno moze primijetiti mijesanje
orijentalnih i zapadnoe·ropskih uticaja. U istoj prostoriji pored
starinske peci ¸sa loncicima, secije, rezbarenog sanduka,
¸stambolske mangale mozemo ·idjeti ·eliki luster ukrasen sedeíom,
·enecijansko ogledalo, malu salonsku garnituru ukrasenu rezbarijom
i sedeíom, ormaric izraĀen u tehnici intarzije s mermernom plocom
kupljen od írancuskog konula i sat engleske proiz·odnje. Poseban
ukras enterijera su mala skrinja za cu·anje dragocijenosti i rahle od
sedeía koje je ladzi Makso donio sa hadziluka iz Jerusalema. D·ije
ikone i kandilo upotpunjuju kompleksnost prozimanja razlicitih
kulturoloskih i stilskih odrednica o·og izuzetno zanimljiog interijera.
Despica kuca, Muzej Saraje·a, Saraje·o, 2009., str.96.
Saraje·u. Velika soba
13
koja je sluzila za stano·an-
je i odrza·anje pozorisnih predsta·a go·ori o
postupnom procesu europeizacije tradicionalnog
enterijera, nara·no i samom namjenom ali i poja-
·om graĀanskog slikarst·a ,porodicnih portreta,
rad slikara írö.ebta) koji nisu karakteristicni za
osmanski period. Prostorije na spartu, spa·aca
soba
14
,zlatni salon
15
i trpezarija
16
, demonstriraju
apsolutnu dominaciju europskih standarada u
unutrasnjem ureĀenju s prepoznatlji·im stilskim
karakteristikama bidermajera. Analizirajuci s·e
o·e elemente stice se dojam da d·a koncepta
kulture stano·anja, arhitektonskog obliko·anja
i deFniranja íunkcije unutrasnjeg prostora se
meĀusobno prozimaju ali nisu kompatibilni.
U antropometricni prostor bosanske kuce
tesko se moze uklopiti masi·ni namjestaj sred-
njeeuropske orijentacije u stilu bidermajera. Re-
zultat tak·ih pokusaja je optereci·anje i zagusenje
unutrasnjeg prostora i narusa·anje autenticnosti
tradicionalne stambene arhitekture
13 Velika soba,pozorisna soba, je ·eca prostorija sa oslikanom
ra·nom dr·enom ta·anicom koja je djelimicno rekonstruisana zbog
ostecenja. Iza rezbarenih ·rata se nalazila mala prostorija koja je
·jero·atno sluzila kao garderoba. Unutrasnje ureĀenje sa secijama,
cilimima s ponekim dijelo·ima namjestaja zapadnoe·ropskog stila
pono·o go·ore o dijalogu razlicitih obrazaca u kulturi stano·anja.
Despica kuca, Muzej Saraje·a, Saraje·o, 2009., str. 96.
14 Spa·aca soba s kre·etima, nocnim ormaricima, psihom, slikom
religioznog sadrzaja na zidu , stolice i mali stolic, d·okrilni ormar
i si·aca masina ukazuje na apsolutnu dominaciju srednjeeuropskog
standarda u unutrasnjem ureĀenju prostorije cija je íunkcija Fksirana
njenim mobilijarom. Despica kuca, Muzej Saraje·a, Saraje·o, 2009.,
str. 98.
15 Salon sa lusterom, salonskom garniturom pres·ucenom zlatnim
brokatnim meblom u stilu bidermajera, zlatnom ·itrinom s Fnim
porculanskim posuĀem je jasno deFniran europskim modelima
ureĀenja unutrasnjeg prostora Despica kuca, Muzej Saraje·a,
Saraje·o, 2009., str.98.
16 1rpezarija sa kla·irom proiz·odom Frme Neubauer iz Beca, manjim
rezbarenim ormaricem, satom, ogledalom, trpezarijskim stolom sa
sest stolica se bitno razlikuje od tradicionalnog koncepta ureĀenja
babine sobe, prostorije sa posta·ljenom soírom u sredistu i secijama
i musanderama u rubnim dijelo·ima uz zido·e kao Fksnim dijelom
namjestaja. Objedo·anje za soírom iz sahana sjedeci na podu
zamijenjeno je zapadnjackim nacinom. Jasno se razd·aja i Fksira
íunkcija pojedinih prostorija o·ak·im tipom mobilijara koji potpuno
transíormise i karakter i ambijentalnu ·rijednost trradicionalnog
graditeljst·a. Despica kuca, Muzej Saraje·a, Saraje·o, 2009., str. 98.
132
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Nova rj ešenj a
u pri bl i žavanj u
tradi ci onal nog
gradi tel j stva i suvremeni h
tendenci j a kroz arhi tekturu
bosanskog sl oga
Na tragu istrazi·anja \agnero·e skole teme
geniusa loci

strani arhitekti, prije s·ega Josip
Vancas i Josip Pospisl, prepoznaju ·rijednost i iz-
·ornost tradicionalnog graditeljst·a. Kao rezultat
prouca·anja graditeljskog naslijeĀa i prepozna-
·anja njego·og znacaja pocetkom XX st. ja·lja
se arhitektura bosanskog sloga koja na kreati·an
nacin po·ezuje su·remene tendencije s tradicio-
nalnim íormama stambene arhitekture osman-
skog perioda. Ona nije nacionalni arhitektonski
izraz ·ec stil regionalnog karaktera. Regionalna
posebnost u·jeto·ala je izraz ¸bosanski slog.
Graditeljsko-umjetnicki izraz,nastao pocetkom
o·og stoljeca, sas·im tacno naz·an bosanskom
stilom, nije znacio nikak·u stilsku retardaciju, ·ec
1¯ Bosna je postala zanimlji·a tek prosirenjem onog ·agnerijanskog
genius loci, jedne od ·aznih tema o·e skole koja se raz·ija u ideji o
oplemeni·anju samonikle arhitekture. Kurto Nedzad, Saraje·o 1462
-1992, Printing and Publishing louse, Saraje·o, 199¯., str.86.
nastojanje da se kroz daljni raz·oj graditeljske
tehnike raz·ijaju íorme koje nisu citati, ·ec
kreati·no izrazene asocijacije na ·isestoljetno
naslijeĀe Bosne. Bosanski stil , nastao u ·rijeme
ubrzanog sazimanja razlicitih kultura i ci·ilizacija,
nije rezultat prisilno ujedinjenih razlicitosti. On
je prije s·ega rezultanta kultura koje su se do-
punja·ale kroz historiju.
18
S druge strane arhi-
tektura bosanskog sloga s·ojim cistim geometri-
jskim íormama jednosta·nim rjesenjima íasada
procisca·anjem secesijskih rjesenja od pretjerane
dekorati·nosti se moze oznaciti kao pocetak voa·
erve u bosanskohecego·ackoj arhitekturi.
Zanimlji· primjer o·ak·ih traganja arhi-
tekata austrougarskog perioda je porodicna kuca
lusedzino·ica u Banjoj Luci. Radi se o pro-
jektu akademski obrazo·anog arhitekta Josipa
pl. Vancasa iz 1913.g. u bosanskom slogu, a ne o
narodnom graditeljst·u.
Kao iz·anredan spoj tradicionalnih elemenata
i su·remene gradnje austrougarskog perioda sa
nago·jestajima modernizma kuca predsta·lja
jedno od najuspjesnijih Vancase·ih ost·arenja
18 Kurto Nedzad, Saraje·o 1462 -1992, Printing and Publishing louse,
Saraje·o, 199¯.,str.93.
S|. 8a. Nanjcs|aj u s|i|u |cuisa XV iz ,rcza sa|cna´ u
zcns|cn dijc|u pcrcdiĀnc |ucc Huscdzinctica U 8anjcj |uci.
S|. 8o. Nanjcs|aj u s|i|u |cuisa XV iz ,rcza sa|cna´ u
zcns|cn dijc|u pcrcdiĀnc |ucc Huscdzinctica U 8anjcj |uci.
133
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
u oblasti stambene arhitekture projekto·ane u
bosanskom slogu. Ne radi se o íaksimilskoj in-
terpretaciji bosanskohercego·ackog graditeljskog
naslijeĀa ·ec pokusaju posta·ljanja tradicio-
nalne arhitekture u no·i su·remeni kontekst.
Oslanjanje na tradicionalna rjesenja stambene
arhitekture prepoznatlji·o je u podjeli na muski
i zenski dio kuce s od·ojenim ulaznim kapijama,
prih·atanju jednospratnog rjesenja i upotrebi is-
taknute strehe, doksata, badze i dr·ene ·erande
kao reminiscencije na kameriju.
Pri izgradnji su primijenjeni s·i graĀe·inski
standardi austrougarskog perioda.
Kao graĀe·inski materijal koristeni su kamen,
opeka, dr·o i eternit
19
. U podrumskom prostoru
koristena je za austrougarski period karakteristicna
spregnuta konstrukcija sa zeljeznim proFlima
i s·odom od opeke, jedna ·rsta plitkog tz·.
pruskog s·oda` . Visina stropo·a i gabariti
kuce takoĀer su tipicni za graditeljsko naslijeĀe
austrougarskog perioda, odstupaju od koncepta
bosanske kuce koja je je obliko·ana po mjeri
co·jeka sa znatno nizim stropo·ima i prostori-
jama manjih dimenzija. Ne radi se o ugraĀenom
objektu ·ec o kuci sa cetiri íasade od kojih je ona
sa orijentacijom na ulicu najreprezentati·nija.
Objekat je koncipiran u duhu bosanske gradske
kuce sa a·lijom u pozadini i d·ije kapije ,muska
i zenska, koje nankiraju ulicnu íasadu. Kamena
oplata ·isokog sokla i donjih zona prizemlja prati
íormu pra·ougaonih i lucno zas·edenih prozora
i kapija.
20
Cet·ero·odni kro· pokri·en eternitom
sa istaknuti strehama i badzama te plasticno
modelo·ani trobridni erker
21
u íormi doksata
rasclanjenog prozorskim ot·orima ja·ljaju se kao
19 Zido·i debljine 50 cm graĀeni su od opeke, sokl, oplata donjih
zona íasade i stepeniste je kameno, dok su podo·i, pr·obitna
·eranda i kro·na konstrukcija od dr·eta s pokri·acem od eternita.
Dr·ena ·eranda sa pogledom na d·oriste i rijeku srusila se usljed
nepostojanosti materijala, te je zamijenjena betonskom.
Iza kuce nalazila se prostrana terasa sa sedr·anom ispod koje su se
nalazile ·es kuhinja i kino sala do kojih se silazilo stepenistem. 1erasa
se srusila 1935. godine zbog slijeganja terena. Nakon katastroíalnog
zemljotresa 1969.g. kuca je pretrpila znatna ostecenja. Obno·ljena je
i od tada je pod zastitom drza·e.
20 1robridni kubicni erker nije puka dekoracija ·ec je logican
produkt íunkcije i dispozicije unutrasnjeg prostora Kurto Nedzad,
Arhitektura Bosne i lercego·ine, raz·oj bosanskog stila, Saraje·o
Publishing, MeĀunarodni centar za mir, Saraje·o, 1998. str. 258.
21 Krzo·ic Ibrahim, Arhitektura secesije u Bosni i lercegio·ini,
Kulturno naslijeĀe, Saraje·o Publishing, Saraje·o, 2004., str 194.
interpretacije tradicionalnog. Istaknute strehe se
ja·ljaju i iznad ulaznih kapija. Centralno raz·ijena
dispozicija objekta prati íunkcionalnu podjelu
prostorija i podjelu na ja·ni muski dio kuce i
pri·atni zenski, cime se postuje tradicionalna
kultura stano·anja. Unutrasnja dispozicija kuce
se odraza·a na íasadi.
Stilske karakteristike rane voaerve mogu
se prepoznati u rjesenju íasade prociscene i
osloboĀene od dekorati·nih elemenata i cistim
kubicnim geometrijskim íormama.
Ritmizaciju i skladne proporcije gla·ne íasade
naglasa·aju simetricno rasporeĀeni prozorski ot-
·ori ,u zoni prizemlja cetiri i u zoni sprata pet na
doksatu i d·a sa bocnih strana,. Na juznoj íasadi
pored prozora sobe za kuharicu i stepenista ja·lja
se i slijepi prozor, jedan od arhitektonskih el-
emenata koji Vancas cesto koristi u obradi íasade
da bi naglasio ritmizaciju, harmonicnost i simetr-
iju kompozicije.
22
I pored ociglednih reíeriranja
na tradicionalno graditeljst·o mogu se primijetiti
i odreĀena odstupanja od uobicajenih rjesenja.
Visina i sirina prizemng dijela kuce odgo·ara
·isini pr·og sprata sto se bitno razlikuje od kon-
cepta tradicionalne bosanske kuce koja obicno
ima gornji sprat siri i nizi od prizemlja. O·dje se
ne radi o sistemu d·ojne kuce ,muske i zenske,
po·ezanom mabejnom u jedinst·en arhitektonski
ansambl kao sto je to slucaj sa S·rzinom kucom
u Saraje·u sa muskim i zenskim d·oristem i za-
sebnim stambenim objektima, ·ec o podjeli na
muski i zenski dio po etazama. Kuca je imala sest
salona orijentisanih na ulicu ,tri u muskom i tri
u zenskom dijelu kuce , i nusprostorije, kuhinju,
kupatilo, te spa·ace sobe za djecu i roditelje
orijentisane na d·oriste. U muskom reprezenta-
ti·nom dijelu kuce su tri salona sa orijentacijom
22 Na Vancase·oj kuci u Saraje·u na gla·nom procelju u zoni sprato·a
ja·lja se o·aka· ·id dekoracije i rasclanji·anja, kuca 1eoddora
1hodeshinija u Saraje·u na bocnoj íasadi ima takoĀer slijepi prozor.
134
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
na ulicu ,arapska soba
23
, momacka soba i radni
kabinet,. Oni su prostranim hajatom od·ojeni od
23 U muskom dijelu kuce najinteresantnija je bila arapska soba
dopremljena iz Kaira preko Beca sa rucno raĀenim namjestajem
u dr·orezbariji i sedeínom intarzijom u maurskom stilu.
Dekoracija namjestaja raĀena je u stilizo·anim orijentalnim
biljnim i geometrijskim moti·ima Vitrine i para·an sastojali su se
od musepkasto proFliranih rezbarenih i sedeíom inkrustriranih
po·rsina. Za·rsni ·ijenci ·itrina, para·ana za keramicku pec i raía za
posuĀe bili su bogato proFlirani moti·om maurskog íriza u obliku
barbakana. U istoj maniri bili su dekorisani i peskuni i skrabije na
za·rsecima secija Podo·i i zido·i su bili prekri·eni perzijskim tepisima
iz Siraza, a d·ije secije u obliku slo·a L bosanskim cilimima. Pored
biljnog i geometrijskog ornamenta kao dekoracija dr·orezbarenog
namjestaja ja·lja se i kaligraFja. Jedan od natpisa u Āeli sulsu glasio
je: ít i.ti/avetv a;vvr /etavet ,Gostoprimst·o je iz·or plemenitosti,.
U sobi se nalazio i ·eliki broj posuĀa, ibrika sa iskucanim biljnim
i Fguralnim moti·ima koji odraza·aju perzijski uticaj, nargila
demirlija i mesingana mangala sa postoljem i poklopcem ukrasenim
períoriranim ornamentom. Plaíon sobe je bio dekorisan oslikanom
geometrijskoom arabeskom. Kompletan mobilijar arapske sobe
od 1958. godine je postao dio íundusa Muzeja Bosanske krajine u
Banjoj Luci.
kuhinje, spajza, sobe za kuharicu i toaleta, koji su
orijentisani na d·oriste. Zido·i kupatila i kuhinje
su oblozeni keramickim plocicama u a ta fravca
stilu sto se bitno razlikuje od tradicionalog kon-
cepta hamamdzika u sklopu musandere i mut·a-
ka s ·odnicom. Na spratu u zenskom dijelu kuce
nalazimo na isti raspored prostorija. 1ri salona
,zenska di·anhana
24
, roza salon
25
i dje·ojacka
soba, orijentisanih su na ulicu. lajat od·aja o·e
prostorije od spa·ace sobe roditelja, djecije sobe,
24 O·o je jedina prostorija u kuci koja je sacu·ala autentican
mobilijar. Namjestaj zenske di·anhane predsta·lja iz·anredan spoj
srednjeeuropskih stilskih orijentacija kasnog ampira, bidermajera,
secesije i bosanskog tradicionalnog enterijera. Mobilijar salona sastoji
se od d·a trpezarijska ormara, cet·rtastog stola sa sest stolica, ·elike
keramicke peci, zidnog sata, stilskog lustera, secije u doksatnom
erkeru koja se za·rsa·a sa skrabijama, mangale, koncertnog kla·ira,
srebrenog secesijskog cajnika, dizajniranog u maniri art nou·eaua
i !iever !er/.tatte), lopatice i cetke za ciscenje stola i srebrenog
escajga sa inicijalima ·lasnika kuce, dio mobilijara cinio je i kla·ir
Karl Kutchera, becke proiz·odnje,. Veci dio namjestaja zenske
di·anhane dopremljen je iz Beca. Veliki stilski luster sastoji se od
·ise dijelo·a raĀenih od razlicitih materijala: metala, s·ile i dr·eta.
Stilizirana íorma lustera sugerira moti· sunca. 1ri abazura raĀena
su od bijele s·ile, a konstrukcija lustera kombinacijom metala sa
pozlatom i dr·eta. Veliki zidni sat becke proiz·odnje s ok·irom
od tamnog rezbarenog dr·eta nad satnim mehanizmom ima
ugra·irani tekst na njemackom jeziku ·Die Zeit i.t Ceta ,Vrijeme
je no·ac,». 1o je ujedno i najstariji dio enterijera, pripadao je ocu
·lasnika kuce ladzi lamidu lusedzino·icu. U uglu pored ·rata
sobe nalazi se ·isoka keramicka pec cilindricnog oblika bijele boje
za zlatnom dekoracijom. Biljni ornament i moti· girlandi raĀeni u
pozlati nose prepoznatlji·a secesijska stilska obiljezja. Male dr·ene
skrabije posta·ljene na kraje·ima secije kao njeni za·rseci, raĀene
su u dr·orezbariji sa crnom i bijelom sedeínom toledo intarezijom
od dr·ene cipke i prostorima uok·irenim bogato proFlisanim
islamskim luko·ima u kojima su se cu·ali ukrasni predmenti i
posuĀe. O·aj dio enterijera nosi stilske karakteristike islamske
umjetnosti Magreba i Spanije kao i namjestaj iz arapske sobe. Gornje
zone zido·a i plaíon oslikani su at .ecco dekoracijom koja predsta·lja
rijedak primjer sacu·ane unutrasnje dekoracije u stilu secesije. U
gornjim zonama zido·a tece íriz sa moti·om imitacije mozaika i
case sa ·inom okruzene ·ino·om lozom koji se ritmicno pona·lja.
S·aka kompozicijska cjelina je od·ojena moti·om girlande slikane
u grizaj tehnici. Na slican nacin je oslikan i plaíon. I·icama plaíona
tece dekorati·ni íriz girlandi oslikan u grizaj tehnici. U k·adratnim
poljima smjestenim u uglo·ima ja·lja se moti· lisca ·ino·e loze i
grozdo·a.
25 Namjestaj o·og salona naba·ljen iz Pariza preko Beca, sastoji se
od: soíe, d·ije íotelje,íotelje ljuba·nika,tete-a-tete-íranc.oci u
oci, u obliku slo·a S koje asocira na rokail ornament iz perioda
Louisa XV i stolica. Unutrasnje ureĀenje - s·e karakteritike no·ih
standarda u kulturi stano·anja s naglaskom na uticaj írancuskog
rokokoa, stila Louisa XV. S·i dijelo·i namjestaja bili su pres·uceni
ruzicastim brokatom. Cet·rtasta keramicka pec smjestena u uglu
pored ·rata dekorisana je gleĀosanom keramikom bijele podloge
sa iz·anrednom secesijskom noralnom dekoracijom u obliku
c·ijeta ljubicice prepoznatlji·im moti·om umjetnosti secesije
raĀenih pastelno ljubicastim tonalitetima sa akcentima zlatne
boje. Kompletan in·entar sobe prodajom nakon smrti pr·obitnog
·lasnika dospio je u Dubro·nik. Jedino je keramicka pec jos u·ijek iv
.itv.
S|. 9. KcraniĀ|a pcc iz ,rcza sa|cna´ co|i|ctana u prc-
pczna||jitin fcrnana unjc|ncs|i scccsijc
135
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
kupatila i toaleta koji gledaju na d·oriste. Posebnu
·rijednost kuce predsta·ljali su izuzetno ·rijedni,
bogato opremljeni enterijeri razlicitih stilskih
karakteristika. Dok sam objekat ima karakteris-
tike tradicionalne arhitekture sa modernistickim
tendencijama redukcije stilistickih interpretacija i
dekorati·nosti, enterijeri imaju naglasen dekora-
ti·ni ambijentalni karakter. Radi se o goto·o
postmodernistickom po·ezi·anju razlicitih stil-
skih odrednica bidermajera, secesije, stila Louisa
XV, s maurskim stilom i elementima tradicio-
nalnog enterijera bosanske kuce. Buduci da se
radi o no·osagraĀenom objektu s namjenski
osmisljenim enterijerima ost·aren je skladniji od-
nos i ·eza izmeĀu tradicionalnog i su·remenog.
Dok je arapska soba ureĀena potpuno u maur-
skom stilu, ·elika soba - zenska di·anhana pred-
sta·lja zanimlji· spoj elemenata tradicionalnog
enterijera s mobilijarom u stilu bidermajera, te
keramickom peci i slikanom zidnom dekoracijom
u stilu secesije. Roza salon sa salonskom garni-
turom u stilu Louisa XV i keramickom peci u
stilu secesije obiljezen je potpunom dominacijom
prih·atanja no·ih standarada i stilskih odrednica
bez elemenata tradicionalnog enterijera. Visina
stropo·a i ·elicina prostorija u skladu s stan-
dardima austrougarkog perioda odgo·ara ma-
si·nosti mobilijara koji se ne bi mogao uklopiti u
antropometricni prostor tradicionalne stambene
arhitekture.
Umj esto zakl j učka
Proces transíormacije tradicionalne stambene
arhitekture pod uticajem europeizacije dolaskom
austrougarske upra·e obuh·ata period kraja XIX
i pocetka XX st.
Znacaj o·ak·ih objekata i enterijera ogleda se
u speciFcnom spajanju razlicitih kulturoloskih,
stilskih i estetskih standarda na jedan goto·o
postmodernisticki nacin.
Oni s·jedoce o sposobnosti prilagoĀa·anja i
transíormacije tradicionalnog nacina gradnje u
kontekstu íunkcionalnih zahtije·a su·remenog
nacina zi·ota. Prelazeci put od tradicionalizma
obiljezenog orijentalnim nacinom gradnje, njego·-
im po·ezi·anjem s no·im srednjeeuropskim
graditeljskim standardima, preko regionalizma in-
terpretiranog na speciFcan nacin kroz arhitekturu
bosanskog sloga ulazimo u no·u íazu u raz·oju
arhitekture na o·om podrucju obiljezenom inter-
nacionalnim stilom voaerve.
Imajuci u ·idu s·u problematiku ·ezanu za
proces europeizacije gradske kuce orijentalnog
tipa moze se zakljuciti da kao poseban graditeljski
i kulturoloski íenomen ¸bosanska kuca s·ojom
·italnoscu s·jedoci o kontinitetu tradicionalnog
graditeljst·a, prolazi kroz proces transíormacije
ali opstaje kao izuzetno ·rijedan dio bogatog
bosanskohercego·ackog graditeljskog naslijeĀa.
ƒ
136
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Ora; ctava/ ai./vtv;e o ¡tavirav;iva vorib vrbavib va.et;a v ßo.vi i íercegorivi /ao ¡o.t;eaica ¡rogova o/o
20·²0 bit;aaa Mv.tivava i¸ ´rbi;e v ¡erioav 1ºó2. i 1ºó². g. v ßo.vv i o.tate teritori;e ¡oa o.vav./ov rta.cv.
´tart;ev ;e a/cevat ¡o.ebvo va graaore .;ererve ßo.ve: ´avac, Ora.;e, ßre¸oro Pot;e i Orabora - /o;i .e vata¸e
va gravici .a .v.tri;./ov carerivov i /o;i .v ¡ro.torvo ¡ro;e/toravi .a ortogovatvov vre¸ov vtica. | ´avcv
;Corv;a .¸i¸i;a, va¸rava ¡o taaa.v;ev .vttavv .bavta¸i¸v) ;e va ¡riv;er, i¸graĀevo 2ó0 arrevib /vca ¸a
11º0 .tavorvi/a; va ¡taviravo; ortogovatvo; vre¸i vtica, ai¸a;viravo; varoavo oa .trave fravcv./og iv¸iv;era
v .tv¸bi O.vav./og car.tra. | Ora.;v ;Dov;a .¸i¸i;a) i.ti bro; /vca ;e vaovio ·ó² ra.et;eve o.obe i¸ ´rbi;e.
^a¸iri graaora i¸ /o;ib .v aota¸iti - v orov .tvca;v ´abac i |¸ice - refe/torati .v .e v va¸iriva /rartora
/o;a .v va.et;arati. | .riv oriv voriv va.et;iva, i¸graĀeve .v a¸avi;e, va¸rave .¸i¸i;ava. .rbite/tov./i
va;¸vaca;vi;a oa orib vorib a¸avi;a ;e.te a¸avi;a i¸graĀeva v ßre¸orov Pot;v o/o 1ºó². g. | ¡ogteav .tita,
va¸rava ;e ¡riv;erov tvr./og baro/a. Ora ¡a¸v;e rri;eava a¸avi;a ;e v ¡ot¡vvo.ti vvi.teva v ratv 1··². g. i
¡otov obvort;eva v ./ori;ev ¡erioav.
1bi. articte ai.cv..e. tbe ¡tavvivg of ver vrbav .etttevevt. iv ßo.via ava íer¸egoriva a. a re.¡ov.e to tbe
eracvatiov of 20·²0,000 Mv.tiv. frov ´erbia to ßo.via ava otber Ottovav territorie. iv 1ºó2·². ´¡ecifcatt,
aaare..ea are tbe vortberv ßo.viav torv. of ´avac, Ora.;e, ßre¸oro Pot;e, ava Orabora - att .itvatea atovg tbe
boraer ritb tbe .v.triav ív¡ire ava ¡tavvea ov a regvtar gria. ív ´avac ;|¡¡er .¸i¸i,e, .o·vavea after
tbe tbev cvrrevt ´vttav .bavta¸i¸), for iv.tavce, 2ó0 tivber bov.e. rere bvitt for 11º0 ivbabitavt.; tbe, rere
atigvea ov a gria ¡tav ¡vr¡orteat, ae.igvea b, a írevcb evgiveer iv tbe .errice of tbe Ottovav .tate. ív Ora.;e
;íorer .¸i¸i,e), tbe .ave vvvber of bov.e. ra. to accovvoaate ·ó² ai.¡tacea ¡er.ov. frov ´erbia. 1beir
torv. of origiv - bere ´abac ava |¸ice - rere refectea iv tbe vave. of tbe ver qvarter. tbe, cave to ivbabit.
íriaa, vo.qve., v.vatt, vavea .¸i¸i,e, rere erectea iv att of tbe ver .etttevevt.. 1be vo.t arcbitectvratt,
revar/abte of tbe.e ver vo.qve. ra. bvitt iv ßre¸oro Pot;e arovva 1ºó² ava, iv terv. of .t,te, ba. beev cattea
a re¡re.evtatire of tbe Ottovav ßaroqve. 1bi. voterortb, vo.qve ra. cov¡tetet, ae.tro,ea iv 1··² ava i.
¡re.evtt, beivg recov.trvctea.
Mirza Hasan Ćeman
Ur gent ne ur bane i nt er venci j e osmanske
vl ast i na podr učj u Bosne i Her cegovi ne
nakon 1860. godi ne
Ur ban i nt er vent i ons by t he Ot t oman
st at e i n Bosni a- Her zegovi na af t er 1860
137
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
2$!&<2$2*=+'/>+%/;#$Bosanskog e;ateta tokom
osmanske ·lasti znacajno razdoblje i oblik ur-
banizacije predsta·lja hitno podizanje no·ih
naselja urbanog tipa zbog poja·e prognanicko
- izbjeglickih kriza u ·ise na·rata mjesne histo-
rije.
1
1ak·a naselja po odluci osmanske ·lasti
najcesce su, odmah po osni·anju ili nesto kas-
nije, stjecala status /a.abe. Problem prognanicko
- izbjeglickih kriza rjesa·an je i na nacin naselja-
·anja dijela prognanika i izbjeglica ,vvbaa¸ira, u
·ec postojeca urbana naselja - /a.abe. U o·om
clanku dat je naglasak na zbi·anja u sje·ernoj
Bosni. Analiza zbi·anja u zapadnoj Bosni i
istocnoj lercego·ini
2
nakon pada lerceg No-
·og pod mletacku ·last 1686,168¯. g. zahtije·a
nesto drugaciji pristup koji izlazi iz·an prostor-
nog ok·ira koji se nalazi na raspolaganju za o·aj
tekst.
Osim historije no·oosno·anih naselja i mjera
koje su preduzimane za razrjesenje prognanicko
- izbjeglickih kriza za istrazi·anja su znacajni i
sadrzaji, strukture, íunkcije i topograFja tak·ih
no·oosno·anih naselja ,/a.aba,. U slucaje·ima
naselja·anja dijela prognanika i izbjeglica
,vvbaa¸ira, u ·ec postojeca urbana naselja ,/a.·
abe, ·eoma zanimlji·im cine se drust·eni odnosi
unutar tak·ih naselja, koji su se poja·ili i uoblicili
1 Raz·oj osmanskodobnog grada na podrucju Bosne i lercego·ine
od 15. do 19. st. moze se promatrati kroz njego· va.eobiv./i
vrbavi /ovte/.t` koji se sastoji od njego·e 33 sasta·ne odrednice
,sasta·nice,. Detaljnije o raz·oju osmanskodobnih grado·a na
podrucju Bosanskog e;ateta ·idjeti kod Mirza lasan Ceman, Pori;e.t,
ti¡otogi;a, .aar¸a;i, fvv/ci;e, .trv/tvra i to¡ograf;a graaa v ßo.av./ov e;atetv
oa 1:. .t. ao 1·. .t. Disertacija. ív.titvtvv ´tvaiorvv ívvavitati. -
,Graduate School oí lumanities,, Ljubljana, Vol. 1-4, Ljubljana,
2005. ,u daljnjem tekstu citira se kao Pori;e.t, ti¡otogi;a, .aar¸a;i...,.
2 Posebno raz·oj naselja 1rebinje ,Lat. 42° 42` 38.95`` N, Long. 18°
20` 50.13`` L, i Stolac ,Lat. 43° 4` 58.96`` N, Long. 1¯° 5¯` 32.42 ` L,
ali i nekih drugih manjih mjesta.
izmeĀu starosjedilaca i prognanika i izbjeglica
,vvbaa¸ira,. 1ak·i odnosi trebali bi biti predmet
istrazi·anja#socijalne historije i historijske urbane
antropologije.
3
Slozene politicke, ·ojne i drust·ene prilike
nakon 1862. g. polucile su ·eoma dinamicne
migracije stano·nist·a. Nakon teritorijalnih i
naseobinskih gubitaka Osmanskog carst·a u
zapadnoj Srbiji gla·nina prognanog i izbjeglog
stano·nist·a utociste je potrazila na podrucju Bo-
sanskog e;ateta. Rjesenje prognanicko - izbjeglicke
krize, odnosno, simbolicki receno pitanja ¸.vtta·
vorib vv.afra o kojima je racuna trebala ·oditi
sredisnja osmanska ·last, predsta·lja ·eoma
zanimlji·o podrucjo za daljnja istrazi·anja. 1a
istrazi·anja predsta·ljaju zah·alnu opcu temu za
historicare. MeĀutim, istima se moze pristupiti i s
aspekta prouca·anja socijalne historije osni·anja
no·ih naselja, s aspekta urbane antropologije,
prostorne regulacije, arhitektonske izgradnje,
drust·enih odnosa i raz·ijanja urgentnih oblika
gospodarst·a.
Urgentno i pl ansko
osni vanj e urbani h nasel j a
tokom 1862. i 1863. g.
Zanimlji· primjer nastanka i raz·oja ,kasnih,
osmanskodobnih naselja predsta·ljaju naselja
,/a.abe, koja su nastala nakon progona musli-
manskog stano·nist·a iz Srbije 1862. i 1863. g. U
slozenim odnosima koji su nastupili nakon I i II
Srpskog ustanka, te posebno nakon sto su preko-
drinski /aaitvci ,na podrucju danasnje Republike
3 Vidj. Mirza lasan Ceman, Pori;e.t, ti¡otogi;a, .aar¸a;i..., passim.!
138
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Srbije, koji su do 1830. g. pripadali Z·ornickom
.ava¸a/v, odlukom sredisnje osmanske ·lasti
ustupljeni Kneze·ini Srbiji uslijedilo je pro-
tjeri·anja muslimanskog stano·nist·a iz istih
/aaitv/a. Politicki problem koji se poja·io, a koji
se ticao polozaja muslimanskog stano·nist·a u
Kneze·ini Srbiji, nastojalo se rijesiti prego·orima
izmeĀu Osmanskog carst·a i Kneze·ine Srbije.
Prego·ori su za·rseni sporazumom o iselja·anju
s·og muslimanskog stano·nist·a
4
iz Kneze·ine
Srbije na podrucje Bosanskog e;ateta.
5
D·ije ·lade
u sporu oko na·edenog stano·nist·a dogo·or-
ile su se da se muslimansko stano·nist·o Srbije
iseli na podrucje Bosanskog e;ateta, te da se nji-
ho·a nepokretna imo·ina nadoknadi odreĀenom
·rijednoscu koju je trebala osigurati ·lada Srbije.
6

Bosanski e;atet pono·o je zapljusnuo ·al prog-
nanika i izbjeglica. 1o nesretno stano·nist·o u
narodu je naziravo vvbaa¸iriva, a u sluzbenoj
osmanskoj korespondenciji nazi·a se ·.vttavoriv
vv.afriva.
¨
U ·rijeme na·edenih zbi·anja na
mjestu Bosanskog rati;e nalazio se Serií Osman
,1opal, - Pasa ,1860,1861-1869.,.
8
4 O·a odluka odnosila se i na Cigane ,Rome, islamske ·jeroispo·ijesti.
Vidjeti posebne popise koje donosi Saban lodzic za odreĀena
mjesta u Srbiji i Bosni. Vidj. Saban lodzic, ¸Migracija muslimanskog
stano·nist·a iz Srbije u sje·eroistocnu Bosnu izmeĀu 1¯88. i 1862.
godine. Ctavci i graĀa ¸a /vttvrvv i.tori;v i.tocve ßo.ve II ,1958,, 65 i d.,
posebno za Cigane ,Rome, na str. ¯9-80, 8¯-88, 118-119, 129-131,
135-13¯, te posebno za Brezo·o Polje na str. 92-106, Gornju .¸i¸i;v
,Bosanski Samac, na str. 106 - 120 i Donju .¸i¸i;v ,Orasje, na str.
120-131, te ¡a..iv za pojedina mjesta u Srbiji.
5 Sejh Sejíudin Kemura, Prri .r¡./i v.tava/ ¡oa KaraĀorĀev oa goaive
121· ¡o íia¸ri iti 1º01. ¡o í. ao aobit/a avtovovi;e 12¨··1ºó2.
Saraje·o, 1332,1914, str. 38¯ i d., l. Sabano·ic, ßo.av./i ¡a.atv/.
Saraje·o, 1959, 95. Posebno ·idjeti A. Alicic, |reĀev;e ßo.av./og
e;ateta oa 1¨º·. ao 1º¨º. goaive. Orijentalni institut, Saraje·o. Posebna
izdanja, knj. 9. Saraje·o, 1983, ¡a..iv, Galib Slji·o, ßo.va i íercegoriva
1¨ºº·1º12. Banja Luka, 1992, ¡a..iv; Galib Slji·o, ßo.va i íercegoriva
1º12·1º2ó. Banja Luka, 1985, 1988°, ¡a..iv.
6 lerdo Sisic, ßo.va i íercegoriva ¸a re¸irorav;a Over ¡a.e íata.a.
Subotica, 1938, A. Muradbego·ic, Over ¡a.a íata. v ßo.vi 1º:0·
1º:2. Zagreb, 1940, Galib Slji·o, Over·¡a.a íata. v ßo.vi i íercegorivi
1º:0·1º:2. Saraje·o, 19¯¯, lazim Sabano·ic, ßo.av./i ¡a.atv/, 95-
96, A. Alicic, |reĀev;e ßo.av./og e;ateta..., passim, Galib Slji·o, ßo.va i
íercegoriva 1º2¨·1º1·. Banja Luka, 1988, passim, Galib Slji·o, ßo.va
i íercegoriva 1º1··1º:². Banja Luka, 1990, passim, Galib Slji·o, ßo.va
i íercegoriva 1º:1·1ºó0. Landshut, 1998, passim, Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e
1ºó²·1··:. Orasje 2001, ¯ i d.
¯ Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 18-19.
8 O Osman - Pasi ·idjeti Joseí Koetschet, O.vav Pa.cba, aer tet¸te
Cro..e !e.ier ßo.viev., vva ´eive ^acbfotger. Ldicija: Zur Kunde der
Balkanhalbinsel. Reisen und Beobachtungen. leít 9. Saraje·o, 1909,
S. A. Delic, «1opal Serií Osman pasa.» 1ecerv;a ¡o.ta 1923, br. ¯24-
¯25. Up. i l. Sabano·ic, ßo.av./i ¡a.atv/, 96-98.
Izgon muslimanskog stano·nist·a zapoceo je
u ·ecem obimu i u organiziranom obliku 1861.
i polo·inom 1862. g. Mvbaa¸iri su neorganizira-
no dolazili na podrucje Z·ornickog .ava¸a/a
gdje su nastojali pronaci spas, skloniste i rijesiti
s·oj nesigurni polozaj. 1u su vvbaa¸iri bili
prih·aceni od strane lokalne osmanske ·lasti i
domaceg bosanskog stano·nist·a. U pr·o ·ri-
jeme vvbaa¸iri su bili smjesteni po pri·atnim
kucama, a izdrza·ani su na teret carske ,drza·ne,
blagajne i dobro·oljnim prilozima, te u nekim
slucaje·ima oba·eznim no·canim prilozima.
9

Sredisnja osmanska ·last, tacnije sam .vttav Abd
- ul Aziz, preuzela je oba·ezu da vvbaa¸ire naseli
na podrucju Bosanskog e;ateta i da rijesi pitanje
njiho·og smjestaja i buduceg zi·ota u e;atetv. O
nacinu rjesenja na·edenog problema misljenja su
bila podijeljena. 1ako je Bosanski rati;a Serií Os-
man - Pasa predlagao da se nekadasnji stano·nici
prekodrinskih grado·a Z·ornickog .ava¸a/a So-
kola i Uzica trajno nasele ,razmjeste, u Bijeljini,
Maglaju, Saraje·u, 1uzli i Z·orniku. Na o·ak·o
misljenje rati;e utjecala je njego·a spoznaja da
su vvbaa¸iri iz na·edenih prekodrinskih gra-
do·a Z·ornickog .ava¸a/a predsta·ljali gradsko
stano·nist·o, da su do tada zi·jeli u grado·ima
u kojima su se ba·ili gradskim oblicima gospo-
darst·a ,trgo·ina i obrt,, te da bi bilo dobro kako
za njih same, tako i za osmansku ·last da isti
budu nastanjeni u bosanskim grado·ima. 1ak·o
rjesenje odgo·aralo je i vvbaa¸iriva iz na·edenih
grado·a, koji su oceki·ali obestecenje za izgu-
bljena imanja i imetak u Srbiji i mogucnost da
se potom nasele u grado·ima Bosanskog e;ateta
i tu raz·ijaju ·lastitu poslo·nu djelatnost. SeFk
- Bej, predsta·nik sredisnje osmanske ·lasti u
o·om pitanju, predlagao je, ocito po nareĀenjima
.vttava, da se vvbaa¸iri nasele na jedno mjesto i
da se za iste izgradi no·o naselje na drza·nom
zemljistu koje je nekoc ,do konFskacije iza 1832.
g., pripadalo lusein-Kapetanu Gradasce·icu.
10

Konacnu odluku doneo je Bosanski rati;a Serií
Osman - Pasa koji je, ocito pod pritiskom
sredisnje osmanske ·lasti, odlucio da se naj·eci
broj ·.vttavorib vv.afra koji su bili prognani iz
Srbije naseli unutar naselja koja ce se podici za
9 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 18 i d.
10 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 21-22, Ibrahim 1epic, ßo.va i íercegoriva v rv./iv
i¸roriva 1º:ó·1º¨º. Saraje·o, 1988, 90-91.
139
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
njih u blizini rijeke Sa·e na podrucju Bosanskog
e;ateta, tacnije Z·ornickog .ava¸a/a.
11
Manji broj
·.vttavorib vv.afra bio je ·ec razmjesten u nekim
·ec od ranije postojecim bosankim grado·ima.
12

O o·im zbi·anjima Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic donosi za-
nimlji· na·od: ¸1e¸ir ;e re/ao .receviciva /atotic/iv
i ¡raro.tarviv te /ve¸oriva orog /ra;a aa ;e aobio vatog
Derteta
13
aa va viriv./ov ¸evt;i.tv va.eti vv.afre i.·
et;eve i¸ ´rbi;e ;¡rot;erave oa .r¡./e rta.ti). | .eto Ora.;e
iva vav;erv va.etiti 2:0 vv.afr./ib faviti;a i i¸graaiti
i.to toti/o /vca. Zbog tib vav;era i¸ Ora.;a ;e trebato
i.etiti .r¡./o .tavorvi.tro.
14
Pitanje osni·anja no·ih naselja za vvbaa¸ire
preraslo je i u meĀunarodni problem. Plan
sredisnje osmanske ·lasti da se rijesi problem
vvbaa¸ira pr·o je uznemirio ·lasti Austrijske
care·ine koja se u pr·om trenutku priboja-
·ala da bi se o·o pitanje moglo rijesiti na ustrb
krscanskog katolickog stano·nist·a Bosanskog
e;ateta, a kasnije i zbog plana sredisnje osmanske
·lasti da no·a naselja budu podignuta uz rijeku
Sa·u, dakle uz samu granicu prema Austrijskom
carst·u.
15
1ako je ·ec od proljeca 1862., odnosno
1863. g. zapoceo niz priprema za osni·anje no·ih
naselja. Njiho·o podizanje nadgledao je sam Bo-
sanski rati;a Serií Osman 1opal - Pasa.
16
IzmeĀu
vvbaa¸ira i lokalne osmanske ·lasti na razini e;ate·
ta i .ava¸a/a ·ladala je dosta ·elika napetost po
pitanju konacnog ishoda i rjesenja vvbaa¸ir./og
pitanja. Prema nekim saznanjima temeljenim
na podacima iz po·ijesnih iz·ora nesreĀene i
netrpelji·e odnose podgrija·ala je na razlicite
nacine i austrijska ·last preko s·ojih agenata u
nastojanju da onemoguci naselja·anje vvbaa¸ira
u pogranicnom pojasu. Stoga je austrijska ·last
preko s·ojih agenata raspiri·ala nezado·oljst·o
vvbaa¸ira i plasirala ideju o naselja·anju unutar
bosanskih grado·a u unutrasnjosti e;ateta kao na-
11 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e , 22.
12 Detaljnije ·idjeti kod Saban lodzic, Migraci;a vv.tivav./og
.tavorvi.tra..., 131-142.
13 Dertet, tur., iz·. iz ar. aarta, s osno·nim znacenjem drza·a, carst·o,
odnosno care·ina, a u kontekstu teksta koji se citira: sredisnja
osmanska ·last ~ Visoka Porta.
14 Autor teksta misli na rati;v Serií Osman 1opal - Pasu. Vidj. Pa·ao
Zi·ko·ic, ¸Politicke, gospodarske, etnicke, kulturne i ·jerske prilike
u Zupi 1olisa u srednjem ·ijeku,osmanskom i austrougarskom
periodu ,VI. Do XX. St.,. U: Zv¡a 1oti.a 1º02 - 2002., 1olisa, 2002,
55.
15 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 19, 22-23.
16 Galib Slji·o, Na·. dj., 19, 23-25.
jprih·atlji·ije rjesenje, odnosno u nemogucnosti
ost·arenja istog diskretno je sugerirala ideju o
po·ratku vvbaa¸ira u Srbiju.


Na kraju prih·acen je plan o podizanju no·ih
naselja. Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic na·odi kako slijedi: ¸^a·
/ov vriĀa;a i¸rr.evog te goaive .¡ovevvti ¡a.a ;O.vav
´erif Pa.a) ;1ºó².g.) vato¸i aa .e v¸ ´arv ¡oaigve ¡et
vorib va.et;a ¸a i¸b;egtice i¸ ´rbi;e. Poceto ;e va.et;arav;e
ßre¸ora Pot;a i Drevorca v bi;et;iv./o; vabi;i, Ora.;a i
ßo.. ´avca v graaacac/o; i Orabora v bav;atvc/o; vabi·
;i. í¸aavo ;e vareĀev;e aa .e ra.eti ¡raro.tarvo i /atotic/o
.tavorvi.tro i¸ .¡ovevvtib v;e.ta i ta/o ovogvci va.et·
;arav;e Mv.tivava..... | Ora.;e .v ao.ti Mv.tivavi i¸
|¸ica, 1at;era, ´a¡ca i ßeograaa.....
18

Iz na·oda P. Zi·ko·ica
19
moze se ·id-
jeti da je za oslobaĀanje prostora za naselja-
·anje prognanickog i izbjeglickog muslimanskog
stano·nist·a iz Srbije bilo potrebno na podrucju
Bosne i lercego·ine rijesiti pitanje lokacija na
koja ce isto stano·nist·o biti naseljeno, odnosno
pitanje oslobaĀanja odreĀenih lokacija od ne-
muslimanskog stano·nist·a koje je na istima bilo
naseljeno i ·ezano za zemlju. U o·om slucaju
su to katolicko i pra·osla·no stano·nist·o.
Zanimlji·o je da P. Zi·ko·ic u daljnjem dijelu
teksta ne raspra·lja o nacinu na koji je rijeseno
pitanje naselja·anja muslimanskog prognanickog
i izbjeglickog stano·nist·a na zemljisne parcele
koje je ·ec od ranije uzi·alo nemuslimansko
stano·nist·o. P. Zi·ko·ic kratko i jasno na·odi:
,Zbog tib vav;era i¸ Ora.;a ;e trebato i.etiti .r¡./o
.tavorvi.tro,
20
odnosno, ¸í¸aavo ;e vareĀev;e aa .e
ra.eti ¡raro.tarvo i /atotic/o .tavorvi.tro i¸ .¡ovevvtib
v;e.ta i ta/o ovogvci va.et;arav;e Mv.tivava....
21
Za
oceki·ati je da ukoliko autor raspra·lja o pitanju
naselja·anja prognanickog i izbjeglickog musli-
manskog stano·nist·a iz Srbije na podrucje Bosne
i lercego·ine i istice poja·u problema naselja-
·anja istog stano·nist·a na zemljisne parcele na
1¯ Vidjeti popis iz·ora kod Galib Slji·o, Na·. dj., 26-29.
18 Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic, Potitic/e, go.¡oaar./e, etvic/e, /vttvrve i r;er./e ¡riti/e
..., 55, Vidjeti i P. Zi·ko·ic, ¸Pregled historije Brckog sa okolinom
od najranijih ·remena do austrougarske okupacije 18¯8. godine.
U: ßrc/o i o/otiva v raavic/ov ¡o/retv i ^Oß·v.1uzla, 1985, 49-56.
Zanimlji·o je da se Dreno·ac gubi iz preciznije e·idencije toka i
procesa naselja·anja naselja·anja na podrucju Bijeljinske vabi;e.
19 Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic, Potitic/e, go.¡oaar./e, etvic/e, /vttvrve i r;er./e ¡riti/e....,
55.
20 Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic, Na·. dj., 55.
21 Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic, Na·. dj., 49-56.
140
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
kojima je ·ec postojalo drugo ,u o·om slucaju ne-
muslimansko, stano·nist·o, da tada treba za·rsiti
ciklus istrazi·anja i popratnih poja·a i za·rsiti
problematicnu misao oko nacina rjesa·anja pi-
tanja ¸i.et;arav;a srpskog, odnosno ¸ra.et;arav;a
pra·osla·nog i katolickog stano·nist·a. Iz nacina
tretiranja na·edenog problema kod P. Zi·ko·ica
moglo bi se zakljuciti da su sredisnja i pokrajinska
osmanska ·last o·aj problem rijesili doslo·nim
¸i.et;arav;ev i ¸ra.et;arav;ev nemuslimanskog
stano·nist·a ,·!,. Drugim rijecima moglo bi se
zakljuciti da je isto stano·nist·o bilo protjerano s
zemljisnih parcela i ostalo nezbrinuto ,·!,. No, to
se nije tako desilo. Za naselja·anje muslimanskog
prognanickog i izbjeglickog stano·nist·a iz Sr-
bije kroz sami cin podizanja no·ih naselja bilo je
potrebno osloboditi odreĀene lokacije ,parcele,
na kojima je od ranije bilo naseljeno nemusli-
mansko stano·nist·o koje je sistemom zemljisnih
·lasnickih i uzi·ateljskih odnosa bilo ·ezano
za tu istu zemlju. 1ime se, ujedno, zadiralo i u
strukturu zemljisnih posjeda i íeudalnih odnosa.
Izgleda da su sredisnja i pokrajinska osmanska
·last isle linijom cistog pragmatizma u ocu·anju
íeudalnih odnosa. Naime, izd·ajanje odreĀenih
parcela koje su se nalazile u posjedu jasno
odreĀenih zemljoposjednika usloznja·alo bi íeu-
dalne odnose, pa se stoga ta ista ·last odlucila da
se no·a naselja, gdje god je to moguce, podignu
na drza·nom zemljistu ,viri;a, mirijsko zemljiste,.
U o·om konkretnom slucaju u sje·eroistocnoj
Bosni bilo je to zemljiste koje je nekoc ,do
konFskacije iza 1832. g., pripadalo lusein-Ka-
petanu Gradasce·icu.
22
MeĀutim, u oba moguca
rjesenja, odnosno slucaja, izd·ajanjem zemljista
koje se nalazilo u izra·nom ·lasnist·u drza·e
,drza·no zemljiste, ili zemljista u posjedu .¡a·
bi;e kao uzi·atelja tivara, bilo je potrebno rijesiti
pitanje polozaja i sudbine nemuslimanskog
stano·nist·a na parcelama koje je isto uzi·alo u
íeudalnom kmeto·skom odnosu. U oba slucaja
postojece parcele koje je uzi·alo nemuslimansko
stano·nist·o i íeudalne kmeto·ske oba·eze i
odnosi bili su prestrukturirani na temelju pra·a
·lasnika i uzi·atelja zemljisnih posjeda da mogu
pomjeriti kmeto·sko stano·nist·o s jednog pos-
22 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 21-22, Ibrahim 1epic, ßo.va i íercegoriva..., 90-
91.
jeda na drugi. 1ak·a pomjeranja su u ranijim raz-
dobljima bila relati·no cesta poja·a. Prema tome,
nemuslimansko stano·nist·o koje je pomjereno
sa zemljisnih parcela koje su bile izd·ojene za po-
dizanje no·ih naselja za naselja·anje prognanih i
izbjeglih muslimana iz Srbije, bilo je naseljeno na
druge parcele, a niho· status je ostao neizmijen-
jen. Dakle, nemuslimansko stano·nist·o nije bilo
protjerano s zemljisnih parcela na kojima je bilo
nastanjeno!
Rezultat na·edenog plana bio je da su na
podrucju Z·ornickog .ava¸a/a#bila podignuta tri
no·a naselja. 1o su bila naselja ,No·o, Brezo·o
Polje ,~ ,No·o, Brezo·o Selo,, Donja .¸i¸i;a
,~ Orasje, i Gornja .¸i¸i;a ,~,Bosanski,
Samac, dok je cet·rto naselje - Oraho·a - bilo
podignuto na podrucju Banjaluckog .ava¸a/a
kraj Gradiske.
23
Uporedo s podizanjem no·ih
,spomenutih, naselja na·edeni plan podrazumi-
je·ao je da se na podrucju Bihackog .ava¸a/a u
mjestu ,Bosanska, Kostajnica ,koje je ·ec od
ranije postojalo, na obali rijeke Une i Z·ornickog
.ava¸a/a u mjestu Kozluk ,koje je takoĀer ·ec
od ranije postojalo, na lije·oj obali rijeke Drine
na putnom pra·cu iz Z·ornika u pra·cu Janje
i Bijeljine, podignu neki stambeni objekti za
smjestaj ¸.vttavorib vvbaa¸ira.
24
#,sl. 1,
Prema na·odima lehima ladzimuhamedo·ica
nakon izbijanja krize u odnosu sa Srbijom ¸o.vav·
./a rtaaa v./oro ¡oai¸e ¸a v;ib |t.j. za prognanike i
izbjeglice iz Srbije| ara vora va.et;a va ´ari, Corv;v
i Dov;v .¸i¸i;v ;va¸ravib ¡o .vtatavv .ba - vt
.¸i¸v), aava. ßo.av./i ´avac i Ora.;e.
25
#MeĀutim,
kao sto je ·ec receno#sredisnja osmanska ·last na
podrucju sje·erne Bosne osno·ala je cetiri no·a
naselja: Gornja .¸i¸i;a ,Bosanski Samac,, Donja
.¸i¸i;a ,Orasje,, Brezo·o Polje ili Brezo·o selo i
Oraho·u.
23 Iscrpan brojcani popis doseljenih obitelji koji sadrzi i niz podataka
rele·antnih za porijeklo prognanika i izbjeglica ·idjeti kod Saban
lodzic, Migraci;a vv.tivav./og .tavorvi.tra ..., 92 i d ¡a..iv za pojedina
mjesta.
24 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 19, Saban lodzic, ¸Migraci;a vv.tivav./og
.tavorvi.tra..., 80-88.
25 Vidj. lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic, ¸1urski neoklasicizam Azizije
dzamije u Brezo·om Polju - 1he 1urkish Neo-Classicism oí the
Azizija Mosque in Brezo·o Polje. ßa.tiva #!Godisnjak Komisije za
ocu·anje nacionalnih spomenika Bosne i lercego·ine. Saraje·o,
V,2009,, 250.
141
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
S|. 1. Urgcn|nc i p|ans|i raztijcna i pcs|cjcca nasc|ja u |cja su
nasc|jcni prcgnanici i izocg|icc iza 1862. g.
142
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Na temelju podataka koje daju po·ijesni iz-
·ori, te posebno rane austrijske katastarske mape,
moze se zakljuciti da su no·a naselja Orasje i
Samac graĀena prema istoj zamisli, odnosno
prema slicnom planu.
26
Kako se u o·om slucaju
radi o ra·nicarskim naseljima, te o planskom
cinu osni·anja naselja tako su ona imala dosta
pra·ilnu tlocrtnu osno·icu. Mabate i ulice bile su
rasporeĀene tako da su se presijecale skoro pod
pra·im uglo·ima. Mabate su bile organizirane pop-
ut iv.vta. lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic na·odi kako
slijedi: ¸Pri.v.tro ¡tav./og graĀev;a riat;iro ;e i aava. v
¡rarovgaovov ¡tavv vtica v ßre¸orov Pot;v; voct;iro ;e i
v Ora.;v.

MeĀutim, ¸¡ri.v.tro ¡tav./og graĀev;a
·idlji·o je ne samo u Brezo·om Polju i Orasju ·ec
je isto posebno naglaseno i ·idlji·o u Bosanskom
Samcu, te nesto manje u mjestu Oraho·a.
Pitanje prostorne organizacije no·ih naselja
dotaknuto je i u monograFji katolicke zupe 1ol-
isa ,istoimeno mjesto u blizini Orasja, u kojoj se
na·odi kako slijedi: ¸1vr./e rta.ti .v voro¡riao.tov
.tavorvi.trv o .rov tro./v ¡oai¸ate /vce ¸a .tavorav;e i
v¸ to aarate iv ¡o /ovaa ¸evt;e ¸a obraav, i to /ao vaa·
o/vaav ¸a i¸gvbt;evo v ravi;o; ¡o.to;bivi. Priti/ov ¡oai¸a·
v;a Dov;e .¸i¸i;e re¸ir ;e ¡o¸irao ¡ro;e/tavte i¸ 1vr./e,
/o;i .v aobriv ai;etov /o¡irati ¡ro;e/te tvr./ib graa./ib
va.et;a raaeci ib v obti/v .abor./e ¡toce . vticava /o;e .e
va.tav;a;v ¡oa ¡rariv /vtov, /a/ar ;e .tvca; v va;recev
bro;v va.et;a v o/rirv 1vr./e Carerive.
28
Isti tekst
prenosi i lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic.
29
Potrebno
je naglasiti da se u slucaju naselja u sje·ernoj Bosni
podignutih ,osno·anih, 1862 - 1863. g. ne moze
go·oriti o ¸/o¡irav;v ¡ro;e/ata tvr./ib graa./ib va.·
et;a. 1urska, t.j. osmanskodobna gradska naselja,
bila ona preuzeta iz ranijeg po·ijesnog razdoblja ili
bila no·oosno·ana djelo·anjem odreĀenih ra/ifa,
u pra·ilu nisu imala geometrijski pra·ilan raster
·ec su iskljuci·o raz·ijana organski i u pra·ilu
imaju nepra·ilnu tlocrtnu strukturu ,plan,.
Smatram da se misljenje po kojem su naselja
Donja Azizija, kako stoji u monograFji zupe 1oli-
26 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 28-29. O·dje mislim na austrijske katastarske
mape iz razdoblja premjera·anja zemljista i snimanja katastra na
podrucju Bosne i lercego·ine koje je iz·edeno izmeĀu 1881,1882.
i 1885. g.
2¯ lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 251.
28 Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic, Potitic/e, go.¡oaar./e, etvic/e, /vttvrve i r;er./e ¡riti/e ...,
56.
29 lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 251, bilj. 6.
sa, a i druga naselja koja sam na·eo ¸projekto·ana
¸v obti/v .abor./e ¡toce . vticava /o;e .e va.tav;a;v ¡oa
¡rariv /vtov treba tumaciti na drugaciji nacin.
Na geometrijsku pra·ilnost rastera na·edenih
naselja mogao je, prije s·ega, utjecati pragmatizam
iz·rsnih komisija sredisnje osmanske ·lasti jer je
dinamika osni·anja na·edenih naselja bila izrazito
urgentna. Zelja da se na·edena naselja utemelje
,osnuju, i izgrade sto prije ,bar u minimalnom
obimu,, da se u ista nasele prognanici i izbjeglice
,¸.vttavori vv.afri,, te da se za iste pro·ede atri-
bucija odreĀenih zemljisnih parcela zahtije·ala
je s·oje·rsnu geometrizaciju kako samih naselja
tako i jasno izd·ajanje odreĀenih zemljisnih par-
cela u neposrednoj blizini samih naselja. Naime,
pred·iĀena distribucija i atribucija odreĀenih
parcela za gradnju stambenih objekata u poje-
dinim naseljima, te odreĀenih zemljisnih parcela u
neposrednoj blizini samih naselja zamisljena je kao
cin s·oje·rsnog osiguranja sredsta·a za normalni
nasta·ak zi·ota prognanika i izbjeglica u no·oj
prostornoj ,zemljopisnoj, i drust·enoj sredini.
Sami cin distribucije i atribucije odreĀenih parcela
no·im ·lasnicima ,prognanicima i izbjeglicama,,
posebno onih unutar zamisljenog no·og naselja,
poduprt hitnoscu za pro·oĀenjem istih polucio
je logicki cin geometrizacije rastera no·ih naselja.
MeĀutim, u slucaju poja·e geometrijski pra·ilnog
rastera na·edenih naselja, sto je posebno ·idlji·o u
slucaju Bosanskog Samca, Orasja i Brezo·a Polja,
mozda bi se moglo naslutiti i neizra·ni utjecaj
odraza europskog urbanizma s kojima su osman-
ski planeri i arhitekte s·akako bili upoznati, ako ne
cak i ranije, tada s·akako od sredine 19. st.
30
S·a no·osno·ana naselja u s·om sredistu imala
su po jednu a¸avi;v koja je bila podignuta sredst-
·ima drza·e ,iz drza·ne blagajne,,#kao tak·e bile su
pos·ecene .vttavv Abd-ul Azizu ,1861-18¯6.,, pa
se stoga i nazi·aju .¸i¸i;e.
31
S·e naseljene obitelji
dobile su na raspolaganje ,u ·lasnist·o, obradi·o
zemljiste u po·rsinskom iznosu od oko 24-40
30 Iz·jesni moguci utjecaji predarabljanske i predosmanske, a time
i predislamske urbane prakse obiljezene geometrijski pra·ilnom
organizacijom prostora u urbanim naseljima naslijeĀenim iz antike
na podrucju, prije s·ega, Sirije i 1urske, ali i Sje·erne Aírike ne mogu
se razmatrati u ok·iru o·og clanka zbog ogranicenog prostora. O
o·ome pitanju imam namjeru go·oriti drugom prilikom.
31 Izuzetak predsta·lja a¸avi;a u Gornjoj .¸i¸i;i ,Bosanskom Samcu,.
Vidjeti o tome ·ise u pogla·lju pos·ecenom o·om mjestu.
143
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
avvvva
32
sto je o·isilo o broju clano·a obitelji.
S·a naselja su bila zbrinuta i na nacin osigura·anja
do·oljnih kolicina pitke ·ode. Izgleda da s·a na-
·edena naselja nisu odmah dobila status /a.abe.
1rebalo je proteci odreĀeno ·rijeme da bi no·a
naselja stekla na·edeni status. Prije s·ega, njiho·i
stano·nici trebali su steci ·lastitu imo·insku i Fnan-
cijsku sigurnost koja bi im osigura·ala samodrzi·i
oblik nasta·ka zi·ota u no·oj sredini. U ·ezi osni·-
anja urbanog naselja na podrucju nekadasnjeg sela
Orasja Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic kaze: ¸^a.et;arav;ev Ora.;a
vv.tivav./iv ¸irt;ev i .trarav;ev ¡rre raro.i v orov ai;e·
tv Po.arive ovogvcev ;e ra¸ro; obrta i trgorive. Ora.;e ¡o.t·
a;e cevtar ra¸v;eve obrtvic/ib, ¡ot;o¡rirreavib i .tocar./ib
¡roi¸roaa. Otrara;v .e ¡rri avcavi, v /o;iva .e /v¡v;e
i tv/.v¸va roba, vabart;eva ¡re/o ´are. 1aro. ¡o.ta;e
.abirvi raro./i cevtar, v /o;ev .e .ra/og cetrrt/a oar¸ara
t;eavi ra.ar. Craav;a vore raro.i ovogvcita ;e ¸a¡o.t;arav;e
.eo./og .tavorvi.tra, varocito graav;ov cigtave, otrarav;ev
ot/v¡ve .tavice avbava i arvgib ¡rirreavib ob;e/ata, i.·
tiva ./rovvib ra¸v;era. Poai¸av;ev raro.i v Ora.;v .e
otrara /a;ve/atv/, v aavivi.tratirvov ¡ogteav i.tor;etvo
/otarv iti /otar./o; v¡rari........ Zbog te./og ¡riri/arav;a
va vorv .reaivv i vr;ete ¸irota voro¡riao.tov vv.tivav.·
/ov .tavorvi.trv tvr./e rta.ti .v aate oareĀeve ¡riritegi;e,
oa /o;ib .v .ra/a/o va;rreaevi;e bite o.tobaĀav;e oa ¡ore¸a
i ro;ve obare¸e.
33
OdreĀeni podaci i misljenja izne-
seni u citiranom odlomku mogli bi se, doduse
u·jetno, odnositi i na druga no·oosno·ana naselja.
Naselja su bila raz·ijana na nacin da status /a.abe
steknu sto je moguce prije, a njiho·o stano·nist·o
se, u pojedinim slucaje·ima, i ponasalo tako kao da
su stano·nici naselja u statusu /a.aba.
34
MeĀutim,
daljnji raz·oj o·ih naselja nije tekao bez poteskoca.
S·a izgradnja no·ih naselja bila je za·rsena do je-
seni 1863. g. U ta naselja bila je smjestena ·ecina
·.vttavorib vv.afra. Po·ijesni iz·ori razlikuju se u
podacima koje donose o tacnom broju naseljenih
stano·nika u pojedinim naseljima.
35
Pitanje ·.vttavorib vv.afra, tacnije vvbaa¸ira,
rjesa·ano je i na nacin njiho·og naselja·anja u
drugim ·ec postojecim grado·ima. Oko 3000
vvbaa¸ira iz Sokola bilo je smjesteno u Z·orniku,
32 Dvvvv, avtvv, iz·. iz tur. aövvv, jedinica mjere za po·rsinu, 1 avvvv
~ 1000 m°.
33 Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic, Potitic/e, go.¡oaar./e, etvic/e, /vttvrve i r;er./e ¡riti/e...,
56. Up. i Saban lodzic, Migraci;a vv.tivav./og .tavorvi.tra..., 106 i d.
34 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 29.
35 Razlicite iz·ore ·idjeti kod Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-32.
Bijeljini, Modrici, Gradaccu, Zenici, Rogatici
i Visegradu, te sest obitelji u Saraje·u. 1ako je
u Zenici za vvbaa¸ire iz Srbije bilo ocisceno i
ureĀeno 150 kuca, ·jero·atno za trajni smjestaj
,·,.
36
U Saraje·u je vea¸iti. prih·atio prijedlog
Bosanskog rati;e i rijesio da se u gradu i njego·oj
okolini naseli stotinu obitelji prognanih iz Uzica.

Prema analizi po·ijesnih iz·ora moze se
zakljuciti da je iz Srbije 1862-1863. g. iseljeno oko
20000 - 30000 stano·nika koji su bili smjesteni
na razlicite nacine na podrucju Bosanskog e;ateta.
Na nacin izgradnje kuca u no·im naseljima bilo je
zbrinuto i smjesteno oko 1200 obitelji s oko ¯000
- 8000 njiho·ih clano·a.
38
Za ostale se moze pret-
posta·iti da su smjesteni po drugim grado·ima
u Bosanskom e;atetv, a nemoze se iskljuciti da je
mozda doslo i do emigriranja odreĀenog broja
vvbaa¸ira u ostale zemlje Osmanskog carst·a,
posebno na podrucje danasnje 1urske.
Na kraju o·og razmatranja o urgentnim ur-
banim naseljima nastalim tokom prognanicko -
izbjeglicke krize 1862 - 1863. g. potrebno je izni-
jeti jednu pretposta·ku temeljenu na odreĀenim
podacima sa terena i posta·iti jedno znacajno
pitanje. Slucaj No·og Brezo·og Polja koje se na-
lazi istocno od ,danas, manjeg Starog Brezo·og
Polja, te moguce postojanje i istocnog i zapadnog
dijela naselja Oraho·a daje naslutiti mogucnost
da su sredisnja i pokrajinska osmanska ·last nas-
tojale da no·a naselja ustroje i podignu u blizini
·ec postojecih sela kako bi doseljenim progna-
nicima i izbjeglicama omogucili kak·u tak·u
drust·enu podrsku i ¸socijalizaciju u no·oj sre-
dini. 1u pretposta·ku najbolje pot·rĀuje slucaj
Orasja koje je prije podizanja urbanog naselja
bilo selo.
39
Uporedo s tim moglo bi se posta·iti
pitanje zasto nije osno·an ·eci broj no·ih naselja
za vvbaa¸ire iz Srbije ·ec je jedan njiho· znatan
dio bio naseljen u ·ec postojeca urbana naselja
meĀu kojima se posebno isticu Bosanska Kosta-
36 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30 i bilj. 48. Vidj. i Saban lodzic, ¸Migraci;a
vv.tivav./og .tavorvi.tra, 92-106, Samac str. 106-120 i Orasje str. 120-
131. Napomene za pojedina druga mjesta ·idjeti ¡a..iv u strukturi
cjelokupnog teksta.
3¯ Ibrahim 1epic, ßo.va i íercegoriva ...., 90-91. Up. i Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e,
22.
38 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 31-32.
39 Vidjeti dio ·ec na·edenog citata: ¸1e¸ir..... | .eto Ora.;e iva vav;erv
va.etiti 2:0 vv.afr./ib faviti;a i i¸graaiti i.to toti/o /vca..... Vidj. Pa·ao
Zi·ko·ic, Potitic/e, go.¡oaar./e, etvic/e, /vttvrve i r;er./e ¡riti/e..., 55.
144
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
jnica i Kozluk. Moglo bi se zakljuciti da su uzrok
tome bila tri znacajna razloga. Jedan jer predsta·-
ljao diplomatski pritisak Austrije koja je nastojala
da sprijeci, odnosno, smanji obim naselja·anja
prognanika i izbjeglica u pogranicnom pojasu
Bosanskog e;ateta uz rijeku Sa·u. Drugi razlog
predsta·ljalo je ,ocito je, pitanje odrzanja ,nemi-
jenjanja, ·lasnickih odnosa u tom dijelu Bosan-
skog e;ateta sto je polucilo nastojanja i konacni
ishod da se problem osni·anja no·ih naselja
rijesi ,iskljuci·o ·!, na drza·noj, a ne na .¡abi;.·
/o; zemlji.#I, na kraju, treci razlog mogao bi biti
nastojanje sredisnje i pokrajinske osmanske ·lasti
da cinom izbjega·anja obimnijeg naselja·anja
prognanika i izbjeglica u ·ec postojece grado·e u
sredistu Bosanskog e;ateta ne ¸remeti drust·ene
i ekonomske odnose u tim grado·ima u ·rijeme
koje je, u politickom smislu rijeci, u odreĀenom
stepenu ·ec bilo dosta nestabilno. Na kraju
moglo bi se, nesto slobodnije, zakljuciti da su
sredisnja i pokrajinska osmanska ·last ¸vv.afr·
./o pitanje rijesili na temelju principa u·aza·anja
politike najboljeg moguceg poteza, a taj je bio
osni·anje manjeg broja u potpunosti no·ih nas-
elja ,buducih /a.aba,, naselja·anje nesto ·eceg
broja prognanika i izbjeglica u d·a ·ec od ranije
postojeca naselja ,Bosanska Kostajnica i Kozluk
- oba na granicama Bosanskog e;ateta: jedno na
granici s Austrijom, a drugo sa Srbijom,, te nasel-
ja·anje nesto manjeg broja prognanika i izbjeglica
u manjem broju ·ec od ranije postojecih naselja
,/a.aba, unutar Bosanskog e;ateta.
Na drugoj strani sredisnja i pokrajinska os-
manska ·last suocile su se i s odreĀenim proti·-
ljenjem zitelja drugih bosanskih grado·a da se
u njih nasele prognanici i izbjeglice. Nasa·si se
izmeĀu d·a oprecna zahtje·a i pritiska ,unutarn-
jeg - domaceg i ·anjskog - stranog i uz to jos
diplomatskog, obje ·lasti, sredisnja i pokrajinska
osmanska ·last, nisu bile dorasle problemu s ko-
jim su se suocile. Buducim istrazi·acima ostaje da
prouce koliko je nesnalazenje sredisnje i pokra-
jinske ·lasti u o·oj krizi polucilo migracija bosan-
sko - hercego·ackog muslimanskog stano·nist·a
u danasnju 1ursku.
Gornj a Azi zi j a = Azi zi ye- i
Bâl â = ( Bosanski ) Šamac
! L at . 45° 3’ 37. 55’ ’ N, L ong. 18°
28’ 9. 60’ ’ E" ( sl . 2)
Gornja .¸i¸i;a predsta·lja jedno od znacajnih
no·opodignutih naselja. Smjeseteno je u blizini
usca rijeke Bosne u rijeku Sa·u. Od ·remena os-
ni·anja poznato je pod imenom Gornja .¸i¸i;a.
Kasnije je bilo poznato pod imenom ,Bosanski,
Samac. Prema nekim iz·orima u naselju bilo je
podignuto 200, a prema drugim 315 kuca. 1acniji
podatak daje stanje od izgraĀenih 260 kuca s 1180
stano·nika.
40
1o su bile manje kuce podignute iz
40 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-31. Materijali Austrijskog generalnog konzulata
u Saraje·u, Vicekonzulata u Brckom ,naslo·ljeni Brod, 2. septembra
1863. g., i 1uzla 28. septembra 1963. g., iz Arhi·a Bosne i lercego·ine,
u kojima tadasnji konzularni agent u 1uzli major Omcikus daje opis
no·opodignutog naselja u Gornjoj Aziziji ,Samcu,, nazalost, nisu bili
dostupni. Up. i Saban lodzic, Migraci;a vv.tivav./og .tavorvi.tra...,
106-120. Pot·rdu imena mjesta ,.¸i¸i,e·i ßãtã, donosi Zaíer Golen,
`1anzimat Doneminde Bosna lersek`te Lgitim - Lducation in
Bosnia - lerzego·ina during the 1anzimat Period.` Prito¸i ¸a
ori;evtatvv ftotogi;v 52-53 ,2002-03,, 224-23¯.
S|. 2. 8csans|i Sanac, |cpcgrafs|a napa. |zdanjc. ]P Gccdc|s|i
zatcd, |cdcracija 8csnc i Hcrccgctinc, Sarajctc, 1992-2003.
Oojat|jcnc s dcztc|cn.
145
dr·ene graĀe i s dr·enim kro·om ,.ivara,. Nas-
elje je bilo okruzeno ·isokim zemljenim nasipom
zadaca kojega je bila da sprijeci pla·ljenje naselja
tokom ·isokog ·odostaja rijeke Sa·e.
41
Upra·o
tih dana ,godina, naselje Samac, bolje receno
podrucje oko na·edenog naselja, po·ezi·alo se sa
Saraje·om no·im putem koji je bio u izgradnji i
predsta·ljao jednu od ·aznih zadaca namjesnika
Serií Osman - Pase.
U analizi porijekla stano·nist·a sje·eroistocne
Bosne Milenko S. lilipo·ic donosi ·ise za-
nimlji·ih podataka koji se odnose na Bosanski
Samac. On na·odi: ¸ívace, Mv.tivava iva .avo
;o. ¡o raro.iva: Moarici, ßo.. ´avcv i ßrc/ov..... í ti
raro./i Mv.tivavi .v aobriv aetov ¡ore/tov i¸ graaora
v ´rbi;i; ovi .v o.vorati ßo.. ´avac. .... Do aota./a tib
Mv.tivava va ve.tv aava.v;eg ßo.. ´avca vi;e vi bito
va.et;a: te/ .v ¡o;eaivci biti ¡oceti aa .e va.et;ara;v. .ti,
tv ;e bita ra¸va ./eta ¸a ¡reta¸ ¡re/o ´are, ¡a v Ma;erici
i aava. ;1·²¨.) gorore ,´/eta ve.to |umjesto| ßo..
´avac.
42
Nadalje isti autor kaze: ¸Za vv.tivav./e
i¸b;egtice i¸ graaora v ´rbi;i rta.t ;e ¸a v;ib .agraaita /vce
va ¡av;eriva. ..... 1e /vce .v bite oa .e¡era i ¡o/rireve
aa./ov. ..... Po.t;eav;a /vca orog ti¡a ;e .rv.eva o/o
1·00.
43

Prema M. Mujezino·icu a¸avi;v u Bosans-
kom Samcu dao je podici Mir Ahmed, sin Ab-
dulkerim - Age, 1869. g., nakon sto je doselio iz
Beograda. Osno·ni nacrt za prostorno planiranje
i urbanu regulaciju naselja dao je Salih eí. Mu·e-
kit. MeĀutim, taj nacrt razradio je ¸ve/i fravcv./i
iv¸ev;er.
44
U slucaju o·og mjesta atribucija mjesne
a¸avi;e .vttavv Abdul Azizu moze se iskljuciti jer
je jasno ·idlji·o da je o·u a¸avi;v podigao Mir
Ahmed, pa se, stoga, ista i nazi·a nazi·a Mir
Ahmedo·a a¸avi;a.#
41 Vidjeti popis iz·ora kod Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 29.
42 lilipo·ic, Milenko S., ¸Prilozi etnoloskom pozna·anju se·eroistocne
Bosne. ANUBIl, CraĀa knj. 16. Odjeljenje drust·enih nauka, knj.
12, Saraje·o, 1969, 111, posebno 119, posebno 112, 144, bilj. 1.
43 lilipo·ic, Milenko S., Prito¸i etvoto./ov ¡o¸varav;v..., 111, posebno
119, posebno 124.
44 Mehmed Mujezino·ic, í.tav./a e¡igraf/a ßo.ve i íercegorive ,dalje se
citira kao ILBl,, ·ol. II, Saraje·o, 1998°, 165. O·a a¸avi;a cesto se
pogresno ubraja u Azizije a¸avi;e podignute nakon 1862,63. g.
Donj a Azi zi j a = Azi zi ye- i Zi r
= Orašj e
! L at . 45° 2’ 8. 87’ ’ N, L ong. 18° 41’
34. 47 ‘ ’ E" ( sl . 3- 4)
Predsta·lja jedno od naselja osno·anih tokom
1863. g. kao rezultat djelo·anja Bosanskog rati;e.
Naselje je izgraĀeno neposredno uz rijeku Sa·u,
a nalazi se naspram Zupanje na austrijskoj ,danas
na hr·atskoj, strani rijeke Sa·e.# Naselje je po-
dignuto na drza·nom zemljistu ,viri;a, mirijsko
zemljiste, koje je 1832. g. bilo oduzeto lusein
S|. 3. Orasjc, |cpcgrafs|a napa (]P Gccdc|s|i zatcd).
S|. 4. Pcscona aus|rc-ugars|a napa (|ar|a) za njcs|c Orasjc u
izdanju Vcjncg gccgrafs|cg ins|i|u|a u 8cĀu (1882-5).
146
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Kapetanu Gradasce·icu. 1o oduzeto zemljiste
na podrucju buduceg naselja Donja Azizija po-
dijeljeno je meĀu vvbaa¸ire koji su bili nastanjeni
na o·om podrucju.
45
U Donjoj .¸i¸i;i naselili su
se vvbaa¸iri iz Beograda, Sokola, Sabca i Uzica.
46

Bilo je podignuto, prema nekim iz·orima, 220,
a prema drugim 241, odnosno tacnije 260 kuca
s 963 stano·nika.

Prema Pa·lu Zi·ko·icu
¸|/v¡vo ;e v oro; .eobi v Dov;v .¸i¸;v ao.to 11·
o.oba v/t;vcevib v 2²2 obitet;i.
48
Vise detalja o
doseljenicima i zi·otu u no·om naselju moze se
·idjeti u posebnom radu Galiba Slji·e.
49
U mjestu
je podignuta a¸avi;a od cigle i kamena. D¸avi;a
je podignuta u sredini naselja i nazi·a se Azizija
a¸avi;a. Bila je podignuta u ime tadasnjeg .vttava
Abdul Aziza.
50
Prema Milenku S. lilipo·icu pori-
jeklo muslimanskog stano·nist·a u Orasju odra-
zilo se, u odreĀenom smislu rijeci, i na urbanu
strukturu no·osono·anog naselja. 1ako grad ima
d·ije znacajne vabate: Uzicku i Sabacku vabatv
koje nose imena prema prema grado·ima u Srbiji
iz kojih su stano·nici no·og naselja ·odili pori-
jeklo.
51
M. S. lilipo·ic takoĀer donosi podatak da
lr·ati iz okoline Orasja kada go·ore o odlasku u
Orasje kazu ¸íaev va |¸ice.
52
Novo Brezovo Pol j e
( i l i Novo Brezovo Sel o)
! L at . 44° 50’ 43. 82’ ’ N, L ong. 18°
57’ 25. 76’ ’ E" ( sl . 5)
No·o Brezo·o Polje nalazi se istocno od ,da-
nas, manjeg Starog Brezo·og Polja. Smjesteno
je naspram Racino·aca na austrijskoj ,danas
na hr·atskoj, strani rijeke Sa·e.# Cinjenica da je
45 Galib Slji·o, ßo.va i íercegoriva 1º2¨·1º1·, ¡a..iv, Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e,
25-29, Ahmed Alicic, «Cinuci lusein kapetana Gradasce·ica.»
Prito¸i ¸a ori;evtatvv ftotogi;v 14-15,1964-1965,, 311-328, Saraje·o,
1969. Up. i Berisla· Ga·rano·ic, ßo.va i íercegoriva oa 1º:² ao1º¨0.
goaive. Saraje·o, 1956, passim, posebno 310, 313.! Pot·rdu imena
mjesta ,.¸i¸i,e· i Zir, donosi Zaíer Golen, Na·. dj., , 224-23¯.
46 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 21.
4¯ Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-31. Up. i Saban lodzic, Migraci;a vv.tivav./og
.tavorvi.tra..., 120-131.
48 Pa·ao Zi·ko·ic, Potitic/e, go.¡oaar./e, etvic/e, /vttvrve i r;er./e ¡riti/e...,
55, Vidjeti P. Zi·ko·ic, Pregtea bi.tori;e ßrc/og,....49-56.
49 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 33 i d.
50 Mehmed Mujezino·ic, ííßíí, ·ol. II, 16¯.
51 lilipo·ic, Milenko S., Prito¸i etvoto./ov ¡o¸varav;v..., 111 i d., posebno
112.
52 lilipo·ic, Milenko S., Na·. dj., 112.
no·oosno·ano naselje Brezo·o Polje naz·ano
^oriv pretposta·lja postojanje naselja, u o·om
slucaju, ocito, sela, koje je nazi·ano Starim
Brezo·im Poljem ,odnosno Starim Brezo·im
Selom,. Zanimlji·o je da se u odreĀenoj karto-
graískoj dokumentaciji o·o naselje nazi·a i No·o
Brezo·o Selo sto bi moglo znaciti da je uz njega
postojalo i Staro Brezo·o Selo. 1o nas do·odi do
pitanja raz·oja no·oosno·anog naselja, njego·og
odnosa prema starijem naselju, te karaktera stari-
jeg naselja. Na danasnjem stepenu istrazi·anja
moglo bi se zakljuciti da je naselje Staro Brezo·o
Selo postojalo 1862. g. u statusu sela. Prema
naseobinskoj praksi u ok·iru Osmanskog carst·a
podrazumije·alo se da selo u s·ojoj sadrzajnoj i
topograFjskoj strukturi sadrzi i mjesnu ,seosku,
a¸avi;v ukoliko je to doz·olja·alo imo·insko
stanje a¸evatti;a ili ukoliko je postojao neki ra·
/if koji je u selu mogao podici a¸avi;v kao dio
s·og ra/vfa. . Stoga se moze posta·iti pitanje
postojanja a¸avi;e u o·om selu i njenog moguceg
atribuiranja nekom od ra/ifa ukoliko nije bila po-
dignuta sredst·ima a¸evata.
No·o naselje podignuto je tokom 1862-1863.
g. i ima dosta pra·ilnu organizaciju objekata u pro-
storu, koja poprima odreĀene odlike geometrijski
pra·ilnog ,mada malo deíormiranog, nasebin-
skog rastera. U naselju je bilo podignuto 250,
S|. 5. 8rczctc Pc|jc, |cpcgrafs|a napa (]P Gccdc|s|i zatcd).
147
odnosno tacnije 300 kuca s 1555 stano·nika.
53

Oba naselja, No·o Brezo·o Polje kao /a.aba i
Staro Brezo·o Polje kao selo ¸danas imaju ·las-
titu a¸avi;v. Moze se pretposta·iti da je a¸avi;a u
Starom Brezo·om Polju, bila ili nesto starija ,kao
sto je ·ec receno, ili da je nastala tokom kasnijih
,·!, desetljeca pod utjecajem postojanja ,podiza-
nja, a¸avi;e .¸i¸i;a u No·om Brezo·om Polju.
Naselje je, ocito, bilo zamisljeno kao /a.aba, ali
nije sigurno da je o·aj status i doseglo odmah po
njego·om osni·anju. Broj naseljenih stano·nika
,1555, doz·olja·a da naselje stekne status /a.abe
ukoliko su ispunjeni i drugi u·jeti. Podizanjem
a¸avi;e bio je ispunjen i drugi u·jet. Cinjenica da
je naseljeno stano·nist·o s·ojim porijeklom bilo
gradsko ,t.j. trgo·acko i obrtnicko po zanimanju,
ispunja·ala je i treci u·jet da o·o naselje stekne
status /a.abe. O o·om problemu na neki nacin
go·ori i sami oblik nazi·a naselja koje, prema
nekim kartograískim iz·orima, u s·ojoj imenskoj
íormi ima opci nazi· ,selo, za naselja ruralnog
tipa. Dakle, iza 18¯8. g. u upotrebi su pot·rĀena
d·a nazi·a o·og naselja: Brezo·o Selo i Brezo·o
Polje. Pitanje iz·ornog oblika nazi·a starog nas-
elja ostaje i dalje ot·orenim. MeĀutim, to ne znaci
da o·o naselje nije moglo doseci status /a.abe, a
da u upotrebi imenske íormule i dalje ostane na-
zi· selo kao njen sasta·ni dio.
U No·om Brezo·om Polju podignuta je jedna
,·ec spomenuta, potkupolna a¸avi;a iz·edena
u t.z·. ¸turskom baroknom stilu.
54
D¸avi;a je
podignuta 1862., odnosno, prema drugom
misljenju, njena gradnja zapoceta je 1863. g.
55
#
Prema na·odima lehima ladzimuhamedo·ica
¸Coaive 1··², v t;eto, ob;e/at .¸i¸i;e a¸avi;e |u
Brezo·om Polju| ;e vivirav i v ¡ot¡vvo.ti .rv.ev.
´/oro .ri vtovci .v v/tov;evi .a to/aci;e i oare¸evi v
ve¡o¸vatov ¡rarcv. | ratvov ra¸aobt;v 1··2 - 1··:.
goaive i ve¸ar;e v¸ a¸avi;v ;e o.tecevo.
56
Prema
53 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-31. Up. i Saban lodzic, Migraci;a vv.tivav./og
.tavorvi.tra..., 92-106.
54 Smatram da koristenje termina ¸tvr./i baro/vi .tit nije primjereno
iz·an europskog katolickog i protestantskog konteksta, a unutar
opceg islamskog i posebnog osmanskog konteksta. Bilo bi
pozeljno us·ojiti drugi termin za odreĀi·anje o·og arhitektonskog
i umjetnickog stila koji se poja·io u osmanskodobnoj arhitekturi i
umjetnosti, posebno u dekoraciji.
55 Mehmed Mujezino·ic, ííßíí, ·ol. II, 164,! Vidj. lehim
ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 250.
56 lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 253.
lehimu i Amri ladzimuhamedo·ic a¸avi;a je u
toku obno·e.


Orahova
! L at . 45° 11’ 50. 71’ ’ N, L ong. 17°
1’ 55. 43’ ’ E" ( sl . 6)
Oraho·a je takoĀer no·opodignuto naselja.
Nalazi se izmeĀu Bosanske Dubice i Bosanske
Gradiske naspram Jablanca na austrijskoj ,danas
hr·atskoj, strani rijeke Sa·e. Upra·no je pripada-
la Banjaluckom .ava¸a/v. Za potrebe prognanika
i izbjeglica u naselju je bilo podignuto 200 kuca,
odnosno tacnije 225 kuca s 1090 stano·nika.
58

Danas je naselje raz·ijeno u d·ije izrazito pros-
torno diíerencirane naseobinske cjeline - istocnu
5¯ lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 249 i d., Amra
ladzimuhamedo·ic, ¸Pojedinacna i ukupna e·aluacija obno·e
Azizije dzamije sa stano·ista metoda obno·e - Separate and
o·erall L·aluation oí the Restoration oí the Azizija Mosque írom
the Perspecti·e oí the Restoration Method. ßa.tiva - Godisnjak
Komisije za ocu·anje nacionalnih spomenika Bosne i lercego·ine.
Saraje·o, V,2009,, 306 i d.
58 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30.
S|. 6. Orancta, |cpcgrafs|a napa (]P Gccdc|s|i zatcd).
148
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
i zapadnu - od kojih s·aka ima ·lastitu a¸avi;v.
Zbog nedostatka raspolozi·ih podataka danas
nije jasan historijski i raz·ojni prostorni odnos
izmeĀu istocnog i zapadnog dijela naselja. 1ek
na temelju analize porijekla pojedinih porodica
moglo bi se zakljuciti dali je zapadni dio naselja
stariji, a istocni dio no·iji, odnosno da je istocni
dio naselja podignut 1862 - 1863. g. i da su u
njega naseljeni prognanici i izbjeglice. Danas se
ne moze iskljuciti niti mogucnost da je zapadni
dio naselja nastao sirenjem istocnog dijela naselja
u pra·cu zapada. MeĀutim, s·oje·rsna prostorna
razd·ojenost oba dijela naselja daje naslutiti
mogucnost postojanja njiho·og neza·isnog ·re-
menskog i raz·ojnog odnosa. Odgo·ore na o·a
pitanja i razrjesenja nedoumica mogu dati samo
detaljna istrazi·anja katastarske i grunto·nicke
dokumentacije, osobnih ·lasnist·a nad nekret-
ninama, te porodicnih ,rodbinskih, odnosa nji-
ho·ih stano·nika.
U naselju je izmeĀu 1862 - 1863. g. podig-
nuta .¸i¸i;a a¸avi;a koja se danas nazi·a i Ma-
holska |Mahalska| a¸avi;a. O·a a¸avi;a nalazi se
u istocnom dijelu danasnjeg naselja Oraho·a.
MeĀutim, i u zapadnom dijelu naselja takoĀer
postoji jedna a¸avi;a. S ·remenom broj a¸avi;a je
po·ecan. U o·om trenutku nije mi jasno da li se
prostorni smjestaj danasnje laluske a¸avi;e moze
odnositi na a¸avi;v u zapadnom dijelu naselja,
odnosno da li ¸obje a¸avi;e ,a¸avi;a u zapad-
nom dijelu naselja i t.z·. laluska a¸avi;a, pred-
sta·ljau jednu te istu a¸avi;v. O·o pitanje moze
naizgled biti ne·azno. MeĀutim, nije s·ejedno da
li je zapadni dio naselja stariji od no·oosno·anog
istocnog dijela. Ukoliko je zapadni dio naselja
stariji moze se, ¡er avatogiav, pretposta·iti da je
u zapadnom ,starijem ·, dijelu iz·ornog naselja
mogla postojati i starija a¸avi;a ,·, No, sadasnja
a¸avi;a u zapadnom dijelu naselja mogla je biti
podignuta ,i, tokom kasnijih godina pod utjeca-
jem postojanja ,podizanja, no·e .¸i¸i;a a¸avi;e
u istocnom ,no·om, dijelu naselja. Pri tome
je potrebno napomenuti da je laluska a¸avi;a
izgraĀena 1892. g. sto bi zapadni dio naselja Ora-
ho·a odreĀi·alo kao mlaĀi, odnosno zapadni dio
naselja predsta·ljao bi kasnije ,mlaĀe, prostorno
i populacijsko prosirenje no·og naselja Oraho·a
podignutog 1862 - 1863. g.
59
MeĀutim, moze
se hipoteticki pretposta·iti da je laliska a¸avi;a
godine 1892. mogla biti podignuta na mjestu
ruse·nog objekta neke starije a¸avi;e.
Naselje nema izrazito pra·ilnu organizaciju
objekata u prostoru. Iz·jesna pra·ilnost koja
postoji u protezanju nekih ulica unutar istocnog
dijela naselja ne daje osno·icu za zakljuci·anje
da se radi o pra·ilnom naseobinskom rasteru. U
o·om slucaju prije se moze go·oriti o slucajnom
rasporedu ulica ,puto·a, kojeg je mogla odrediti
konFguracija terena.
Bosanska Kostaj ni ca
! L at . 45° 13’ 5. 81’ ’ N, L ong. 16°
32’ 44. 94’ ’ E" ( sl . 7)
U Bihackom .ava¸a/v u ·ec od ranije
postojecem mjestu Bosanska Kostajnica na rijeci
Uni ,nalazi se naspram lr·atske Kostajnice, bio
59 O o·om pitanju nisam mogao dobiti potpune i pouzdane podatke u
Medzilisu Islamske zajednice Bosanska Gradiska.
S|. 7. Kcs|ajnica, |cpcgrafs|a napa (]P Gccdc|s|i zatcd).
149
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
je izgraĀen odreĀen broj kuca u koje su nas-
eljeni ¸.vttavori vvbaa¸iri. U o·om gradu bilo su
podignute 182 kuce i u njima je smjesteno ¯28
stano·nika. Doseljeno muslimansko stano·nist·o
bilo je porijeklom iz Beograda, Valje·a, Sokola,
Sabca i, posebno, iz Uzica. U mjestu je iza 1862.
g. podignuta i no·a a¸avi;a z·ana .¸i¸i;a.

Zanim-
lji·o je da i danas u Bosanskoj Kostajnici postoji
dio naselja ,vabata, koji se po uspomeni na stari
za·icaj nazi·a Uzica.
60
Kozl uk
! L at . 44° 29’ 49. 52’ ’ N, L ong. 19°
6’ 40. 89’ ’ E" ( sl . 8)
Naselje Kozluk je dosta staro. Smjesteno je
na lije·oj obali rijeke Drine na putnom pra·cu
Z·ornik - Janja - Bijeljina. Spominje ga jos
L·lija Celebija kao /a.abv.
61
1okom zbi·anja
1862-1863. g. o·o naselje bilo je odreĀeno od
strane sredisnje i pokrajinske osmanske ·lasti za
smjestaj odreĀenog broja prognanika i izbjeglica.
Za tu namjenu u o·om mjestu bilo je podignuto
110, odnosno tacnije 118 kuca za smjestaj 5¯1
stano·nika. U o·o mjesto doseljeni su naj·ecim
dijelom vvbaa¸iri iz Sokola.
62
U mjestu je ·ec
postojala a¸avi;a koju spominje L·lija Celebija.
Naselje nema geometrijski pra·ilnu organizaciju
arhitektonskih objekata i prostornih cjelina un-
utar naseobinskog areala jer je naselje, kao ·ec
od ranije postojece, raz·ijano organski, t.j. bez
geometrijski pra·ilnog rastera. Ocito je da su
no·opodignuti stambeni objekti uklapani kako
60 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-32, Mehmed Kazazo·ic, Uzicani u B.
Kostajnici.` O.toboĀev;e 22. aprila 1992, Mehmed Mujezino·ic,
ííßíí, ·ol. III, Saraje·o, 1982. 46-4¯. Kako je Kostajnica 1562. g.
bila srediste vabi;e Kostajnica i kako je ista predsta·lja znacajno naselje
u No·oselskom kadiluku, te u 1¯. st. posebnom noosno·anom
/aaitv/v logicno je oceki·ati ,prema metodi ¡er avatogiav, da je u
Kostajnici kao urbanom naselju zasigurno postojala i stara a¸avi;a.
Ista je, ocito, srusena nakon sto je Osmansko carst·o! 1¯18. g.
izgubilo Kostajnicu koja je dosla pod ·last Austrijskog carst·a. O·o
naselje kasnije je 1¯39. g. pono·o doslo pod osmansku ·last.
61 Vidj. L·lija Celebija, Pvto¡i., oatovci o ;vgo.torev./iv ¸evt;ava. Pre·eo,
u·od i komentar napisao lazim Sabano·ic. Saraje·o, 1954, 196¯,
19¯9, Saraje·o Publishing. Saraje·o, 1996, 485.
62 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-31. Vidjeti detaljnije kod Saban lodzic,
Migraci;a vv.tivav./og .tavorvi.tra...., 80-88.
unutar ·ec postojeceg naselja, tako i na njego·im
rubnim dijelo·ima.
63
Podi zanj e džami j a u
urgentno osnovani m
nasel j i ma urbanog ti pa
U skladu s opcim principima raz·oja islam-
skog po·ijesnog grada, koja su posti·ana i tokom
osni·anja osmanskodobnih naselja urbanog tipa,
u sredistu naselja bila je podizana i a¸avi;a kao
oba·ezujuci naseobinski sadrzaj i arhitektonski
objekt, te ·eoma znacajna topograFjska prostorna
odrednica. O·aj princip posti·an je u potpunosti
kako u cijeloj po·ijesti osmanskodobnih urbanih
naselja, tako i u o·om slucaju osno·anja no·ih
naselja u ·rijeme prognanicke i izbjeglicke krize
1862 - 1863. g. na podrucju Bosanskog e;ateta.
Obicno je no·o naselje s·oje postojanje i daljnji
raz·oj zapocinjalo osni·anjem mjesne a¸avi;e.
63 Mehmed Mujezino·ic, ííßíí, ·ol. II, 133-134. Up. i L·lija Celebija,
Pvto¡i., 485.
S|. 8. Kcz|u|, |cpcgrafs|a napa (]P Gccdc|s|i zatcd).
150
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
MeĀutim, zbog hitnosti ustroja·anja i podizanja
no·og naselja moglo se desiti da se podizanje
a¸avi;e od·ija uporedo s podizanjem naselja ili da
se njeno podizanje od·ija nesto sporije nego sto
se raz·ija samo naselje. Kao primjer za ilustraciju
moze se na·esti slucaj .¸i¸i;a a¸avi;e u No·om
Brezo·om Polju za koju se smatra da je zapoceta
1862. ili 1863., a za·rsena u potpunosti tek 18¯3.
g.
64
Osim potreba mjesnog stano·nist·a za
·jerskim objektom ,a¸avi;ov, podizanje a¸avi;a
predsta·ljalo je i jedan od u·jeta na temelju kojih
je no·oosno·ano naselje stjecalo pra·ni status
/a.abe.
Azi zi j e džami j e
Naj·eci broj a¸avi;a koje su podignute u ur-
gentno osno·anim naseljima urbanog tipa nastao
je nakon 1862. g. do 18¯3. g. D¸avi;e nastale
nakon 1862. g. podizane su u no·oosno·anim
mjestima kao a¸avi;e za vvbaa¸ire nakon teritori-
jalnih i naseobinskih gubitaka Osmanskog carst-
·a u Srbiji i stjecanja#neza·isnosti Srbije u rangu
kneze·ine. Na·edene a¸avi;e cinile su sredisnju
prostornu tacku u urgentno ,no·o,osno·anim
naseljima, a njiho·o postojanje predsta·ljalo je i
jedan od u·jeta za stjecanje pra·nog stausa /a.abe
no·oosno·anih naselja.
Skoro s·e a¸avi;e osno·ane nakon 1862. g.
nose nazi· Azizija a¸avi;e jer su nastale djelo·an-
jem sredisnje osmanske ·lasti, pa su na·edeno
ime dobile u cast .vttava Abd-ul - Aziza ,1861-
18¯6.,. MeĀu a¸avi;ava koje su podignute to-
kom vvbaa¸ir./e krize 1862-1863. g. i, mozda,
nesto kasnije ,do 18¯3. g.,, u ·rijeme ·lada·ine
.vttava Abd - ul - Aziza isticu se posebno one
na podrucju Z·ornickog .ava¸a/a u no·im nas-
eljima Dov;o; .¸i¸i;i ,Orasju,
65
i No·om Brezo-
·om Polju
66
,ili No·om Brezo·om Selu, na Sa·i,
u Bihackom .ava¸a/v u Bosanskoj Kostajnici,

te
na podrucju Banjalucke /a;va/avi;e ,.ava¸a/a,
64 Mehmed Mujezino·ic, Na·. dj., II, 164,! Vidj. lehim
ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 250.
65 Galib Slji·o, ßo.va i íercegoriva 1º2¨·1º1·, ¡a..iv, Galib Slji·o,
Ora.;e, 25-33, Ahmed Alicic, Cifvci ív.eiv /a¡etava ...., 311-328. Up. i
Berisla· Ga·rano·ic, ßo.va i íercegoriva..., passim, posebno 310, 313.
66 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-31.
6¯ Galib Slji·o, , 19, 30-32, Mehmed Kazazo·ic, |¸icavi v ß. Ko.ta;vici,`
O.toboĀev;e 22. aprila 1992.
u naselju Oraho·a
68
kraj Gradiske. Za naselje Ko-
zluk na Drini u Z·ornickom .ava¸a/v zna se da
je postojalo sredinom 1¯. st. i da je ·ec od ranije
imalo mjesnu a¸avi;v.
69
U njemu nije podignuta
no·a a¸avi;a sto iskljucuje poja·u .¸i¸i;a a¸avi;e
u o·om naselju.
S·a na·edena naselja imala su po jednu a¸avi;v
u sredistu naselja. D¸avi;e su ·ecinom bile podig-
nuta drza·nim sredst·ima, te su, kao sto je ·ec
receno, bile pos·ecene .vttavv Abd-ul Azizu.
Stoga se i nazi·aju .¸i¸i;e.
¯0
Izuzetak predsta·-
lja Mir Ahmedo·a a¸avi;a u Gornjoj .¸i¸i;i
,.¸i¸i,e·i ßãtã ~ ,Bosanski, Samac,
¯1
koju neki
autori, ipak, nazi·aju Azizija a¸avi;ov.
¯2
lehim
landzimuhamedo·ic na·odi podatak da su s·e
Azizije a¸avi;e, izuze· one u Orasju, porusene u
ratu 1992 - 1995., te donosi uporedbe spomenu-
tih a¸avi;a s a¸avi;ava u 1urskoj ,Azizija a¸avi;a
u Konji, i Rumuniji ,a¸avi;e u mjestima 1ulce i
Constanta,.
¯3
Istrazi·anja arhitektonskih konstrukcijskih
i stilskih odlika Azizija a¸avi;a, kao i one Mir
Ahmedo·e a¸avi;e u Corv;o; .¸i¸i;i ,Bosanskom
Samcu,, do danas nisu pro·edena. Razlog tome
mogao bi biti nezainteresiranost istrazi·aca za
68 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30.
69 Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-31. Vidj. L·lija Celebija, Pvto¡i., 485.
¯0 Vidjeti detaljnije kod Mirza lasan Ceman, Pori;e.t, ti¡otogi;a, .aar¸a;i...,
u IV. Dijelu, u pogla·lju XI. Proce.i i to/ vtevet;ev;a i i¸graav;e va.et;a
vrbavog ti¡a, Vol. I, str. 396 i d.
¯1 O·a dzavi;a cesto se pogresno ubraja u Azizija a¸avi;e podignute
nakon 1862,63. g. Vidj. Mehmed Mujezino·ic, ííßíí, ·ol. II, 165.
Vidj. i Galib Slji·o, Ora.;e, 30-31. Materijali Austrijskog generalnog
konzulata u Saraje·u, Vicekonzulata u Brckom ,naslo·ljeni Brod,
2. septembra 1863. g., i 1uzla 28. septembra 1863. g., iz Arhi·a
Bosne i lercego·ine, u kojima tadasnji konzularni agent u 1uzli
major Omcikus daje opis no·opodignutog naselja u Gornjoj Aziziji
,Samcu,, nazalost, nisu bili dostupni. Up. i Mehmed Mujezino·ic,
ííßíí, ·ol. II, Saraje·o, 164, 16¯.
¯2 Vidj. Mehmed Mujezino·ic, ííßíí, ·ol. II, 16¯.! Up. i! Mehmed
Mujezino·ic, ííßíí, ·ol. II, 165. lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic
na·odi da je .vttav Abd-ul-Aziz ¸| ßo.vi, ¡ota/vvt ra¸to¸iva
¡re.et;ev;a .tavorvi.tra |iz Srbije| |sa|graai|o| cetiri a¸avi;e: v ßre¸orov
Pot;v, Ora.;v , ßo.av./ov ´avcv, ßo.av./o; Ko.ta;vici. Vidj.! lehim
ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 251, 263. Prema
spomenutom na·odu a¸avi;a u Gornjoj .¸i¸i;i ,.¸i¸i,e·i ßãtã
~ ,Bosanski, Samac, predsta·ljala bi Azizija a¸avi;v, t.j. a¸avi;v
podignutu od strane sredisnje osmanske ·lasti koju personiFcira sam
.vttav Abd - ul - Aziz. MeĀutim, natpis na spomenutoj a¸avi;i jasno
na·odi i datira o·u a¸avi;v kako slijedi: ¸Mir .bvea, .iv .bavte/riv·
age, ao.etir.i oravo i¸ ßeograaa, ¸a ßo¸;e ¸aaorot;.tro vi;e ¸atio .rea.tra ¡a ;e
¸ar;e.tao trecivv .rog ivet/a i orv ca.vv a¸avi;v v .¸i¸i;i ¡o.aigao ;o¸irio).
². Rebivt - .bir. ,13. VII 1669. g., Vidj. M. Mujezino·ic, ííßíí, ·ol.
II, 165. Stoga se Mir Ahmedo·a a¸avi;a u Gornjoj .¸i¸i;i ne moze
odreĀi·ati niti nazi·ati kao Azizija a¸avi;a.
¯3 lehim ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., 263.
151
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
graditeljsko naslijeĀe iz druge polo·ine 19. st.,
koje se, izuze· a¸avi;e u Brezo·om Polju, ne odli-
kuju izrazitim posebnostima.
¯4
Vaznosti daljnjih istrazi·anja urgentno os-
no·anih urbanih naselja na podrucju Bosanskog
e;ateta
U slucaju naselja osno·anih nakon 1862. g.
posebno se cine zanimlji·im cetiri aspekta daljn-
jih istrazi·anja. 1i aspekti su: u odreĀenoj mjeri
dosta tezak gospodarski polozaj prognanika i iz-
bjeglica u no·oosno·anim naseljima, s·oje·rsna
drust·ena izoliranost no·oosno·anih naselja i
njiho·ih stano·nika u odnosu na ostala urbana
naselja na podrucju Bosanskog e;ateta, s·oje·rsna
oklije·anja raz·ijanja poslo·anja s no·oos-
no·anim naseljima od strane poslo·nih ljudi iz
drugih naselja u Bosanskom e;atetv,
¯5
te polozaj
¯4 Znanst·ena obrada na·edenih dzamija izlazi iz·an ok·ira o·og clanka.
Kao sto je ·ec receno istrazi·anja arhitektonskih konstrukcijskih i
stilskih odlika Azizija dzamija do danas nisu pro·edena. Izuzetak
cini recentni iscrpni clanak lehima ladzimuhamedo·ica pos·ecen
.¸i¸i;a a¸avi;i u ,No·om, Brezo·om Polju, koji predsta·lja
strucni, znanst·eni i metodologijski primjer kojeg treba slijediti u
obradi graditeljskog naslijeĀa. OdreĀena skromnost arhitektonskih
objekata i relati·no siromast·o dekoracije kod drugih .¸i¸i;a
a¸avi;a ne bi smjeli djelo·ati obeshrabrujuce na buduce istrazi·ace.
Uporedo sa spomenutim clankom moze se i treba sta·iti i clanak
Amre ladzimuhamedo·ic pos·ecen ¸e·aluaciji obno·e iste
a¸avi;e. Oba rada nastala su kao rezultat djelatnosti usmjerenih
na obno·u o·og objekta koji je do temelja srusen 1993. g. Vidj.
lerhim ladzimuhamedo·ic, 1vr./i veo/ta.ici¸av..., passim i Amra
ladzimuhamedo·ic, Po;eaivacva i v/v¡va eratvaci;a obvore .¸i¸i;e
a¸avi;e..., 306-316.
¯5 Zanimlji· podatak sacu·an je u mjesnoj tradiciji uglednih trgo·ackih
obitelji grada 1esnja kao jakog trgo·ackog sredista. Naime, clano·i
istih obitelji u razdoblju po osni·anju no·ih naselja nakon 1862. g.
i nakon austro - maĀarske okupacije Bosne i lercego·ine 18¯8. g.
s·oje poslo·anje ·ise su usmjera·ali na susjedni grad Doboj, nesto
dalji Gradacac i 1uzlu, te na prekosa·ska naselja na austrijskoj
,danas hr·atskoj, strani. No·a naselja osno·ana iza 1862. g. ostala
su iz·an izrazitijeg poslo·nog interesa trgo·aca 1esnja. Mozda su
razlog tome bili i nacin poslo·anja tesanjskih trgo·aca koji se, u
odreĀenoj mjeri, temeljio na kreditnom poslo·anju, te speciFcni
proiz·odi namijenjeni za iz·oz, odnosno u·oz. S·e je to moglo na
odreĀeni nacin ¸iskljuciti no·oosno·ana naselja u sje·ernoj Bosni
iz poslo·anja bosanskih grado·a poput 1esnja. Stoga, misljenje P.
Zi·ko·ica da je ¸^a.et;arav;ev Ora.;a vv.tivav./iv ¸irt;ev i .trarav;ev
¡rre raro.i v orov ai;etv Po.arive ovogvcev |;e| ra¸ro; obrta i trgorive....
i moju pretposta·ku da bi se odreĀeni podaci i misljenja izneseni
u citiranom odlomku P. Zi·ko·ica mogli odnositi i na druga
no·oosno·ana naselja, treba uzeti u razmatranje u·jetno. Naime, ako
mjesno stano·nist·o no·oosno·anih naselja u sje·ernoj Bosni nije
imalo sto ponuditi od proiz·oda kako bi se ukljucilo u poslo·anja
s raz·ijenim trgo·ackim grado·ima u Bosni ,poput 1esnja,, ali
i s austrijskim urbanim naseljima preko Sa·e, tada bi se moglo
zakljuciti da je ¸^a.et;arav;ev Ora.;a |i drugih no·osno·anih naselja|
vv.tivav./iv ¸irt;ev i .trarav;ev ¡rre |ali i drugih| raro.i v orov ai;etv
Po.arive ovogvcev |;e| ra¸ro; obrta i trgorive.... samo na lokalnoj razini!
istih naselja nakon 18¯8. g. u ok·iru austro -
maĀarskog gospodarst·a, drust·enih odnosa,
klasnog drust·enog pragmatizma, te no·e pros-
torne regulacije i arhitektonske izgradnje ,poseb-
no u slucaju naselja koja imaju pra·ilnu prostornu
regulaciju ,pra·ilan urbani raster,,.
¯6

ƒ
¯6 O·dje spomenuta urgentno osno·ana naselja urbanog tipa
sagleda·ana su s razlicitih aspekata na ·ise mjesta u radu Mirza
lasan Ceman, Pori;e.t, ti¡otogi;a, .aar¸a;i..., ·idjeti u geograískom
indexu na·edenog djela u ·ol. IV, str. 1569 i d., s.s. ··. za pojedina
naselja.
152
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
.vtor ai./vtv;e o vibrabiva, ¡ori;e/tv v;iborog ¸vacev;a i v;iboro vroĀev;e v i.tav./i .ri;et, .a a/cevtov
va ßo.vv i íercegorivv. Mibrabi .v ¡otv/rv¸ve vi.e v ¸iav graĀeriva, .a fvv/ci;ava ¡ore¸aviv .a ritvatov.
Ori;evti.avi .v ¡reva ;vgoi.to/v, v ¡rarcv Me/e, oareĀv;vci ¡rarac /o;iv .e vv.tivavi o/recv to/ov votitre.
Ovi .¡aaa;v vgtarvov v v/ra.eve etevevte graĀerive v /o;o; .e vata¸e. ^;ibor obti/ .e ¡rete¸vo vo¸e vaci va
citiviva, tive v/a¸v;vci va ra¸vo.t .ivboti/e vibraba /ao veai;a ¸a /ovvvi/aci;v .a ßo¸av./iv. | ßo.vi,
ga;e vata¸ivo vibrabe vaciv;eve oa ra¸ticitib vateri;ata, va;re¡re¸evtatirvi;i etevevt ;e.te .tata/titvi v/ra. vi·
braba i arvgi v/ra.i i./te.avi v vravorv ¡reva oareĀeviv geovetri;./iv iti bit;viv ae/oratirviv .bevava. ía/o
e.tet./i .ticvi, ovi .v ;eavo.tarvi;e forve vego vibrabi /o;e vo¸evo vaci v reti/iv a¸avi;ava iti cevtriva /ao .to
;e í.tavbvt. Katigra./i vat¡i.i va tv/v vibraba ce.to .tv¸e /ao ¡oa.;etvi/ va Kvr`av./e ¡rice o ba¸reti Mer;evi
;´reta D;erica), ¡o.ebvo v o.vav./iv graĀerivava. | vori;iv ¡riv;eriva vibraba, vat¡i.i .v ce.to i¸o.tart;evi.
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. vibrab., tbe featvre`. origiv., ava tbeir e·ecvtiov iv tbe rorta of í.tav ava, .¡ecifcatt,,
ßo.via. Mibrab. are tbe .evicircvtar vicbe. iv tbe ratt. of bvitaivg. ritb ritvat fvvctiov.. Orievtea torara tbe
.ovtbea.t, tbe, ivaicate tbe airectiov of tbe .avctvar, of Mecca, ava tbv. tbe ¡re.cribea airectiov tbat Mv.tiv. vv.t
face rbite ¡ra,ivg. 1be, are t,¡icatt, avovg tbe vo.t orvavevtea ¡art. of tbe bvitaivg. iv rbicb tbe, are fovva.
1beir .ba¡e i. oftev at.o fovva ov ¡ra,er rvg., tbereb, .tre..ivg tbe vibrab`. .,vbotic iv¡ortavce a. a veaivv for
covvvvicatiov ritb tbe airive. ív ßo.via, rbere re fva vibrab. vaae frov rariov. vateriat., tbe vo.t revar/·
abte e·av¡te. featvre .tatactite orvavevt. ava otber orvavevt. carrea iv varbte accoraivg to certaiv geovetric or
regetat aecoratire .cbeve.. 1bovgb ae.tbeticatt, .ivitar, tbe, are geveratt, .iv¡ter tbav tbe vibrab. fovva iv tbe
great vo.qve. of cevtre. ti/e í.tavbvt. Cattigra¡bic iv.cri¡tiov. at tbe vibrab`. arcb oftev .erre a. a revivaer of
tbe Koravic varratire of Mar,, e.¡eciatt, iv Ottovav bvitaivg.. Ov vore recevt vibrab e·av¡te., te·t. are oftev
ovittea attogetber.
Ćazim Hadžimejlić
Mi hr abi u Bosni i Her cegovi ni
Mi hr abs i n Bosni a and Her zegovi na
153
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
,&./!0#'+$ '/?+$ ;#$ neizosta·ni dio goto·o
s·akog sakralnog prostora. U islamskim sakral-
nim objektima to je mihrab, njego·a s·rha prije
s·ega je naznaciti smijer molit·e, a ujedno to je
sredisnja jezgra molit·enog prostora. Najcesce
je to polukruzna nisa, koja je posta·ljena prema
jugoistocnom smjeru ka Meki. 1o je mjesto
rezer·isano za pred·odnika molit·e, imama.
Mihrab u odnosu na cijelokupnan objekat u
kojem se nalazi nije monumentalnih dimenzija,
one ·ariraju od objekta do objekta, ali u·ijek
je skladno ukomponiran u cijelu arhitektonsku
orkestraciju interijera. 1ako je mihrab projek-
tiran u odnosu na d·a elementa: ,1, u odnosu
na cjelokupnu graĀe·inu i njen unutrasnji
prostor, i ,2, u odnosuu na mjeru co·jeka. U
islamskoj umjetnosti, mihrabu kao arhitektons-
kom, ali umjetnickom elementu pos·eci·ana je
izuzetna paznja, pa tako najcesce to moze biti i
najukraseniji dio objekta. Kod monumentalnih
sakralnih objekata mihrab ima kompleksniju
proFlaciju. Mihrab se goto· nikada ne izd·aja
od po·rsine zida ·ise od 30 centimetara. Cijela
njego·a struktura ·odi ka unutrasnjosti i produ-
bljenosti po·rsine zida. O·ak·o naglasa·anje
mihraba ima s·oje simbolicko znacenje, tu ideju
prati i plasticna dekoracija mihraba, kolorit i
ostalo. 1ako mihrab sam za sebe predsta·lja
iz·anrednu umjetnicku kreaciju.
listoricari umjetnosti ·jeruju da je o·aj ele-
ment u·eden u arhitekturu dzamija u periodu
umajidskog haliíe \alida, jos tacnije kada je o·aj
haliía obno·io Poslaniko·u dzamiju u Medini.
MeĀutim, o·o je ·rlo ·jero·atno predsta·ljalo
zamjenu nise koja je bila jednosta·nije íorme,
takoz·anih «slijepih» ·rata koja su pokazi·ala
smjer Meke u pr·obitnim dzamijama. Prema iz-
·jesnim procjenama pr·obitan mihrab dzamije u
S|. 1. U|az u 8cgctu dzaniju, Sarajctc.
154
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Medini je mogla predsta·ljati monolitna kamena
ploca koja je oznaca·ala smjer Meke ispred koje
je stajao Poslanik, s.·.s.a. i ·odio molit·u. Pored
toga sto mihrab ima s·rhu da oznaca·a smjer
molit·e prem Meki, on isto tako predsta·lja oda-
·anje pocasti prema Poslaniku, s.·.s.a. i mjestu
gdje je stajao i pred·odio molit·u.
lorma nise kao molit·enog pra·ca nalaze se i
po drugim sakralnim neislamskim objektima, kao
sto su crk·ene apside, sporadicni slucaje·i nise u
odreĀenim sinagogama, sto samo po sebi inicira
pitanje da li mozemo simbol nise kao molit·enog
pra·ca tumaciti globalnim simbolom.
Interesantna je poja·a kod pojedinih dzamija,
narocito u djelu ·elikog arhitekte Mimar Sinana,
da u osno·i dzamijskog prostora pronalazimo,
slicno kao kod arhitekture crka·a, apsidalni dio
graĀe·ine zas·oĀen polukupolom, na kojem se
nalazi mihrab.
Prema tumacenju teoreticara umjetnosti
íorma mihraba sa s·ojim s·odom korespondira
nebesima a njego·o postolje zemlji, sto cini nisu
dosljednom slikom «spilje ili pecine s·ijeta».
Pecina s·ijeta je «mjesto poja·nosti» Bozanskog,
bilo da je to slucaj ·idlji·og s·ijeta kao cjeline ili
unutrasnjeg s·ijeta, s·ete spilje srca.
S·e orijentalne tradicije prepoznale su ·aznost
o·e molit·ene nise, mihraba. Usposta·ljanje
simbolizma mihraba u s·ojoj islamskoj perspe-
kti·i, mora biti prije s·ega do·edeno u ·ezu sa
Kur`anskim kontekstom. S·ijet doslo·no znaci
«skloniste», Kur`an posebno koristi o·aj s·ijet da
opise s·eto mjesto u lramu u Jerusalemu gdje
hazreti Merjem usla u spiritualno po·lacenje
i bila zbrinuta od meleka. U judaistickim zako-
nima o·a cinjenica se ne uzima u obzir, naspram
patristickoj tradiciji i liturgiji ortodoksne crk·e.
Kaligraíski ispisi okolo luka mihraba najcesce
su kao jedna ·rsta podsjecanja ili opozi·anja
Kur`anskih prica pot·rde i pos·ete haz-
reti Merjemi ili S·etoj Dje·ici, sto je posebno
karakteristicno za turske dzamije, poce· sa mi-
hrabom Aja SoFje. Cak pojedini arapski iz·ori
t·rde da je u Poslaniko·oj dzamiji u Medini na
mihrabu bilo inskripcije odreĀenih ajeta, zlatnom
bojom.
Kao najcesca Kur`anska sentenca nalazimo
ajet «KULLAMA DAKlALA ALLJlA ZA-
KARI\\A AL-MIlRAB» - Kaa goa bi v;o; Ze·
/eri;a v.ao v vibrab... ,Kur`an ,3:3¯, - a odnosi se
na hazreti Merjem i mihrab kao mjesto osame
i prizi·anja Boga, gdje je lazreti Merjem bila
cudesno zbrinjena i hranjena, sto je Bozija Mi-
S|. 2-4. Scrdzadc |ac cdraz fcrni ninraoa.
155
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
lost. Mihrab je mjesto gdje je hazreti Merjem
dosla ·ijest od meleka Dzibrila. Veza mihraba i
lazreti Merjeme, ukazuje na simbolizam molit-
·ene nise kao nise srca. 1ako su islamski graditelji
·idjeli mihrab, kao simbol transcendentne ·eze
s ·isim, Bozanskim síerama. Ili drugi Kur`anski
ajet koji se ispisuje na mihrabima, a koji go·ori
o pos·ecenosti molit·ene nise «Uduhu luha bi
salamin emin» - |Āi v ora; ¡ro.tor .¡a.a i .igvrvo.ti.
Nasuprot mihraba goto·o u·ijek se nalazi
·eliki ili gla·ni portal, koji s·ojim konceptom
dosta nalikuje mihrabu ili barem je jedan odblje-
sak, reneksija koncepta mihraba sa proFlacijama,
stalaktitnim krunisanjem i sl. portal sakralnog
prostora u·odi ·jernika u molit·eni prostor, sto
korespondira mihrabu koji predsta·lja ot·aranje
·rata duho·nog, ne·idlji·og s·ijeta kao duho·ni
portal, ·rata koja co·jek s·ojom duho·nom
S|. 5. ]cdncs|atna fcrna ninraoa u co|i|u zastcācnc nisc,
|narc| (rcs|cran Acrcp|an) Sarajctc.
S|. 6. ]cdncs|atan ninrao u |c|iji Nadn|ini sa |ara||cris|iĀnin
zatrsc||cn u co|i|u |adza - |apc.
156
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
koncentracijom ot·ara i ulazi u ne·idlji·i s·ijet
bozanskog, odnosno u prostor s·og ·lastitog
srca ,sl. 1,.
Mihrab je isto tako odraz .era¸aae, mjesta mo-
lit·e, mjesta gdje ·jernik nicice pada na zemlju,
spusta gla·u licem na tlo, gdje se poisto·jecuje
sa zemljom od koje je napra·ljen, ali i mjesta
koje je cisto i s·eto. Sto nas opet ·raca na mjesto
Poslaniko·og s.a.·.s. mjesta i pred·oĀenja molit·e
,sl. 2-4,.
Mi hrabi u
Bosni i Hercegovi ni
Od pr·e dzamije pa do danas mihrabu se
pos·eci·ala posebna paznja, to mjesto, gdje
imam pred·odi ·jernike u molit·i, reprezenta-
ti·no je ukrasa·ano kroz razne epohe. IzraĀi·an
je od razlicitih materijala, najcesce od kamena,
staklenih mozaika, rezbarenog dr·eta, cigle,
ukrasa·an íajansnom plastikom, a u osmanskom
periodu znacaj mu je da·an ne samo dekorisan-
jem i izborom moti·a ·ec je istican i ·elicinom.
Za bosanskohercego·acke dzamije osmanskog
perioda karakteristicna je oba·ezna nisa, bo-
gato proFlisani mermerni ok·iro·i i stalaktitna
S|. 7. Minrao dzanijc Minar Sinana iz 16 s|c|jcca ocz s|i|anc
dc|cracijc.
S|. 8. |crna ninraoa u SaraĀ |snai|ctcj dzaniji (1515).
157
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
dekoracija. Dekorati·ni moti·i koji su iz·edeni
bilo u plitkom reljeíu ili oslika·ani na kamenu
·ariraju od najrazlicitijih biljnih arabesknih do
geometrijskih shema sa beskonacnim z·ijezdama.
Dekorati·ni moti·i stalaktita koje najcesce
nalazimo na mihrabima su karakteristicni up-
ra·o za osmanske mihrabe. 1o su kompleksni
matematicki obrasci, koji su u ·ezi sa kozmologi-
jom, simbolicno predsta·ljajuci sjedinja·anje
co·jeka sa Iz·orom, puto·anje do potpunog
nestanka, odnosno stapanja sa Bozanskim.
Obzirom da Bosna i lercego·ina ne obiluje
monumentalnim dzamija kak·e se mogu naci u
Istanbulu i drugim ·ecim grado·ima nekadasnje
osmanske drza·e, mihrab bosanskih dzamija kao
arhitektonski element sa umjetnicke strane obiluje
dosta razlicitim i ne manje znacajnim maniíestaci-
jama. Sukladno dimenzijama dzamijskih prostora
mihrabi su se raz·ili u nesto jednosta·nijoj íormi
S|. 10. Minrao u nc|adasnjcj dzaniji A|ijc Tc|nica danas
na|siocndijs|a |c|ija Pirusa.
u odnosu na pomenute monumentalne mihrabe
·elikih gradskih centara osmanske drza·e. Di-
menzije mihraba ·ariraju u odnosu na proporcije
same dzamije u kojoj se nalazi. Najjednosta·niji
primjerci mihraba su oni bez ukrasa ili sa mini-
malnim, sto bi se ocito·alo u zas·oĀenom djelu u
·idu luka kao polukruzni, ·iticasti ili prelomljeni
luk. L·entualno pojedini jednosta·niji mihrabi
mogu imati ·isestrane nise ,sl. 5-¯,.
Nacin ukrasa·anja mihraba posta·lja nekoliko
osno·nih grupa: mihrabi bez ukrasa, mihrabi sa
prizmaticnim ukrasima, mihrabi sa trouglastim
ukrasima, mihrabi sa ukrasima u ·idu nisa, mi-
hrabi sa speciFcnim ukrasima, mihrabi sa stal-
aktitnim ukrasima i danasnji mihrabi koji su bez
S|. 9. Magrioija dzanija (1538-65).
158
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
S|. 11. Minrao Carsijs|c dzanijc, Sarajctc (1528) -
s|i|ana dc|cracija nctijcg da|una.
S|. 12. Kancni ninrao u 8cgctcj dzaniji ocz s|i|ancg
sadrzaja (1530).
S|. 13. Minrao |crnadija dzanijc (1561), Sarajctc.
S|. 14. Minrao |crnadija dzanijc (1561), Sarajctc, dc|a|j sa
ninraoa.
159
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
ikak·ih dekoracija sa tezinom materijala od kojih
su posta·ljeni ,sl. 8-10,.
Najcesca dekoracija bosanskih mihraba
u dzamijama iz osmanskog perioda, obiluje
razlicitim íormama stalaktita, sto je na neki nacin
kruna tog polja koje oznaca·a smijer molit·e. Na-
glasak plasticnosti je cesto bio pojaca·an bojenim
koloristickim plohama. Bogatije ukraseni mihrabi
kombiniraju se sa doljnim djelom mihraba koji
je podjeljen u ·ertikalne pojase·e i gornjim dje-
lom koji se kompleksno za·rsa·a sa stalaktitima
íormirajuci razlicite za·rsetke ,sl. 11-14,.
Stalaktit kao dekorati·nu íormu mozemo
pratiti jos iz ranoislamske umjetnosti iz 9 i 10.
stoljeca, kroz perzijsku umjetnost, a u turskoj
arhitekturi su dozi·jeli potpuni proc·at, poce·
od seldzuckih 1uraka pa preko Osmanlija, koji
su dali najimpresi·nija, najkompleksnija najpunija
i plasticnija rjesenja. Stalaktit kao dekorati·ni
element nije bio samo rezer·isan za mihrabe,
na goto·o s·akom mjestu koje bi omoguca·alo
raz·oj o·ih íormi, posta·ljali bi se, poce· od
portala, mihraba, síernih trouglo·a, kapitela na
stubo·ima i drugog ,sl. 20,.
Mihrab u s·ojoj dekoraciji generalno sadrzi
sedam polja, koja predsta·ljaju duho·na uzdiza-
nja co·jeka kroz sedam síera, sto je predsta·ljeno
sa sedam ni·oa, stepenika kao polja uzdizanja
duse od najnizeg do najsa·rsenijeg. U duho·nom
uzdizanju i usa·rsenju ti ni·oi se nazi·aju vef.·i
evvare, vef.·i terrave, vef.·i vvtbive, vef.·i vvtveivve,
vef.·i raai;;e, vef.·i verai;;e i vef.·i /avite ;.af;;e). O·i
ni·oi se odraza·aju kroz dekoraciju stalaktita na
mihrabu, s·ako polje je jednako jednom stepenu,
od doljnjeg djela mihraba, stepenasto rastuci do
same «krune» mihraba, sto predsta·lja potpuno
predanje Allahu dz.s. sazrije·anje duse, koje
moze samo cista dusa, upotpunjena dusa da
postigne ,sl. 15,.
Mihrab koji stoji na zemlji, na tlu sto predsta·-
lja simbol da je co·jek ·ezan za zemlju i da na njoj
postize to duho·no uzdignuce kroz te stepenice
ili polja. Mihrab je u s·ojoj historiji prolazio kroz
íaze umjetnickog raz·oja, na sto je uticao kulturni
napredak tog naroda, prostora i mjesta.
Bosna speciFcna po s·ojoj geograFji i
drust·enom polozaju i ·ezanosti za osmansku
drza·u ima ·eoma mnogo slicnosti u mihrabu
kako liko·no-estetski tako sakralno. Nijanse ili
S|. 15. Dzanija Hanza 8a|i (|s|anou|).
160
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
S|. 16. Sncna ninraoa |ac sinoc|a dunctncg uzdizanja)
161
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
razlicitosti postoje za one koji mogu da to pre-
poznaju.
Danasnje stanje «sa·remene gradnje» ili
«sa·remene arhitekture» pokazuju nepozna·anje
najosno·nijih principa, mihraba, sakralnosti i
duho·nosti mihraba, sto izlazi iz íorme, arhitek-
tonskih, estetskih i duho·nih simbola, a simbo-
like uopste nema. Pa tako i tekstualna - kaligraí-
ska dekoracija cesto je izosta·ljena ili je potpuno
pogresno odabrana i posta·ljena ,sl. 1¯,.
ƒ
Literatura: Andrej Andreje·ic, í.tav./a vovv·
vevtatva vvetvo.t `1í re/a v ]vgo.tari;i, Beograd
1984, Dzemal Bejtic, «Neka nacelna razmatranja
o arapsko-islamskoj umjetnosti», POí 26 ,19¯6,,
131-51, Madzida Becirbego·ic, D¸avi;e .a arre·
vov vvvarov v ßo.vi i íercegorivi, Saraje·o, 1999,
Metin Sozen, 1arib.et geti,ivi içivae 1vr/ ´avati,
Istanbul, s.a., Reha Günay, 1be .rcbitect ava bi.
!or/.: ´ivav, Istanbul, 2009
6
, Rusmir Mahmutce-
hajic, «Dje·a merjema u bosanskim mihrabima»,
ßa.tiva 5 ,2009,, 363-401, 1itus Burckhardt, .rt
of í.tav: tavgvage ava veavivg, London, 19¯6.
S|. 17. Prinjcr satrcncnc gradnjc - ninrao ocz sinoc|i|c i
s pcgrcsnin cdaoircn |a|igrafs|cg ispisa - nczdzid u 88|
ccn|ru.
162
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
.vtor ra.¡rart;a o .¡oveviciva i ob;e/tiva /o;i .e vata¸e va graaitet;./o; c;etivi a ¡ore¸avi .v .a tvrbetov i
a¸avi;ov ¡oaigvvto; v ca.t Mvraa Rei.·a v graav va o.trrv Roao.. ^a;.tari;a graĀeriva va to/aci;i ;e.te te/i;a
;¡o¸vata /ao vvfti;iva /vca), va/.ibevai;./og reaa, ¡ret¡o.tart;a .e aa ;e i¸graĀeva veavgo va/ov o.ra;av;a
o.trra 1:21. goaive. Po.ti;e vvogib ivterrevci;a, aava. .e /ori.ti /ao /ovcertva arorava. 1vrbe Mvraa Rei.·a,
¡o¸vatog o.vavti;./og ¡ovorca, ¡ori;e/tov i¸ .t¸ira, /o;i ;e i¸ra¸io ¸et;v aa bvae .abrav;ev va o.trrv Roao.,
;e o.vovgaova graĀeriva ¡o/rireva /v¡otov, /o;a va;r;eroratvi;e ¡otice i¸ ¡erioaa v;egore ¡ogibi;e 1ó0·.goaive.
Obvora tvrbeta ;e vraĀeva1º:·.goaive. | v;egoro; o/otici, ¡rovaĀevi .v i vvoga arvga tvrbeta /o;a ¡oticv i¸
¡erioaa 1¨.·1·. .tot;eca, v/t;vcv;vci i tvrbeta ctavora /riv./e aiva.ti;e Cira; i irav./e aiva.ti;e ´aferi;a, /o;i
.v ¡ogivvti va Roao.v v i¸gvav.trv, /ao i o/o 2:ó vv.tivav./ib ve¸ara. ^a;vovvvevtatvi;a graĀeriva v
/ov¡te/.v ;e.te ta/o¸rava a¸avi;a Mvraa Rei.·a. | .trari ;e bita i¸graĀeva oa .trave íbv ße/ir ¡a.e 1ó22.g.,
aa/te ./oro ci;etv ;eavv ae/aav va/ov .vrti i v ca.t ¡ovorca Mvraa Rei.·a. Re.tavrirava ;e 1¨º¨,º, 1¨·1.,
¸ativ 1·¨ó.goaive. CraĀeriva ;e ¸atroreva ¸a obreae 2000.goaive. Mivaret ;e aobio .ro; aava.v;i ri;eaa/ i¸gtea
to/ov ¡erioaa í ítati;av./e rtaaarive va Roao.v i¸veĀv ara ´r;et./a rata.
1be avtbor ai.cv..e. vovvvevt. ava ob;ect. ov tbe .ite covvectea to tbe tovb ava vo.qve erectea iv Mvraa
Rei.`. bovovr iv tbe cit, of Rboae.. 1be otae.t bvitaivg ov .ite i. a ^a/,ibevai aerri.b covrevt ;¡o¡vtart, /vorv
a. tbe vvfti`. bov.e), rbicb i. ¡re.vvea to bare beev bvitt vot tovg after tbe i.tava`. covqve.t iv 1:21. .fter
.igvifcavt ivterrevtiov., it i. v.ea a. a covcert batt toaa,. 1be vav.otevv of Mvraa Rei., a favov. .tgeriav·borv
Ottovav .eavav rbo ri.bea to be bvriea ov Rboae., i. av octagovat aovea bvitaivg tbat vv.t aate to tbe tive of
bi. aeatb iv 1ó0·; it ra. re.torea iv 1º:·. ív it. ricivit, are fovva otber vav.otevv. frov tbe 1¨
tb
·1·
tb
cevtvrie.,
ivctvaivg tovb. of vevber. of tbe Cira, ava ´afaria a,va.tie. of tbe Crivea ava írav, rbo aiea ov Rboae. iv
e·ite, a. rett a. 2:ó Mv.tiv grare.tove.. 1be vo.t vovvvevtat bvitaivg ov .ite i. tbe .o·cattea vo.qve of Mvraa
Rei.. ít ra. iv reatit, bvitt iv Mvraa Rei.` bovovr b, íbv ße/ir Pa,a iv 1ó22, vore tbav a aecaae after tbe
.eavav`. aeatb. ít ra. re.torea iv 1¨º¨,º, 1¨·1, ava 1·¨ó. 1be bvitaivg revaiv. cto.ea for ¡ra,er .ivce 2000.
1be vivaret got it. cvriov. ¡re.evt .ba¡e avrivg ítatiav rvte orer Rboae. iv tbe ivterrar ¡erioa.
Mehmet Z. Ibrahimgil
J edan osvr t na obj ekt e kompl eksa Mur ad
Rei s- a na Rodosu
A sur vey of obj ect s wi t hi n t he Mur ad
Rei s compound i n Rhodes
163
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
'+<&'$ &10&;#';+$ =#&-*+:+$ 4. septembra
1521. godine, u periodu ·lada·ine sultana Sulej-
mana Zakonoda·ca, os·ojeno je i ostr·o Rodos.
Uporedo sa zauzimanjem otoka dolazi i do nas-
elja·anja znatnog broja turskog stano·nist·a.
Promjenom demograíske strukture na otoku se
mijenja politicki, drust·eni i kulturni zi·ot. 1ako
unutar srednje·jeko·nih zidina grada Rodosa
nastaju objekti osmanlijske arhitekture. 1ursko
stano·nist·o koje je naselilo stari grad Rodos,
napustene crk·e je pret·aralo u dzamije gradeci
im mihrab i minber, a na neiskoristenom pro-
storu su gradili kupatila ,hamame,, medrese,
´t. 1. Pro.torvi ¡tav ob;e/ata /ov¡te/.a Mvraa Rei.·a: 1. 1e/i;a Mvraa
Rei.·a ;1ó. .tot;ece); 2. 1vrbe Mvraa Rei.oro ;1ó0·.); ². 1vrbe Mevi
Pa.e ;1ó21.); 1. D¸avi;a Mvraa Rei.·a ;íbv ße/ir) ;1ó22.); :. 1vrbe
D¸avber/ Cira; íavoro ;1ó²ó.); ó. 1vrbeta ´abiv Cira; íava ;1ó10.)
i íetbi Cira; íava ;1óó²·1.); ¨. 1vrbe ´ab ´af Mir¸ivo ;1¨::·ó.); º.
Ce.va Mvraa Rei.·a ;1º1ó.); ·. 1vrbe íarra. ´ava¸aroro ;1º·ó·¨.);
10. 1vrbe ´era./er Mebvea Reaif Pa.e ;1·0:.); 11. 1vrbe Mebvea ´e/i¡
Pa.e ;1·0·.); 12. Ce.va; 1². Me¸ar;e.
NOTES: THE AREADRAWING WAS COPIED FROM !"#$%&'()&(*%+,(-&*. and MURAT REIS
MOSQUE AND SERVICE PLACES WERE COPIED FROM /0,102% 3()+455& BY
AMMAR IBRAHIMGIL
164
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
mektebe, biblioteke, sahat kule, cesme i druge
drust·ene objekte. Isto·remeno, za krscane
koji su premjesteni iz·an zidina staroga grada
íormirajuci Neokori ,No·u carsiju, sagraĀene
su crk·e u tom no·om dijelu grada. Objekat koji
su ·itezo·i prije Osmanlija koristili kao d·orac
pret·oren je u tamnicu za poznate licnosti Os-
manskog carst·a. Danasnja zgrada arheoloskog
muzeja na Rodosu koristena je kao bolnica i u
·rijeme ·itezo·a i Osmanlija. Na cita·om otoku
danas zaticemo 11¯ objekata sagraĀenih u doba
Osmanlija od 1522 do 1918. godine. U gradu,
prigradskim naseljima i selima pronaĀeno je i
dokazano postojanje 11¯ objekata osmanske
arhitekture. 1akoĀer, u kompleksu Murad Reis-
a u gradu Rodosu pronaĀeno je íotograFsano
·ise od 260 nadgrobnih spomenika - nisana.
Kompleks Murad Reis-a, cija gradnja pocinje
neposredno po os·ojenju otoka 1522. godine
jedan je od najznacajnijih kompleksa osmanli-
jske arhitekture na otocima Lgejskog mora. Od
zi·otne je ·aznosti ocu·anje o·ih objekata ciji se
broj, kako ·rijeme prolazi, smanjuje. Kompleks
Murad Reis star pet stotina godina se nalazi
u tak·om stanju da je potrebna hitna akcija na
njego·om spasa·anju i ocu·anju. 1o nije samo
kompleks osmanlijske kulture, to je i identitet,
kultura, po·ijest Rodosa. 1o zajednicko kulturno
blago moze biti ·azno za raz·oj turizma na otoku.
Vratiti o·aj zabora·ljeni i osta·ljeni kompleks un-
utar s·jetske bastine nije oba·eza samo institucija
Grcke, nego i 1urske ali i meĀunarodnih insti-
tucija specijaliziranih za o·u oblast.
Tabela -1
F
u
n
k
c

j
a
V
r
s
t
a

o
b
j
e
k
t
a
B
r
o
j

o
b
j
e
k
a
t
a

č

j
e

j
e

p
o
s
t
o
j
a
n
e

u
t
v
r
đ
e
n
o
Vjersk objekt
Kompleks 3
Džamja mesdžd 30
Tekja 5
Turbe 6
Mezarje 2
Obrazovne
nsttucje
Medrese 5
Mekteb 4
Bbloteka 1
Ruždja 1
Trgovačk objekt
Bezstan 1
Arasta/Loca 1
Vojn objekt
Kule 4
Dvorac 1
Oružarnca/tersane 4
Kasarna 4
Barutana 2
Skladšte muncje 2
Zatvor 1
Štab 1
Tabja 1
Socjaln objekt
Kupatlo 5
Česma 25
Seblj 1
Sarnč 4
Imaret 2
Cvln objekt Konak 3
Javn objekt
Zgrada (Konak) vlade 3
Zgrada (Konak) za valju 2
Ukupno 124
165
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
GraĀe·inski plan Rodosa na parcelama od
jedan do de·et obuh·ata kompleks Murad Reis-
a u kojem nalazimo dzamiju, 8 turbeta, tekiju,
2 cesme, jednu kucu i jednu haziru. S·i nabro-
jani objekti izgraĀeni su na po·rsini od 9.000
m
2
. Kao sto se moze i primijetiti o·i objekti
izgraĀeni u periodu 1522-1905.g ·ise su skupina
objekata nego li klasicni kompleks. S obzirom da
je Murad Reis bio ·elika licnost na Rodosu s·i
objekti izgraĀeni nakon njego·e smrti ,1609., su
izgraĀeni pod njego·im imenom.
1. Teki j a Murad Rei s- a
Iako je u originalu izgraĀena kao tekija u
narodu je poznata kao muítijina kuca, jer je u po-
sljednje ·rijeme muítija stano·ao u njoj.# Smatra
se da je tekija najstarija graĀe·ina kompleksa Mu-
rad Reis i njego·a centralna tacka. Pretposta·lja
se da je izgraĀena u pr·oj polo·ini 16. stoljeca.
Kao dio kompleksa Murad Reis tekija je pri-
padala naksibendijskom tarikatu a imala je sobu
za stano·anje, za objedo·anje, sobu za zikr, sobu
za der·ise, sobu za osamlji·anje der·isa, kupatilo
i druge prostorije neophodne za tekiju. Moze
se primijetiti da su neki dijelo·i tekije kasnije
graĀeni i preureĀi·ani. Kazuje se da je pripadala
naksibendijskom redu. Danas, pod izgo·orom
restauracije, Direkcija za Kulturu Rodosa o·aj
objekat koristi kao koncertni centar a nakon ra-
do·a koji su promijenili koncept cijeloga objekta.
U unutrasnjosti su uraĀene ·elike promjene a uz
sami objekat dograĀene su no·e prostorije, te je
time tekija dobila znatno drugaciji izgled.
´t. 2. 1vrbe Mvraa Rei.·a ;1ó0·. g.)
166
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
2. Turbe Murad Rei s- a
( sl . 2- 3)
Murad Reis, po kome je kompleks dobio ime,
je poznati pomorac iz ·remena sultana Sulejmana
Zakonoda·ca.# Porijeklom je# iz Alzira, potomak
tamosnjih gusara, ali je u ranoj mladosti izabran
u odred stranaca a kasnije je, u sasta·u mor-
narice, bio pod direktnom komandom Barbaros
lajrudin-pase. Ucest·o·ao je s njim u brojnim
pohodima. Zbog s·oje izrazite hrabrosti, dopri-
nosa, pozrt·o·anja i sposobnosti imeno·an je
za kapetana Luro-Indijske note 1552. godine, a
prilikom os·ojenja Kipra bio je kapetan sektora
Otkri·anje i sigurnost, te napokon 15¯0. godine
bi·a imeno·an komandantom Pomorske karaule
na liniji Krit-Rodos-Kipar. Godine 1609. kada se
ot·ara Lgejsko more i kada Maltezani pokusa·aju
presjeci trgo·acki pomorski put izmeĀu Anado-
lije i Lgipta, uspio je zausta·iti i zarobiti maltesku
notu na ot·orenom moru blizu Kipra. U o·oj ·o-
jni uspio je zarobiti cu·eni malteski brod Cr·eni
Dzehennem`. Vec u poodmaklim godinama Mu-
rad Reis je tokom borbi sa Maltezanima ranjen.
Ka¡tav·i Der,a lalil-pasa ga je poslao brodom
prema Kipru na lijecenje. 1esko ranjeni Murad
Reis je preselio na ahiret 1018. godine po hidzri,
odnosno 1609. godine. Prema oporuci koju je
osta·io njego·o tijelo ce biti preneseno na Rodos
i sahranjeno u turbetu koje je dao sagraditi.
1urbe je osmougaono i pokri·eno kupolom.
Na ulazu sa lije·e strane u d·a reda sa cetiri stroíe
stoji natpis u taliku. Na s·akoj od stranica tur-
beta, izuze· one gdje su ·rata, se nalazi cet·rtasti
prozor. Na prednjoj strani u sljunko·itom ka-
menu nalazi se moti· sidra i cempreso·og dr·eta.
Unutrasnjost turbeta je ukrasena natpisima. U
unutrasnjosti kupole nalazimo moti·e z·ijezda.
Iz natpisa na ·ratima da se razumjeti da je obno·a
turbeta uraĀena 12¯6.godine po hidzri, odnosno
1859. godine.
3. Turbe Memi - paše
Memi-pasa je 1610. godine, za ·rijeme sultana
Ahmeda I, imeno·an za bega Rodoskog. Bio je
·rlo zapazen u osmanlijskoj mornarici na Sre-
dozemlju, a preselio je na ahiret 1621. godine.
S obzirom da je bio pomorac njego· mezar je
ograĀen zeljeznim lancima pa su ga u narodu
z·ali Zindzirli-dede. Njego·o turbe se nalazi
u Kompleksu Murad Reis-a. londacija Rodos
je dala obno·iti o·o turbe 1958. IzgraĀeno
je osmougaono turbe sa kupolom. GraĀeno
je od klesanog kamena, a kupola stoji na d·a
stupa s prednje strane i zido·ima. I stubo·i su
izgraĀeni od klesanog kamena. Na s·akoj strani
objekta ima po jedan prozor. U unutrasnjosti se
nalazi grobnica sagraĀena u mermeru. Sje·erni
dio grobnice je propao u zemlju. Na uzgla·lju i
podnozju se nalaze osmougaoni stubo·i. Cijela
po·rsina grobnice je ukrasena moti·ima biljaka
u rozetama. Danas je turbe prilicno zapusteno.
Kao i ·ecina drugih objekata o·dje i njemu je
potrebna hitna restauracija.
4. Džami j a Murad Rei s- a
( Ebu Beki r- paše) ( sl . 4- 6)
Iako se spominje kao dzamija Murad Reis-a,
njeno pra·o ime je Lbu Bekir-pasina dzamija.
´t. ². 1vrbe Mvraa Rei.·a ;1ó0·. g.)
167
O·aj objekat koji se nalazi preko puta male
luke u Rodosu, na uglu ulica Giorgio Papa-
nikolau i Nikolau, na Mandraki mejdanu je
sagraĀen u pr·oj polo·ini 1¯. stoljeca, preciznije
1032.h,1622. godine. Iz natpisa na ulaznim
·ratima ·idi se da je lasan-beg 1212. h,1¯8¯-
8. godine dao uraditi restauraciju o·e dzamije.
Dzamija koju je dao sagraditi Lbu Bekir-pasa
2000. godine je zat·orena za obrede. Prema jos
jednom natpisu se ·idi da je druga obno·a raĀena
1¯94. godine. Minaret dzamije je dobio danasnji
izgled u doba italijskog perioda. Njeni originalni
izgled je bio klasicni konusni. Posljednja obno·a
je uraĀena 19¯6. godine. Prema jednome zapisu
egipatskog ad·okata Dzaíera lahrija u dne·nom
listu Al-Ahram 18.06.192¯., a na osno·u ·akuí-
skih arhi·a saznajemo da je dzamiju na obali
zajedno sa cesmom dao sagraditi Lbu Bekir-pasa
1032.h,1622-23. godine.
K·adratna osno·a dzamije je ¯.80 x ¯.80, a nat-
kri·ena je sa jednom kupolom. Dzamija je imala
i 3 metra sirine za posljednje saío·e ispred nje, ali
od toga se sada samo naziru trago·i. Kupola koja
´t. :. D¸avi;a Mvraa Rei.·a ;1ó22. g.)
´t. 1. D¸avi;a Mvraa Rei.·a ;1ó22. g.)
168
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
pokri·a dzamiju naslonjena je na osmougaoni
obruc koji drzi potporni luk u obliku skoljke. O·a
dzamija je izgraĀena od klesanog kamena i na
s·im stranama ima cet·rtaste prozore. 1akoĀer,
na s·akom obrucu ima po jedan manji prozor
siljastog za·rsetka. Kupola koja pokri·a dzamiju
danas je pres·ucena cementnom íasadom.
5. Turbe Džanberk Gi raj
Hana
Dzanberk Giraj lan je bio 1610. han na
Krimu. Nakon toga od 1623. godine je bio u stal-
nom sukobu oko ·lasti sa Mehmedom Girajem
i njego·im bratom Sahinom Girajem. Poznato
je da su prijestolonasljednici na Krimu iz obitelji
Giraj katkad bili na strani Osmanlija, a katkad u
paktu sa Rusima. Vladari Krima su katkad, kao
u pohodu na Iran, bili zajedno sa Osmanlijama,
a katkad su bili u sa·ezima proti· Osmanlija.
Zato je Dzanberk Giraj lan zbog nelojalnosti
Osmanlijskoj drza·i poslan u izgnanst·o na os-
tr·o Rodos. Umro je u zatocenist·u na Rodosu
1046. h. ,1636-¯. godine. Njego·o turbe se nalazi
u kompleksu Murad Reis-a zajedno sa turbetom
Sahin Giraj lana. I o·o turbe ima osmougaonu
osno·u i pokri·eno je kupolom. IzgraĀeno je od
klesanog kamena, a danas se nalazi u ruse·nom
stanju. U unutrasnjosti turbeta se nalazi mermer-
na grobnica a na juznom zidu je izgraĀen mi-
hrab. Grobnica je ukrasena moti·ima biljaka i
predmeta koji oslika·aju umjetnost tog ·remena.
Na juznoj strani u sredistu jedne rozete se nalazi
crtez s moti·om handzara.
6. Turbe Šahi n i Fethi Gi raj
Hanovo ( sl . 7)
lethi Giraj lan je sin ·ladara Krima De·-
let Giraj lana. Zajedno sa krimskim ratnic-
ima ucest·o·ao je u pohodu na MaĀarsku pod
·oĀst·om sultana Mehmeda III. Kada ga je sultan
´t. ó. D¸avi;a Mvraa Rei.·a ;1ó22. g.)
169
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
poh·alio, a za·olio ga je i ·eliki ·ezir Sinan-pasa,
po za·rsetku ·ojne, dao mu je na upra·ljanje
Krim. Kada je Ibrahim-pasa zamijenio na mjestu
·elikog ·ezira Sinan-pasu on je ía·orizirao s·oga
poznanika Gazi Giraja, brata lethi Giraj lana
kojeg je poz·ao u Istanbul u Dar-u saade, a po-
tom ga otpremio u progonst·o na Rodos. Umro
je u progonst·u na Rodosu u 39. godini zi·ota
10¯4. h.,1663-4. godine. Mezar mu se nalazi u
istom turbetu kao i Sahin Giraj hano·.
Grobnica od mermera je sa s·e cetiri strane
ukrasena moti·ima biljnoga s·ijeta u rozetama.
Nisan na uzgla·lju je opasan turbanom po-
dijeljenim k·adratnom osno·om na ·ise dijelo·a.
Na prednjoj strani se nalazi natpis u de·et redo·a.
O·o turbe je naj·ise stradalo tokom ·remena i na-
lazi se u najlosijem stanju od s·ih objekata kom-
pleksa. Ispred ulaznih ·rata je, prema ostacima
koji ukazuju na to, postojao trijem koji je nestao
u potpunosti i cije su speciFcnosti unistene kasni-
jim inter·encijama. Ali, ako bi se donijela odluka
i ako bi se iz·rsila temeljita restauracija, na pot-
puno strucan nacin bi trebalo iz·rsiti i arheoloska
iskopa·anja i ukloniti naknadne inter·encije.
1akoĀer, tokom naseg istrazi·anja uocili smo da
su prozori uklonjeni i da je na kupoli pres·ucena
íasada. Prema tim pokazateljima trebalo bi na
osno·u ugraĀenog materijala u dijelo·ima gdje
su bili prozori, te materijala koristenog za íasadu
kupole ustano·iti kada su te inter·encije uraĀene,
a tek nakon toga ih ukloniti.
7. Turbe Šah Safi Mi rzi no
( sl . 8)
Sah SaF Mirza je sin Sah lusejina Saíe·ija, de-
·etog i posljednjeg ·ladara Irana iz dinastije Saíe-
·ija.#Kada je Nadir Sah silom preuzeo prijestolje#
Sah SaF Mirza se sklonio u Osmanlijsku drza·u.
Poslan je na Rodos gdje je umro 1169. h.,1¯55-
6. godine. 1urbe izgraĀeno u njego·o ime se
nalazi u sklopu kompleksa Murad Reis-a. O·o
turbe sa osmougaonom osno·om, prekri·eno
´t. ¨. 1vrbe ´abiv i íetbi Cira; íavoro ;1óó²·1.)
170
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
kupolom se nalazi u mezarluku Murad Reis-a.
Nakon po·lacenja Osmanlija sa Rodosa turbe je
koristeno kao depo za ·odu s·e do 1926. godine
kada je ta ·ijest dosla do Marija Lage, upra·itelja
otoka, koji je naredio da se turbe ·rati u ranije
stanje. Unutar turbeta postoji mermerna grob-
nica. Nisan na uzgla·lju ima oba·ijen za·rsetak
u obliku bakla·e. S prednje strane stoji natpis u
talik pismu. Osmougaoni nisan u podnozju ima
na sebi moti·e cempresa. Sa s·e cetiri strane
grobnica je ukrasena geometrijskim Fgurama i
moti·ima biljnog s·ijeta.
8. Česma/Šadrvan Murad
Rei s- a
Odmah pored turbeta# Murad Reis-a stoji
cesma koju je, kako se ·idi iz natpisa, dao sa-
graditi, uz dopustenje sultana Abdulmedzida,
Basmabejindzi lamdi-beg 1262. h.,1845-6.
godine. SagraĀena je od klesanog kamena,
cet·rtastog oblika sa kupolom koja ju pokri·a.
Voda je dolazila iz siljatih luko·a smjesteni na
jednoj strani depoa za ·odu unutar kojeg su
naslikane rozete sa moti·ima biljnoga s·ijeta, te iz
kamenog korita smjestenog u sredistu rozeta. 1a
ogledalca i natpis na ·rhu su izgraĀeni djelimicno
od mermernih le·hi. Korita su danas u potpuno
raspadnutom stanju. Voda tece kroz cesmu
prikopcanu na crije·o koje je pruzeno uokolo.
´t. º. 1vrbe ´ab ´af Mir¸ivo ;1¨::·ó.)
171
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
9. Turbe Havvaš
Sandžarovo ( sl . 9)
Nakon jedne pobune koja je izbila u Anado-
liji#la··as-beg je protjeran na Rodos. Na njego-
·om mezaru stoji zapisano da je umro 1314.
h.,1896-¯. godine. 1urbe ima osmougaonu os-
no·u a sagraĀeno je od klesanog kamena. 1urbe
pokri·eno kupolom je izgubilo s·oju autenticnost
i estetsku ·rijednost nakon inter·encija na njemu
prilikom kojih je koristen betonski materijal. Nad
ulaznim ·ratima, te na s·e cetiri strane grobnice
nalazi se natpis pisan talik pismom.
10. Turbe seraskera
Mehmet Redi f- paše
RoĀen u Bursi 1834. godine Redií-pasa je
odigrao ·eliku ulogu u s·rga·anju sultana Ab-
dulaziza ,1861.-18¯6., sa prijestolja. Ulozio je
·eliki napor i da se sultan Murad, koji je dosao na
prijesto poslije Abdulaziza, udalji sa te pozicije.
Za ·rijeme sultana Abdulhamida posta·ljen je
za Nadzornika rata ,larbiye Naziri, kada je pri-
premao plano·e za tkz·. 93 rat, rat izmeĀu Os-
manlijske drza·e i Carske Rusije. Nakon poraza
u tome ratu smijenjen je sa duznosti i protjeran
na Rodos. Jedno ·rijeme je zi·io u selu Psintos
na otoku, a kasnije je preselio u grad. U selu gdje
je zi·io sagradio je cesmu i grcku skolu. Umro je
1323.h.,1905. godine, a njego·o turbe se nalazi
u sklopu kompleksa Murad Reis-a na sje·ero-
zapadnoj strani blizu mora.
´t. ·. 1vrbe íarra. ´ava¸aroro ;1º·ó·¨.)
172
C
e
n
t
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
e
r
i
p
h
e
r
i
e
s

i
n

O
t
t
o
m
a
n

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
:

r
e
d
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

a

B
a
l
k
a
n

h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
1urbe ima k·adratnu osno·u i pokri·eno je
kupolom. U unutrasnjosti ima jednu grobnicu.
Grobnica izgraĀena od mermera je u ruse·nom
stanju. Na turbetu izgraĀenom od klesanog ka-
mena mozemo primijetiti uticaje zapadnjacke
arhitekture. Na s·akoj strani turbeta se nalazi po
jedan ·eliki prozor sa okruglim rubo·ima.
11. Turbe Mehmed Šeki b-
paše
Mehmed Sekib-pasa, roĀen 1824. godine na
Ka·kazu pripadao je drza·nim uglednicima u
Lgiptu. Pr·o obrazo·anje je stekao u Istanbulu, a
·rlo mlad je otisao ka Lgiptu. Gu·erner Abbas-
pasa ga je smjestio u ·ojnu akademiju u Lgiptu.
Nakon smrti Abbas-pase Sait i Illhami-pasu su
zapodjenuli bitku za gu·ernera a Mehmed Sekib-
pasa je podrzao Ilhami-pasu i isposlo·ao njego·
dolazak za gu·ernera. Kasnijim sporazumom za
gu·ernera dolazi Sait-pasa. Mehmed Sekib-pasa
nije kaznjen zbog podrske Ilhami-pasi, ste·ise
posta·ljen je za Nadzornika rata ,íarbi,e va¸iri,.
Nakon kratkog perioda napustio je tu duznost i
preselio se na Rodos gdje je umro 1909. godine.
Njego·o turbe se nalazi u kompleksu Murad
Reis i ima sestougaonu osno·u u obliku balda-
hina. 1urbe je pokri·eno kupolom koju nosi sest
stubo·a na cijim za·rsecima je siljati s·od. Danas
se nalazi u ruse·nom stanju i prijeti mu potpuni
nestanak. U unutrasnjosti turbeta se nalazi grob-
nica. Mermerna grobnica danas ima samo temelj
bez nisana na uzgla·lju i podnozju.
14. Česma
Cesma se nalazi do ·anjskoga zida tekije
koji gleda prema luci u sklopu kompleksa Mu-
rad Reis-a. Mermerni s·od za·rsa·a sa zidom
tekije, a sagradio ju je 1262.h., 1845-6. godine
Basmabejindzii lamdi-beg. Cesma koja se nalazi
uz ·anjski zid tekije oba·ijena je mermerom na
cetiri strane. Na ·rhu se nalazi natpis, a u donji
dio je siljati mermerni luk u kome se nalazi íara.
Vrho·i cesme smjesteni su u sredistu rozete
mermernog íara.
15. Mezarj e
Istrazi·anja koja su oba·ili strucnjaci Gazi
Uni·erziteta u ok·iru Znanst·eno-istrazi·ackog
projekta ,BAP, 2008. i 2009. godine ut·rdila su
postojanje 256 mezara unutar mezarja ,ba¸ire,
Murad Reis-a. S·aki nisan je dobio in·entarski
broj i prema njemu su raĀena istrazi·anja isto·re-
meno ga smjestajuci u prostornu shemu mezarja.
S·i natpisi na nisanima su desiírirani pri cemu
je ustano·ljeno pismo u kojem je pisan natpis a
potom pre·eden na moderni turski jezik. Prema
natpisima na nisanima uraĀena je tipologija
na osno·u koje je ustano·ljeno da li pripada
muskarcu ili zeni te ima li ili nema sarkoíag.
1akoĀer, osobe koje su pokopane u mezarju
su s·rsta·ane u grupe prema íunkciji koju su
obnasali i poslu kojim su se ba·ili. MeĀu o·im
grupama postoje ·eliki ·eziri, ·eziri, pomorski
nadzornici, pase, ·alije, kajmakami, /a¡tav·i aer,a,
kethüda, pjesnici, knjize·nici, ucenjaci, muítije
i druge pozicije i duznosti. 1okom desiíriranja
natpisa, te koristeci razlicite iz·ore mogli smo
ustano·iti razloge smrti pojedinih stano·nika`
o·og mezarja. 1i podaci dati u tabeli oslika·aju
socio-ekonomske prilike razlicitih perioda ·re-
mena na o·om podrucju. Ukraseni nisani su na
licu mjesta preslika·ani i ·alorizirani sa aspekta
plasticne umjetnosti. Vecina nadgrobnih spo-
menika od 16. do 19. stoljeca je izgraĀena od
bijelog mermera i ·rlo su dragocjeni spomenici
kulture i umjetnosti sa aspekta njiho·e estetske
·rijednosti. O·o zaposta·ljeno i poharano` kul-
turno naslijeĀe zahtje·a hitnu akciju na njego·om
spasa·anju i restauraciji.
173
C
e
n
t
r
i

i

p
e
r
i
f
e
r
i
j
e

u

o
s
m
a
n
s
k
o
j

a
r
h
i
t
e
k
t
u
r
i
:

p
o
n
o
v
o

o
t
k
r
i
v
a
n
j
e

b
a
l
k
a
n
s
k
o
g

n
a
s
l
i
j
e
đ
a
Zakl j učak i pogovor
Kompleks Murad Reis-a sa turbetom,
dzamijom, cesmom, sadr·anom i drugim objek-
tima, te nadgrobnim spomenicima u mezarju ima
speciFcnu ·rijednost sa aspekta s·jetske arhitek-
tonske bastine. 1o je jedna ·rijedna i dragocjena
skupina objekata iz razlicitih perioda Osmanli-
jske drza·e. Kompleks Murad Reis-a cija gradnja
pocinje u pr·oj polo·ini 16. stoljeca je znacajna
i ·elika arhitektonska bastina na otocima u Lge-
jskom moru. lronoloska obrada Kompleksa
data je kako bi se podastrla znanja o po·ijesti i
arhitektonskim karakteristikama s·akog od njih.
Od zi·otne je ·aznosti ocu·anje o·ih objekata
koji iz dana u dan s·e ·ise propadaju. Kompleks
koji je nastajao pet stotina godina danas se nalazi
u stanju u kojem mu je hitno potrebna restau-
racija i obno·a. O·a skupina objekata nije samo
osmanlijska po·ijest, to je, isto·remeno, skup ob-
jekata koji nam os·jetlja·a ostr·o Rodos, njego·u
po·ijest, identitet, kulturu i lokalni karakter. 1o je
zajednicko blago koje bi moglo znacajno doprini-
jeti raz·oju turistickih potencijala otoka Rodos.
ƒ