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
The author discusses early Ottoman urban development strategies through architectural foundations, with special
regard to what appears to be a model common to late medieval Anatolia and the Balkans, and a number of “Ot-
tomanized” cities. This is demonstrated by a comparative study of urban transformation in three early Ottoman
towns – Edirne, Plovdiv, and Skopje – with attention paid to the location and functions of communal mosques
rer.v. tbe 1·.ba¡ea bo.¡ice., a t,¡e .¡ecifc to tbe 11
th
and 15
th
centuries and found in all three cities. For Skopje’s
case he argues that we have before us an example of a “dynasty” of frontier gentry applying the same principles as
.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
osmaniziranim gradovima. Ovo je predstavljeno komparativnom studijom urbanih transformacija na primjeru 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
pokrovitelji u njihovoj uticajnoj sferi.
Grigor Boykov (Sofia)
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)
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
THE MONGOL INVASION of Anatolia in the mid-
13
th
century undermined the centralized author-
ity of the Seljuk sultans, replacing it with that
of 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 Howard Crane or Ethel Sara
Wolper have 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 powerful local
emirs replaced the sultans as principal sponsors
of architecture.
1
Furthermore, the types of
institutions supported changed: the local lords,
rather than building íortiFcations, mosques,
or caravanserais, focused their patronage on
medreses, tombs, and – most notably – dervish
lodges.
2
They sought to transform the hierarchy
of city space and to modify the existing spatial
order through a conscious attempt to shift the
urban core away from the Seljuk centre.
3
The
instrument of this urban transformation was
the patronage of dervish lodges built near city
gates or market areas. They manifested the al-
liance between the local rulers and the itiner-
ant Anatolian dervishes, who had enormous
1 The research for this paper has been made possible
thanks to generous grants by the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation and the Turkish Cultural Foundation.
Crane, loward. Notes on Saldjûq architectural patronage in
thirteenth century Anatolia,` in: Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1 ,1993,, pp. 1-5¯, \olper,
Ethel Sara. Citie. ava .aivt.: ´vf.v ava tbe trav.forvatiov of vrbav .¡ace
in Medieval Anatolia. University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2003.
2 \olper, Lthel Sara. Politics oí patronage: political change and
the construction oí der·ish lodges in Si·as,` in: Muqarnas, Vol. XII
,1995,, pp. 39-4¯.
3 Ibid., pp. 41-3.
innuence o·er the local 1urcoman population
alienated from 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 frontier elite
warriors, who embraced gaza as their leading ide-
ology, the ahi brotherhoods, and the wandering
dervishes, who dominated the spiritual life of
the Turcoman subjects under the leadership of
the house oí Osman. 1he Ottoman rulers, like
the former Seljuk emirs or beys of the surround-
ing principalities, had to Fnd a modus vivendi with
different layers of the border society (including
the local non-Muslim population), while try-
ing to strengthen and legitimize their claim for
lordship.
5
Once the Frst sizable Byzantine cities
íell into the hands oí Osman Gazi`s young son
Orhan,
6
he began commissioning two distinctive
types of buildings that were meant to embody
the symbols of ideology, power, and legitimacy
of the new ruling dynasty. The newly conquered
4 Ibid., pp. 40-1.
5 Inalcik, lalil. Periods in Ottoman history: state, society, economy,`
in: Ottoman civilization. Lds. lalil Inalcik and Günsel Renda. Ankara:
Ministry oí Culture, 2004, pp. 41-59, Kaíadar, Cemal, Between two
worlds: the construction of the Ottoman state. Berkeley: University of
Caliíornia Press, 1995.
6 Inalcik has produced a number oí studies on the long lasting
blockade and subsequent conquest of 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: Belleten, Vol. LXXIII, No. 266 ,2009,,
pp. ¯¯-10¯. See also the works oí Lowry, leath \. Ottoman
Iznik (Nicaea): through the eyes of travelers and as recorded in
administrati·e documents, 1331-1923,` in: í¸vi/ tbrovgbovt bi.tor,,
pp. 135-¯4, and Ottoman Bursa in travel accounts. Bloomington,
Indiana: Uni·ersity oí Indiana: Ottoman & Modern 1urkish Studies
Publications, 2003.
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
urban space was to be Ottomanized` by, on
the one hand, the appearance of a communal
mosque, either a converted church or a new
building, situated at a focal point of the city, and
on the other by a complex centered around a T-
shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviye outside the
walled part of the city.
7

The T-shaped buildings, the form of which
is claimed by some scholars to architecturally
derive from Central Anatolian dervish lodges
8
,
combined in a single structure an elevated prayer
hall in an either vaulted or domed eyvan, a central
space, and two to four side-rooms (tabhanes) pro-
·ided with Fre places.
9
In contemporary sources
they are simultaneously referred to as imaret and
zaviye. As a rule these buildings never stood
alone, but were part of complexes usually includ-
ing a medrese, hamam, soup kitchen, and in many
cases the tomb of the person who commis-
sioned its construction. The exact functions of
these buildings are still debated in the scholarly
literature, but one could safely assert that these
buildings were meant to provide shelter for im-
portant der·ish leaders ,such as Pustinpus Baba
or Geyikli Baba), and to accommodate various
wandering dervishes, important travellers, and
warriors of the faith. Moreover, these complexes
always provided other important social services
such as providing food free of charge to the poor
¯ 1he standard reíerence works on Iznik and Bursa`s architectural
development are Gabriel, Albert. Une capitale turque Brousse-Brusa.
Paris: L. de Boccard, 1958 and Ay·erdi, Lkrem lakki. O.vavti
mimârîsinin ilk devri, 630-805 (1230-1402,. Istanbul: Baha Matbaasi,
1966, pp. 48-119 and pp. 158-83 on Iznik. See also Otto-Dorn,
Katharina. Das islamische Iznik. Berlin: Dt. Archäolog. Inst., 1941,
Aslanapa, Oktay. 1urkish Architecture at Iznik,` in: í¸vi/ tbrovgbovt
history, pp. 223-234, Alioglu, lüsun. Lrken Osmanli doneminde
Iznik kentinin Fziksel gelisimi,` in: Essays in honour of Aptullah Kuran,
Lds. (igdem Kaíesçioglu and Lucienne 1hys-Senocak. Istanbul:
\api Kredi \ayinlari, 1999, pp. 83-101.
8 Emir, Sedat. ír/ev O.vavti vivartigivaa ço/·i,terti ,a¡itar: /evt.et
/otovi¸a.,ov ,a¡itari otara/ ¸ãri,eter, 2 vols. Izmir: Akademi Kitabevi,
1994, Kuban, Dogan. O.vavti vivari.i. Istanbul: \em \ayin, 200¯,
pp. 75-122.
9 In the classical` work oí Kuran, these buildings are reíerred to as
eyvan mosques`. Cí. Kuran, Aptullah. The mosque in early Ottoman
architecture. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,
1968, pp. ¯1-135. Sema·i Lyice introduced the term zaviyeli cami`
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 East
1echnical Uni·ersity, Ankara, 2006.
subjects or travellers, and supported religious
schools which had provided the links to the ulema.
The T-shaped imaret/zaviyes were, as a rule, built
on empty land outside the conFnes oí the medi-
eval city, without any other system or regularity
in planning Making use of 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 of T-shaped buildings and
their magniFcence induced some art historians to
reíer to them as Bursa type mosques`.
10
Being a major focus of royal patronage the
T-shaped imaret/zaviyes became a key mechanism
used by the Ottomans to encourage and íacili-
tate the growth of 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 T-shaped imaret/
zaviyes and their complexes were most probably
meant to ser·e as a digniFed pre·iew oí the city
for those coming in. Therefore they were in most
cases lavishly decorated and imposing structures.
Lxpending ·ast resources, the Ottoman rulers
constructed a clear message demonstrating the
change and highlighting the leadership of their
dynasty.
11
By examining the urban transformation of
important Byzantine cities such as Bursa and
Iznik, one could clearly distinguish a strategy oí
redesigning urban space repeatedly followed by
the sultans and their dignitaries. A new Muslim
core emerged at a focal point where a big sultanic
mosque was instituted. Simultaneously, or soon
10 A comprehensive overview of sultanic complexes in Bursa is found
in Gabriel, Une capitale turque, pp. 43-129, Goodwin, Godírey. A
history of the Ottoman architecture. London: 1hames & ludson, 2003
2
,
pp. 34-92
11 Crane, loward. 1he Ottoman Sultan`s mosques: icons oí imperial
legitimacy,` in: The Ottoman city and its parts: urban structure and social
order. Eds. 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: Turkish Studies Association Bulletin, Vol. XX, No. 1, pp. 40-55;
Kuran, Aptullah. A spatial study oí three Ottoman capitals: Bursa,
Ldirne, and Istanbul` in: Muqarnas, Vol. XIII ,1996,, pp. 114-131,
Kaíesçioglu, (igdem. Constantinopolis/Istanbul: cultural encounters,
imperial vision, and the construction of the Ottoman capital. University Park:
Pennsyl·ania State Uni·ersity Press, 2009, pp. 129-31.
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
after, commercial buildings such as bedestens, aras-
tas, or hans surrounded the mosque, and in the
so-formed commercial area several smaller single
domed communal mosques appeared too. As al-
ready pointed out, depending on the importance
and magnitude of the city, one or more T-shaped
imaret/zaviye complexes were placed in suburbs at
these cities’ entrances. A very similar pattern of
urban transformation, the product of the fron-
tier milieu oí Orhan`s state, was transíerred to
the Balkans íollowing the Ottoman ad·ance into
the region. Furthermore, the semi-independent
dynasties of Balkan raider commanders (a/ivci
ucbeyis,, who made their li·ing on the Ottoman
marches, employed the same pattern when they
needed to transform the conquered cities of
their own domains or established new towns.
12

In this short coníerence paper I will brieny
examine the urban transformation of three
major Byzantine centres in the Balkans, looking
for similarities in their development: 1) Edirne,
the second Ottoman capital, 2, Plo·di·, the me-
tropolis of Upper Thrace – like Edirne situated
on the medieval Balkan highway known as the
Via Militaris, and 3, Skopje, the principal city oí
western Macedonia, dominated by the mighty
dynasty oí the Ishakogullari.
12 The dynasty of Gazi Evrenos Bey and its decisive role in the
development of several important cities on the Via Egnatia was
recently studied in a series of publications by Lowry, Heath W.
The shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350-1550: the conquest, settlement
& infrastructural development of Northern Greece. Istanbul: Bahçesehir
Uni·ersity Press, 2008, Lowry, leath \. and Ismail Lrünsal.
The Evrenos dynasty of Yenice Vardar: notes & documents. 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.
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
Edi rne ( Adri anopl e)
We know very little about the changes that
took place in Adrianople (Edirne) immediately
aíter Murad I took possession oí it in 1361.
13

Moreover, all the buildings he commissioned had
an unfortunate fate and did not make it to the
present day. We could assert however, that like
his father, Murad converted a church located in
the walled part of the city into the mosque of
Aya Sofya, thus displaying the victory of Islam
and providing the Muslim community with a
Friday mosque. Promulgating Edirne as capital,
Murad ordered the construction of a royal palace
13 Inalcik, lalil. 1he conquest oí Ldirne ,1361,,` in: Archivum
Ottomanicum, 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
Turcs: la pénétration turque en Thrace et la valeur des chroniques
ottomanes,` in: Travaux et Mémoires, Vol. I ,1965,, pp. 439-61,
Zachariadou, Llizabeth. 1he conquest oí Adrianople by the
1urks,` in: Studi Veneziani, Vol. XXII ,19¯0,, pp. 211-¯.
and a number of service buildings, which in fact
must ha·e been the Frst Ottoman buildings out-
side the walls of the old Byzantine Adrianople.
Unfortunately neither the converted Aya Sofya,
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
The expansion of the city con-
tinued under Murad’s successor Bayezid I who,
in a Bursa manner,` placed a 1-shaped imaret/
zaviye a considerable distance from the city’s
walls, stretching the Ottoman presence beyond
14 The converted Byzantine church of Hagia Sophia stood in the walled
part of Edirne until the early 20
th
c. Recent study on this building
and a reprint of 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,. Thessaloniki:
European Center for 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. Ed.
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.
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
city’s natural border – the Tunca River.
16
Sultan
Bayezid`s Ldirne ediFce ,ill. 2, certainly lacked
the grandeur of his Bursa complex, built a few
years earlier, but he set an important trend. In
the íollowing 30 to 40 years íour more 1-shaped
imaret/zaviye -centred complexes commissioned
by Gazi Mihal,
17
the beylerbeyi \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: Belleten, Vol.
XXVIII, No. 111 ,1964,, pp. 419-38, Kuran, The mosque, pp. 105-9.
Ayverdi. O.vavti vivãri.iviv it/ aerri, pp. 484-94, Aslanapa, Oktay.
íairveae o.vavti aerri ãbiaeteri. Istanbul: Uçler Basime·i, 1949, pp. 2-6.
17 Ay·erdi, Lkrem lakki. O.vavti vivãri.ivae Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa
devri, 806-855 (1403-1451). Istanbul: Istanbul letih Cemiyeti, 1989
2
,
pp. 386-93, Kuran, The mosque, pp. 86-¯.
18 Ayverdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 3¯¯-81, Kuran, The mosque,
pp. 89-90.
19 Kazancigil, Ratip. Edirne imaretleri. Istanbul: 1ürk Kütüphaneciler
Dernegi \ayinlari, 1991, pp. 45-9, Ay·erdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa
devri, pp. 39¯-400, Kuran, The mosque, pp. 126-¯.
20 Un·er, Suheyl. Ldirne Me·le·ihanesi tarihine giris` in: Edirne:
.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
Murad devri, pp. 405-415; Kuran, The mosque, pp. 124-5.
3. Gazi Mina| inarc|/zatiqc (1422), pnc|c oq |nc au|ncr.
importance of the city appealed for the construc-
tion of 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 development
the commercial core of Edirne shifted to a new
location outside the walled city.
21
The multi-
domed Eski Cami soon became too small for the
rapidly expanding population of the central area.
Two decades later Murad II commissioned a new
imperial mosque in the central part of town, the
Uç Sereíeli mosque, which not only ele·ated
Edirne’s magnitude, but also revolutionized the
design and construction techniques of the great
(ulu, mosques oí the Ottomans.
22
Ldirne`s Ottomanization` greatly reminds
one of the transformation of Bursa. A new ur-
ban core emerged around an imperial mosque
while a number of T-shaped imaret/zaviyes
21 Ayverdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 150-162, Kuran, The
mosque, pp. 154-158.
22 Ayverdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 422-62, Goodwin, Ottoman
architecture, pp. 9¯-102
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
patronized by the rulers or their dignitaries sur-
rounded the city. The transfer of the symbols of
Ottoman legitimacy onto Balkan soil, along with
the components oí the border society,` remod-
elled Edirne in such a way that it truly deserved
the label serhattaki payitaht` or capital at the
írontier,` used as a title oí a ·olume dedicated to
city’s history.
23
The Balkan lords of the marches,
who in most cases were the driving force 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`
dervishes sought alliance with, and protection of,
the powerful raider commanders, who in many
instances commissioned for them T-shaped ima-
23 Isli and Koz. íairve: .erbatta/i ¡a,itabt.
ret/zaviyes. Looking for examples one could point
to the buildings oí the Mihalogullari in Ldirne
and Ihtiman, L·renos Bey`s imarets along the Via
Egnatia, Ishak Bey`s and his son Isa`s ediFces in
Skopje, or a number of vanished buildings com-
missioned by other famous families. Sultans, on
the other hand, offered their patronized com-
plexes to dervish orders of their choice. The
Muradiye in Edirne, which served for many years
as a mevlevihane, provides an excellent example in
this respect.
4. 8cq|crocqi (Sinancddin Yusuf Pa¸a) inarc|/zatiqc (1428-9),
pnc|c oq |nc au|ncr.
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
Pl ovdi v ( Fi l i be)
The post-conquest years of our second case,
the city of Philipopolis (Filibe), are even 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 believe that for more
than halí a century the Ottomans did not lea·e
their imprint on an important Byzantine city like
Plovdiv, which was the Rumelian beylerbeyi’s place
of residence too. I would like to put forward a
hypothesis as speculative 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
hamam in Filibe used by Süleyman for his feasts.
27

Undoubtedly the bath did not stand alone, but
must have been a part of 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 of Plovdiv
was not much different. There is a good chance
24 Notes on Plo·di·`s post-conquest period in Kiel, Machiel. Urban
development in Bulgaria in the Turkish period: the place of Turkish
architecture in the process,` in: International Journal of Turkish Studies,
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: Balkanski identichnosti, Vol. III. Eds.
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 of the mosque in a future study.
26 The proceedings of the conference devoted to Muradiye mosque
in Plovdiv, held in 2008 after the restoration of the mosque was
completed, were recently published in a limited number by the
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The volume Filibe (Plovdiv)
Cvva Cavii Kovferav.i ßiairiteri,íitibe ;Ptorair) Cvva Mo.qve Covferevce
Papers, 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: Izvestia na balgarskia
arheologicheski institut/Bulletin of Bulgarian Archeological Institute, Vol.
VIII ,1934,, pp. 388-90.
27 1he destructi·e actions oí the Ottoman princes Musa and Süleyman.
who sacked Filibe several times, are best described by Konstantin
Kostenecki. íebev.be.cbreibvvg ae. De.¡otev ´tefav ía¸areric. Tr. and ed.
Maximilian Braun. \iesbaden: Otto larrassowitz, 1956, pp. 39-40,
Kastritsis, Dimitris, The sons of Bayezid: empire building and representation
in the Ottoman civil war of 1402-13. 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.
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
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
T-shaped imaret/zaviye complex, part of which
was the bath mentioned by Constantine the
Philosopher. It is diíFcult to pinpoint the exact
location of the complex, but the logical guess, as
also implied by the text of Constantine, would be
below the walls oí the íortiFed citadel. lurther-
more, because of the destructive warfare of the
Ottoman princes, the buildings might ha·e been
damaged and later disappeared, which is another
hint pointing to their extramural location.
The large building activity undertaken by Mu-
rad II and the beylerbeyi 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 focal point
of the new commercial area, while a T-shaped
building patronized by Sihabeddin ,ill. 8, stretched
city’s boundaries to the bridge over the Maritsa
(Meriç) River.
28
Placed purposefully on the spot
28 The bridge over Meriç/Maritsa is believed to have been built by Lala
Sahin Pasa shortly aíter the conquest. A short note in Nesri howe·er
makes this assumption questionable. According to the narrative, 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. Cf. Mehmed
Nesri. Kitãb·i Cibav·vvva. Vol. I. Lds. laik Resit Unat and Mehmed
Koymen. Ankara: 1ürk 1arih Kurumu, 1949, p. 259.
where a traveller who follows the Via Militaris
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, medrese, soup kitchen, and the mausoleum
of its patron.
29
He also built a massive bath in the
central part, the so-called 1ahtakale lamami ,ill.
9,, which apparently was meant to ser·e the con-
gregation of the Muradiye.
30
A large caravanserai,
bedesten, and a number of single-domed mosques
which soon appeared in the central commercial
area, gave Plovdiv a more complete look, greatly
resembling, but at a smaller scale, the central areas
of Edirne and Bursa.
29 Ayverdi. Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 4¯9-485, Rudloí. Grad
Plo·di·,` pp. 390-393.
30 The bath locally known as 1abta/ate ;tabtv`t·/a`tã) bavavi was
destroyed in the early 20
th
century, which deprives us of the
possibility to Fnd out its sponsor and date oí construction. An
accounting book (muhasebe defteri, oí Sihabeddin Pasa`s lilibe waqf,
dating írom A. l. 1042-3,1632-3 ,BOA 11 6513, í. 20, re·eals
that the hamam was supported by the waqf and in the course of the
year some repair work was done. This fact convincingly points to
Sihabeddin Pasa as the person who built the hamam. Since it was
apparently meant to serve the congregation of the nearby Muradiye,
it is highly likely that the bath was built simultaneously with the
mosque, or shortly aíterwards, thus in the 1430s.
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
Skopj e ( Üsküb)
1he modiFcation oí our last example, oí Byz-
antino-Sla·ic Skopje becoming Ottoman Usküb,
resembles even more greatly the transformation
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 developed later on. Unfortunately none of
the buildings that Pasa \igit erected below the
fortress stands today, but their exact location
and certain details are well known. The com-
plex consisted of several buildings which stood
until 1943 when the Allied bombing of Skopje
levelled most of them. The lonely minaret and
the mausoleum of the patron survived for an-
other twenty years until the earthquake oí 1963
31 Gjorgiev, Dragi. Skopje od turskoto osvojuvanje do krajot na XVIII vek.
Skopje: Institut za nacionalna istorija, 199¯, pp. 18-9, Bojanic-Lukac,
Dusanka. Kako turcite so prezele Skopje ,1393,` in: Zbornik na
Muzej na grad Skopje, 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.
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
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.
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
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,
however, can offer an idea concerning what has
remained from these buildings. The so-called
mosque oí Pasa \igit Bey, which on an early
twentieth-century postcard (ill. 11) appears as a
square building with a tile roof, was also locally
known as Meddah Baba Camii. Meddah Baba,
whose tombstone is still extant, seems to have
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 of the city,
which makes the patron’s dedication of his buil-
dings to the dervish plausible.
33
The fact that Ev-
liya (elebi reíers to it as a zaviye, in addition to the
presence of a holy spring in its courtyard, leaves
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. Turski spomenici u Skoplju. 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.
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
the patron, and most likely also a soup kitchen
and a bath in its close vicinity.
35
The exploding population growth of Skopje,
just as in Bursa, ·ery soon turned Pasa \igit`s
T-shaped complex into a focal point of a new
commercial neighbourhood which grew around
it.
36
lis descendents Ishak Bey and Isa Bey added
their own T-shaped imaret/zaviyes that pushed the
city’s dimensions further to the northeast (ills.
35 Bogoje·ic, Lidija. Les turbés de Skopje,` in: Atti del secondo congresso
intenazionale di arte turca. Napoli: Istituto Uni·ersitario Orientale
Seminario di 1urcologia, 1965, pp. 31-9, cit. p 36-¯, Kumbaraci-
Bogoyeviç, |./v¡`te O.vavti vivari, p. 1¯2, Ozer. |./v¡`te 1vr/
mimarisi, pp. 220-221, Llezo·ic, Turski spomenici u Skoplju, pp. 6-¯.
36 Gjorgiev, Skopje, pp. 3¯-59.
\igit was actually built as a der·ish con·ent.
34

Analogies deri·ed írom other Ottoman cities
that saw similar transformation strongly sug-
gest that Pasa \igit`s complex was built around
a multifunctional T-shaped structure which saw
signiFcant remodelling in later times, maybe as
a result of the Habsburg assault on the city. The
complex also had a medrese, the mausoleum of
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. Eds. 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.
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
12-13,.

The large imperial communal mosque,
which Skopje needed, was built by Murad II only
a few years after he completed a similar structure
in Filibe.
38
The city of Skopje, during the period in ques-
tion, was entirely dominated by the members of
one dynasty of raider commanders, the mighty
Ishakogullari íamily, but the city`s remodelling
and further development imitated at a smaller
scale processes in Bursa or Edirne, which were
patronized by the ruling Ottoman dynasty. Just as
the Frst Ottoman rulers used the 1-shaped ima-
ret/zaviyes as key mechanisms to encourage the
growth of urban settlement, the ucbeyis who at-
3¯ Kumbaraci-Bogoye·iç, |./v¡`te O.vavti, pp. 61-¯5, 90-101, Ozer.
|./v¡`te 1vr/, pp. 51-¯, 62-9.
38 Ayverdi, Çetebi re íí. .vttav Mvraa aerri, pp. 564-569, Kumbaraci-
Bogoyeviç, |./v¡`te O.vavti, pp. 44-52, Ozer. |./v¡`te 1vr/, pp.
44-50.
tracted the periphery forces of the time adopted
the style oí the Frst sultans and employed it in
the cities under their control. Moreover, the per-
ception of 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 of a multifunctional
T-shaped building in the suburbs, comprised
the very foundation of a marcher lord’s concept
for establishing new towns. In this respect the
modern city of Sarajevo, created from scratch
by Ishakoglu Isa Bey, might be another excellent
example.
ƒ

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful