Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans

1-5 November 2006, Bucharest, Romania (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2010), 69-85.

BALKAN CITY OR OTTOMAN CITY?:

A STUDY ON THE MODELS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN
OTTOMAN UPPER THRACE, FROM THE FIFTEENTH TO THE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
Grigor Boykov

In the course of the past century number of historians studied the development
of towns and cities all over the Balkans during the Ottoman period. In general,
in their great majority, these otherwise important works, failed to provide a
comprehensive and realistic answer to the question of - how the urban centers
in the Balkans looked like at the time of the Sultans and more specifically was it
there an unifying model of a city that could be labeled either Balkan or Ottoman
city. Most works followed two main historiographic trends, roughly describing
the cities in the Balkans either as pure products of Turco-Islamic urban
tradition, brought to the Balkans from Anatolia, or stressed on the strong
continuation of the medieval Byzantino-Slavic urban model, which was slightly
modified by Turks and received an Islamic appearance.

The major deficiency of the above mentioned works is the fact that main
arguments and large generalizations have been usually produced on the basis of
scattered, insufficient and in some cases even unsuitable archival materials.
Studying the urban development of a given Balkan area A, scholars often
concluded that the same processes must have had taken place in a given area B,
or furthermore all over the Balkan Peninsula. Needless to say, such approach
could only provide a theoretical framework, which does not need to be explicit
or even correct. Evidently, our better understanding of Balkan urbanism in the
Ottoman era requires much more profound and detailed approach, which
should be materialized only through a great number of time- and labor
consuming local studies of the colorful Balkan localities.


Ph. D. candidate, Department of History, Bilkent University.

69
Doubtlessly, this is not an unknown idea and the numerous pioneering
informative works of Machiel Kiel, dealing with various localities in the Balkans
deserve an explicit mention here.1 Almost 20 years ago Professor Kiel devoted
an enormous in length article, recently published also in Turkish, to the variety
of models of urban development in the territory of present-day Bulgaria2.
Following framework offered in Prof. Kiel’s article, this short conference paper
will test it in smaller in size territory with a special attention to the demography
of four sizable settlements in the area of Upper Thrace in the period of late
fifteenth – early seventeenth centuries. Evidence derived from Ottoman archival
sources, on which the paper is primarily based, will stress once again on the
importance of local studies and will attempt to illustrate the imperfection of
large generalizations when examined on a micro level.

Situated in the heart of modern Bulgaria laying no more than 50-60 km by one
another, the cities of Filibe (Plovdiv), Eski Zağra (Stara Zagora), Tatar Bazarı
(Pazardjik) and İstanimaka (Asenovgrad) represent a sound example of
settlements that followed different patterns in their urban development, despite
being situated in a relatively small and homogeneous geographic area. However,
to discuss the continuity or discontinuity in their development after the
Ottomans took the area under control, we need to take a brief look on region’s
pre-conquest political history and cities’ geographic location.

All three cities, with the single exception of İstanimaka (Byz. Stenimachos), are
situated in the vast fertile Thracian plane, laying on important routes known
since the Antiquity. These favorable at a first glance conditions, however, seem
to have been often hostile to their prosperity. In the course of the two centuries
preceding the Ottoman conquest Upper Thrace became a military border zone
where the actions, apart of being very destructive, were often accompanied by
population deportations by one side or another. The instability in the province
continued even after the Ottomans managed to establish control over Thrace.

1 Machiel Kiel published about 200 articles devoted to various Balkan areas, most of which are well
known to the historians of the Ottoman Empire. His works related to the territory of modern
Bulgaria have been recently collected and published in a single volume in Bulgarian. See Machiel
Kiel. Hora i selishta v Bulgaria prez osmanskia period. Subrani suchinenia (Sofia: Amicitia,
2005).
2 Machiel Kiel. “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: The Place of the Turkish
Architecture in the Process.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4:2 (1989): 79-129 and its
Turkish translation Machiel Kiel. Bulgaristan’da Osmanlı Dönemi Kentsel Gelişimi ve Mimari
Anıtlar, İlknur Kolay, tr. (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2000).

70
The numerous campaigns against the remains of Bulgarian kingdoms and
further to the west against Serbia, followed by the Ottoman civil war in the
Interregnum period presuppose difficult times for the inhabitants of Upper
Thrace. It was only after the first decades of the fifteenth century when a long
peaceful period and stability was finally established in Thrace.

Putting together the evidence for two-century long destructive military

campaigns in the area and consequences of the Black Death in the fourteenth
century, which affected mainly the settlements in the plains, one could suppose
that the Ottomans found the region almost depopulated. It is highly likely that
most of the settlements in the flat plain were either destroyed or affected so
badly that they were abandoned by the inhabitants during the centuries of
constant wars. The Ottoman documentation of the fifteenth century shows that
most of the surviving settlements from the pre-Ottoman period in Thrace are
those situated at the foot of the mountains.

Turning our attention to Filibe, it could be defined as an example of our first

type model of urban development in Ottoman Thrace, i.e. a city from the pre-
Ottoman period, which as a consequence of a colonization, policy of the state,
was transformed into a Muslim urban center designed in accordance with the
Islamic tradition. However, it preserved a Christian minority which played an
important role in the demographic processes there.

Filibe (Philippupolis) surrendered without a fight to the Ottoman commander

Lala Şahin Pasha, who in accordance with the istimalet policy allowed local
Christians to preserve their properties, remaining to live in the neighborhoods
that they had occupied prior to the conquest, even within the city stronghold3.
The first Muslim colonists must have appeared immediately after the conquest,
but the big migratory wave began in the beginning of fifteenth century and
continued with diverse dynamics until the first years of the sixteenth century.
Numerous references in the Ottoman narratives speak about occasions of
forceful population transfers from Asia Minor to the area of Filibe, which
without underestimating the numbers of voluntary migrants, assigns an
important role to the central authority.4 Moreover, a look at the various public

3 There is a rich literature on Ottoman conquest of Thrace. See Halil İnalcık’s most recent
contribution for details and bibliography. Halil İnalcık. “Murad I” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm
Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul, 2006), pp. 156-164.
4 There are several occasions of deportation of Anatolian population to Filibe area mentioned in the

71
buildings in Filibe, shows that their sponsors were very often either high
ranking Ottoman officials (like the complex of Şihabeddin Pasha, who was at
that time the beylerbeyi of Rumeli) or the Sultan himself (Murad II sponsored
the main Friday mosque – Muradiye, or Cumaya Mosque).

The data from the Ottoman taxation and population registers (tapu tahrirs)
shows that in the second half of the fifteenth century Muslims have already
become the majority of city’s population.5 The rapid expansion of Muslim
population was interrupted by the successful military campaigns of Süleymanic
age and a large number of Filibe’s Muslim inhabitants has been transferred to
the west, some to be found in the Ottoman records as far as Buda6. This could
explain the sudden unusual sharp decrease of Muslim population in the 1520s
and 1530s, when a further growth should be expected. In the second half of
sixteenth century Muslims recovered in numbers just to drop again in the
beginning of the following, a possible indication for a start of the so-called
seventeenth century crisis.7

Unlike the Muslims, Christian population suffered only minor fluctuations in

the period of study, slowly growing in numbers until the late sixteenth and early
seventeenth century when a big migratory wave, coming from the overpopulated
Christian mountainous rural environment, rushed towards the cities of Upper
Thrace, shaping the local demographic features of the seventeenth century8.
Other nationalities living in Filibe, such as Jews and Gypsies, followed in
general Christians’ trend. In 1610, as if to contribute to the cosmopolitan and
multicultural appearance of Filibe, a group of Armenian migrants settled in the
city, whose decedents still live in present-day Plovdiv.

Filibe represents a model in which continuity went alongside modification,

producing an interesting mixture in which the discontinuity clearly prevailed,

Ottoman narratives. Sultan Bayzid I deported a nomadic group from Saruhan to the plain of
Filibe, establishing there the town of Saruhanbeyli (modern Septemvri). On another occasion
following the orders of Sultan Mehmed I Minnet Bey and his people were transferred to Konuş
Hisarı – a village to the south-east of Plovdiv. Aşıkpaşazade Tarihi. Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. Ali Bey
(haz.), (İstanbul: Matba’a-i Amire, 1332/1916), pp. 74, 90; Friedrich Giese. Die Altosmanishe
Chronik des ‘šıkpašazâde (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929), pp. 67, 80-81.
5 See Table 1

6 See Gyula Kaldy-Nagy. Kanuni Devri Budin Tahrir Defteri (1546-1562) (Ankara: Ankara

Üniversitesi, 1971), pp. 11.

7 See Figure 1.

8 See Figure 2.

72
but also the inherited local elements should be taken into serious consideration.
The Ottoman state represented either by the central government or the local
authorities had a significant output in the process of shaping the city’s natural
demographic development.

The second city of our interest – Eski Zağra (Zagra-i Eski Hisar), is an example
of dramatic discontinuity, i.e. a city which existed in the Byzantino-Bulgarian
period, but which after the conquest was recreated, repopulated and had
exclusively Muslim population. We first find Eski Zağra in the register of 1516
when the entire city population was Muslim, having no single Christian
recorded to be living in the city9. Semi-legendary information, claimed to be
originating from the earliest city sicil records, which unfortunately have burned
in a fire in the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish war, might reveal a possible
explanation that stayed behind such a development10. According to the record,
similarly to Filibe, the city of Zagra surrendered to Lala Şahin Paşa during the
same campaign and accordingly the population was granted the privilege to
retain its properties and remained to live intact in the city. However, in the
years following Sultan Bayezid’s Ankara battle there was a major disturbance in
the area and the entire Christian population revolted against the Sultan. The
rebellion was suppressed and all Christians living in Eski Zağra have been
deported to Asia Minor in exchange of Anatolian population, which later
occupied their place11.

Certainly the reliability of this account is questionable, but the fact that
something might have happened with the Christian population around the time
of Şeyh Bedreddin’s revolt, could be correct. A look at the data from the register
suggests that not only the entire city population was Muslim, but also it clearly
speaks of Anatolian demographic model. Nearly half of the adult male

9 See Table 2.
10 Bulgarian historian Petar Nikov relates this story in otherwise excellent academic article published
in 1928. According to Nikov’s findings after the 1877-1878 the secretary of the last Ottoman kadı
in Eski Zağra, certain Halil Efendi, a man interested in history was asked to recall some passages
from the early sicils that he claimed to remember very well. His words were also confirmed by
Eminoğlu Şevket Bey, another local who had also read some of the court records. The testimonies
of these two men were recorded and partially published in Georgi Kabakoev. Statisticheski
kalendar na Starozagorskia deparatment za 1882 gonina. Nareden or Starozagorskata
prefektura (Sofia: 1882). See Petar Nikov. “Turskoto zavladiavane na Bulgaria i sudbata na
poslednite Shishmanovtzi.” (Turkish Conquest of Bulgaria and the Fate of the Last Shishmanids)
Izvestia na Bulgarskoto Istorichesko Drujestvo 7-8 (1928): 52.
11 Nikov, “Turskoto zavladiavane na Bulgaria”, 53.

73
population in 1516 was unmarried – a feature more common for the Anatolian
provinces of the Ottoman Empire at that time. Compared with the data
concerning the town of Tatar Bazarı, a Muslim community that settled in
Rumelia more than a century ago, the difference seems to be apparent – 18% of
unmarried young men in 1516 and only 9% in 1530.12

Similarly to the development of Filibe, Eski Zağra’s Muslim population suffered

a small drop in the 1530s, possibly due to a migration towards the West13. In the
40-year period until the following registration, Muslim community recovered
quickly, acquiring a significant growth which continued in the next years. The
early years of seventeenth century show indications of a starting crisis in which
the city lost a significant portion of its Muslim population.

Christians coming from the nearby rural environment are first to appear in the
city in the 1570 registration. In accordance with the process running in all other
urban centers of Upper Thrace, Christians had a rather rapid increase and
doubled in numbers for a period of 25 years, a trend which obviously continued
in the following years, when the Christian population of Eski Zağra doubled in
numbers once again for even shorter period.14

Our second example of urban development in Upper Thrace shows that the
central authority might have played even more crucial role than it was in Filibe.
As a result of state activity, Eski Zağra could be seen as a model of extreme
discontinuity, having exclusively Muslim population until the second half of the
sixteenth century when local Christians settled for the first time in the city.

From the model of change let us now turn our attention to İstanimaka, a
settlement which remained largely unaffected by the colonizing policy of the
Ottomans, representing a sound example of continuity of urban life after the
Ottoman conquest. Throughout the Ottoman period İstanimaka retained its
exclusively Christian appearance, having small, almost invisible Muslim
minority. Partially, this development is due to the fact that during the period of
continuous wars in Thrace, because of its safer geographic location at the foot of
the mountain, the town was less affected by the destruction and even attracted
migrants from the nearby lowlands. The nearby Bachkovo monastery, the

12 See Figure 3.
13 See Figure 4.
14 See Figure 5.

74
second biggest in Bulgaria, a large and important centre at that time, along with
a chain of dozen smaller monasteries surrounding the town, contributed greatly
to its attractive appearance.

When the Ottomans established their authority in the region, unlike many other
settlements in the open plain, they must have had found İstanimaka relatively
prosperous and populated. There was no empty space in the town, there was no
plenty of abandoned land to be cultivated, in other words there was no room for
Muslim colonizers – logically they have never appeared. The data from the
Ottoman surveys shows it convincingly15. The large Christian majority seem to
have been growing rapidly, especially after 1530s when the town, along with
many other settlements in the area, was attached to the pious foundation of
Süleymaniye complex in Istanbul16. The status of vakf reayası was found
attractive to many locals and in a course of less than a century due to natural
output of the city population and the arrival of new settlers, the Christian
population of İstanimaka doubled in numbers17. Meanwhile the tiny Muslim
minority, with the exception of some minor fluctuations, remained quite stable,
overwhelmed by the Christians who dominated the urban space, shaped city’s
appearance and predetermined the demographic processes.

The model of continuity of urban life which could be seen in the case of
İstanimaka shows that despite, being situated between two urban centers that
have been largely recreated and repopulated by the Ottoman administration,
some settlements remained unaffected by the process of colonization of
Anatolian Turkish population in the area. Furthermore, retaining its almost
exclusively Christian character the small town’s appearance was never shaped
by the Islamic architecture and its look differed considerably from the nearby
Filibe or Eski Zağra.

Our last example, presented in this paper is a city which emerged in a place
where no mediaeval Byzantine or Bulgarian settlement existed, i.e. a town
originally created and promoted by the Ottomans – the city of Tatar Bazarı, later
on known as Tatar Pazarcık. Pazarcık was established in the late fourteenth

15 See Table 3.
16 The vakfiye is published by Kemâl Edip Kürkçüoğlu, Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi, (Ankara: Resimli
Posta Matbaası, 1962), 65-67, with many mistakes in the transliteration of local toponomy, but
provided with a very good, readable facsimile.
17 See Figure 6.

75
century by a group of Crimean Tatars led by one of Tokatmış Han’s
commanders in chief - Aktav, who at that time admitted to serve Sultan Bayazid
and transferred along with his people to Rumelia18.

The small provincial, military base-like settlement, developed rapidly, soon

acquiring distinct features of a kasaba until the 1530s when it was already
promoted to a kaza center. However, the rapid emergence of Tatar Bazarı, was
not due to centralized support of the Ottoman government, it rather attracted
the attention of the mighty military leaders of the day – the akıncı beyis and
their descendents. Everenosoğlu Ahmed Bey has built an imaret in the city,
while the famous Malkoçoğlu Bali sponsored the zaviye of Pirzade in Pazarcık’s
vicinities. To this list it might be added Ishak Çelebi from Üsküb, who erected a
mosque. The influence of nearby İhtiman, dominated by Mihaloğulları family
should not be underestimated too. The only known public building sponsored
by Ottoman state official in Tatar Bazarı was the enormous caravanserai built in
1596 by the Grand Vezier İbrahim Pasha. It functioned until the early twentieth
century, when it was neglected. A model of the now extinct building could be
seen in the local museum.

This semi-military, rather Heterodox appearance of Tatar Bazarı, continued

until the 1530s, when in accordance with the general trend of the then
Ottoman policy, the famous Halveti Sheyh Muslihüddin Nureddinzade arrived
from Sofia to Pazarcık to encourage the Sunni Muslims and fight against the
Heterodoxy in the region. In deed the 1530 register is the last one to mention
the zaviye of Pirzade.

Naturally, the population figures show a large Muslim majority living in the city in
the period of our interest.19 The emerging settlement was attracting local
Christians, who appeared in the records, just to disappear in the following ones.20
Firmly settled Christian community is to be found for the first time in 1570, which

18 On the foundation of Tatar Bazarı see my conference paper Grigor Boykov, “Who Established the
Town of Tatar Pazarcık in Middle Upper Thrace?” in Meral Bayrak et al. (eds.), Uluslararası
Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005.
Bildiriler Kitabı (Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 2005), pp. 253-259. Its extended version is
forthcoming in Bulgarian – same author “Suzdavaneto na Tatar Bazarı (Pazardjik) prez 1398 g. –
hipotezi, sporove, zakluchenia”.
19 See Table 4.

20 For example the register of 1516 has only one Christian registered in the Muslim neighborhood,

the following record of 1525 has a group of 13 Christian households, which disappear in the 1530
registration.

76
grew rapidly, doubling in numbers until every following registration21. Muslims,
on the other hand, in accordance with the trend in the area, had a stable constant
growth, with the exception of 1530 when likewise there was a small decrease22.
Contrary to the processes taking place in Filibe and especially in Eski Zağra in the
beginning of 17th century, when a sharp decrease of Muslim population could be
observed, Tatar Bazarı’s Muslims had significant, certainly not only natural
growth. No doubt, this rapid development should be attributed to the strategically
important location of the city and especially to the erection of İbrahim Pasha’s
caravanserai, which revived the trade and economy of the city, attracting quickly
new settlers – probably even from Filibe and Eski Zağra.

Evidently, the examples offered by this short paper are far from being all-
inclusive, its aim is rather simpler – to stress on the differences in the urban
development and demographic features of several settlements, situated in the
same geographic area, under the same climatic conditions. The diverse
processes that a researcher could observe in every particular locality, should
make us more hesitant while drawing large pictures and creating models. Local
studies, unfortunately very often terribly underestimated, have to cover the
white spots of our knowledge of Ottoman realities and should answer many
questions which are not asked yet.

21 See Figure 7.
22 See Figure 8.

77
Table 1: Population of Filibe (1472-1614)
Date Muslims Unmarried Christians Unmarried Christian Gypsies Unmarried Jews Unmarried Arme-
(hane) Muslims (hane) Christians Widows (hane) Gypsies (hane) Jews nians

1472 (877 H.) 549 --- 95 + (27)123 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

1489 (895 H.) 791 107 80 5 12 36 --- --- --- ---

1516 (925 H.) 877 220 88 0 13 35 --- 32 --- ---

1525 (932 H.) 801 136 79 3 13 33 2 32 1 ---

1530 (937 H.) 636 126 81 3 13 33 2 33 1 ---

1570 (978 H.) 752 26 88 2 7 26 --- 50 1 ---

1595 (1004 H.) 844 32 156 7 --- 24 9 54 --- ---

1614 (1023 H.) 721 --- 255 --- --- 87 --- 46 --- 21

1472=Sofia Archive, PD 17/27; 1489=BOA, İstanbul, TD 26; 1516=BOA, İstanbul, TD 77; 1525=BOA, İstanbul, MAD
519; 1530= BOA, İstanbul, TD 370; 1570= BOA, İstanbul, TD 494; 1595=T.K.G.M., Ankara, Edirne 65; 1614= BOA,
İstanbul, TD 729.

123 27 households from the village of Pollad, since the following registration one of Filibe’s neighborhoods.

78
Table 2: Population of Eski Zağra (1516-1614)

Date Muslims Unmarried Christians Unmarried Gypsies

Muslims Christians
(hane) (hane)

1516 (925 H.) 516 245 --- --- ---

1530 (937 H.) 497 192 --- --- ---

1570 (978 H.) 709 28 29 8 ---

1595 (1003 H.) 723 32 60 --- 21

1614 (1023 H.) 470 --- 120 --- ---

1516=BOA, İstanbul, TD 77; 1530= BOA, İstanbul, TD 370; 1570= BOA, İstanbul,
TD 494; 1595=T.K.G.M., Ankara, Edirne 65; 1614= BOA, İstanbul, TD 729.

Table 3: Population of İstanimaka (1516-1595)

Date Muslims Unmarried Christians Unmarried Christian Gypsies

(hane) Muslims (hane) Christians Widows (hane)

1516 (925 H.) 11 --- 206 14 28 ---

1525 (932 H.) 13 4 220 22 25

1530 (937 H.) 13 4 220 22 25 ---

1570 (978 H.) 7 --- 351 --- --- 7

1595 (1003 H.) 13 (+8) --- 416 --- --- 4

çiftliks

1516=BOA, İstanbul, TD 77; 1525=BOA, İstanbul, MAD 519; 1530= BOA,

İstanbul, TD 370; 1570= BOA, İstanbul, TD 498; 1595=T.K.G.M., Ankara,
Edirne 563

79
 Table 4: Population of Tatar Bazarı (1472-1614)

Date Muslims Unmarried Christians Unmarried Christian Gypsies Jews

(hane) Muslims (hane) Christians Widows (hane) (hane)

1472 105 --- --- --- --- --- ---

(877 H.)

1516 197 36 1 --- --- --- ---

(925 H.)

1525 195 18 13 2 --- --- ---

(932 H.)

1530 178 16 --- --- --- --- ---

(937 H.)

1570 231 1 28 --- --- 1 ---

(978 H.)

1595 287 5 44 --- --- --- ---

(1004 H.)

1614 414 --- 100 --- --- 34 7

(1023 H.)

1472=Sofia Archive, PD 17/27 and OAK 94/73; 1516=BOA, İstanbul, TD 77;

1525=BOA, İstanbul, MAD 519; 1530= BOA, İstanbul, TD 370; 1570= BOA,
İstanbul, TD 494; 1595=T.K.G.M., Ankara, Edirne 65; 1614= BOA, İstanbul, TD
729.

80
Figure 1: Muslim Population of Filibe (1472-1614)

Figure 1

1000
900
877 844
791 801 752
800
700 636
549 721
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1472 1489 1516 1525 1530 1570 1595 1614

Figure 2: Christian Population of Filibe (1472-1614)

Figure 2

300
255
250

200
156
150
95 80 88 79 81 88
100

50

0
1472 1489 1516 1525 1530 1570 1595 1614

81
Figure 3: Households and Unmarried in Eski Zağra and Tatar Bazarı (1516)

Figure 3

Hane
600
516

500

400

Unmarried
300 48% Hane
197

200

Unmarried
100
18%

0
1 2
Eski Zağra Tatar Bazarı

82
Figure 4: Muslim Population of Eski Zağra (1516-1614)

Figure 4

800
709 723
700
600
516 497 470
500
400
300
200
100
0
1516 1530 1570 1595 1614

Figure 5: Christian Population of Eski Zağra (1570-1614)

Figure 5

140
120
120

100

80
60
60

40 29

20

0
1570 1595 1614

83
Figure 6: Christian Population of İstanimaka (1516-1595)

Figure 6

450
416
400 351
350
300
220 220
250 206
200
150
100
50
0
1516 1525 1530 1570 1595

Figure 7: Christian Population of Tatar Bazarı (1516-1614)

Figure 7

120
100
100

80

60
44
40
28
20 13
1 0
0
1516 1525 1530 1570 1595 1614

84
Figure 8: Muslim Population of Tatar Bazarı (1472-1614)

Figure 8

450
414
400
350
287
300
231
250 197 195
178
200
105
150
100
50
0
1472 1516 1525 1530 1570 1595 1614

85
86