THE OTTOMAN TOWN IN THE SOUTHERN BALKANS FROM 14TH TO 16TH CENTURIES:

A MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH.

by OURANIA BESSI

A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Centre of Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies

School of Archaeology and Antiquity

College of Arts and Law

University of Birmingham

June 2014

I
 University of Birmingham Research Archive
e-theses repository

This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third

parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect
of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or
as modified by any successor legislation.

Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in

accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further
distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission
of the copyright holder.
Abstract

This thesis discussed the morphological patterns of Ottomanization performed in the

southern Balkans through the comparative study of four mainland cities, Dimetoka,

Gümülcine, Siroz, Yenice-i Vardar spread along the multicultural Via Egnatia. Through the

cross-disciplinary application of morphological and defterological concepts, we were able to

trace existing and reconstructed forms back to their formative processes (as evident in a series

of reconstructive maps) and to interpret them within the theoretical framework of structural

rationalism. The advanced argument disproves the orientalistic reading of the Ottoman

(Islamic) city as an irrational and chaotic morpheme and reconfirms Veinstein’s theory on the

existence of a normative type for the Ottoman town that lays in the morphology of the Balkan

cities. This thesis’ main contribution lies in defining that the identifier of ‘originality’ or

‘purity’ for this type derives from its particular geographical divisions. Accordingly, the

coining of the type that we extended was reflective of these particular geographical divisions,

as an obvious functional and formal analogy amongst the towns of this group. We thus

concluded that the typological identification of the ‘original’ Ottoman town can be

encapsulated in the Balkan-Anatolian type with a Byzantine kernel and an Ottoman fringe

belt. This consists of a highly rationalized system of axes, with pivotal being that of the

çarşıya, which functioned as the vehicle of infrastructural development.

II
To Βιργινία, Σώστη και Κυριακή

R.I.P.

III
Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my utmost gratitude to my professor Dr. Rhoads Murphey, to whom I
owe my learning of Ottoman. He has been an excellent teacher and mentor; without his guidance and
continuous support, this work would not have reached this final format. I am also very thankful to
Prof. Heath Lowry. Through his inspiring publications and the discussions we had, I gained a
valuable perspective to the evolution of my project. To Prof. Machiel Kiel for the instructive
discussions we had and his constructive criticism on my work.

For the realisation of my project valuable was the collaboration of the Greek Ministry of
Culture through the granting of relevant permissions for the study and photography of the monuments,
as well as, the collaboration of the peripheral City-Planning departments under the jurisdiction of the
Greek Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works. Especially, I would like to
thank my dear friends and colleagues from the Ministry of Culture, the director of the 14th directorate
Ms. Christiana Loupou and the archaeologist of the 12th directorate Ms. Sofia Doukata who believed
in my project from the early beginning. Without their help, this thesis would not have encompassed
all this material. Moreover, to the archaeologists Mr. Giorgos Skiadaresis and Mr. Georgos Stalidis
from the 11th directorate, who greatly facilitated my research during field-working at Yanitsa [Yenice-
i Vardar].

A special thank you I reserve for the city-planner Mr. Angelos Maronites from the city-
planning department of Serres. Equally from Serres, I would like to thank the mathematician and
local historian Mr. Giannis Gianogloudis for the granting of his photographic material. To Gönül
hanim from the registry of the BOA archives for being a dear friend and making things easier; to Ziya
Adnan for all his patience for teaching me Turkish; to Dr. Farhood Hamedi for all his support during
my field-working at Iran and especially during my stay at Ardabil; to Mr. Mita Guda from Skopje for
his help during my field-working at Fyrom; to Mr. Abdülhalim Dede and Mola Redvan from
Gümülcine for providing me with topographic reference for the city’s mosques; to the
topographer/civil engineer Ms. Angeliki Falirea for the georeference of the Siroz cartographic
material. Last but not least, to Ms. Eleutheria Balcogiannakia director of the Securities Printing Office
for her help with the design of the maps and the organization of the appentices.

Vital for the completion of the current project was the financial support I received from
various institutions. I would need to acknowledge the Department of Grants and Scholarships of the
National Kapodistrian University of Athens for the awarding of my Doctoral Scholarship from the
endowment of M. Papadaki Foundation; the Roberts Fund and the University of Birmingham for
subsidizing the majority of my field-trips and tuition fees; the British Institute of Iranian Studies for
the award of the travel grant for my field-trip to Iran and for allowing the use of the hostel facilities at
Tehran; to the Turkish Cultural foundation for the awarding of the annual non-residential fellowship
and to the Gibbs Memorial Fund for the awarding of the annual scholarship.

Finally, to my family and Saifur.

IV
Table of Contents

Part A: Theoretical framework

Introduction

 Introductory remarks on the thesis project, pp. 1-4.

1) Morphological theory and the adapted model..

 Setting the enquiry within chronological and conceptual context, pp. 5-8.

 Morphological Theory, pp. 8-13.

 Phenomena of Systematic Investigation, pp. 13-16.

 Review of the Literature on Islamic urbanism, pp. 16-19.

 Pinon and Veinstein, pp. 19-22.

 The analytical model, pp. 22-29.

2) Ottomanization as a colonization process.

 Historical circumstances in Byzantine Thrace and the Ottoman methods of

conquest, pp. 29-33.

 The Turkish colonization of Thrace, pp. 33-35.

 Colonization agents, pp. 35-39.

 Colonization practices: spontaneous immigration [göcebe] and deportation

[sürgün], pp. 39-42.

 Capital management and the vakf institution under the first sultans, pp. 43-

44.

V
Part B: Case-studies

1: Dimetoka

A. Justification of Dimetoka as the inductive case-study of the thesis, pp. 46-49.

 Identification of the topographic specifics and the town-planning

conception: introductory remarks, pp. 50-51.

B. Ottoman town-planning in a comparative perspective, pp. 52-54.

 What was Dimetoka’s urban profile? pp. 54-57.

 The interpretation of Dimetoka’s urban profile within a comparative

framework: Dimetoka-Bursa-Edirne, pp. 57-59.

 Use of the citadel and the maintenance of the walls.

i. Bursa, pp. 59-64.

ii. Dimetoka, pp. 64-65.

 The explanation for the introduction of minor alterations to the Byzantine

citadel of Dimetoka, pp. 66-74.

 What was the Ottoman use of the Byzantine citadel? pp. 75-86.

C. Morphological and Demographic Analysis of Dimetoka.

 Topographic reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka: issues of periodization

and urban morphology, pp. 86-89.

 Periodization: the proto-Ottoman phase, pp. 89-106.

 Periodization: the classical phase, pp. 106-110.

 Interpreting town-planning within a constructivist framework, pp. 111-

115.

D. Demographic fluctuations in Dimetoka from mid. 15th to mid. 16th centuries

and their interpretation, pp. 115-116.

 The 15th c. evidence, pp. 116-119.

VI
  The 16th c. evidence, pp. 119-122.

 The theory of social engineering, pp. 123-126.

E. Architectural Analysis

 The Bayezid mosque, pp. 127-128.

2: Gümülcine

A. Review of the archival sources, pp. 130-131.

B. The proto-Ottoman phase: 1362–1456, pp. 131-133.

 Hacı Evrenos as a coordinator of an infrastructural micro-environment, pp.

133-135.

 The vakfs of the proto-Ottoman phase

i. The vakf of the zaviye of the deceased Evrenos Bey, pp. 135-139.

ii. The vakf of the leather-tanners, pp. 139-140.

iii. The vakf of the tekye of Ahmed, p. 140.

iv. The vakf of the zaviye of Kasap Süpüren, pp. 140-141.

v. The vakf of the zaviye of Konükçü Şemseddin, p. 141.

vi. The vakf of the zaviye of Puşi Puşan, p. 142.

 The town-planning conception, pp. 142-148.

C. Classical and consolidation phases (late 15th/beginning of 16th c.): a town in

transition.

 Archival evidence, pp. 149-150.

 Topographic reconstruction, pp. 150-152.

D. The imaret-cami’ of Hacı Evrenos revisited: from a proto-imperial “konak” to

an imaret ?, pp. 152-161.

VII
3: Siroz

A. Post-conquest Siroz: the reconfiguration of a town.

 Archival material, pp. 163-166.

 The vakfs of the proto-Ottoman phase and their topographic identification,

pp. 166-181.

 Unpublished cartographic evidence: the 1913 topographic survey, the

assessor plates of 1923 and the methodology towards the reconstruction of

the map of Ottoman Siroz (map 3), pp. 182-187.

 The town-planning conception of the proto-Ottoman phase, pp. 187-190.

B. Classical Phase

 Archival material, pp. 191-194.

 The vakfs of the classical phase and their topographic identification

i. Vakfs associated with quarters, pp. 194-205.

ii. Vakfs associated with extant monuments

The mosque of Selçuk Hatun, pp. 206-212.

The Mehmed Bey mosque, pp. 212-216.

The Bedesten, pp. 216-223.

 The town-planning conception of the classical phase, pp. 223-225.

4: Yenice-i Vardar

A. Justification for the incorporation of Yenice as a case-study in the thesis,

pp. 227-228.

B. The breakdown of the neighbourhoods

 Methodology, pp. 228-229.

 The Christian quarter and Muslim quarters with Christian population,

pp. 229-233.

VIII
  The Muslim Quarters, pp. 234-237.

 Recovered foundations of classical Yenice, pp. 237-239.

C. Reconstructing town planning under the patronage of Hacı Evrenos:

material evidence

 The imaret of Hacı Evrenos: a classical revision of an early Ottoman

tripartite plan, pp. 240-248.

 The Hacı Evrenos hammam, pp. 248-250.

 The Hacı Evrenos kervansaray, pp. 251-253.

 The mausoleum of Hacı Evrenos, pp. 253-254.

 Hacı Evrenos or Ahmed Bey medrese? pp. 254-258.

 Town-planning under Hacı Evrenos, pp. 258-260.

Part C: Conclusions

Ottoman town planning in a comparative perspective, pp. 261-268.

IX
 List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Pl. 1, p. 53.
Pl. 2, p. 61.
Pl. 3, p. 62.
Pl. 4, p. 63.
Pl. 5, p. 66.
Pl. 6, p. 68.
Pl. 7, p. 68.
Pl. 8, p. 69.
Pl. 9, p. 70.
Pl. 10, p. 71.
Pl. 11, p. 72.
Pl. 12, p. 72.
Pl. 13, p. 73.
Pl. 14, p. 73.
Pl. 15, p. 92.
Pl. 16, p. 93.
Pl. 17, p. 93.
Pl. 18, p. 94.
Pl. 19, p. 96.
Pl. 20, p. 97.
Pl. 21, p. 97.
Pl. 22, p. 99.
Pl. 23, p. 100.
Pl. 24, p. 100.
Pl. 25, p. 107.
Pl. 26, p. 108.
Pl. 27, p. 128.
Chapter 2
Pl. 28, p. 155.
Pl. 29, p. 156.
Pl. 30, p. 157.
Pl. 31, p. 158.
Pl. 32, p. 159.

X
Pl. 33, p. 159.
Chapter 3
Pl. 34, p. 167.
Pl. 35, p. 168.
Pl. 36, p. 169.
Pl. 37, p. 169.
Pl. 38, p. 177.
Pl. 39, p. 178.
Pl. 40, p. 180.
Pl. 41, p. 180.
Pl. 42, p. 186.
Pl. 43, p. 195.
Pl. 44, p. 196.
Pl. 45, p. 198.
Pl. 46, p. 198.
Pl. 47, p. 200.
Pl. 48, p. 201.
Pl. 49, p. 202.
Pl. 50, p. 203.
Pl. 51, p. 205.
Pl. 52, p. 204.
Pl. 53, p. 206.
Pl. 54, p. 210.
Pl. 55, p. 211.
Pl. 56, p. 212.
Pl. 57, p. 213.
Pl. 58, p. 215.
Pl. 59, p. 218.
Pl. 60, p. 219.
Pl. 61, p. 220.
Pl. 62, p. 221.
Pl. 63, p. 221.
Pl. 64, p. 222.
Pl. 65, p. 223.
Chapter 4
Pl. 66, p. 236.
Pl. 67, p. 236.

XI
Pl. 68, p. 237.
Pl. 69, p. 240.
Pl. 70, p. 2423.
Pl. 71, p. 242.
Pl. 72, p. 244.
Pl. 73, p. 246.
Pl. 74, p. 249.
Pl. 75, p. 250.
Pl. 76, p. 251.
Pl. 77, p. 252.
Pl. 78, p. 252.
Pl. 79, p. 253.
Pl. 80, p. 254.
Pl. 81, p. 255.
Pl. 82, pp. 256-257.
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1, pp. 270-271.
Table 2, pp. 272-279.
Table 3, pp. 279-281.
Table 4, pp. 282-286.
Table 5, pp. 287-289.
Table 6, pp. 289-291.
Table 7, pp. 292-299.
Table 8, pp. 300-308.
Table 9, pp. 308-309.
Table 10, pp. 309-315.
Table 11, p. 316.
Table 12, p. 318.
Table 13, p. 319.
Table 14, pp. 321-322.
Table 15, p. 322.
Table 16, p. 324.
Table 17, p. 325.
Chapter 2
Table 18, p. 343.
Table 19, pp 343-344.

XII
Table 20, pp. 344-346.
Table 21, pp. 346-348.
Table 22, pp. 348-352.
Chapter 3
Table 23, p. 355.
Table 24, pp. 356-358.
Table 25, p. 358.
Chapter 4
Table 26, pp. 364-370.
Table 27, p. 371.

List of Charts
Chapter 1
Chart 1, p. 317.
Chart 2, p. 320.
Chart 3, p. 323.
Chart 4, p. 326.
List of Maps
Map 1: Reconstructive map of Dimetoka, p. 341.
Key to map 1, p. 342.
Map 2: Reconstructive map of Gümülcine, p. 353.
Key to map 2, p. 354.
Map 3: Reconstructive map of Ottoman Siroz using the topographic survey of 1914, p. 359.
Key to map 3, p. 360.
Map 4: Post-1923 assessor plates of exchanged properties demarcating the Ottoman mosques, p. 361.
Map 5: Post-1923 assessor plates of exchanged properties demarcating the Ottoman mosques, p. 362.
Map 6: The 1913 topographic survey of Siroz georeferred using the 1994 grid plan, p. 363.
Map 8: Reconstructive map of Yenice-i Vardar, p. 372.
Key to map 8, p. 373.

XIII
 Place name equivalence

Dede-Ağaç: Alexandroupoli
Dimetoka: Didymoteicho
Dirama: Drama
Edirne: Andrianoupoli
Gümülcine: Komotini
Kesterya: Kastoria
Kızıl Deli: Erythropotamos
Meriç: Evros
Selanik: Thessaloniki
Vodina: Veroia
Yenice-i Vardar: Yanitsa

XIV
 List of Definitions
Editorial Note:
Diacriticals are not used in the transliteration of Arabic or Persian. Ottoman Turkish
phrases are rendered in Modern Turkish orthography. The words or suffixes in brackets are
additions or reconstructed forms of words suggested by the author. The question marks in the
parentheses indicate words, the reading of which remains uncertain. Main reference source is
the 1890 edition of Sir J. Redhouse Turkish and English Lexicon. For the transcription of
common Ottoman terms I have also consulted the ‘Glossary of terms’, Morea (2005), pp.
xxııı-xxxı.

A
Aba’iye: makers of course woolen cloth and saddle cloth makers
Aktēmon: Fiscal category of peasants with no property.
Anca ki: the place which (Table 1)
Aşkuncu, Eşkuncu or Eşkinci: a mounted feudal yeoman; an irregular cavalryman; the name
that a sipahi assumed after he joined the campaigns (Table 22)1
‘Atık: manumitted slave
Atmacı: a sparrow-hawk hunter (Table 22)
‘Avarız: wartime taxes, in that sense extraordinary taxes and dues to meet emergency
expenses
Azade: manumitted slave
B
Bağat: vineyards
Bağcı: a vineyard worker
Bakı (al): surplus or amount in arrears
Bakısı tekkeyede sarf olunurmuş: the remainder to be spent at the tekke (Table 20)
Başhane: butchery specializing on sheep heads (Table 5)
Bazdar: falconer, keeper of the hawks (Table 4)
Bevvab: gate-keeper
Borc: debt (Table 1)
Bozacı: maker of the drink boza (Table 2)

1
Gökbilgin (1957), p. 30

XV
Burgos: suburban area
C
Cabi: rent collector
Cerahor: name given to Christian militia forces employed in the Ottoman army especially as
fortress defenders and paid a wage (ecr, ücret) for their services; thus mercenaries
Cerrahı: surgeon (Table 2)
Cercer: owners/ operators of the agricultural equipments, which were driven over the spread
sheaves on the threshing floor in order to seperate the grain (Table 2). As a proper name its
use is attested in other parts of the empire and especially in Eastern Anatolia. See Redhouse
Dictionary (1890 edn.), p. 654 and Tarama Sözlüğü II: 760.
Ç
Çanakçı: potter (Table 2)
Çarşı: market
Çarşıya: processional road, central artery of the market space
Çeltükçi: rice produceur excempted from taxes; they were usually war captives
Çiftlik: Land workable by a peasant family using a pair of oxen; a big farm under the control
of an absentee landlord; a plantation-like farm; a village (Table 20)
Çulah: weavers
D
Debbağ: leather tanner
Değirmenci: miller (Table 2)
Dellak: shampoer in a public bath (Table 2)
Demos: the common people (populace as a political unit)
Deyrhanlu: as belonging to a monastery (Table 18)
Dilsuz (dilsiz): mute (Table 2)
E
Emr-i ahur: master of the stables (Table 1)
Eşkuncu: See Aşkuncu
Etmekci: baker
F
Fani: deceased (Table 2)
G
Gayub: absent, disappeared

XVI
Gedik: a shop or place of business in any building, held by patent or warrant assigning it to a
special use of ownership (Table 2, 3)
Giru: left behind (Table 3)
Göz: closet, compartment
Gramatikos (Greek): the secretary of the Christian community (Table 2)
Gulam: slave
Güreyi:trainer and keeper of hunting birds for the imperial hunt who enjoyed and exemption
from taxation (Table 8)
Ğ
H
Habbaz: baker (Table 8)
Hacet: requirement (Table 1)
Haddad: blacksmith (Table 2, 3)
Hafız: guard, custodian or anyone who knows the Qur’an by heart (Table 1)
Hallada hilafete: May God make his reign perpetual (Table 2, 3)
Haliya: at the present time (Table 3)
Hammam: public bath
Hanat: pl. of han
Haraçcı: the collector of taxes owed by the non-Muslims such as cizye or haraç
Harc etmek: to spend (Table 3)
Hass (has): Private holding; a prebend belonging to the sultan, grand vizier or another
member of the elite with a yearly income of over 100.000 akçes2
Hayyat: tailor
Hibe: gift (Table 3)
Hatib: reader, reciter of rogatory prayers
Hüddam: servant
Hükm-i cihan-muta: the order that the entire world obeys (Table 3)
Hükm-i şerif: imperial order (Table 3)
I
İ
İn’am etmiş: to donate (Table 3)
İrgat (Greek): labourer (Table 2, 3)

2
Morea (2005), p. xxvi

XVII
İspano (Greek): proper last name, of Spanish origin or beardless (Table 2, 3)
Ispençe: land tax on non- Muslims (head tax paid by a non-Muslim to the holder of a timar)
İşleyici: habitual workers (Table 1)
K
Kalaycı: an artisan who tins copper vessels (Table 2)
Kayyum: a care-taker of a mosque (Table 2, 3)
Kebeci: responsible for maintaining the thick felt cloaks (kebe) worn by the residents and
senitors of the foundation
Keçi: small, celibate (Table 18)
Keçici: seller of goat hair (Table 22)
Keresteci: timber merchant (Table 2, 3)
Kervansaray:caravansaray
Kıst: share/lot (Table 20)
Kilavuz: a road-guide leader. At (Table 2) kilavuz is misspelt as ‫ قوالعوز‬instead of ‫قالغوز‬.
Kogacı: water-backet seller (Table 2)
Kontos (Greek): short (Table 2)
Kovakrağ: poplar meadows (Table 1)
Koz: walnut (Table 1)
Köprübaşı: bridge chief attendant
Kum: sand (Table 2)
Kuyumcu: goldsmith
Kuyunlu: blacksmith (Table 1)
Külliye: architectural complex
Kürekçi: oarsman or rower
L
Levahık: appendage (Table 3)
M
Macar: Hungarians
Makbere: cemetery, burial place (Table 20)
Ma’ruk: guards who surround the castle (Table 22)
Mastoros (Greek): mason (Table 2, 3)
Mavrayenis (Greek): black bearded (proper name) (Table 2, 3)
Maziye: passed (Table 5)
Meblağ: amount of money/sum (Table 20)

XVIII
Mestur: written
Mu’arrıf: inferior functionary in a mosque acting as a chorister (Table 8)
Mukarrer: confirmed in written, certain
Muhassıl: tax collector
Muy-tab: spinner of goat hair and maker of woven articles. At (Table 2, 3) muy-tab ‫ مويتاب‬is
also spelled as ‫موتاب‬.
Mutaf: mohair worker same as muy-tab, see above (Table 8)
Mutasarrıf: beneficiary
Muttasıl: contiguous, adjacent (Table 3)
Muzarı’: one who lets land for a share of the harvest, thus share of the harvest (Table 3)
Muceb-i hüccet: by the legal requirement of the edict (Table 3)
Mütecaviz: to trespass (Table 7)
N
Nayzen: nay player (Table 2, 3)
Nalbant: blacksmith
Na’ib: a judge substitute of canon law
O
Orguropiyos (Greek)= Organopoios: maker of musical instruments (Table 2, 3)
P
Paraphthora: corruption
Palios (Greek): senior (Table 2, 3)
Paşmakcı: slipper maker (Table 2, 3)
Politi (Greek): proper last name, Constantinopolitan
Proto Yeros (Greek)= Demogeron: the governor of the Christian community (Table 2, 3)
Protomastor (Greek): chief mason (Table 2, 3)
R
Rabak (al): condition, restriction (Table 1)
S
Salcu: constructor of rafts (Table 2, 3)
Salgin’dan hasıl olan meblağ: lump sum taxation
Saraç: seller of saddlers and harness
Sarban: camel driver (Table 2, 3)
Sarf olunmak: to be expended
Sayyad: hunter

XIX
Sayir rüsumu: other taxes (Table 6)
Segban: a keeper of the hounds; especially the keepers of the Sultan’s hounds that were later
incorporated within the corps of Janissaries, as a division of thirty-four regiments (Table 2, 3)
Solak: guardsman in attendance on the Sultan in processions (Table 18)
Suq: çarşı: the market area
Ş
Şapcı: alum handler (Table 18)
T
Ta’allukat: (plural of ta’alluk ‫ ) تعلق‬appendage. In table 20, it means the dependents or
members of the extended Evrenosoğlu family, the attached to the Evrenosoğlu.
Tabbah: cook (Table 2, 3)
Tahancı: grinder (Table 1)
Taksimat: divisions, branches (Table 1)
Tamias (Greek): cashier (Table 2, 3)
Tebdil olmak: to be change, modified or exchanged for (Table 3)
Temkin etmek: to settle (Table 7)
Temlik: a landed estate held in freehold by patent from the crown (Table 3)
Tevabi’: dependencies, attached districts (Table 3)
Tevki’i: cipher of the sultan (Table1)
U
Ü
V
Y
Yamak: assistant, military rank (Table 2, 3)
Yeyen: nephew (Table 1)
Yolcu: road repairing technician (Table 8)
Yormanos (Greek): German (Table 2, 3)
Younari (Greek): proper last name, seller of furs
Z
Za’i’ olmuş: to have been lost (Table 3)
Zaviye: hospice
Ze’amet: large prebend ranging from 20,000 to 100,000 akçes given to a commander or high
sipahi officer
Zindancı: prison warden (Table 2, 3)

XX
 Introduction

Introductory remarks on the thesis project

This thesis discusses the urban patterns of Ottomanization carried out in the southern

Balkans through a comparative study of four mainland cities situated along the multicultural

Via Egnatia. The rationale of the thesis is based on the axiom that the Ottoman expansion in

Europe was launched towards the Thracian and Macedonian provinces of present-day

Northern Greece, which preserve unique, material pieces of evidence for the elucidation of

obscure aspects of the morphogenesis and development of the Ottoman town. Material

evidence is employed as eloquent testimonies that shed light on the hazy specifics of the

Ottoman polity during the first one and a half centuries of its formation, a period which has

been characterised as the “black hole” of Ottoman history.1

The typological analysis consists of four case-studies of the towns that played a

pivotal role in the chronicle of Ottoman expansion: Dimetoka (1357), Gümülcine (1361/2),

Siroz (1383), Yenice-i Vardar (1385/6). Analysis of these four case-studies follows

classification into two sub-types: a) towns with a fortified (Byzantine) kernel and an

extramural Ottoman settlement and b) towns with an Ottoman settlement and an unfortified

(Byzantine) kernel.

The existing bibliography consists of the works of Todorov2, Gökbilgin3, Barkan4,

Balta5, Kiel6, and Ayverdi7 that illuminate either the socio-political, economic and

1
C. Imber., “The legend of Osman Gazi”, in The Ottoman Emirate (1300-1389), Institute of Mediterranean
Studies, Crete 1993, pp. 67-75.
2
N. Todorov, The Balkan City 1400-1900, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London 1983; idem.,
Situation démographique de la Péninsule balkanique (fin du XVes. début du XVIes.), Sofia, Editions de

1
demographic aspects of the Ottoman polity in the Balkans, or architectural aspects of the

Ottoman city (in the form of collective works and monographs). The first critical

contribution to the study of the Ottomanization process in the southern Balkans was achieved

by Heath W. Lowry8, who further acknowledged the need for a detailed architectural

appraisal of the material evidence from an archaeological/art-historical point of view.

All these exemplary works are time-specific contributions to socio-political, economic

or architectural aspects of Ottoman urbanism. However, none of these deals with issues of

urban structure and morphology from an evolutionary standpoint. Due to this lack of

concomitant advance between the understanding of the cities’ socio-economical development

and their morphological structure, the study of the town in Ottoman studies has become

unbalanced. Thus, the originality of my project lies in that it conceptualizes fundamental

phenomena of the Ottoman morphogenesis and structural evolution through the comparative

morphological analysis of four of the earliest Ottoman towns formed in Europe.

th th
l’Académie bulgares des sciences, 1988 ; idem., Society, the City and Industry in the Balkans, 15 -19
Centuries, Aldershot, Ashgate Variorum, 1998.
3
M.T. Gökbilgin, XV-XVI asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa livasi, mukataalar, vakıflar, mülkler, İstanbul 1952, idem.,
Rumeli’de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlad-ı Fatihan, İstanbul 1957.
4
Ö.L. Barkan, “Osmanlı Imparatorloğu’nda bir iskân ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak vakıflar ve temlikler. I İstilâ
devirlerinin kolonizatör Türk dervişleri ve zâviyeler”, II. “Vakıflar bir iskân ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak
kullanılmasında diğer şekilleri”, Vakıflar Dergisi, vol. II (1942), pp. 279-386; idem., XV ve XVI‘ıncı Asırlarda
Osmanlı Imparatorluğunda Ziraî Ekonominin Hukukî ve Malî Esasları, I Kanunlar, İstanbul 1943.
5
E. Balta, Les vakifs de Serres et de sa région XV- XVIe siècles, Athens 1995 ; İdem., “H Trakē stis Othōmanikes
katastixōseis”, Thrakē historikes kai geōgraphikes proseggyseis, Athens 2000, pp. 107-116.
6
K. Machiel, Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans, Norfolk, Variorum, 1990.
7
E.H. Ayverdi, A. Yüksel, G. Ertürk and I. Nüman, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimari Eserleri: Romanya, Macaristan,
vol. I, books 1 and 2, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1980; idem., Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri:
Yugoslavya, vol. II, book 3, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1981; idem., Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri:
Yugoslavya, vol. III, book 3, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1981; idem., Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri:
Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk , vol. IV, book V, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982. The works of
Ayverdi have been followed in the same, catalographic concept by: F. Yenişehiroğlu, Türkiye dışındaki Osmanlı
Mimari Yapıtları, Ankara 1989; N. Çam, Yunanistandaki Türk Eserleri, Ankara 2006; İ. Bıçakçı, Yunanistan’da
Türk Mimarî Eserleri, İstanbul 2003; N. Konuk, Midilli, Rodos, Sakız ve İstanköy’de Osmanlı Mimarisi, Ankara
2008 and Yunanistan’da Osmanlı Mimarisi, Ankara 2010; E. Brouskari (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in Greece,
Hellenic Ministry of Culture-Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, Athens, Livanis
Publications, 2008.
8
H. Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans 1350-1550: the conquest, settlement and intrastructural
development of Northern Greece, İstanbul, Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2008; idem., In the footsteps of
the Ottomans: a search for sacred spaces and architectural monuments in Northern Greece, İstanbul,
Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2009; Lowry H. and Erünsal İ.E., The Hacı Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i
Vardar: notes and documents, İstanbul, Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2010.

2
 This thesis is the product of an innovative perspective which lies on the

interdisciplinary investigation of the relationship between defterology and morphology.9 The

methodology lies in the reconstruction of the aforementioned towns’ topographies and the

compilation of detailed geo-referenced maps corresponding to each case-study. The

corroboration of the material remains and the recovery of non-existent infrastructure is

achieved through the extensive use of Ottoman archival sources—mainly of the type of

cadastral surveys [tapu tahrirs] and vakf inventories, but also through the use of inscriptional

data sets—that are then combined with traditional archaeological practices: collection and

interpretation of field evidence and recording of the historical buildings.10 The accurate

dating of the vakfs and the surviving monuments, in conjunction with their geo-reference

within the street plan of these towns, allows the periodization of the stages of urban

development from the 14th to 16th centuries for each case-study.

This is based on my belief that only through such an interdisciplinary approach it is

possible to reconstruct the Ottoman topography of lands, where Ottoman authority was

discontinued. In these lands, where the Ottoman monuments are demolished or the residues

of Ottoman memory are obliterated from the urban scenery (in other words, in cases where

the task of reconstructing the historical topography becomes extremely challenging), we can

only make sense and taxinomize the plethora of various archival, archaeological, art-

historical, cartographic-topographic, and oral historical cues, by applying the epistemological

grid of morphological theory. I am emphasising the value of this approach for the lands

outside the frontiers of modern Turkey, where Ottoman historical continuities have been

disrupted and where the evidence of the Ottoman material culture can be only visualized

through the compilation of detailed geo-referenced maps.

9
See footnotes 29, 30, 32 and 34 of the chapter.
10
C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, Archaeology: Theory methods and Practice, London 1991.

3
 The compilation of such maps as referencing works for the study of further case-

studies is of outmost importance. It is only through the compilation of relevant comparative

works from other regions of the empire that we can reach reliable conclusions about the

original urban type of the Ottoman town. Under this light, my objective is to visualize the

morphological solutions used in the Ottomanization of the southern Balkans that can serve as

a working framework for the urban history of the transitional era, from the medieval to the

early modern period.

4
Part A: Theoretical framework

1) Morphological theory and the adapted model

Setting the enquiry within chronological and conceptual context

The rationale beyond the comparative study of these four case-studies lies in

transcending the experience of a unique place—in the customary form of urban monographs

on individual cities—in order to identify the principles that qualify authentic samples of

Ottoman fabric in the 14th century’s settlements. By this way, we aimed to assess whether

these prevalently spontaneous urban constructions are the result of an anarchic town planning

or the product of a rationally structured settlement process.

As the towns of our interest were accomplished by the Muslim Ottomans within the

geographical limits of Europe, we would need to define our query within the theoretical and

chronological framework of both medieval11—as well as western—and pre-modern Islamic

urbanism.12 André Raymond debunked the academic bias of the earlier generations of

Orientalists in his discussion of the spatial development of the Islamic city. He criticised the

dismissive interpretation accorded to the Muslim model and, particularly, to the Ottoman

substratum of the Mediterranean cities, as an inorganic assemblage of quarters, by marking

the structural analogies between the western and the Oriental city. Even, he reached the point

11
L. Mumford, The city in the history, London, Pelican Press, 1966, 362-394 (chap. 11: Medieval disruptions
Modern Anticipations).
12
Key articles providing a comprehensive overview of Islamic urbanism with view to schools of thought, spatial
semiotics and legislative framework: G. A. Neglia, “Some historiographical notes on the Islamic city with
particular reference to the visual representation of the built city,” in R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, and A. Raymond
(ed.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, 3-47; A.
Raymond, “The spatial organization of the city,” in R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, and A. Raymond (ed.), The city in
the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, 47-70; B. Hakim, “Law and
the City,” in R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, and A. Raymond (ed.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook
of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, 71-92.

5
to explicitly state that “there is nothing specifically Muslim about urban structural

characteristics”.13

Along the same syncretistic lines, Gilles Veinstein advocated that the existence of the

typical Ottoman town lies in the morphology of the north-western Anatolian and Balkan

cities and concluded that “there existed an original urban type, halfway between the Arabic

and the Western towns; and if this analysis is confirmed from future studies, then the term—

Ottoman town—will be legitimately used to refer to this type”. 14 If we were then to

rationalize the arrangement and diversity of such a hybrid urban morpheme, we would first

need to turn back to the period of its morphogenesis—the 14th century—and to devise an

interdisciplinary methodology, which, could transcend both geographical and conceptual

limitations.

The medieval town model extends chronologically from the 10th to the 14th century,

with formative elements that can be summed up in the monastery, the guildhall and the

church; yet, without suggesting that for the formation of the archetypical medieval town all

these institutions would be present in any particular town or would carry equal weight. 15 The

most significant morphological evolution of medieval urbanism consists in the development

of the grid plan during the 13th century. From England to Germany and the Lower Countries

a series of cities started being formed along main land routes, a topographic parameter that

had a major effect on their site-planning development.16

In these so-called “street-villages” [strassendorf], house grouping assumed the

configuration of a bordering lane developed along the central (longitudinal) axis, while in

many cases we encounter subordinated (secondary) routes developed as parallel to the

13
Reymond (2008), pp. 51-58.
14
G. Veinstein, “The Ottoman town (fifteenth-eighteenth century),” in R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, and A.
Raymond (ed.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008,
p. 217.
15
Mumford (1961): chapter (11) Medieval disruptions Modern Anticipations, pp. 362-394.
16
P. Lavedan and J. Hugueney, L’urbanisme au Moyen Age, Bibliothèque de la Société Française d’Archaéologie
5, Genève (Droz), 1974, p. 10.

6
longitudinal axis adjoined through transversals. In the cases where the main axis is a straight

line, then the parallel and the perpendicular axes demarcate a grid plan, which, however, does

not demonstrate any obvious signs of premeditation. In the cases where the central axis is a

curve, the secondary axes reflect this curvature (Freibourg at Brisgau or Prenzlau); while in

cities developed at the intersection of axes forming a right angle, we observe the development

of an orthogonal plan that reproduces the cross-axial arrangement.17

Alongside, these morphological evolutions we need to consider that the 14th century

in the medieval West is the grandiose period for the construction of enceintes. Extensive

construction schemes of walls and fortifications reconfigure the layout of ancient and

medieval urban centres (e.g., Rome, London, Vienne, Tours, Bourdeaux, Toulouse, Arles,

and Avignon), into impregnable castles.18 The same applies to the Byzantine Balkans. Here,

conditions of social insecurity resulting from consecutive civil wars, insurrections, and

external attacks necessitate—apart from the reconstruction of the walls (e.g. Didimoteicho,

Thessaloniki, Skopje)—the fortification of dwellings with towers and cisterns, so that they

resisted assault; the conclusive image is that of mansions that look like cities within cities.19

This trend is in conflict with the practices attested in the lower Balkans, where the Ottomans

are breaking new ground by introducing settlement outside the walled town in the form of

extramural20, suburban accretions.21

17
Lavedan – Hugueney (1974), p. 11.
18
Lavedan – Hugueney (1974), pp. 23-25.
19
C. Bouras, “Houses in Byzantium”, Deltion tēs Xristianikēs Arcaiologikēs Etairias, vol. 11, 1982-1983, pp. 1-
26; S. Curcic, Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent, Yale University Press,
2010, chap. 4 and 5.
20
M.R.G. Conzen, Thinking about urban form: papers on urban morphology, 1932-1998 (ed. Michael P.
Conzen), Bern, Peter Lang, 2004, p. 245. Conzen defines as extramural, the part of the Inner Fringe Belt
situated outside the fixation line, as a large, open-grained zone of irregular accretionary plot and building
development, often showing an impeded street-system.
21
This idea has been recently introduced in H. Lowry, “The early Ottoman Period,” in M. Heper and S. Sayari
(ed.), The Routledge handbook of Modern Turkey, London, 2012, p. 9 and has been theoretically substantiated
by the current thesis.

7
 Ottomans are not the first to have introduced the pattern of uncircumscribed

settlement. Seljuk Turks in the 13th century Anatolia and, particularly, semi-independent

local emirs who assumed power from the centralized Seljuk sultanate of Rum after its eclipse

in 1243 started erecting their community buildings, such as dervish lodges [zaviye], on

thoroughfares extending outside the lower citadel. Still, mosques and madrasas remained

within the inner citadel that was preserved for the governing elite, while the market district

(which was initially extending within the lower citadel and was meant for the non-Muslim

population), gradually expanded outside the city walls.22

Additionally, the Rum Seljuk palace park can be seen as another expression of

uncircumscribed settlement, since it was primarily located outside the city-walls. However,

fact remains that the pleasure palaces were essentially garden enclosures with surrounding

walls.23 Under this light, we can conclude that although the Seljuk city in the 13th century

starts to emerge slowly outside the city-walls, it cannot be compared to the Ottoman practice

of transferring the entirety of the urban institutional functions to the suburbium, practically,

reinstating the city outside the city-walls. It is thus important to understand how the Ottoman

practice works and to try to derive meaning from it.

Morphological Theory

In this connection, urban morphological theory provided the conceptual tools to

observe the urban construct’s mutation as the result of the dialectic balancing between inner

22
U.A. Peker, “Seljuk architecture and urbanism in Anatolia,” European Architectural History Newsletter 1
(2008): 30-31; E. S. Wolper,“The politics of patronage: political change and the construction of dervish lodges
in Sivas”, Muqarnas, vol. 12, 1995, pp. 40-41.
23
S. Redford, “Thirteenth-century Rum Seljuq palaces and palace imagery”, Ars Orientalis, vol. 23, 1993, pp.
219-236; L. Golombek, “Urban patterns in pre-Safavid Isfahan”, Iranian Studies, vol. 7, 1974, pp. 21-31.

8
and external polarities, or as we shall see, as intramural24 and extramural fabric.25

Conzenian theorization has been decisive towards the epitomization of a phenomenon, the

recurrence of which I could corroborate in the early Ottoman conquests of the lower Balkans.

Conzen meant to rationalize accretions to the Old Town of Alnwick in the medieval English

province of Northumberland by developing the concept of the fringe belt.26 In his words:

“this broad belt is traversed by older roads that radiate from the Old Town and its arterials”.

This is also one of the points drawn by Petruccioli when discussing the urban fabric of the

Islamicized Mediterranean: “The ancient city gates, even if obliterated in a later extension,

are almost always detectable because of the traces left by transverse and radial routes that

meet there”.27

Moreover, Conzenian theory has been proved a valuable research tool of a dynamic

character that had the potential to reconstruct historical topographies and resolve

periodization issues. Besides, it is suitable for working on small scale settlements typically

accommodating a population of around 3,000 to 5,000 people, such as the size of most early

modern Ottoman towns in the lower Balkans28; yet it, did not hinder further elaboration on

the concept of urban polarity.29

Muratorian theory discerned urban polarities of the inner and external types, which, in

the Ottoman urban semiotics, can be conceived under the terms intramural or Byzantine

kernel, as opposed to the extramural settlement or the appended Ottoman varoş. The co-
24
Conzen (2004), p. 249. Conzen defines as intramural, the part of the Inner Fringe Belt situated within the
fixation line, as a relatively restricted zone [..] within the generally close-grained morphological frame of a
traditional plot pattern.
25
K. Kropf, “Aspects of urban form”, Urban Morphology, vol. 13, 2009, pp. 105-120.
26
M. Berke, “Morphogenesis, fringe-belts and urban size: an explanatory essay”, in Terry R. Slater (ed.), The
Built Form of Western Cities: Essays for M.R.G Conzen on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, Leicester,
Leicester University Press, 1990, pp. 279-299. Berke perceptively interprets the development of the fringe belt
concept by Conzen as a means of rationalising the complexity and variety of the urban evolution.
27
M.R.G. Conzen, Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis. Institute of British Geographers 27.
st
1 ed. London, 1960, p. 12; A. Petruccioli, “New methods of reading the urban fabric of the Islamicized
Mediterranean”, Built Environment, vol. 28, 2002, p. 209.
28
See tables 11, 12, 23, 27.
29
G. Cataldi, G.L. Maffei, and P. Vaccaro, “Saverio Muratori and the Italian School of planning typology”, Urban
Morphology, vol. 6, issue 1, 2002, pp. 3-14; Petruccioli (2002), pp. 205-208.

9
ordination and, consequently, the evolution of the urban fabric lie in the balancing between

inner and external polarities. However, the role of external polarities in this dipolar structure

gains in importance, since they occupied and fixed the urban boundary at a given time, and

operated as fundamental places of contact between town and countryside. As the town grew

and underwent reorganization, they became inner civil polarities (landmarks) and then, a new

boundary and a new fringe belt were created further out.30

Now, critical cross-referencing between the conceptual apparatus of Conzenian and

Muratorian schools allowed the interpretation of the transitional process from the Byzantine

to the Ottoman town as a ‘reversal of polarities’ phenomenon; thereby, they encapsulated the

morphogenetic experience of the early Ottoman town in the lower Balkans. In Southeastern

Europe, the Ottomans marginalized the inner polarity—the Byzantine kernel—and

reconfigured the town under the new—external polarity—that assumed the configuration of

the Ottoman outer suburb [varoş].

Thus, applying the morphological theory towards the conceptualization of Ottoman

morphogenesis aims to point that morphological evolutions function on a cross-cultural level

and that the Ottoman experience can be equally rationalized based on concepts of general

significance. In this context, the term ‘morphogenesis’ comes to denote the study of the

urban landscapes forms’ development (morphology) over time, as one of the fields of

systematic investigation in historical geography.31 Then, conceptualization of the modus

operandi behind early Ottoman settlement patterns means to explain the arrangement and

diversity of the urban area—in terms of plan types and resulting geographical divisions—and

30
For references on Muratorian theory consult: Cataldi Maffei Vaccaro (2002), pp. 3-14; G. Cataldi, “Saverio
Muratori architetto (1910-1973). Il pensiero e l’opera”, Studi e Documenti di Architettura, Universita di Firenze,
Instituto di composizione architettonica I e II, vol. 12, 1984, pp. 5-14; S. Muratori, R. Bolatti and G. Marinucci,
Studi per una operante storia urbana di Roma, Rome, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1963.
31
D. Gregory, “Morphogenesis”, in R.J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt and M. Watts (eds.), The dictionary of
th
human geography, Blackwell Oxford (5 edition), pp. 480-481; M.R.G. Conzen, “Morphogenesis, morphological
regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape as exemplified by Ludlow”, in D. Deneke and G.
Shaw (eds.), Urban historical geography: recent progress in Britain and Germany 1988, pp. 258-272.

10
thus, to establish basic concepts, applicable to recurrent phenomena in the morphogenesis of

the Ottoman town.

For this purpose, I have incorporated in my analysis conceptual terms for the reading

of the urban fabric developed under the Urban Morphology Research Group of the University

of Birmingham and the Italian school of urban morphology. I am taking a qualitative and

descriptive approach towards the interpretation of the Ottoman urban form. This can be best

described as historico-geographical and it is primarily rooted in the works of the German

geographer M.R.G. Conzen.32 Conzen’s unrivalled understanding of the entire history of

geographical urban morphology, in conjunction with his breadth of vision, enabled him to

position urban morphology in relation to a wide range of other fields. His two major

contributions (i.e., the plan analysis of Alinwick from 1960 and the publication of collected

papers), practically substantiated the field of urban morphology, which had been recognized

as a field of scientific and scholarly investigation, one century earlier through the work of

Otto Schlüter.33

The contribution of the present thesis to the field lies in abstracting morphological and

defterological concepts34 from their accepted frames of reference and applying them towards

an interdisciplinary analytical model. This model allows the tracing of existing and

reconstructed forms back to their formative processes and their interpretation within the

theoretical framework of structural rationalism. Of course, this is not the first attempt to
32
Conzen (1960), pp. 3-11; M.R.G. Conzen, “The use of town plans in the study of urban history”, in H.J. Dynos
(ed.), The study of Urban History, 1968, pp. 113-131; Conzen (2004), pp. 48-77; Kropf (2009), pp. 105-120;
Cataldi - Maffei - Vaccaro (2002), pp. 3-14.
33
O. Schlüter, “Über den Grundriss der Städte”, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, vol. 34,
1899, pp. 446-462; idem., “Bemerkungen zur Siedlungsgeographie”, Geographische Zeitschrift, vol. 5, no. 2,
1899, pp. 65-84.
34
On the use of the Ottoman tax and population registers as a source for the writing of economic and urban
history: Ö.L.Barkan, “Türkiyede imparatorluk devirlerinin büyük nüfüs ve arazı tahrirleri ve hakana mahsus
istatistik defterleri’’, İ.Ü.İ.F.M, vol. 2 (1940-1941), pp. 20-59; idem.,“Tarihi demografi araştırmaları ve Osmanlı
tarihi”, Türkiyat Mecmuası vol. X (1951-1953), pp. 1-27; idem, “Essais sur les données statistiques des registres
de recensement dans l’empire Ottoman aux Xve et XVIe siècles”, Journal of the Economic and Social history of
the Orient, vol. 1 (1957), Issue 1-3, pp. 9-36; H. Lowry, “The Ottoman Tahrir Defterleri as a source for social and
economic history: pitfalls and limitations”, Studies in Defterology, Ottoman society in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries, İstanbul (Isis Press), 1992, pp. 3-19.

11
apply the morphological theory towards the study of the urban form in Turkey. Ayşe Kubat

employed the spatial-analytical aspect of morphological theory—as substantiated through

syntax values—towards the cross-examination of the morphological structure (physical

structure) of a series of Anatolian fortified cities with their city plans (patterns). The

mathematical model applied by Kubat relied on the axiom that “the urban open space is the

generator of urban form and it should be analyzed by emphasizing its continuous nature” as

attested through the aspects of geometric order, axiality and articulated spatial organisation.35

Thus, space syntax emerged as a quantitative method for the description of built

spaces that determined the layout’s symmetry or asymmetry (through the integration value),

and the extent in which the structure of the urban open space was broken up (through the

convex articulation value). In the majority of the examined cases, the most integrated lines

(the integrated core) were clustered at the centre, where the commercial hub lies. Yet, the

most segregated lines occurred by the city walls in the peripheral areas that in the Islamic-

Turkish settlements coincide with the residential districts. Accordingly, Kubat concluded

that the most important syntactic characteristic of the Anatolian fortified towns can be

summarised in their deep and segregated urban layouts. Under this light, this methodology

opts for solutions and answers about the place “we might go to” or the adaptability of a new

design proposal into the existing structure of an area. Thus, purpose wise the methodology

means to provide urban designers with material when creating new syntheses, which would

reflect traditional characteristics of the historical settlements.36

Still, it cannot help us rationalize neither the morphogenetic mechanism of how the

Ottoman town came to a formation nor to periodize the morphological phases of its

35
A.S. Kubat, “Morphological characteristics of Anatolian fortified towns”, Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, vol. 24, 1997, p. 98.
36
Kubat (1997), pp. 99, 122; A.S. Kubat and M. Topçu, “Morphological comparison of two historical Anatolian
towns”, in A.S. Kubat, Y. Güney, Ö. Ertekin and E. Eyüboğlu (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Space
Syntax Symposium (İTÜ), vol. 1, 2007, pp. 1-12; A.S. Kubat, “The study of urban form in Turkey”, Urban
morphology, vol. 14, issue 1, 2010, pp. 31–48.

12
evolution. The reason is that, it essentially lacks the interdisciplinary basis that would

accommodate the cross-reference of the morphological observation with the influx of

archival information. The limitations of such an approach, when applied on material from the

Balkan context, show clearly where open space has not preserved its continuity, due to the

obliteration (intentional or circumstantial) of the Ottoman fabric. As we shall see further

down, within this very Balkan context, the earliest and, in this sense, historically valuable

samples of Ottoman urban fabric (fringe belts) are to be preserved.

The adoptation of the historico-geographical approach in the methodology of this

thesis means to overcome such restrictions. Since, I maintain that the application of the

principle of historical stratification in the examination of the physical structure will enable us

to trace the structural forms back to their formative processes. In other words, it will allow us

to reconstruct the format of the urban fabric and periodize its morphological phases.

Phenomena of Systematic Investigation

We would next need to define the methodological framework of our systematic

investigation and identify the fundamental categories of phenomena that can be further

applied in the study of the early Ottoman urban morphology. In that respect, we should

mention that the necessity for the application of a morphological theory was realised at a later

stage of this thesis’ research, after the compilation of the reconstructive maps. We need to

note this point, as it affects some of the main elements of the systematic investigation, which,

constitute the dogmatic apparatus of the school of urban morphology. For the study of the

towns of the 14th and 15th centuries, we lack sufficient information about the building fabric.

This is due to the fact that first, historical cadastral surveys of the cities/towns for this period

have not survived; secondly, the variable combination of the three fabric-element complexes

13
of the building type, materials and style has not been preserved. Of course, we refer to

samples of vernacular architecture and not to historical religious and secular monuments, a

number of which are still discernible in the townscape of the towns of our interest. To put the

partial evidence that has survived for study in its proper context, we need therefore to link our

analysis to the other phenomenon of urban morphology: the town planning.

Conzen’s concepts of ‘accretionary growth’, ‘kernel’, ‘fringe belt’ and ‘fixation line’

constitute the fundamental conceptual terms that evolve into analytical tools of our

interdisciplinary methodology.37 This section aims to define these terms and justify their

adaptation to the needs and peculiarities of the Ottoman material. The term kernel emerges

as a pivotal element; that is, the centre of a town formed by the earliest, medieval plan-units

often referred to as the Old Town. In three of our cases, the Old Town coincides with the

Byzantine castled citadel, which becomes clearly defined from the subsequent exterior

development conditioned by the existence of the city walls and the differentiation of the

building fabric. The understanding of the Byzantine citadel as the kernel of the Ottoman

urban fabric allows the conceptualization of accretional growth within the Ottoman town.

The term accretion or accretional growth denotes the morphogenetic process of

outward growth of a town from its kernel, substantiated through the peripheral addition of a

fringe belt to the built-up area of a town. Conzen’s definition of the fringe belt incorporated

the concept of concentric rings of urban growth consisting of: “a first or Inner Fringe Belt

(IFB), one or more Middle Fringe Belts (MFB) and the most recent or Outer Fringe Belt

(OFB). Each belt is self-perpetuating, going successively through its initiation (fixation),

expansion and consolidation phases”.38

37
Conzen (2004), Appendix A: a glossary of technical terms, pp. 240, 245-246, 248, 249.
38
Conzen develops the concept more fully in the following passage:
“ [The urban fringe consists of] a belt-like zone originating from the temporarily stationary or very slowly
advancing fringe of a town and [is] composed of a characteristic mixture of land-use units initially seeking
peripheral location. As such it is a distinct type of integument and a major plan-division in its own right.
Significant changes in the whole civilizational context of a town’s development such as fluctuations in

14
 Significant changes in the whole civilizational context of a town’s development—

such as the settlement of the first Ottomans—caused intermittent deceleration in the outward

growth of the Byzantine town, as well as marked changes in the admixture of new land-use

types at the town fringe. In our case-studies from the Balkans, the geographical result

emerging gradually from the Ottoman settlement is a system of successive, broadly,

concentric fringe belts separated from the kernel, (i.e, the Byzantine citadel). In three out of

the four cities of our investigation—Dimetoka, Gümülcine and Siroz—the fringe belt

coincides with the suburbium, commonly encountered in Evliya as the varoş of the Ottoman

town. This can be identified with the un-walled, non-agricultural settlement outside the gate

of a pre-urban nucleus, often representing an early stage in the development of the early

modern city.39 This evolution is attributed to binding historical circumstances (i.e. the pre-

existing Christian population), that prescribed restricted accretional development within the

kernel during the fixation phase of the IFB.

The broad pattern of growth resulting in the plan development of a series of early

Ottoman towns in the lower Balkans conforms closely to M.R.G Conzen’s theorization on the

Inner Fringe Belt (IFB). The term IFB denotes a commonly closed fringe belt surrounding

the kernel of a town, arranged asymmetrically around an antecedent fixation line as its

backbone, which can be then divided into a restricted intramural and a much larger

extramural space.40 The only diversion from the theory can be identified in the fact that,

wherever applicable, the intramural building development of our cases is exclusively

population and economic development or repeated intensification in the introduction of all kinds of innovations
causes intermittent deceleration or standstill in the outward growth of a town as well as marked changes in the
admixture of new land-use types at the town fringe. In towns with a long history the geographical result
emerging gradually from these dynamics is often a system of successive, broadly, concentric fringe belt s more
or less separated by other integuments. It can thus produce a first or Inner Fringe Belt (IFB), one or more Middle
Fringe Belts (MFB) and the most recent or Outer Fringe Belt (OFB). Each belt is self-perpetuating, going
successively through its initiation (fixation), expansion and consolidation phases.” Conzen (2004), 245-246.
Originally discussed in M. R.G. Conzen, Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis. Institute of
nd
British Geographers 27. 2 enl. ed. London, 1969, p. 125.
39
Conzen (2004), Appendix A: a glossary of technical terms, p. 259.
40
Conzen (2004), Appendix A: a glossary of technical terms, p. 248.

15
restricted to the settlement of the garrison.41 This as a highly restricted plot, of non-

residential character at the fringes of the traditional plot pattern (i.e. the Byzantine fabric) that

has not preserved its layout apart from scattered buildings.

Essentially, the very Ottoman town can be substantiated in the development of the

IFB, since it surrounds the Byzantine castle and is arranged asymmetrically around an

antecedent fixation line, the castle wall. Most importantly, the IFB is articulated along older

roads that radiate from the gates of the Old town, which evolve into the arteries (axes) of the

Ottoman town with pivotal being that of the çarşıya, the commercial street.42

Review of the Literature on Islamic urbanism

Before embarking on the discussion of the adapted model in detail, it will be useful to

provide a brief historical overview of the scholarship achieved so far on the history of Islamic

urbanism in order to identify the place of the present study within the epistemological field of

urban studies.

Pioneers in the study of the Islamic city were the French historians William and

Georges Marçais, Le Tourneau and Robert Brunschvig who focused their work on the

network of North African cities starting in the 1920s.43 Their ‘orientalising’ theory

influenced by Weber’s44 aphoristic conceptions of the anarchic Islamic city versus the

typological homogeneity of its western European counterpart, projected the Maghrebian

41
A lucid example of this trend can be attested in the case-study of Dimetoka ( See map 1: B2).
42
The çarşıya will also appear in the analysis under the term processional road. The term is also used by the
historian Lory but for denoting the area of the Pazar because in Bulgarian the term Pazar comes to denote the
commercial fair where the peasants. B. Lory, Le sort de l’héritage Ottoman en Bulgarie: l’example des villes
Bulgares 1878-1900, İstanbul 1985, p. 99.
43
Their method and epistemological outlook was influenced by the status of these cities as colonial
‘possessions’, the physical recording of which served political objectives. G.A. Neglia, “Some historiographical
notes on the Islamic city with particular reference to the visual representation of the built city”, in R. Holod, A.
Petruccioli, and A. Raymond (ed.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental Studies 94,
Leiden, Brill, 2008, pp. 3-18, 43-44.
44
M. Weber, The city, New York, Free Press, 1958, pp. 80-89.

16
urban model as the normative, spatial model for the entirety of the Islamic world. According

to this theory, the Islamic city was an irrational morpheme comprised of chaotically arranged

components: the ‘suq’, the Friday mosque, the citadel and the city walls. The guilds of

craftsman constituted the functional basis of the Islamic city, which was accommodated in

the ‘suq’ zone.45

Contemporaneous to the research group discussed above is the work of another

French historian Jean Sauvaget, on a series of Syrian cities, which inaugurated the

morphological era in urban studies. Through the use of cadastral surveys, he managed to

unveil the Hellenistic substratum of the Late Antique and Islamic city, and to identify the

monoaxonic orientation that gave form to the weaving of the Islamic urban stratum.46

Sauvaget’s work has been particularly influential for the current study, as the theorization on

the urban planning of Dimetoka will reveal. However, it was not possible to share his reading

of the posterior strata as a progressive parafthora [corruption] of the classical phase of the

city. As we have already suggested and we will further discuss, the Balkan type that we are

casting developed unconstrained from the Hellenistic or Byzantine substratum. Thus, the

Ottoman phases should be assessed on different grounds as products of ingenious

improvisation.

Anatolian cities too, despite the abundance of related cadastral material47, did not

escape from the hellenocentric bias that discarded as lacking sophistication the Ottoman

urban solutions. Thus, the Ottoman strata were condemned into damnatio memoriae48 until

45
G. Marçais, “La conception des villes dans l’Islam”, Revue d’Alger, vol. 2, 1945, pp. 517-533; R. Brunschwig,
“Urbanisme médiéval et droit musulman”, Revue des etudes Islamiques, vol. 15, 1947, pp. 127-155.
46
J. Sauvaget “Esquisse d’une histoire de la ville de Damas”, Revue des Etudes Islamiques, vol. 8, 1934, pp. 467-
472; idem., Alep. Essai sur le developpement d’une grande ville syrienne, Paris 1941; idem., “Le plan antique de
Damas”, Syria, vol. 26, 1949, pp. 314-358.
47
Neglia (2008), p. 9, footnote 17.
48
E. Malboury, “İstanbul : Un nouvel element pour la topographie de l’antique Byzance”, Archäologischer
Anzeiger: Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Arcäologischen Instituts, vol. 49, 1934, pp. 50-61; R. Busch-Zantner, “Zur
Kenntnis der osmanischen Stadt”, Geographische Zeitschrift, vol. 38, 1932, pp. 1-13.

17
the early 1990s, when the paradigm-shifting works of Pinon were formulated.49 Still, before

proceeding with the latest evolutions in the urban scholarship of the Anatolian cities, short

reference should be made to three major works; these, critically revised the generic

typologies advocated by the Marçaisean and Pirennean models on the North African cities

and remain cognitive cornerstones in the field of urban studies and morphological

theorization.

Lapidus in his work on the history of the Mamluk cities of Syria and Egypt

challenged the image of oriental despotism. He developed a socio-political model of urban

syncretism for the Muslim world, which advocated a concept of homogeneity and flexible

stratification across Muslim urban societies.50 Lapidus introduced this morpheme of urban

solidarity, which he introduced as ‘mosaic society’, was coordinated under various religious,

ethnic or racial networks. He identified the neighbourhood [mahalle], founded around the

agnatic clan, as the core social unit and discussed also fiscal collectivism associated with

these neighbourhood networks.51

The second significant revision and re-orientation of the theoretical model towards a

morphological approach was achieved by the Italian urban historian Smuel Tamari. He

suggested a methodological classification of the Islamic cities in four types (Hellenistic-

Mediterranean, Iranian-Mesopotamian, Southern-Arabian and residential). Tamari concluded

49 nd
P. Pinon, “Les tissus urbains ottomans entre Orient et Occident”, in Proceedings of the 2 International
Meeting on Modern Ottoman Studies and the Turkish Republic, Leiden 1989, pp. 15-45; A. Borie, P. Pinon et S.
Yerasimos, “Tokat: essai sur l’architecture domestique et la forme urbaine”, Anatolia Moderna, vol. 1, 1991,
pp. 239-273; P. Pinon, “Essai de definition morphologique de la ville ottoman des XVIIIe-XIXe siècles”, in La
culture urbaine des Balkans, vol. 3, La ville des Balkans depuis la fin du Moyen Age jusqu’au debut du XXe
siècle, Paris-Belgrade (1989) 1991, pp. 147-155; idem., “Essai de typologie des tissus urbains des villes
ottomans d’Anatolie et des Balkans”, in Seven Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: “A supra-national Heritage”,
İstanbul 2000, pp. 174-198 ; idem., “The Ottoman Cities of the Balkans in R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, and A.
Raymond (ed.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008,
pp. 143-158.
50
I.M. Lapidus, Muslim cities in the later middle ages, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,
1967; idem., “Muslim Cities and Islamic Society”, in I. M. Lapidus (ed.) Middle Eastern Cities: A symposium on
Ancient, Islamic and Contemporary Middle Eastern Urbanism, Berkley, University of California Press, 1969, pp.
47-79; idem., “Muslim Urban Society in Mamluk Syria”, in A.H. Hourani and S.M. Stern (eds), The Islamic City,
Papers on Islamic History I, Oxford, University of Pensylvania Press, 1970, pp. 195-207.
51
Lapidus (1967), pp. 85-95.

18
that the Islamic city despite being formed under the influence of the anterior substrata

developed an idiosyncratic morphological identity, which was the product of sheer

imaginative ingenuity.52 The present thesis owes a great deal to Tamari’s methodological

outlook and process of epistemological corroboration. However, my approach rests in the

interdisciplinary investigation of the relationship between defterology and urban form.

The contribution of the French historian Jean-Claude Garcin, while continues along

the same revisionist lines, introduced a new methodological parameter that has been

particularly inspirational to the present thesis. This consists in the division of his over-

simplified Orientalist model into periods. In this way, Garcin’s approach practically

introduced the concept of periodization in morphological studies.53

Pinon and Veinstein

Our regional enquiry as regards to the character of the Ottoman city in the Balkans

can be most substantially concluded with the time and place specific works of Veinstein54 and

Pinon.55 Pinon advocated that the only credible way for the research to establish the original

character of the ‘Eastern city’56, in the sense of corroborating whether characteristics ascribed

to the weaving of its urban fabric (such as the anarchic layout, the intertwining network of

twisting streets, the centrality of the bazaars and dominance of the minarets) ever actually

existed, can be established conclusively through the study of the cadastral plans. Only by

52
S. Tamari, “Aspetti principali dell’ urbanesimo musulmano”, Palladio, nos. 1-4, 1966, pp. 45-82.
53
J.C. Garcin, “Le Caire et l’evolution urbane des pays musulmans”, Annales islamologiques, vol. 25, 1991, pp.
289-304.
54
G. Veinstein, “La ville Ottomane: les facteurs d’unité”, La ciudad islamica. Ponencias y communicaciones,
Saragosa 1991, pp. 65-92; idem., “La ville Ottomane”, in N. Naciri and A. Raymond (ed.), Sciences socials et
phénomènes urbains dans le monde arabe, Casablanca 1997, pp. 105-114; idem., “The Ottoman town
(fifteenth-eighteenth century),” in R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, and A. Raymond (ed.), The city in the Islamic World,
vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, pp. 205-217.
55
See footnotes 49 and 54.
56
Pinon (2008), p. 144.

19
treating the cadastral surveys as crude evidence, do the traces of the earliest structures

become legible. However, he made clear that these plans only appeared in the late 19th

century, a fact that constitutes the main limitation of the material. Plans used as evidence for

the corroboration of earliest structures/fabrics must perforce be anachronistically applied,

unless significant parts of their urban tissue can be securely dated. This is the point where the

material from the towns of Dimetoka and Siroz assumes a particular importance, since

through its use we are able to join up this broken relationship and establish a clear

periodization of the Ottoman morphological phases.

Pierre Pinon formulated his pioneering theory of 1989 as a response to a pivotal

research question: “given the cultural diversity of the Ottoman Empire, how can we expect to

believe that only one [type] of an Ottoman city existed”?57 The working hypothesis he put

forward advanced the argument that the Ottoman Empire should be divided—in terms of

architectural typologies and urban morphologies—in two major zones: a) the ‘Turco-Balkan’,

and b) the ‘Arabo-Ottoman’ regional variations. The first group encompasses the areas of the

Balkans and North-western Anatolia. Whilst, the second includes southern Anatolia, Near

East, Magreb and cities like Kayseri, Konya, Urfa and Diyarbakir that constitute the early

conquests of the Seljuks whose Byzantine substratum had been covered over before the

beginning of the Ottoman era.58

Still, Pinon was adamant on the fact that if we were to define the ‘purely’ Ottoman

city, then we should restrict ourselves to the cities founded from scratch from the end of the

15th century onwards.59 In that case, we would need to exclude from our research agenda

Bursa, Edirne, and Dimetoka [Didymoteicho], as ‘Ottomanized’ towns, with diverse pasts of

Greco-Roman and Byzantine identity founded in the 14th century.

57
Pinon (1989) 1991, pp. 147-155.
58
Pinon (2008), pp. 146-147.
59
Pinon (2008), p. 144.

20
 It is my contention that in order to decipher the ‘pure’ Ottoman fabric, we need to turn

first to the towns that underwent ‘Ottomanization’ the earliest and—more importantly—to

the towns that developed extramural Ottoman settlements. This thought leads us to a series

of late 14th century’s conquests at the lower Balkans with a Byzantine intramural and an

Ottoman suburbium, namely, Dimetoka [Didymoteicho], Gümülcine [Komotēnē], Drama

[Drama], Siroz [Serres] and Karaferye [Veroia]. Such a methodological prioritization stems

primarily from the realisation that understanding of the extramural accretions will advance

our knowledge of how the Ottoman fabric acquired cohesion with the castle and essentially,

of how it came to a formation.

These towns cannot be morphologically associated with the sub-types of the north-

western Anatolian towns of Bursa and Iznik or, the Balkan cities of Edirne and Thessalonikē.

In these towns, Pinon identified the over-bearing presence of the Byzantine (antique) grid

plan over the formation of the posterior Ottoman fabric. This can be explained by the fact

that their earliest Ottoman morphological phases were developed within the city walls and

were consequently subjected to the specifics of a pre-determined morphology. Still, since the

material of our study extends outside the boundaries of the castled town in the open

landscape, we should seriously reconsider the thesis that “the Ottomanized cities of the

Balkans constitute a mere adaptation of the Byzantine cities”.60

The case-studies discussed in this thesis corroborate the existence of an original urban

type for this group of towns, as Veinstein has predicted.61 They legitimately deserve to be

called ‘original’ since the genesis of the earliest and unrestrained from the impact of the

Byzantine substratum fabrics is to be traced in these towns. Thus, although the towns of the

type arose within the geographical boundaries of the ‘Turco-Balkan’ or ‘North-Western’

group of Ottoman urbanisation, they developed exclusively extramural Ottoman fabrics that

60
Pinon (2008), p. 147.
61
Veinstein (2008), p. 217.

21
can be datable in the 14th century (proto-Ottoman morphological phase). Accordingly, the

coining of the type should reflect these particular geographical divisions that constitute the

semantic form of the type. Towards this direction, typo-morphological theory can be proven

helpful. The birth of a type is conditioned by the fact that a series of cities share an obvious

functional and formal analogy amongst themselves.62 “In the process of comparing or

selectively superimposing individual forms for the determination of the type, the identifying

characteristic of specific cities is eliminated and only the common elements remain which

appear in the whole series. Type, then is depicted as a scheme deduced through a process of

distillation from a group of formal variants to a basic form or common scheme”.63 Under

this light, the type that we are casting can be defined as the Balkan-Anatolian group with a

Byzantine intramural and Ottoman extramural.

The analytical model

The hypothesis of this thesis can be summarised as follows. An original urban type

existed, halfway between the Arabic and the Western towns, which can be legitimately

referred to as the ‘original’ Ottoman type. This type evolved under the dialectic balancing

between the Byzantine kernel and the Ottoman, extramural settlement (i.e., the fringe belt).

The fringe belt was spatially hierarchized upon the principle of reflective axiality; as a result,

the early Ottoman town-planning assumed the form of a highly conceptualized system—a

62
J. Rykwert, “On Typology”, Architectural Design, vol. 33, 1963, pp. 544-56; G. Cataldi, “Designing in stages:
theory and design in the typological concept of the Italian school of Saverio Muratori”, in A. Petruccioli (ed.),
Typological Process and Design theory, M.I.T 1998, pp. 35-54.
63
A. Petruccioli, “Exoteric-Polytheistic-Fundamentalist Typology. Gleanings in the form of an introduction”,
Typological Process and Design Theory, M.I.T 1998, p. 9; Lathouri argues that by the term “type” is implied the
characteristic form or particular physiognomy that enables a building or a city to be read as to its fundamental
purpose. M. Lathouri, “The city as a project: types, typical objects and typologies”, Architectural Design, vol. 8,
issue 1, 2011, pp. 24-31.

22
living organism—that when adapted to a site, it maximized the opportunities of the landscape

for settlement by setting up or enhancing connectivity of the fabric.

Towards this direction, the devised methodology focuses on the development of an

epistemological framework, which will allow and substantiate the examination of these

fabrics’ morphology and readdress the issue of the Ottoman town’s typology. Essentially, the

working model challenges the image of the anarchal Balkan city by examining the

phenomenon of Ottoman urban morphogenesis under the perspective of ‘structural

rationalism’; in the sense that the detailed articulations of the town plan are carried in a

systematic way to give a structural order to the internal spatial relationships of the town plan.

In order to appreciate the significance and extent of our approach, we would need to

take a look on the most recent academic attempts to define the traditional (Ottoman) form of

the Balkan city. Yerolympos in her book “Urban transformations in the Balkans”, in an

attempt to expose the inferred changes to the Balkan city upon the “de-Ottomanization”

process, provided a description of the physical structure and form of the Balkan city. In this,

she identified the shared characteristics of these cities as: a) the anarchic development along

with the insertion of rural areas within city limits, b) the inexistence of a particular role

assigned to ancient fortifications, c) the residential separation of multiethnic population into

allocated quarters, with an introverted, strictly supervised communal life of their own, d)

especially reserved quarters for market places and workshops, e) absence of a civic centre,

and, f) twisted system of narrow, ill-maintained streets.64 All in all, the emerging pattern for

the traditional city is that of visual and structural disorder and fragmentation. It is thus

portrayed as highly contradictive to the 19th century’s metamorphotical model of the Ideal

City fostered under the direct auspicies of European modernization.

64
A. Yerolympou, Urban transformations in the Balkans (1820-1920), Thessaloniki 1996, p. 14.

23
 Of course, such aforistic generalisations can be attributed to the lack of time and place

specific research counterbalanced by the dependency on western travellers’ biased ‘ekfraseis’

[travel accounts] of the Ottoman cities in the Balkans. Yet, most of the times, they failed to

grasp the inner rhythm of the Ottoman town plan. Echo of this orientalising perspective

emerges most convincingly in the chapter “The Ottoman heritage on the Bulgarian cities and

the new urbanism” of Lory. Through the testimonies of western travellers, he reconstruct a

consistent portrait of the anarchal, oriental Ottoman Bulgaria, which eventually dictated the

need for urban reformation, substantiated through the tracing of straight and spacious avenues

leading to the administrative and commercial centres.65

The working model devised in this thesis means by paying tribute to M.R. Conzen’s

theoretical apparatus66 to establish basic concepts applicable to recurrent phenomena in the

morphogenesis of the early Ottoman city. Through the comparative analysis of the town

plans of four towns that were either conquered or established by the Ottomans in the first half

of the 14th century within the strictly defined geographical area of the lower Balkans, we

mean to explain the arrangement and diversity of the urban area in terms of plan types and

resulting geographical divisions. By adopting an evolutionary viewpoint over the span of two

centuries (14th-16th c.), we expect to show basic principles and morphological phenomena of

the town plans during the period of transition from the Byzantine to the Ottoman city, which

can be applicable to the study of the Ottoman city in general.

In this connection, it is fundamental to establish how we mean to use ‘town plans’ in

our approach. Conzenean methodology relies upon the axiomatic that “the town plan

includes all features of the built-up area shown on the 1/2500 Ordnance survey plan”. Town

plan then emerges as the topographical arrangement of an urban built-up area containing

three distinctive elements: a) streets and street systems, b) plots and their aggregation in

65
Lory (1985), p. 101.
66
Conzen (1960), p. 4.

24
street-blocks, and c) buildings.67 In this sense, town plan constitutes the most comprehensive

record of the town’s physical development since it maintains a full array of residual

features.68

Still, town plans in this rigid sense as defined by Conzen, Pinon, and Veinstein (as

discussed above) have not survived or even, have never been compiled for 14th to 16th

centuries. Subsequently, the 20th c. town plans that constitute the working platform for the

towns of our interest cannot provide information on the entirety of the 14th c. street-system,

since the excruciating detail of the type of information allowed through the 20th c.

cartographic evidence, such as the street-lines and plot pattern can be corroborated only for

the 20th century context.69 Despite Conzen’s contention that “the street is the most refractory

element of the town plan and changes affecting the street-system are generally confined to the

detail of street-lines and even then are slow to appear”70, there is no epistemological method

to confirm whether the 20th c. street-lines and the plot boundaries correspond to the 14th

century’s town plan features, or not.

Additionally, the modernization of the Balkan cities in the 20th century and the

intentional obliteration of the Ottoman residues from the urban memory—the so-called de-

Ottomanization process—have irreparably disturbed the relation of the modern city to its

Ottoman substratum.71 This becomes instantly apparent in the case-study of Siroz. In Siroz

67
Conzen (1960), pp. 4-5.
68
Conzen (1960), p. 6.
69
Conzen defines the term street as the open space bounded by street-lines meant for traffic. The
arrangement of these contiguous spaces within an urban area may be called street-system.
Each street-block constitutes a group of contiguous land parcels, i.e. plots, which in their turn are essentially
units of land use. The arrangement of the contiguous plots is evident from the plot boundaries, which when
considered separately from other elements of the town plan, may be called the plot pattern. Conzen (1960), p.
5.
70
Conzen (1960), p. 6.
71
A. Yerolympou, “Mia prototypē poleodomikē epembasē”, in A. Yerolympou-Karadēma and L.Theodōridou-
Sōtēriou (eds.), Serres 1900-1940 xōros kai istoria, Serres, 2008, pp. 25-60; L. Theodoridou, “H anoikodomēsē
tēs polēs kata ton mesopolemo ”, in A. Yerolympou-Karadēma and L.Theodōridou-Sōtēriou (eds.), Serres 1900-
1940 xōros kai istoria, Serres, 2008, p. 254; M. Harmuth, “Negotiating tradition and ambition: Comparative
perspective on the ‘De-Ottomanization’ of the Balkan cityscapes”, Ethnologia Balkanica, vol. 10, 2006, pp. 15-
34.

25
the geo-reference of the 1994 grid plan over the 1914 topographic survey revealed that the

modern city was essentially reconfigured based on regular geometry.72 Such a drastic re-

designing of the city’s layout is the result of consecutive revisions of the street plan, which

were aimed to the eradication of the Ottoman street system and inferred the final corruption

of the Ottoman fabric.73

Given the above limitations, how can we then expect to use the twentieth century’s

town plans in our attempt to recompose the Late Medieval or Early Modern topography?

Although it is not possible to corroborate the fourteenth century’s plot pattern, we can attest

the position and dating of the street-blocks and, in this sense, the core layout of the street-

system. Street-blocks, as the areas within the town plan unoccupied by streets and bounded

by street-lines74, can be identified within the context of Islamic urbanism with the formative

unit of the quarter [mahalle]. The formation of the quarters [mahalle] is closely bound to the

establishment of the sultanic and private endowments that in Islamic jurisprudence are

resumed under the legal entity of the vakf.

Defterological evidence on the urban vakfs provides us with retrospective information

on the formation and the upkeep of the vakfs, around which the numerous quarters evolved.

For example, although the earliest surviving tax register on Siroz dates from 145475 the

entries on the urban vakfs witness to their foundation from the reigns of Murad I (1359-1389),

Bayezid I (1389-1401) or the interregnum (1402-13). Given the scarcity of available

Ottoman sources synchronic to the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, these data acquire

72
See map 6 of the appendix.
73
N. Nikolaou, “Ē megalē pyrkagia tou 1849”, Serraika Analekta, vol. 1, 1994, pp. 136-151, Pl. 2; Yerolympou
(2008), pp. 28-41.
74
Conzen (1960), p. 5.
75
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşıvı (BOA), TT3 858(1454-1455), pp. 156-173; The dating of the survey in 1454 as
against the previously accepted date of 1464-1465 was argued by Michael Ursinus, “An Ottoman census
register for the area of Serres of 859 H.(1454-1455)? A reconsideration of the date of composition of Tahrir
Defteri TT3”, Südost Forshungen, vol. 45, 1986, pp. 25-36.

26
a particular value.76 Cross-examination of these pieces of evidence with an array of

miscellaneous metadata can help us map the 14th to 16th centuries’ street-blocks and

essentially—the core layout of the street-system— within the 20th century’s city plan. It

becomes therefore possible by relying on tangible, archival evidence to: a) monitor the

investment laid on the towns under the reigns of the six sultans over the formative period of a

century and a half, and b) reflect the chorostatic dimension of this evolution in dialectic

partnership with residual features (such as the monumental and domestic architecture) on the

reconstructive maps.

At a first phase, the recovery of defterological data serves towards the reconstruction

of the nowadays corrupted (non-existent) Ottoman town plan of the towns under discussion.

Accordingly, the adaptation of an evolutionary approach spanning the reigns of six sultans

over the course of a century and a half means to trace existing and reconstructed forms back

to their formative processes and to interpret them within a rationalized conceptual

framework.

It is precisely at this stage of the analysis that we need to organize the traces left from

the succession of different cultural époques on the townscape of the towns into a system of

historical stratification.77 Morphologically, the geographical character of a town finds

expression in the townscape, which is a combination of town plan, pattern of building forms

and pattern of urban land use.78 The succession of different periods leaves its traces on the

townscape of the cities, the outline and fabric of its built-up area, which then assumes the

76
Lowry (2012), pp. 6-7. Lowry comments on the scarcity of available synchronic sources and points to the fact
that until his publication of Haci Evrenos’s genealogical tree, the first two centuries of Ottoman history were
reconstructed based either on late sixteenth century’s Ottoman chronicles or on the synchronic (i.e.,)
fourteenth and fifteenth century’s neighbouring historiography (Greek/ Slavic).
77
“The townscape acquires historical character or historicity in proportion to the number of morphological
periods involved and displays this through historical stratification, which constitutes the most important
general principle in historical urban morphology” as quoted from Conzen (2004), pp. 71-72. The concept was
initially introduced in Conzen (1960), p. 6.
78
Conzen (1960), p. 3.

27
function of an accumulated record of the town’s development.79 Each period leaves its

distinctive material residues which for the purpose of topographical analysis can be viewed as

a morphological period. Under this light, periodization emerges as an indispensable

component of the morphological analysis that needs to be adequately adapted to the time and

place specific scope of our study. Our case-studies from the lower Balkans would be then

subjected to a refined system of periodization for Ottoman urbanism, which would monitor

the state of the inferred changes, as pro re nata.

Urban growth in the lower Balkans during the second half of the 14th c. can be

essentially resumed in the development of the fringe belt. Since, within the system of

historical stratification for the towns of our interest the phenomenon of accretional growth

appears to be exclusively connected with the Ottoman intervention, thus, the cultural époque

spanning 14th to 20th c. can be broadly defined as Ottoman. However, we are in the position

to provide a detailed subdivision of the époque into shorter intervals, which reflect the

morphological evolution of the: a) the proto-Ottoman phase (reigns of Murad I to Mehmed I),

b) the classical phase (reigns of Murad II to Bayezid II), and c) the consolidation phase

(reigns of Selim I and Süleyman I), which practically coincide with the initiation, expansion

and consolidation phases of the Inner Fringe Belt (IFB).80

The topics discussed, in varying degrees of detail according to the richness of the

documentation, in each chapter of the thesis are the following: the breakdown of quarters and

their topographic identification; the ways in which vakfs structured the landscape;

periodization, town planning conception and morphological reflections; patterns of

Ottomanization and their geostrategic dependencies; demographic fluctuations; issues of

social synthesis and stratification.

79
Conzen (1960), p. 6.
80
Conzen (2004), pp. 246, 248.

28
 To recapitulate, this thesis contributes to the field of Ottoman urbanism through

offering a new perspective which consists of an interdisciplinary investigation of the

relationship between defterology and urban morphology.

B. Ottomanization as a colonization process

Historical circumstances in Byzantine Thrace and the Ottoman method of conquest

Before proceeding with the discussion of periodization, it is appropriate that we start

our analysis with a sketch of the prevailing conditions under which the Turkish conquest of

Thrace became possible during the first half of the 14th century. Although Thrace was the

direct victim of the clashing interests in Byzantine politics during the period of the two civil

wars, the signs of demographic decline were already visible in the 13th century. This has

been interpreted as a result of the dependency of the Thracian cities on the agricultural

production of the hinterland and the failure to develop a sustainable urban economy, which

would rely on a balanced commercial and artisanal growth. Therefore, by the first half of the

14th century when the systemized conduct of the Turkish incursions became an inescapable

reality, the economy of these cities collapsed as a result of the decline of the agrarian

economy.81

The Ottoman methods of conquest, on the other hand, were devised under

circumstances of necessity. The incapacity of the early Ottomans to directly attack a fortified

city encouraged the formulation of an established war tactic divided into three stages. At the

first stage, the warriors of the faith [Gazis] raided the countryside by organizing attacks of

81
G. Vogiatzēs, Ē prōimē othōmanokratia stē Thrakē: ameses dēmographikes synepeies, Thessalonikē,
Hrodotos publications, 1998, pp. 188-189; P. Charanis, “Observation on the Demography of the Byzantine
th
Empire”, (offprint from) 13 International Congress of Byzantine Studies 1966, pp. 10-16.

29
accelerating intensity.82 Initially, by this sporadic opportunistic pillaging, they aimed to

reduce the productivity of the arable lands and to confiscate existing crops; a fact which

paralyzed the economic life of the Thracian cities, since they could not counter-balance the

losses through other fields of economy.83 The intensity of the raids had reached its peak by

the 1340s, when Gregoras notes that the frequency of the incoming news on the pillaging of

the Thracian hinterland was a daily phenomenon which had desensitized the Byzantine

historiographers.

By 1343, these raids were being indirectly instigated by Kantakouzenos (1292-1383),

who invited the Turks of the principalities to help fight his battles against John V Paleologos

(1332-1391) but he could not force them to return home after they had collected their loot.

Umur Bey of Aydin came to his aid against the Bulgarian siege of Dimetoka by supplying him

with 380 ships and 2,900 soldiers. He disembarked on the banks of Evros and supplied the

castle with provisions attained through the raiding of the Thracian countryside. The harsh

winter that followed forced Umur to retreat and thus his troops had no means of survival

apart from looting.84

82 nd
H. Inalcik, Fatih devri üzerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar, 2 ed., Ankara, 1987, pp. 113-129; E.A. Zachariadou,
“Efēmeres apopeires gia autodioıkēsē stis ellēnikēs poleis kata ton 14o and 15o aiona”, Ariadnē, vol. 5, 1989,
pp. 345-347.
83
The Turkish raids of the first half of 14th century were conducted in three waves: a) In 1305 Turks from
Aydin under the leadership of Halil united with Catalan mercenaries and raided Gelibolu and its littoral.
Afterwards, they pillaged all the Thracian areas, through which they crossed on their way to Kavala, from
where they returned by boats back to Minor Asia. b) In 1321 Orhan instigated his soldiers to pillage the
Macedonian and Thracian seashore. c) In 1327, a year before the end of the first Byzantine civil war (1321-
1328), emperor Andronicus II asked from Orhan to send his troops over to Thrace against his grandson
Andronicus III. Orhan’s forces crossed over the Straits to Eastern Thrace and after their defeat by Andronicus
III, returned to Minor Asia with ships offered by Andronicus II for that purpose: E. Zengines, O Bektasismos stē
Dytikē Thrakē: symbolē stēn historia tēs diadoseōs tōn Othomanōn ston Elladiko xōro, Thessaloniki, 1996, pp.
86-88 ; K. Ercilasun, “Orhan Bey devrinde Osmanlı devleti’nin Trakya politikası”, Türk Kültürü, vol. 33, no 388,
1995, p. 489.
84
P. Lemerle, L’emirat d’Aydin, Byzance et l’Occident : Recherches sur “La geste d’Umur Pasha”, Bibliothèque
Byzantine Etudes 2, Paris, 1957, pp. 144-146; Cantacuzeni Ioannes, Ioannes Cantacuzeni imperatoris
historiarum libri IV, cura L. Schopeni, vol. II, Bonn, 1828-1832, pp. 348, 396, 404, 476.

30
 In 1343 Kantakouzenos admitted that Thrace apart from the urban centres had become

deserted and uninhabited.85 In 1345, Kantakouzenos used another contingent of Turkish

mercenaries (16,000 soldiers) supplied by Orhan and managed to win over the north-eastern

portion of Thrace.86 In 1352, he turned again to the help of his by then—son in law—Orhan

against John V Paleologus.87 Orhan negotiated as the reward for his help the retention of the

readoubt in Tzybē used as a supply station for the Thracian troops that he had provided for the

service of Kantakouzenos. Zengines interpreats this move as a conscious geostrategic

decision that would enable the Turks to undertake attacks in the Thracian hinterland and thus,

to establish their grip on the European side.88 As will be further discussed, the raids were

accompanied by the on-going influx of Turkish settlers, through which the repopulation of

the deserted lands was finally achieved. This process describes how the first Ottoman

nucleus of Rumeli—the county of Paşa [Paşa sancağı]—was formed.89

Apart from the Turkish invasions, the Thracian population was crippled in the 14th

century under the burden of social injustice, infectious diseases and natural disasters. 90 The

85
F. Giannopoulos, Didymoteicho ē historia enos Byzantinou Ochyrou, , Athens, Peloponnēsiako Morphōtiko
Idryma, 1992, p. 92.
86
İ.H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 1, Ankara, 1982, pp. 155-156; Ercilasun maintains that this was a 10.000
force commanded by Süleyman Paşa, which entered Thrace: Ercilasun (1995), p. 490; it should be also
considered that in June 1348 Kantakouzenos attacked the Bulgarian bandit Momčilo outside Dimetoka having
on his side the 20.000 Turkish cavalry forces under the leadership of Umur and Süleyman Bey, son of the emir
of Saruhan. After the death of Momčilo, the Turks destroyed the curtain wall of the castle and raided the
littoral.
87
A. Bryer, “Greek Historians on the Turks: the case of the first Byzantine-Ottoman marriage”, in R.H.C. Davis
and J.M. Wallach-Hadrill (ed.), The writing of history in the Middle Ages: Essays presented to R. W. Southern,
Oxford 1981, pp. 482-484; R. Macrides, “Dynastic marriages and political kingship”, in J.Shepard and S.Franklin
(eds.), Byzantine Diplomacy, Papers from the twenty-fourth spring symposium of Byzantine studies, (Cambridge
March 1990), Aldershot, Variorum 1992, pp. 261-280.
88
Zeginēs (1996), pp. 92-96; Although Ercilasun admits the strategic importance of Tzympe for the further
expansion of Turks in Thrace, recounts contra Zegines that Orhan, due to illness could not make it to the set
meeting with Kantakouzenos and that Süleyman Paşa was willing to surrender the cities and that he abdicated
from the control of Tzymbe and of the other castles in the area for a certain sum of money: Ercilasun (1995),
pp. 493, 496.
89
M.H. Sentürk, “Osmanlı devleti’nin kuruluş devrinde Rumeli’de uyguladığı iskan siyaseti ve neticeleri”,
Belleten, vol. 57, 1993, p. 91.
90
The earthquake of Gelibolu (12th of March 1352) dilapidated the city walls and gave the chance to Süleyman
Paşa to conquer apart from the castle, the seashore of Marmara up to Tekirdağ. In the conquered areas, it was
inaugurated the practice of the voluntary immigration of Turco-Anatolian settlers, who inhabited the citadels

31
synergy of these parameters of crisis prepared the ground for the Ottoman penetration and the

final conquest. The social class that was most severely affected by the Turkish raids was that

of the peasant farmers who constituted the largest part of the population.91 The magnate

landholders exploited their labour, while their fiscal obligations to the state exceeded by far

their powers.92 On top of this, the devastating plague of 1347 and its recurrent outbreaks in

later years such as 1361/1362 contributed to the severe depopulation and the widespread

abandonment of the land. As Frankopan notes “the link between the two is central, for

without constant demography, not only was production likely to be reduced because of the

contraction of labour force, but the collapse of markets, local, regional and urban meant that

there was failure of demand”.93

The political tension between paupers and magnates was expressed through a series of

revolts that broke out at pivotal Thracian and Macedonian cities: at Adrianople (1341), at

Thessaloniki and finally at Dimetoka (1342).94 Under these circumstances, the Ottoman

methods of conquest aimed at the annihilation of the villages and the enslavement of their

residents. Byzantine chronicles unanimously record the large numbers of enslaved Thracians

who ended up in the slave markets of the emirates of Asia Minor.95 These slaves constituted

the investment capital of the new frontier principalities. In this way, the devastation and

depopulation of the countryside facilitated the final subjugation of the suburbs to the Turks.

Then the second phase of the conquest was commenced which was based on a polity of

vassalage. Since these cities could not last for long without the suburbs, they opened their

and repaired the walls. Suleiman Paşa appointed governors [subaşı] to the counties [kasaba): Ercilasun (1995),
p. 492.
91
Aktemones (who had nothing), also called pezoi (those on foot) sometimes onikatoi (who owned a donkey).
A. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant society in the late Byzantine Empire: a social and demographic study, Princeton
University Press, 1977, pp. 142-181.
92
P. Charanis, “Internal strife in Byzantium in the fourteenth century”, Byzantion, vol. 15, 1940-1941, p. 225.
93
P. Frankopan, “Land and power in the middle and later period”, in J. Haldon (ed.), The social history of
Byzantium, London, Blackwell Publishing, 2009, p. 135.
94
D.M. Nicol, The last centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453, Cambridge University Press, 1993,
p. 199.
95
Vogiatzēs (1998), pp. 193-195.

32
gates and paid annual tribute to the Turks or negotiated diverse terms of voluntary surrender.

The third phase constituted the fully-fledged submission of the region within the Ottoman

emirate.96

This last phase resulted in an administrative fragmentation, where the fortified cities

of the hinterland constituted stripes of freed land within a countryside overpowered by the

Turkmen cavalry raiders [akıncı, yürük]. In this way the communication with Constantinople

was interrupted, decisions could not reach the periphery, nor could the periphery receive

provisions or supplies. Thus the peripheral cities first in Bithynia and then in Thrace were

left ungoverned creating a power vacuum that was filled by a new leadership, provided by the

Turks.

The Turkish colonization of Thrace

What was the character of the early Ottoman polity and what social forces did the

Ottomans manage to mobilize in order to support their dynasty and expand their rule in

Thrace?

Wittek and Gibbons initially argued that the early Ottoman state was formed from a

Turkish nomadic population, which settled in the frontiers of the Byzantine Empire and by

being cut off from its Turkish-Islamic counterparts mixed with the local Byzantine

population. Initially, they were in search of pasturage for their flocks and after a certain

period of time, they were transformed into mighty warriors. Under the light of this theory,

96
H. Inalcik, “Ottoman methods of conquest”, Studia Islamica, no. 2, 1954, pp. 113-129; Zachariadou (1989), p.
345.

33
the Ottoman state was an amalgam of Turkish nomads cross-race bred with Byzantine

converts.97

In reality, the Turkish repopulation and colonization of the Balkans seems to have

been achieved through a large-scale Turkish settlement, rather than mass-scale conversion.

Köprülü was the first to have put forward such an argument by stressing the fact that the

Mongol capture of Erzurum in 1242 and the pillaging of its hinterland led to a new form of

immigration. The dismantlement of the Seljukid Empire under the Mongols resulted in the

flooding of Anatolia with Mongol troops and masses of immigrants with their livestock.

Therefore, expansion towards the west emerged as a solution for the congested Turkic

populations of Anatolia, who were in search of pasture lands. Most importantly, the social

synthesis of the borderlands constituted a melting pot which attracted not only nomads, but

also urban settlers, members of the ulema, sheikhs, caravan personnel and all kinds of

artisans.98 Barkan pointed to the sense of a continuum of the Ottoman immigration

westwards, as the last wave of the Turco-Anatolian migrating groups which followed an

already established practice of settlement and colonization.99 As we shall see under the

following subheading, these groups constituted the first settlers who were transplanted to the

newly conquered lands through spontaneous migration or organized deportation and became

instruments for the achievement of the project of Ottoman colonization.100

First and foremost, it should be realized that the pre-1389 Ottoman state, especially at

the time of its rise in Anatolia, can be best described by the term “kings of the territorial

divisions” in the sense that the prevailing political framework was that of fragmentation and

complete incompatibility with any form of centralized authority. In the absence of a stable

97
H. Gibbons, The foundation of the Ottoman empire: a history of the Osmanlis up to the death of Bayezid I
(1300-1403), London 1968; P. Wittek, The rise of the Ottoman empire, London, Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, 1938 {reprinted in 1971}.
98
M.F. Köprülü, Osmanlı devleti’nin kuruluşu, Ankara 1959, pp. 7-28; Barkan (1942), p. 280.
99
Barkan (1944), pp. 350-351.
100
Consult the discussion under the subheading “Colonization practices: spontaneous migration [göcebe] and
deportation [sürgün]” of the current chapter.

34
state structure with secure frontiers the sovereignty gap was filled by the “lords of the

frontiers” known as uç beys, such as Evrenosoğulları, Mihalloğulları, Turhanoğulları and

Malkoçoğulları who enjoyed hereditary status over extensive lands and commanded large

contingents of Turkmen raiders [akıncı].101

The military dependency of the first sultans on the frontier lords has been best

portrayed in the relationship “primus inter pares” in the sense that they were not subjugated

to the sultan’s authority but tribally based elites, who could practically dictate their own

terms to the ruling sultans and in many cases influenced the dynastic succession.102 İnalcık

admits that the powerful uç beys in the Balkans acted somehow independently and played a

decisive role in the fratricide period until the conquest of Istanbul. 103 This dynastic

equilibrium was fully shifted only during Mehmed II’s reign through the empowerment

provided by the slave [kul] system and their indispensable involvement within all three major

administrative components namely the centre, the periphery and the army. Still, evidence

retrieved from the 1472 register from the raiders’ [akıncı] recruitment attest to the

assimilation of a defined body of the akıncı corps in the Ottoman army under Mehmed II.104

Colonization agents

The uç beyliks of Anatolia and Rumeli functioned as urban playgrounds, which

attracted settlers from all classes and professions of the Turco-Islamic world; from professors

of Islamic Jurisprudence from Iran, Crimea and Egypt and Seljukid and Ilhanid bureaucrats

from central and eastern Anatolia to representatives of diverse religious orders, Muslim

101
R. Murphey, Exploring Ottoman sovereignty: tradition, image and practice in the Ottoman imperial
household 1400-1800, London, Continuum Books, 2008, pp. 43-47.
102
H. Lowry, The nature of the early Ottoman state, Albany (NY) 2003.
103
İnalcık (1954), p. 69.
104
M. Kiprovska, The military Organization of the Akıncıs in Ottoman Rumelia, MA Thesis, Bilkent University,
Ankara (Turkey), 2008 (abstract).

35
warriors and dervishes. In this way, the arrival of central Asian nomads and transplanted

intellectuals in the frontier region of Anatolia, not only provided the newly formed Ottoman

state with the adequate human and spiritual resources, but also confirmed its Turco-Islamic

identity.105

The emergence of the late medieval Anatolian confraternity phenomenon should be

set in this context. The 13th and 14th centuries Anatolian Ahis were managed under a code of

fütüvvet [Arab., the qualities of a young man].106 The first treatise on the fütüvvet institution

written in Turkish by Yahya al Burgazi provides information on the bi-partite structure of

these hierarchical brotherwoods. These were discerned in the qavli [those of the word] and

sayfi [those of the sword] branches and acknowledged three levels of membership: the

sheikh, the ahi and the yiğit [novice].107

Çağatay advocated that a critical parameter of the ahi’s life and polity consisted in the

settled character and the trade or artisanal basis of their comradeship. These comradeships

evolved into the rule of guilds in the newly founded urban hubs of the Anatolian

principalities.108 Ülken pointed that not only they set the foundation for the repopulation of

the newly conquered areas through the organization and systematization of the artisanal

production and commercial activities, which had atrophied under the Byzantine

administration, but also regulated the relations between producers and producer-

consumers.109

105
Barkan (1942), pp. 282-284, 288-289; Ö.L. Barkan “Osmanlı imparatorluğunda bir iskan ve kolonizasyon
metodu olarak sürgünler”, İ.Ü.I.F.M , vol. 10, no. 1-4, 1948-1949, pp. 524-537.
106
The term Ahi is preferred in the Anatolian fütüvvet treatises as a term discerning a comrade of the fütüvvet
brotherhood from the members of the Sufi orders. R. Goshgarian, Beyond the Social and the Spiritual:
Redifining the Urban Confraternities of Late Medieval Anatolian, PhD Thesis, University of Harvard, 2007, p.
nd
109; Cl. Cahen, “Futuwwa”, E.I., 2 ed., vol. II, 1965, pp. 961-969.
107 th
This seems to be reconfirmed in the work of the 14 century’s author Ahmed-i Gülşehri. Goshgarian (2007),
pp. 15, 81-83, 142-144, 153-156.
108
The role of the Ahis as agents of sedentarization and promulgation of the Turkish culture extends from the
fields of moral and spiritual guidance to issues, daily hygiene and housekeeping: Çağatay N., Bir Türk kurumu
olan Ahilik, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Yayınları 1974, pp. 31, 101-107, 111-132.
109
H.Z. Ülken, “Vakıf sistemi ve Türk şehirliği”, Vakiflar Dergisi , vol. IX (ayri basim), 1971, p. 21.

36
 Still, Goshgarian in the most recent contribution to the field suggested a multi-layered

interpretation of the hierarchized ahi institution as “urban based, politically-powerful,

endowing-capable, diplomacy-oriented, armed associations”; in this sense, she essentially

argued that ahis were much more than governing bodies of late medieval Anatolia. Their

engagement in the many facets of Anatolian life was attributed to the flexible character of

their institution. The diverse levels of membership in these social groups reflect the variety

of levels in their engament with Anatolian life and speak for the fluid nature of the institution.

This as as fact not only shows to what extent their activities exceeded the trade and artisanal

sphere but also bears testimony to the diceminated power structure prevailing in the region at

the time.110

Apart from their hierarchical basis, key point of their polity was that they convened in

lodges within urban spaces. By using these sites as their abodes, the fütüvvet organisations

procured a social environment in changing Anatolia that ensured urban stability through the

promulgation of a moral code of communal life.111

In return for their services, the first sultans awarded the ahis with land freeholds

[mülk] or with concessions of the profits generated from appointed lands, which they used for

the establishment of their lodges–the zaviye. In urban contexts the ahis functioned as

cornerstones of stability that ensured the maintenance and enhancement of the urban network

and infrastructure. When settled within urban contexts, they occupied uninhabited or even

rural, peripheral zones of the cities.112 The Balkan experience from the Ottoman towns of

Dimetoka, Gümülcine and Siroz serves to corroborate this observation. Within the urban

fabric of the early Ottoman town of the Balkans, the zaviye-concentration lies exclusively in

the fringe belt that extends outside from the Byzantine kernel; in this sense, the zaviyes

110
Goshgarian (2007), pp. 162-167, 174.
111
Goshgarian (2007), pp. 174-177.
112
The 554 evkaf defteri from the county of Bolu, which records the vakfs and mülks of the first sultans and
their comrades, includes plenty citations of Sheiks, Fakihs and Ahis. Barkan (1942), pp.284-285, 290-292.

37
ennunciated the trajectories towards which the towns would be further developed. The first

artisanal communities and the stemming hubs of settlement at early Ottoman Dimetoka,

Gümülcine and Siroz can be interpreted within this framework: namely, artisanal

communities such as the leather-tanners [debbağlar], goldsmiths [kuyumcular] and others,

that were established around the various zaviyes.113

Apart from the urban sites trusted Sheikhs founded rural zaviyes on sites which could

vary from abandoned Christian lands and remote terrains to geostrategic territories such as

crossroads, bridges and mountain passages. Their spiritual retreats, which initially revolved

around a focal zaviye and tekye, evolved into villages through canalization of the

demographic dynamic which varied from voluntarily settled nomads to forced settlers and

deportees [sürgünler]. Their rural sedentarization aimed at patrolling and ensuring public

safety in the roads, along with assisting the voyagers. Through the continuous cultivation of

abandoned lands, the maintenance of gardens and orchards, stock raising and the

infrastructural development they supported the broader project of Ottomanization through the

promotion of a sustainable habitation model. In light of the developed network of the

zaviyes, it becomes understood that the first sultans conceptualized a dynamic mechanism,

which generated tailor-made administrative solutions for the newly conquered lands by

empowering capable administrators [ahis-dervishes] with administrative and real autonomy

(tax-exemptions).114

Four such dervishes played an integral role in the conquest of the Dimetoka

countryside on the side of Orhan and Murad I and were awarded with lands in return for their

services. These are the Bektashi tekye of Sersem baba at the village of Russa, the zaviye of

Seyyid Ali Sultan, widely known as Kızıl Deli 115, the Timurhan Sheikh zaviye in the arable

113
On the archival evidence on the vakfs of these zaviyes consult discussion under chapters 1, 2 and 3.
114
Barkan (1942), pp. 290-293.
115
According to the mülkname of the vakf of the bektashi dervish Kızıl Delü from 1401, its upkeep was secured
from the income generated by the first Tatar settlements. The ruins around which the Tatars were allocated

38
field of Elmalu and the Sari Saltık zaviye; all four of them are located on the mountains of

Rhodope en Dimetoka.

Colonization practices: Spontaneous migration [göcebe] and deportation [sürgün]

The methods of mass deportation and spontaneous or voluntary migration were used

by the Ottomans to repopulate and ensure their ownership of the newly conquered lands. For

the area of our interest, the extensive Turkish colonization of the Balkans in the 15th century

has been exclusively attributed to the spontaneous influx of ethnically mixed Anatolian

masses. These were urged into a large-scale emigration after the pressure applied by Timur’s

attack in 1402; however, the first group of 2,000 Tatars are believed to have settled in the

countryside between Edirne and Filibe is recorded to have arrived even earlier in 1400, when

Timur was expanding to the Anatolian periphery.

These migrating groups were summoned by the first uç and sancak beys and through

their gradual settlement they contributed to the territorial expansion of the empire.116

Equally, during the interregnum, nomads were summoned by the claimants to the throne

against their brothers. One such event is recorded when a Turcoman became Emir

Süleyman’s guide in his attempt to escape from Musa Çelebi’s pursuit.117 This process of

voluntary immigration was most often supported by the offer of unoccupied houses to new

constituted a geostrategic passage. The shareholders Ahis and dervishes named the stemming vakf after his
founder as Kızıl Delü derbendi and were encharged with the safeguarding of the passage, in exchange of which
service they were exempted from örf-i tekalif. The earliest reference on the freehold [mülkiyet] cites only the
possession of a ruin (wreck). However, we can speculate that as time went by, the collection of the poll-tax
from the villages would have allowed to the dervishes to erect a proper Bektashi tekye: Barkan (1942), pp. 293,
297; Zengines (1996), pp. 26-31; Yıldırım R , Seyyid Ali Sultan[Kızıldeli] ve Vilayetnamesi - Rumeli’nin fethinde
ve türkleşmesinde öncülük etmiş bir Gazi Derviş, Ankara 2007.
116 th
This process has been parallelised with the Turkification of Western Anatolia in 13 c., which was realized
through the establishment of the gazi principalities, as the outcome of the westwards emigration of Turkic
emigrants from the Asiatic hinterland after the dismantlement of the Seljukid Empire. İnalcık (1954), p. 127;
Ö.L. Barkan, “Osmanlı imparatorluğunda bir iskan ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak sürgünler: II. Rumelinin iskanı
için yapılan sürgünler”, İ.Ü.I.F.M., vol. XII, 1950-1951, nos. 1-2, pp. 58-59, 73.
117
M.T. Gökbilgin, Rumeli’de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlad-ı Fatihan, İstanbul 1957, pp. 16-17.

39
settlers, as Neşri’s account on Trabzon experience wittingly encapsulates: “in order to give

houses to Muslims, those houses which had been vacated by the unbelievers were divided

evenly among them”.118

It seems that in practice the repopulation of the newly conquered lands was achieved

by a combination of encouraging voluntary settlement, which when proved inadequate was

supplemented by various types of forced deportations.119 The practice of mass deportation

functioned as a multifocal state device towards the resettlement of the conquered lands and

the enlivening of their weakened infrastructure. The foundation of new villages and counties

allowed the recovery of the trade and transportation network and eventually, facilitated the

mobilization of military forces.120 Barkan acknowledged in this practice a state response to

the pressing “agrarian issue”121, which, by aiming to accommodate cultivators’ demand for

land, succeeded in providing tangible solutions to the infrastructural regeneration of the

newly conquered lands. What most potently emerges is an underlying pattern designed as a

social engineering policy, which managed to channel the available man power towards the

arable lands of highest return, the cultivation of which would render tax revenues to the state.

One of the earliest noted occurrences of the practice dates from the conquest of Argos,

the capital of Mora. In 1397 Haci Evrenos transferred 30,000 war captives from Argos to

Anatolia.122 In the same time, Yıldırım Bayezid deported Turkmen and Tatar nomads from

Anatolia to the suburbs of Skopje and Thessaly in Rumeli. The son of Gazi Evrenos, Burak

Bey, who settled in Thessaly and invested in the foundation of his eponymous vakf in the

area, conducted his raids against the Morea by using the aforementioned settled nomads as

his forces. The dependence of these first settlers on the uç beys and their households

118
This passage was quoted in Lowry (1992)², p. 54.
119
Lowry (1992)², p. 56.
120
Barkan (1950-1951), p. 57.
121
Ö.L. Barkan, “Osmanlı imparatorluğunda bir iskan ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak sürgünler”, İ.Ü.I.F.M , vol.
10, no. 1-4, 1948-1949, p. 549.
122
Barkan (1950-1951), pp. 77-78.

40
remained strong until the 16th century. The 16th c. cadastral surveys of Trikala (the capital of

Thessaly County) records 4,547 Yürük households, as being administered under a system of

military organisation, part of which consisted of the body of the Evrenosoğlu Yürüks.123

In Mehmed II’s reign peasants from the Morea, Albania and Serbia were transplanted

to the suburbs of Istanbul under the special status of kulluk and ortakçı and in this way the

agricultural grouping of 180 villages came into formation. Under the same spirit, a series of

villages specializing in the breeding of sheep and cattle were established around Bursa and

Biga with deported war prisoners who assumed the status of ortakçı and kesimci.124

Another dimension of the practice convincingly emerges from the archival

documentation; that of a punitive exile for a number of nomadic groups which had proven

unruly and for criminals who had committed various offences.125 In these cases, the practice

assumed the character of rehabilitation and security operations and served the fulfilment of

military purposes for the hosting areas. Since the second half of the 14th century Turkish

nomads from Anatolia, who had proven troublesome were transplanted in the Balkan

borderlands and by assuming the special military status of Yürüks accompanied by the receipt

of timars formed decisive geostrategic positions which evolved into indispensable military

bases.126 These groups can be recognised within the irregular forces of akıncıoperating under

the leadership of Hacı Evrenos or the Saruhan Yürüks, who were deported to Rumeli during

Murad I’s reign.

From a local perspective, although the earliest archival evidence on the Yürük and

Tatar settlements at Dimetoka and Gümülcine date from Mehmed II’s era, they practically

123
Barkan uses Hamer, who in his turn cites Chalcocondyles: Barkan (1950-1951), pp. 77-78.
124
Barkan (1950-1951), p. 63.
125
As an early attestation of the punitive dimension of the practice from the era of Yıldırım Bayezid is the
deportation of the Saruhan Yürüks to Filibe (Plovdiv) in 1400-1401 as a punishment because they violated the
state monopoly of salt extraction at the Menemen valley. Barkan (1950-1951), pp. 69-71.
126
Barkan (1950-1951), pp. 66-67; Gökbilgin based on information from a lawbook of Mehmed II’s era specifies
that this ethnic epithet gradually came to denote the special corps of infantry mercenaries in the Ottoman
army: Gökbilgin (1957), pp. 20-21.

41
corroborate the fact that these settlements were formed as a result of a sequence of migrating

waves to Thrace which extended over the 14th and 15th centuries. This population was

diffused all over the Thracian countryside and by assuming either the fiscal status of tax-

exempted subjects or the legal status of yürük, küreci or yağcı, they were accommodated

either within the timar lands assigned to sipahis or at villages belonging to the vakfs or the

governor’s fiefs [has].127 The existence of kürecis or yağcıs at the cities of Dimetoka and

Gümülcine is corroborated through the 15th and 16th century tahrirs.128

The deportation process in the 1572 edict concerning the newly conquered land of

Cyprus has been pictured as pragmatically addressing the agrarian issue by encouraging

settlement on the island through the offering of a comprehensive, two year tax exemption to

the deportees, the list of which was compiled based on a selection of one in every ten

households from various cities and villages mostly in central Anatolia.129 At the same time

the deportees ensured professional diversity through the meticulous selection of healthy

professionals from every specialization of the craft guilds’ range, with the aim of bringing

about the economic revival of the cities. The deportees were dispatched along with their

livestock, yokes and professional utensils, while their freehold properties were auctioned.130

The deportees were recorded in state records with their name, neighbourhood of origin,

livestock and equipment. The instructions of the above edict were extended to all parts of

Anatolia and Rumeli.131

127
Gökbilgin (1957), p. 29.
128
Consult tables 1-9 and 18-22 of the appendix.
129
The actual number of the deportees cannot be defined. Barkan (1948-1949), p. 554.
130
Barkan (1950-1951), p. 58.
131
Barkan (1948-1949), p. 554.

42
Capital management and the vakf institution under the first sultans

In the previous section, it was discussed how the ‘imaret system functioned as the

institutional framework under which Ottomanization was realized. This section will focus on

the legal status of the conquered lands and their management within the Ottoman land

economy. According to the canonical law, gaza attainments, that is lands which have passed

on to the emir [sultan or the state] as booty shares under the right of the conquest were meant

either to be expended for the benefit of the deprived and the travellers or to be set aside as a

reserve in the interest of the future Muslim generations.132

These lands constituted the founding and managing capital of the imarets, which were

established and managed through the active economic agent of the vakf.133 ‘Imarets and their

relying functions are conceived under the term of külliye, which means to denote the

agglomeration— around a focal mosque—of various cultural and social institutions of

welfare [medrese, kütüphane, imaret, aşevi, taphane, birmarhane, hamam, kervansaray] that

employed a great number of civil servants and paid workers.134 The settlement of these

employees generated the need for the development of subsidiary secular operations [han,

çarsılar, fırın, salhane, başhane, mum imalathanesi] that were meant to produce a continuous

line of revenues for the upkeep of the külliye by covering every field of artisanal production

and trade.135 While, the first group was meant to fulfil benevolent functions for the public,

132
Ö.L. Barkan, “Şehirlerin teşekkül ve inkişafı tarihi bakımından Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İmaret ve sitelerin
kuruluş ve işleyiş tarzına ait araştırmalar”, I.Ü.I.F.M, vol. 23, 1963, no 1-2, p. 240; idem.,“Osmanlı
imparatorluğunda kuruluş devrinin toprak meselesi”, Actes du 2em Congres d’Histoire, 1937, pp. 1-14; F.
Köprülü, “Vakıf müessesenin hukuki mahiyeti ve tarihi tekamülü”, Vakıflar Dergisi 2, 1942, pp. 26,29.
133
Köprülü (1942), pp. 26,2; K. Orbay, “Structure and context of the Waqf account books as sources for
Ottoman economic and institutional history”, Turcica, vol. 39, 2007, pp. 3-47.
134 nd
V.A. Çobanoğlu, “Külliyye”, İ.A., 2 ed., vol. 26, 2002, pp. 542-544.
135
O. Ergin, Türk şehirlerinde imaret sistemi, İstanbul 1939, pp. 21-59; Barkan(1963), pp. 240-241.

43
the second group should be seen as investment of pure economic spirit intended to bring

income to the endowment.136

These operations, which constituted a certain monopoly and privilege, formed the

nuclei of new cities or of new quarters around pre-existent cities where infrastructure was

required for the accommodation of the new Turkish settlers. The inspection of several cities’

topographic plans (Bursa, Edirne and a number of Balkan cities) has shown that these cities

were formed and evolved around a prominent cluster of monumental buildings which

constituted the imaret site.137 In this way, vakfs both influenced and reflected the economic

and social conditions of their location at a given time138

Vakfs were established under the charitable bequest of Muslims including sultans or

viziers, who secured their subsistence through their private treasury [hususi hazine] or their

own possessions [kendi malları] in the form of a concession of revenues allocated for the

establishment and upkeep of these vakfs. In order to further ensure their longevity, sultans

endowed these vakfs with villages and shares of tax revenues collected from public domains

and with capital set aside on behalf of the state.139 In essence, vakfs were charitable

foundations which enjoyed administrative and financial autonomy due to the protection of the

conditions stipulated in their foundation charters [vakfiyyet] under divine sanction. Still,

although, the allocated revenues were supposed to be expended only upon the defined

charitable purposes—in the sense of the vakf being a charitable object pleasing to God— in

practice most vakfs benefited individuals; in particular, family vakfs (evlatlık vakıflar) aimed

to protect the family’s financial interests140.

136
H. Inalcik, “Capital formation in the Ottoman Empire”, The Journal of Economic History, vol. 29, 1969, no 1,
p. 133.
137
In this sense the system managed to promote repopulation of the newly conquered lands by creating ties of
bureaucratic dependency of the employees to the imaret sites: Ergin (1939), pp. 17-20, 61-64; Barkan (1963),
pp. 240-241; Orhonlu (1984), pp. 1-5, 24-26; Ülken (1971), pp. 13-37.
138
Orbay (2007), p. 7.
139
Barkan (1963), pp. 240-241.
140
İnalcık (1969), pp. 132-133.

44
Chapter 1: Dimetoka

45
A. Justification of Dimetoka as the inductive case-study of the thesis

The material remains preserved in Didimoteicho, at the north-eastern extreme of

todays Greece, do not capture the splendour and magnitude of the secondary Ottoman capital

of Dimetoka. Dimetoka constituted a district [nahiye] of western Thrace within the Rumeli

beylerbeyliği or Eyalet [European province], which was the first administrative and political

domain of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. It was formed under Murad I after the conquest of

Edirne, who appointed in the dual position of governor [beylerbey] of the eyalet and warden

[muhafız] of Edirne Lala Şahin and then Timurtaş Paşa. After the conquest of Sofia in 1385,

when the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans progressed to its second phase, the eyalet

appeared as Paşa livası, in the sense of the beylerbeys’ fief. During the period of the early

conquests, Rumeli Beylerbeyliği comprised the counties of Vize, Kırk-kilise and Çirmen,

while by the 17th century it expanded to twenty four districts. In the 16th century, Rumeli

Beylerbeyliği was discerned in two branches, the right and left ones [sağ/sol kol]; the western

branch was divided in 12 districts one of which was Dimetoka.1

The city of Dimetoka was fiscally subsumed under the fief of the sultan [hassa-i

padişah], which means that the taxation collected from its residents contributed to the

sultanic revenues destined for the interior treasury.2 The conquered lands acquired “by force

of the sword” were turned into state [miri] lands and were discerned into hass [lands], timars

and zeamets.3 Hass were equally divided into sultanic fiefs [havass-ı padişah], vezirial fiefs

[havass-ı vuzeran] and into the domains of the royal ladies [paşmaklık].4 Geographically, the

1
It should be noted that the term eyalet was used interchangeably with the term vilayet. Gökbilgin (1952), pp.
6-20; Stoyanovski (1973-1974), p. 214.
2
The relevant part from the defter reads “nahiye-i Dimetoka, hassayı padişah, nefs-i Dimetoka”: Başbakanlık
Osmanlı Arşıvı (BOA), TT20 890 (1485), p. 141; Balta (2000), p. 109; Halacoğlu (1991), pp. 78-82.
3
Uzunçarşılı (1982), pp. 504-506.
4
Orhonlu-Göyünç (2003), pp. 268-270.

46
district of Dimetoka extended over the meeting point of the tributary Kızıl Deli

[Erythropotamos] with the Meriç [Evros] River. In the 19th century it was connected through

a 50 km rail network with Istanbul over Dede-Ağaç [Alexandroupolis] and following its

annexation to Greece in 1920, it occupies a position at a distance of 5 km from the Turkish

border and 31 km from Edirne.5

This chapter will attempt to make Dimetoka’s stages of urban development

intelligible. Our time-specific study focuses on the period from the 14th to 16th centuries,

since this is the time-frame which allows the observation and conceptualization of the city’s

transitional identity from the Byzantine thema of Didimoteicho and Andrianoupoli to a

secondary capital of the Ottoman principality and its evolution into an acclaimed urban centre

of Islamic learning of the classical era. The choice of this very city as the introductory case-

study of my thesis is not accidental. In the chronicle of the Ottoman conquest, Dimetoka is

the earliest Ottoman acquisition of a sizeable Byzantine walled city on European soil, which

played a particular role in the Byzantine geopolitical affairs of the 14th century. Due to the

particularity of the historical circumstances under which the Ottoman city came to its

formation, Dimetoka constitutes case wise a morphological unicum in the field of early

Ottoman urbanism.

As we shall show, in the mid 14th century the city wall had undergone a major

restoration scheme under Tarchaneiōtēs, which practically turned the city into an

impregnable stronghold. Still, less than a decade later in 1357 the city was surrendered under

terms to the akıncıof Murad I and it was immediately transformed into the second Ottoman

capital and the first on European soil. Therefore, this city provides us with the unique

opportunity of attesting how the Ottomans reacted in a case where their efforts were not

compromised by repairing or reinforcing but they could concentrate on the process of

5
Darkot (1945), p. 589.

47
ascribing an Ottoman character to a Byzantine castled town. The Ottoman modus operandi

can be now reconstructed through providing the answers to the following questions; how did

they interact with the inherited infrastructure; what was the pace of the building activity and

of the investment that they undertook; more importantly, can the application of a concise

town-planning idea be discerned?

The second parameter which substantiated my concentration on the town was its

geostrategic importance. Its location close to the main river routes of Ardas and Meriç,

which connect the inner Balkans with the Aegean along with its proximity to the two major

trade routes of the area, the Viae Egnatia and Militaris, further secured its fortified position

aided by man and nature. The geostrategic importance of the castle is evident from the

maintenance of the garrison throughout the 15th and 16th centuries6, a period of time when

the Ottoman authority in the Balkans was securely achieved and the Ottoman banner was

carried as north as Buda (1541). Therefore, the maintenance of the garrison in the castle

implies that Dimetoka was regarded as a stronghold for the securing of Edirne and Istanbul.

This complies with the role that the city played in late Byzantine politics, as a satellite city of

Constantinople which hosted the seat of the exiled court during the civil war between the

Kantakouzeni and Paleologi families in the 14th century.7

The third parameter, which finalized my choice, was the number of the surviving

registers on the city of Dimetoka; especially by the fact that four out of the five surviving

registers are complete mufassal [detailed] surveys from the 15th and 16th centuries which are

6
For the analytic data on the garrison consult the discussion on Murad I’s investment under the subheading
“Periodization” of section C. Topographic reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka in chapter 1.
7
During the early Paleologan period Dimetoka became one of the cities which hosted the imperial household.
The son of emperor Andronikos III (1297-1341) who became Emperor John V was born there. The acquired
regal status has possibly contributed to the economic and demographic development of the city, since the
presence of an imperial court increased the prosperity of the inhabitants. During the civil war between John V
Paleologos and John VI Kantakouzenos (1292-1383) in 1341, the latter declared Dimetoka as his capital.
Asdracha (1976), pp. 130-148; Matschke (2002), pp. 463-465.

48
preserved in the collections of Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi and Ataturk Milli Kütüphanesi.8

The earliest register extends over the reign of Murad II and Mehmed II (1455 to 1473) 9,

while the second earliest register dates from 148510, that is to say, more than a century after

the induction of the Ottomanization project in the town. Still, their contribution to the

reconstruction of late 14th century’s urban history is of utmost importance, since they provide

retrospective information on the formation and the upkeep of the charitable foundations,

around which the numerous quarters evolved. The inclusion of this material in the present

study serves a twofold objective; primarily, it constitutes the key source towards the

periodization of the phases of urban development through the provision of valuable

information on the social and financial aspects of the pious foundations endowed in the city

and at a second stage, it allows the conceptualization of demographic synthesis and social

stratification of the Ottoman city in the 15th and 16th centuries. This becomes possible, since

the material survives in a close sequence from the years 151911, 152012, 156813 and 1570.14

8
Lowry has stressed the importance of the study of a series of registers for a given area over time, as the
means of overcoming inconsistencies recurring in the surveys. Lowry (1992)¹, pp. 3-19. The archival material
consulted for the chapter of Dimetoka, with the exception of Mc.Yz. 0.89, has been also used by the economic
historian R.L. Staab, The Timar System in the Eyalet of Rumeli and the Nahiye of Dimetoka in the Late Fifteenth
and Sixteenth Centuries, PhD Thesis, University of Utah, 1980.
9
Cevdet Muallim Yazmalları, Atatürk Kütüphanesi: 0.89, 860-878 (1455-1473), pp. 5-8; for the transcription
consult Table 1 of the appendix.
10
BOA, TT20 890 (1485), pp. 141-149, 243-248, 255-258, 265-268, 271-274, 277-280, 301-302; for the
transcription consult Table 2 of the appendix.
11
BOA, TT77 925 (1519), pp. 139-147, 223-224, 235-238, 241-244, 247-252, 255-268, 285-288; for the
transcription consult Table 4 of the appendix.
12
BOA, TT370 926 (1520), pp. 19-20. This is the least trustworthy register. The fluctuation in the totals is
impossible, given the fact that it was completed just a year after the TT77. It reminds more of a contracted
rather than a detailed variety and thus, I would rather trust the more detailed TT77; for the transcription
consult Table 6 of the appendix.
13
BOA, TT1090 976 (1568), pp. 72-75; For the transcription consult Table 7 of the appendix.
14
BOA, TT494 978 (1570), pp. 158-166. This survey has been published in the MA Thesis of Emen (2010), pp. 9-
11, 17-19, 39-41, 72-73, 76-77, 83-84. Emen misread the names of the Christian quarters as Köse Papaz instead
of Kosta Papas and Ayo Sofı instead of Ayo Todora and Ayo Nikola (p.9); for the transcription consult Table 8 of
the appendix.

49
Identification of the topographic specifics and the town-planning conception: introductory

remarks

The characteristics of the landscape are of particular importance for understanding the

location of the fortification and the development of the subsequent Ottoman annexation. The

fortified settlement of Dimetoka rises to an altitude of 107 m. in height; this is laid around a

plateau, which expands from West to East at the level of roughly 80 m. Three quarters of its

extent is defined by the hill bounded by the stream of Kızıl Deli. At the western side the

steep slope constitutes a natural wall, while at the north-western corner the slope gets even

steeper and it is accessed through a monumental gate.15 Evliya describes that “There is not a

trench and there is not even a place for a future trench, since there is no such need; because

at some places of the castle the land retreats and there is a cliff of the height of two minarets

[...]. On the south side runs the Kızıl Deli River, and although there is no further trench at

the south side, the river forms a strong frontier”.16

The south side of the hill retains its steepness for the first 500 m., while it extends

towards the eastern side; from that point onwards, a broad, flat zone of land, roughly 30 m. in

height and 100 m. in width rises between the foothills and the river banks softly residing

towards the river.

On the south-western side is to be found one of the main access points to the castle:

the Gate of the Bridge [Köprübaşı].(See map 1: B4) The steepness of the slope almost vanishes

from the south-western up to the north-eastern side of the hill; these were the most vulnerable

parts of the fortification, which were reinforced with a double-wall, after which the city was

named. The fact that the north-eastern side was the most accessible part of the landscape

defined the location of the subsequently developed cellular of the Ottoman settlement.

15
Giannopoulos (1992), pp. 116-117.
16
For the translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 327-335.

50
 At the highest point of that impregnable castle were to be found the palace quarters,

while its inner encirclement was fortified with two towers, namely, these of the maiden [kız]

and of the arsenal [cephane]. Evliya writes that “Since there were Christians in the castle at

the time of the conquest, by effect of the war agreement, there are, still to this day no Muslims

in the castle apart from the garrison warden. Within the castle there are a hundred stone

houses roofed with tiles, which are the well maintained houses inhabited by the ill-omened

ones but the warden also maintains his residence in the inner precincts of the castle keep”.17

Consequently, since there were no Muslim quarters within the castle, apart from the Muslim

neighbourhood of the castle [mahalle-yi kale] where the garrison was housed18, the Muslim

element could be only accommodated in the outer suburban area.

Indeed, 15th century archival data19 corroborate the eye witness narrative of Evliya

from the 17th century. The 16 Muslim quarters were distributed outside the walled city, from

the eastern slope of the hill down to the valley. These were the quarters of the leather tanners

[Debbağlar], Karagöz Bey, Burak, Medrese, the tax collector [Haraçcı], Oruç Bey, Cercer,

the Mosque, the goldsmiths [Kuyumcular], Habibi Fakih—alternatively named—the

Magyars, Bazarlu Bey, Hocaca, Doğan Bey, the head of the bridge [Köprübaşı] and the

Tatars.(See map 1: B5, E11, C8, 19, D10, 18, C9, C7, F13, G15, 16, G14, B6, F12)

17
For the translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 327-335.
18
For the data on the mahalle-yi kal’a consult the discussion on Murad I’s investment under the subheading
“periodization” of section C. Topographic reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka in chapter 1.
19 th th
For the analysis of the 15 and 16 centuries’ archival material consult sections C. Topographic
th th
reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka and D. Demographic fluctuations in Dimetoka from mid. 15 to mid. 16
centuries and their interpretation in chapter 1.

51
 B. Ottoman town-planning in a comparative perspective

The new socio-political order constituted a new dynastic reality that was

topographically accommodated in—the appended to the Byzantine kernel—Ottoman fringe

belt. The segregation between the two parts was preserved throughout the 14 th to 16th

centuries, in a way that the name of the city, literally “double-walled”, could be employed to

designate the existence of two parallel realities. This attestation contradicts the experience

found in the first royal city of Bursa, where symbiotic necessity led to the development of an

“accommodating” architectural language, which relied mostly upon the principle of

appropriation.20 However, at Dimetoka where there was no such necessity, the two worlds

unfolded without restriction and evolved according to their own devices. Therefore, it can be

suggested that the settlement pattern of Dimetoka moved forward from the model of the “city

within a city”, to the unfolding narrative of two synchronic urban matrices (i.e) the Byzantine

kernel and the Ottoman fringe belt. As discussed in the introduction, it is under the Balkan-

Anatolian type with a Byzantine intramural and Ottoman extramural that the first samples of

a pure Ottoman fabric—unrestricted from the over-bearing presence of the anterior Byzantine

(antique) grid plan—can be attested.21

It is under this light that the bipolar microcosm of 14th century Dimetoka appears as

sharing the attributes of an international affairs’ polity, where the balance of power between

the “states”—the raiyyet and the Muslim subjects—and their chorotaxic behaviour was

defined under social parameters. In this connection, constructivist theory interprets social

reality as “a product of human invention which exists only as an inter-subjective awareness

amongst people. It is a set of ideas, a system of norms which has been arranged by certain

20
Cağaptay (2011), p. 64.
21
As discussed under the subtitle Pinon and Veinstein of the Morphological Theory and the Adapted Model
section.

52
people at a particular time and place”.22 Along the same constructivist lines, Preziosi argues

that “within the Ottoman world, cities established their own regimes of legibility-the ways in

which cities employed architectonic” and I would add topographic “cues manifest how they

were to be reckoned with by their inhabitants”.23

If we were then to interpret the semiology of the 14th century’s Ottoman town-

planning through the constructivist viewpoint, we would identify a “meaning ascribing”

quality in its modelling process. Scholars, such as Kuran, recognise a teleological

perspective in this process when arguing that “the idea of substantiating a prior claim to the

conquered land has always been of primary importance to rulers”.24 Under this light, the

semiotics of Murad I’s and Bayezid I’s state building project at Dimetoka reflect the attempt

of claiming dynastic legitimacy as successors (and heirs) of the Seljukid Empire by

appropriating a morphological solution adopted in the post-Seljukid Anatolia—the

extramural settlement pattern.25

Pl. 1 West view of the city

(1910-12) shot eastwards
from Hocaca mescid
showing the axis X1. In
the picture are visible the
minarets of the mosques:
(east-west) Hocaca,
imaret cami’i or Nasuh
Bey, Bazarlu Bey, Abdal
Cüneyid and southwards
again from east to west
Cercer and Debbağlar

22
Jackson-Sorensen (2010), p. 162.
23
Preziosi (1991), p. 5.
24
Kuran (1992), p. 126.
25
On the settlement pattern of post-Seljukid Anatolia reference is made to Wolper (1995), 39-47 and idem.,
Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia, University Park-
Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003, pp. 42-60. Substantiation of the argument on the
extramural settlement of Dimetoka follows under section C of the current chapter.

53
 Still, as discussion under the following section will show, under the early Ottomans

the adapted morphological solution was critically revised and furthered into a system of

structural axiality that meant to articulate the landscape along a centripetal spatial value (i.e.),

that of the çarşıya.26 This axial system reaches its maturity only after the second half of the

15th century, a period that morphologically coincides with the classical phase of the town’s

historical stratigraphy, the consolidation of which we can follow throughout the 16th century.

By then, the skyline of Dimetoka was adorned with the minarets of 16 mosques that created

the allusion of an almost relief landscape out of the flat plane; this long-lasting impression

was reflected in the encapsulation “the city with the 17 minarets”, which was maintained

intact until the 19th century apart from slight alterations.(See pl. 1.) Thus, the classical phase of

Dimetoka’s town-plan should be reckoned as the culminating stage of an evolutionary

process that occurred during the proto-Ottoman phase.(See key to map 1) Identifying the

infrastructural development of the proto-Ottoman phase is of utmost importance, since it was

the era when the spatial accommodation of the suburban landscape to an Ottoman archetype

was achieved. The agents of the conquest, who evolved into influential state figures,

obtained state lands in the form of property grants which were subsequently turned

into trusts for pious endowments [vakfs]. These vakfs constituted the follicles of urban

development, around which the diverse quarters emerged.27

What was Dimetokas’ urban profile?

The Pirennean model, as ascribed to the Ottoman realm, has led to an accentuated

preference for the study of market cities. Inalcik28, Sahilioglu29 and Abacı’s30works on Bursa,

26
The morphological analysis of the town-plan is discussed in section C. Topographic reconstruction of
Ottoman Dimetoka of chapter 1.
27
İnalcık (1991), p. 19.

54
Sauvaget’s on Aleppo31, Raymond’s on Cairo32 emphasized the role of these cities in

interregional and international trade. Pirenne’s insistence on the primary role of foreign and

interregional trade in determining the fortunes of these cities has been criticised, as a result of

which a prototype of the merchant as an outsider to the cities in which they traded was

projected.33

Braudel’s remarks about Sicilian “agro-towns” have warned us that in certain areas of

the pre-industrial world large agglomerations could in fact exist without any substantial

commercial or industrial activity.34 Faroqhi attests a crucial point concerning the urban

profile of the city of Kayseri in central Anatolia, which applies to the case of Dimetoka too,

by observing that: “the role of this town in interregional trade was minor, and from the

international trade point of view, it was even close to zero”.35 Apart from leather

manufactures— at the neighbourhood of Debbağlar36—and the Dimetoka scarlet red ceramic

wares of cups, basins, bowls and pitchers, which were world famous37, its craft industries

produced for a local market. The famous Dimetokan ceramic wares along with the tobacco

remained the exportable staples of the area until the 19th century as the testimonies of the

travellers Sayger and Eneholm attest.38

28
İnalcık (1960), pp. 131-147.
29
Sahılıoğlu (1975).
30
Abacı (2007).
31
Sauvaget (1941).
32
Reymond (1984); Reymond (2000).
33
Faroqhi (1990), p. 137.
34
Braudel (1979), p. 423; Faroqhi (1990), p. 138.
35
Faroqhi (1990), p. 138.
36
For the cross-referencing of the quarter consult Table 10: no. 1 of the appendix.
37
For translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 333-341.
38
In 1829, C. Sayger and A. Desarnod visited Dimetoka in the capacity of royal librarian and royal painter of the
Russian army. They arrived at Thrace through the route Burgaz-Edirne, from where they reached Dimetoka,
Kirk Kilise, Vize and then returned back to Edirne. According to their report, a brisk commercial network was
established amongst the cities of Dimetoka, Enez and Izmir. Via Izmir are exported to the capital the highly
acclaimed local ceramic wares and tobacco, for which there was an accentuated demand at Istanbul and Asia.
The Greeks are producing a woollen fabric of exquisite quality which is consumed within their community,
while there is an equally remarkable production of silk fabrics at a smaller scale. As for the agricultural
production of the region, this included the cultivation of tobacco, oat, barley, wheat and rice. The city was full
of orchards, vineyards and cotton and tobacco fields. Sayger (1834), pp. 12-130.

55
 Despite its geographic proximity to two major trade routes—the Viae Egnatia and

Militaris—still, Dimetoka’s nodal position on a tributary road between the two main routes

seized its chance to develop into a brimming commercial centre like Bursa or Edirne. Its

scarce commercial infrastructure comprises of a few hans, with the most prominent being that

of Nasuh Bey mir-i liva of Silistre, and two kervansarays. Archival information regarding the

commercial and artisanal activities sustained within the city of Dimetoka from the 1570s’ is

restricted to the reference to a closed market, the eski kapan, in front of the çarşı kapısı where

grocery and grain trade was conducted. The rents from the shops of the eski kapan provided

for the upkeep of the imaret and medrese of Bayezid I.39

In light of the above, Dimetoka can be described as a “semi-rural market town with a

very limited radius”, which yet managed to raise its population by the reign of Selim II.40

This urban growth can be attributed to the devising of grain agriculture, the cultivation of

vineyards and mostly on the procurement of livestock breeding, which allowed the city not

only to be self-sufficient but also to emerge as one of Istanbul’s central suppliers of sheep and

oxen by the end of the 16th c. In that respect, Evliya informs on the famous agricultural

production of scrumptious grapes and the tekkeş variety of quinces”.41

In this section, we propose to examine the stages of Dimetoka’s urban formation in

conjunction with the role of the Ottoman state in this process. In order to analyze this we

would need to determine how the civil structures were created and maintained by the central

administration such as the creation of the pious foundations and how their arrangement

affected the layout of the town. Which are the civil structures which defined the proto-

Ottoman phase?

39
Emen (2010), pp. 72-73.
40
The population of Dimetoka rose from 2.053 individuals in 1519 to 2.405 in 1570. Consult Table 11 of the
appendix.
41
For translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka on pp. 327-335.

56
 Dimetoka should be viewed as a trophy city representing the triumph of Ottoman

hegemony on European soil and thus, it does not comply with the model, of the trade city, as

the examples of Bursa42, Siroz and other Anatolian cities suggest43. On the other hand,

despite being a capital, because of its short-lived glory it was soon stripped of its sultanic

status and consequently the only proper investment, which ascribed the Ottoman character to

the town, was undertaken by Bayezid I. Therefore, it should be understood that although it

belongs in the corpus of Bursa, Edirne and Istanbul it does not share their regal status in the

sense that it cannot boast of the same heavy investment.

The interpretation of Dimetoka’s urban profile within a comparative framework:

Dimetoka-Bursa-Edirne

The experience of Dimetoka raises the question of whether it represents the norm in

the Ottoman polity or an exception. In order to answer this question we would need to turn to

a comparative analysis. In 1996, Kuran attempted the first comparative spatial analysis of

three Ottoman capitals and in this way inaugurated a methodological tool with the potential

of reconstructing—through a holistic spectrum—the urbanisation scheme of the Ottoman

principality.44

His initial ambition was to elucidate a common spatial pattern devised under the first

sultans until Mehmed II, which nevertheless, proved to be unattainable. Instead, he argued

that although all three cities underwent the same transformation project as a result of which,

they re-emerged under the conventional Turkish urban organization of castle-city-suburb,

each of them developed along a different graphic pattern. Ottoman Bursa grew along a linear

42
Ergenç (2006).
43
Faroqhi (1990), p. 138.
44
Kuran (1996), pp. 114-131.

57
axis, Ottoman Edirne enveloped the old town and the new castle, while in the case of Istanbul

Ottomanization occurred within the city walls. He summarised the common features of these

three cities in a generic, tripartite basis comprised of: a) a centrally arranged castle, b) the

placement of the bazaar in the vicinity of the castle and c) the growth of the Ottoman

neighbourhoods around the ‘imarets.

Although Kuran’s approach carries a great potential, by failing to “take the next

logical step of integrating the crucial body of information into his chronological or

typological analysis of building programs”45, it missed the chance to read the underlying

pattern for the following two reasons: a) it ignored or underestimated certain nagging

questions and b) it was methodologically imprudent since it compared three cities on the

basis of their characteristics as capitals, without taking into account the different historical

periods in which they were developed. To avoid such traps in this thesis, we intend to

provide a comparative spatial analysis between Dimetoka Bursa and Edirne, as three cities

and regional centres which, apart from their shared identity as capitals, were Ottomanized

under the socio-political realities of the proto-Ottoman polity in the 14th century.

A synchronic urban perspective is thought to be an indispensable step towards making

Dimetoka’s stages of urban development intelligible. Only by distinguishing the proto-

Ottoman phase of the town from its late morphological phases, can we reinstate a perspective

of the town-planning solutions, as devised under the first sultans and seek to understand the

extent of their involvement in the site-planning solutions that were devised in the immediate

post-conquest phase of development.

Despite critical revision of the “Orientalist” theory in the field of urban studies, in

1991 Crane argued with reference to Bursa’s urbanisation that “the various structures that

45
This is a point Pancaroğlu draws on the reason why the connection between building programs and
landscapes of early Ottoman Bursa has been overlooked in scholarly studies; with special reference to
Gabriels’ work. Pancaroğlu (1995), p. 40.

58
went to make it up were scattered over irregular terrain in an organic manner and that little

attempt was made to impose a preconceived and arbitrary plan on the site”.46 The

topographic and morphological analysis of the early Ottoman towns at the lower Balkans, as

discussed in this thesis, has turned abundant evidence to question this argument. The

landscape might have dictated the specifics of the planning but there is a conscientious and

consistent Ottoman response to that, which suggests conceptualisation, premeditation and

systematization. Perhaps, if the site-planning of Bursa was seen as a unique paradigm

without parallels, it could have led to such a conclusion; but when juxtaposed with the

experience from other early Ottoman towns, then the coincidences become too many to be

considered random. Therefore, the question remains: can we discern a normative

developmental pattern for the Ottoman town of the 14th century and if no such common

pattern exists, can we identify the geo-political parameters which necessitated the creation

and manipulation of diverse site-planning solutions on the Ottoman part?

Use of the citadel and the maintenance of the walls

i. Bursa

The core issue of this question revolves around the Ottoman use of the citadel and

maintenance of the walls in the post-conquest phase of these towns. Upon the conquest of

Bursa in 1326 Orhan Gazi undertook an extensive repair scheme over the city-wall which

involved: a) stabilization works with the insertion of numerous spolia and b) the

reinforcement of the curtain wall including Bab-ı Zemin and the Yer kapı with triangular

turrets c) the reinforcement of the prison gate [Zindan kapısı] with a pentagonal inserted

46
Crane (1991), p. 174.

59
turret.(See Pl. 2.) Ayverdi interprets these measures as necessary precautions against the

Byzantines, who the Ottomans feared could always obtain extra help from the West.47

When in 1326 Bursa peacefully submitted to the Ottomans after being besieged for

nine arduous years, the principle of istimalet and aman was granted and the terms of

surrendering allowed the Byzantines to leave the citadel in return for the total of 30,000

ducats.48 The citadel was then inhabited by the Ottomans and became their administrative

and military base, where the organisation and institutionalization of the Empire took place. 49

Orhan’s urbanisation scheme involved around two lines of investment with what can be seen

as group or function targeting: a) the citadel where his people, the administrative and military

staff would get accommodated and b) the varoş where the prospective populations, in their

majority nomads moving from Anatolia, would colonize the valley after being inducted into

the framework of a sedentary life. As Pancaroğlu attests, the suburban district “at the time of

the conquest was considered a remote one. Orhan Bey’s decision to develop it immediately

speaks for his ambition to expand drastically the urban territory into the outlying lands”.50

Orhan’s intra muros development involved: a) the use of the Byzantine donjon

buttressed with seventeen semi-cylindrical towers at the north-eastern section of the citadel

within which, he repaired or set up from scratch the Bey’s palace.51 Although its original

architectural composition is not clear, from a 17th century document we learn that it included

an audience hall, a privy chamber, a hammam, stables and a harness shop.52 To the east of

the donjon the following building complexes were constructed: Orhan’s mosque and the tomb

47
Ayverdi (1966), p. 116.
48
Arnakis (1947), pp. 155-160.
49
Arabaci (Academia.edu), p. 22.
50
Pancaroğlu (1995), p. 43.
51
Arabaci (Academia.edu), p. 21, footnote 35.
52
Ayverdi (1966), p. 117.

60
of his father Osman Bey53, which was realised from a converted church54, his medrese and

his imaret, while to the south of it, he erected his hammam.(See Pl. 2.)

Pl. 2: Bursa
castle
blueprint
(Ayverdi
1966, pl. 72)

Still, the most interesting investment of Orhan’s era remains the construction of the

lower castle [Asağı hisarı] which was intended to encircle his külliye and thus to secure his

newly founded market centre in the lower suburbs. Foremost, his külliye should be seen as

the micrograph of a satellite, walled unit placed in the wilderness, which would function as a

self-sufficient urban nucleus. Within the courtyard were found at its centre a focal mosque

(1339), to the east of which a medrese and a zaviye were situated and to its western side a han

and a hammam. On its north side, the mosque was bounded by a primary school [mekteb]55.

Yet, can we believe that it was erected in a complete wilderness, with no reference point to

53
The Orhan Bey mosque of the upper castle was destroyed after the earthquake of 1855. According to its
dedicational inscription, which nowadays lies on the side entrance of the neighbouring Sahadet mosque, it was
established in 1337. Ayverdi (1966), pp. 58-59.
54
The identity of these Byzantine buildings is disputed. Pancaroğlu (1995), p. 43, footnote 12.
55
For an extensive analysis on Orhan’s imaret consult Ayverdi (1966), pp. 61-89 ground plan figs. 74-77; for an
analysis of Orhan’s destroyed imaret at Iznik as an axial eyvan mosque and his imaret at Bursa as a cross-axial
example constult: Kuran (1968), pp. 78-79, 98-109; for a comparative overview of Orhan’s imarets at Iznik and
Bursa consult Aslanapa (1986):“İznik’te Orhan Gazi ve Murat Hündavendigar Devri Eserleri” and “Bursa’daki ilk
eserler ve Murat Hündavendigar Devri Eserleri”, pp.3-23; for the position of Orhan’s imaret within the
evolutionary spectrum of the architectural type of the imaret-zaviye consult Kuban (1988), pp. 84-86.

61
the castle? Ayverdi has already drawn attention to the fact that Orhan’s külliye was lying

over a pre-existent axis [eski yol] which led from the upper castle to the ramparts.56

Pl. 3: City-plan of
Bursa. (A.Gabriel,
Une capital Turque,
Bursa. Paris 1958,
pl. 3)

This can explain why Orhan’s imaret is not oriented towards the kibla, but looks

south-west, while Ulu mosque (ca.1400) constructed sixty years later looks south-east. Such

plans reveal an era when a much more confident manipulation of the landscape was

contemplated. In this case, we can attest that the infantile dependency on a guided, external

layout was transcended. The same chorotaxic mechanism is evident in all Balkan examples

discussed in this thesis. Orhan’s imaret was arranged along Bursa’s eastern axis, which

commenced from the central gate -the Sarayı kapısı and led in an easterly direction.(See Pl.3.)

This suburban artery evolved into the “processional road” or çarşıya of the Ottoman town,

along which, the town’s earliest urban nuclei/monuments were endowed. Such orientations

should be understood as the spine of the early Ottoman urban development.

The walls of the lower castle became enveloped in Orhan’s medrese and zaviye

located at the upper castle and joined with the walls of the monuments in the area occupied

by the posterior Emir Han. They were then directed in an easterly direction over the

bedesten—where the Iron Gate [Demir Kapı] was—and further east to the Tuz Han, from
56
Ayverdi (1966), p. 117.

62
where they would turn south to Orhan’s külliye, at the west side of which was placed the

stone gate [Taş kapı].(See Pl.4.) Finally, the walls would join with the upper castle’s south-

eastern rampart and thus, the lower castle would encompass a total area of 200m.57

Pl. 4: Bursa The central area of the market (Goodwin 2003, pl. 49)

1. Fidan han;
. Orhan mosque;
3. Koza han;
4. Geyve han;
5. Bey hammam;
6. Sipahiler çarşı;
7. Bedesten;
8. Bey Han;
Şengόl hammam;
10. Ulu mosque

It becomes then obvious that the first Ottomans did not ignore the walls, but on the

contrary, valued their function and necessity. In 1326, the protection of both the citadel and

the suburban settlement was thought to be of primary importance: fortifying and expanding

emerge as two congruent objectives. The balance between these two priorities in the cases of

Dimetoka, Gümülcine and Siroz that were Ottomanized in the second half of the 14th c.

In these cases, one can observe the cognitive jump of the nullification of the walls,

something that was virtually inconceivable in the western medieval world. In medieval

urbanism, the historical centre remains the apex of the city. All sources agree that it is not
57
Evidences for the existence of such a construction were provided in the endowment deed of the Umur Bey
mosque from 1460 (865), which mentions the existence of the patron’s han and shops in the lower castle:
Ayverdi (1966), p. 117.

63
possible to conceive western European urban evolution without circumscribed and compact

cities.58 According to Henry Pirenne “Once outside the gates and the moat we are in another

world, in the domain of another law; the essential character of the European bourgeoisie was

that it formed a privileged class in the midst of the rest of the population. From this point of

view the medieval town offers a striking contrast both to the ancient town and to the town

today”.59 This is the norm that the Ottomans discontinued; by transferring the “rule of the

bourgeois class” outside the walled city and by re-defining the social synthesis of the

extended suburb, they promoted the transition from the medieval to the early modern city.

ii. Dimetoka

In the case of Dimetoka, this innovation does not apply to the use of the suburban area

per se, but mostly in the ascription of a new character to its use. The extramural zone, known

as burgos or commerce was inhabited since the late-Byzantine era. The Byzantine demos of

the extended suburb was mainly inhabited by aktēmon peasants. This is known from the

outbreak of a revolt in August 1342 against the oppression of Dimetoka’s feudal class, which

was settled within the citadel. In exasperation against Kantakouzenos and his court, the

armed demos attacked the walls and threatened to exterminate anyone who opposed. The

garrison of the castle pretended to surrender, opened the gates and then attacked the peasants,

who in order to survive, sought refuge with their children and wives in the neighbouring

cities. All their houses in the extended suburban area were demolished, their valuables and

58
Benevolo (1993), pp. 74-104; Braudel (1976), pp. 53-91; Lavedan-Hugueney (1974): Chapter 3. II) La création
urbaine en France/XII-XIV siècles- Le Sud-Ouest de la France, pp. 67-96, Chapter 4) La création urbaine hors de
France, pp. 101- 131, Chapter 5) Le cadre de la vie urbaine à la fin du moyen âge, pp. 135-173.
59
Pirenne (1936), p. 239. It needs to be mentioned that K. Tuna in his doctoral thesis refers to the
differentiation of the Islamic city from the Western city, as the congruent system which comprises of the castle
and the suburban area. Though, he only elaborated on the legal equity achieved under Islam for both the
residents of the citadel and of the suburb, as opposed to the latter being unprotected by civic law in the case
of the western city. Tuna (1987), p. 160.

64
the wood from their residences were moved to the castle and in their place orchards and

gardens were grown.60 As a result of the stripping of the suburbs, the town became more

vulnerable in the event of a seizure.61

This testimony is further corroborated through ceramic and architectural findings.

Bakirtzis argues that during the late Byzantine period the artisans and peasants were residing

outside the encirclement in the ‘outer quarter’ or ‘lower city’. His argument is based on the

discovery of exclusively late Byzantine/ early Ottoman pottery sherds in the cave-houses

carved into the Dimetoka hill; the production of these ceramic wares relates to two ceramic

furnaces which were brought to light a few meters below the ‘Palace Gates’ [saray kapısı], at

a depth of 3,60 m. lower than the contemporary stratum.62 The position of the furnaces

should be then identified as being at the level of the Carşı kapısı, the ‘Gate of the Market’

(See map 1: B3), which functioned as the spatial point of transition from the Byzantine to the

Ottoman urban terrains.

Therefore, the innovation introduced by the Ottoman lies in the stripping of the

extended suburb of its peasant status and its re-configuration under a new social synthesis

through the transferral of the ‘rule of the bourgeois class’ to a position outside the walled

citadel.63 In this way, they nullified the very dimension of the medieval city set aside as the

abode of the feudal class in former times.64

60
Cantacuzeni II, pp. 278-309.
61
Ibid., p. 288.
62
These ceramic furnaces were emptied at the time of their destruction and were connected to a third furnace
recovered at Ferres, close to the church of Cosmosoteira, which is positively dated in the “early Post-
Byzantine” period. These furnaces are chronologically related to the Varna and Suceava (Romania) furnaces
and were interpreted within the context of the commercial and financial developments realised under the
Ottoman expansion in the Balkans, which prepared the ground for the vast diffusion of ceramic ateliers in
these lands. Bakirtzēs (1981), pp. 150-152.
63
This term has been originally used Pirenne in order to define the upper echelons of the medieval, castled
society. Pirenne (1936), p. 239. In our context, the term bourgeois has been employed to contextualize a
broader spectrum of urban activities and groupings, alongside the commercial aspect and is adapted to the
social stratification suggested by İnalcık. Consult analysis on p. 127 of the current chapter under the
subheading: Interpreating Town planning within a Constructivist Framework.
64
The process is analytically discussed under section C. Topographic reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka of
chapter 1.

65
The explanation for the introduction of minor alterations to the Byzantine citadel of

Dimetoka

At this point, we need to examine what was the state of the inherited infrastructure

and what use did the Ottomans make of it? Dimetoka castle comprises of two homocentric

encirclements- the inner and outer ramparts- which extend over a surface of 1,300 m. of land.

The outer rampart is re-enforced with towers arranged in rhythmic intervals.65 The layout

and spatial conception of the castle has remained intact throughout the centuries, with the

expected adjustments and repairs applied after major episodes of damage and destruction.

The earliest levels are dated to the 6th c. and are still visible as the foundations over which

the subsequent levels were laid. (See Pl. 5)

Pl. 5: Dimetoka Castle Blueprint (Tsouris 1995, pl. 19)

65
Euthymiou (1957), pp. 249-378; F. Gianopoulos (1989), p. 63.

66
 The fact that the Ottoman intervention to the castle was minimal was due to the pre-

existing late Byzantine scheme of extensive repairs executed less than a decade before the

Ottoman conquest. This was launched under the auspices of the prōtostrator Constantin

Tarchaneiōtēs, archon of Dimetoka with Arsene Tzamblakon who served as the head of

imperial navy until the Venetian-Genovese war of 1351-1352. According to the Asdracha-

Bakirtzē’s hypothesis, he undertook the scheme of repairs before Kantakouzenos (1282-

1383) delivered the city to John V Paleologos (1332-1391); and although, the duration of his

mandate is not known, it is probable that he continued exercising his duties under John V

Paleologos too.66 Denis specified that John V settled in Dimetoka in 1352 after his return

from Thessaloniki to Constantinople.67 Kantakouzenos attempted to reconcile the differences

between John V and his son Mathew with an exchange. He assigned the fief located between

Dimetoka and Christoupolis, formerly assigned to his son Mathew, to John V and he gave to

Mathew in exchange Adrianople and its hinterland. The endowment deed of the fief dated

1352 clearly assigns Dimetoka’s hinterland to John V which proves that it did not then

constitute one of Mathew’s possessions.68

It becomes then understood that Tarchaneiōtēs’s scheme of repairs was carried out

just before the surrendering of the city by Kantakouzenos to John V Paleologos in 1352 (i.e.),

in the last years of the 1340s. Indeed, there was a need for such a repair around that time. In

June 1348 Kantakouzenos attacked the Bulgarian bandit Momčilo outside Dimetoka having

on his side 20,000 Turkish cavalry forces under the leadership of Umur and Süleyman Bey,

son of the emir of Saruhan. After the death of Momčilo, the Turks destroyed the curtain wall

of the castle and raided the surrounding countryside.69

66
Asdracha-Bakirtzēs (1980), pp. 268-270.
67
Denis (1960), p. 11.
68
Cantacuzeni III, p. 238; Gouridis (2006), p. 57; Giannopoulos (1989), pp. 94-95.
69
Cantacuzeni III, p. 532; Nicol (1996), p. 69, footnote 42.

67
 In light of the above, it can be explained why the Tarchaneiōtēs scheme was focused

on the outer rampart and its reinforcing towers; these interventions are visible in the tower

nos. 1, 5-7, 9-12.70 In this phase, which is most accurately represented in the tower 1 there is

the tendency to create a coarse version of cloisonné (See Pl. 6), modified by a random effort to

dress the stone cellular with single or double brick segments inserted to the horizontal or

perpendicular beds.

Pl. 6:
Dimetoka
Castle:
south-
eastern
tower no. 1
dating from
ca. 1350
(Bessi 2010)

In addition, one encounters the extensive use of the horizontally arranged triple brick in the

perpendicular joints of the masonry. (See Pl. 7)

Pl. 7:
Dimetoka
Castle:
eastern tower
nos 11,12
dating from
ca. 1350
(Bessi 2010)

70
Tsouris (1995), p. 98, footnote 15.

68
 The scheme of repairs undertaken by Tarchaneiōtēs bequeathed an impregnable castle

to the Ottomans. The fact that the defensibility of the castle remained in a good standing

explains why the first Ottoman intervention can only be identified in tower no. 19. (See Pl. 8)

Pl. 8:Kız
Kulesi
dating
from
ca.1360
(Photo:
Bessi
2010)

which corresponds to the “Gate of the Bridge” [Köprü Kapısı].71 Practically the intervention

was restricted to the relocation of the south gate to the castle and the repairing of the bridge

crossing over Kızıl Deli.72 This infrastructural basis was reinforced by the gradual formation,

in the area between the gate and the north bank of the stream, of the neighbourhood of

Köprübaşı.73

71
“Another gate allows to the west side and is called the gate of the bridge”: consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on
Dimetoka, pp. 327-335.
72
“Thanks to the very beautiful water and climate, it is a beloved silver land. Its name comes from the redness
of the bronze colour, because they are drinking from the water of Kızıl Deli. This river springs from the
mountain of Tanriverdi and it runs under a lofty stone arched bridge with twelve vaults (positioned) at the
south side of the lower fringes of the castle, laid with oak beams and (supported) on permanent pillars; further
up from the castle the river crosses afar from a gunshot range positioned at the south and (further down) it
meets with Arda, Tunça and Meriç rivers and joins with the Aegean at a place in the vicinity of Enez castle”:
consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 333-341.
73
For the cross-referencing of the quarter consult Table 10: no. 14 and discussion under subheading
“Periodization” of section C. Topographic reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka in chapter 1.

69
 Gouridis was the first to draw attention to the “Gate of the Bridge” being a 14th

century Ottoman work but did not justify his dating.74 Such a justification is valuable for

understanding the extent of Ottoman intervention in the Byzantine fortifications undertaken

under Murad I (1360-1389). The new addition to the southern gate diverted the entrance

towards the south-west by approximately 150 m. This change, in accordance with an

accustomed pattern in the Ottoman military architecture, was intended to block the frontal

access to the gate by creating a tubular passage way.(See Pl. 9) Similar constructions have

survived in classical military parallels, such as the Rumeli Hisar (856 H./ 1453/53)75, at the

castles of Çesme (913 H./1508-1509)76 and Midilli (890 H./1485-1486)77. A square tower

was placed against the polygonal tower n.20 with which it was then connected by the means

of a buttressing wall in which a gate was opened. A second wall starts from the south-eastern

facade of the Ottoman tower and adjoins it with the tower n.21, which was constructed in the

6th century.

Pl. 9: Kız
Kulesi
dating
from
ca.1360
(Photo:
Bessi 2010)

74
Gouridis (1999), p. 108; the existence of the gate escaped the study of Ayverdi (1982), pp. 190-195 and
Ayverdi (1966), pp.482-483; Bıçakçı (2003), pp.47-61; Çam (2006), pp. 31-32.
75
Ayverdi (1989), pp. 660-661.
76
Ayverdi (1983), p. 483.
77
Based on unpublished inscriptional material retrieved by the author in 2009.

70
 Evidence for the dating of this structure is to be found in its masonry and the

decorative elements used on its facades. The masonry can be characterized as a combination

of alternating layers with a coarse cloisonné (See Pl. 10); that is to say, the stone course instead

of having a distinct ashlar arrangement presents a scruffy dressing of the blocks with single

inserts of brick in both the perpendicular and horizontal beds with a few occurrences of

double brick in the perpendicular joints. The style of alternating layers is also encountered in

the polygonal tower no.7 (See Pl. 11) attributed to Tarchaneiōtēs (ca. 1340) 78 and in the nearby

14th century fortress of Pythion79; the differentiating point between late Byzantine and early

Ottoman masonries lies in the broad use of brick inserts which completely distort the neat

Byzantine type of alternating layers into a scruffy cloisonné with double or triple inserts in

the perpendicular joints. Similar masonry is encountered in the Han of Hacı Evrenos

constructed at nearby Traianoupolis, which dates from the second half of the 14th century.

Pl. 10: Kız

Kulesi and
butressing
wall dating
from ca.
1360
(Photo:
Bessi 2010)

78
Tsouris (1995), footnote 15, p. 98.
79
Bakirtzēs - Oraiopoulos (2004), pp. 41-43; Kores (1989), pp. 275-278, Pl. LXIX-LXXI.

71
 Pl. 11:
Dimetoka
castle:
northern
tower no. 7
from ca.
1350
(Photo:Bessi
2010)

The decorative features of the gate consist of two blind, high-pointed brick arches,

which embellish the eastern and southern facades of the square tower. Decorative arches and

vaults as a decorative theme were broadly employed by the Constantinopolitan architectural

school in their attempt to create articulated facades.80 For example, such a semi-circular

blind arch is encountered by the Lefke gate of the Iznik walls. (See Pl. 12)

Pl. 12: Semi-

circular
blind arch as
a decorative
detail of the
Lefke gate
at Iznik
walls
(Photo:
Bessi 2012)

Although no Turkish parallel of military architecture exists, this style evolved into a popular

decorative device of 14th c. Turkish religious architecture of the Anatolian principalities. It is

80
Pasadaios (1973), p. 88.

72
encountered in the Orhan Bey mosque at Bursa (See Pl. 13) and at the Puşinpuş zaviye at

Yenişehir.(See Pl. 14)

Pl. 13:
Orhan Bey
mosque at
Bursa
north-west
view
(Photo:
Bessi 2009)

Pl. 14:
Puşinpuş
Zaviye at
Yenişehir
south-
eastern
view
(Photo:
Bessi 2012)

In these instances blind arches and contiguous vaults attribute plasticity to the facades

by subdividing the surface into decorative panels within which windows are inscribed.

Whereas, in our case, the arches occupy the entire width of each facade and they appear to

have a structural function. According to Aktuğ-Kolay, the use of blind arches interwoven

within the masonry is encountered in the art of the principalities, as elements denoting

frontality and indicating the main entrance of religious buildings. In cases such as the

73
medrese of Ahmet Gazi (1375-1376) in Peçin, the mosque of İlyas Bey at Balat (1404), and

the türbe of Yedikızlar at Manisa the frontal facade is defined by a screen arch which

envelopes the main entrance or a series of frontal openings. In a unique example, that of the

Hundavendigar mosque at Tuzla all four facades are articulated with a blind arch.81

To sum up, the Ottomanization scheme undertaken by Murad I at Dimetoka can be

summarized as follows:

a) The reconstruction of the Köprü and Carşı kapısı, though of the latter no material

remains survive

b) The transformation of the palace quarters into a royal residence along with the

inclusion of the royal treasury [hazine-yi hümayun]82

c) The granting of the first endowment for the zaviye of Abdal Cüneyd, which

initiated the subsequent development of the outer suburb. Still, it should be realised that what

during the eras of Bayezid I (1389-1401) and still more of Mehmed I (1413-1421) would

evolve into the actual Ottoman urban fabric was initiated as an unprotected urban

agglomeration and remained as such. According to Evliya: “The extensive lower suburb of

the town spreads over the banks of the Kızıl Deli River. However, there are no castle walls

around it, since the steep slopes on the south side of the citadel climbing up from the north

bank of the Kızıl Deli overlook and envelop it and since the inner castle itself also overlooks

the varoş district [it is well protected by both natural and man-made obstacles]”.83

81
Aktuğ-Kolay (1999), p. 44, drawings 32-33, 35-36 and illustration 11 (it suppose to depict the Hudavendigar
mosque but it actually shows the Yedikızlar türbe at Manisa).
82
E.A., Zachariadou, “The Sultanic residence and the capital Didimoteichon and Adrianople”, in Kolovos, E., P.
Kotzageorgis, S. Laiou and M. Sariyannis (eds.), The Ottoman empire, the Balkans, the Greek lands:toward a
social and economic history, Studies in honor of J.C. Alexander, Istanbul, Eren publications, 2007, pp. 357-361.
Also refer to footnote 93 of the current chapter.
83
For the translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 327-335.

74
What was the Ottoman use of the Byzantine citadel?

If we accept Inalcik’s point that the palatial quarter in Edirne was completed in 1369,

a date which pinpoints the subsequent transfer of the imperial seat there, then what was the

use of the palatial quarter at Dimetoka in the period after 1369? 84 The answer to this query is

the key for the interpretation of the contradictory town planning solutions adopted at

Dimetoka, Bursa and Edirne.

If we can prove that the Byzantine palatial structure of Dimetoka accommodated the

sultanic inner palace [enderun-i hümayun] until the reign of Mehmed II, we should then

accept that apart from the garrison of the castle residing in the mahalle-yi kal’e, the sultan

was entirely surrounded by Christians.85 In Edirne, on the other hand, the building program

developed the other way around: for the first 50 years before the formation of the Ottoman

fringe belt, the Ottomans resided within the Byzantine kernel while the sultan’s residence

stood outside the walls. This seems to suggest the fact that the first mosque and subsequent

quarter outside the city walls is that of Gazi İbrahim Bey, as dating from 1411-1412.86

The building activity of Hüdavendigar (1360-1389) was of a low intensity in the after

conquest period. Hüdavendigar converted the biggest church of the citadel [Agia Sophia]

into a mosque [Halebi medrese cami’i] and expanded the dervish lodge of Hacı Bektaş

known as Küçük mosque.87 In accordance to the pattern attested at Dimetoka, Murad I (1362-

1389) erected between the years 1365-1368 the first palace within the city walls, the so-called

Yeni Saray. This was located at the Kırlangıç ridge extending between the hills of Murad

Bey (Muradiye-Küçükpazarı) and Topraklı, northeasternly from the Selimiye cami’i.88 Hibri

84
İnalcık (2008), p. 157.
85
This is based on the archival evidence as reviewed in Table 1: no. 16 of the appendix.
86
Kuran (1996), pp. 114-131.
87
During Murad II’s (1421-1451) reign, a medrese was erected adjacent to the mosque where it was appointed
as müderris Sıraceddün Mehmed Halebi. In his memory the mosque was renamed into the mosque of Halebi
medrese. Eyice (1965), pp. 69-71; Tanman (1998), pp. 325-326.
88
M. Özer, Edirne Sarayı (Saray-ı Cedid-i Amire): Kısa bir Değerlendirme, İstanbul, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi
Yayınları, 2014, pp. 5-6.

75
Efendi explains that “After Murad I conquered Edirne in 1362, he immediately returned to

Dimetoka; but because he liked the climate and the water of Edirne and it seemed to him a far

more pleasant place, he choose Edirne over Dimetoka. Eventually, it seemed that there was

ample of space at Edirne and that the city would acquire lavish ‘imarets and it would become

a laudable capital. Therefore, he constructed the Old Palace (which is actually called the

New Palace) in 1366/7”.89

Yeni Saray was repaired by Yıldırım Bayezid (1389-1401), his son Musa Çelebi (-

1413) who added an encumbassing buttressing wall and finally, by Suleiman I (1520-1566).

To his intervention is attributed the addition of a series of new palace spaces , such as the

‘Privy Chamber’ [has oda], the Treasury [hazine odası], the Campaigning Chamber

[seferliler odası], the pantry [kiler].90 Since, Yeni Saray was located within the citadel, it was

lacking gardens and orchards. This along with many other infrastructural difficiencies can

justify the construction of the second palace commenced by Murad II (1421-1451) in 1450.

This was completed under Mehmed II and since it took the name Yeni Saray [Saray-i Cedid-i

Amire], the first palace within the citadel became the Eski Saray.91 The position of Murad

II’s Yeni Saray on an island within the Tunca River at the west side of the town and its

inscription within a single row of defensive walls might reflect the shift from Seljuk to

Timurid palatial practices in the after 1402 era.92

After having outlined the stages of investment launched at Dimetoka and Edirne, we

can then proceed with an examination of the evidence attesting to the use of the citadel for

the housing of the inner palace until Mehmed II’s reign and the presence of the garrison in

the castle until Selim II’s reign.

89
Gökbilgin (1965), pp. 89-90.
90
Özer (2014), pp. 5-6.
91
Osman (1957); Tahsiz (1965), pp. 217-222.
92
M. Gronke, “The Persian Court Between Palace and Tent: from Timur to ‘Abbas I”, in L. Golombek and M.
Subtenly (ed.), Timurid Art and Culture: Iran and Central Asia in the Fifteenth Century, Studies in Islamic Art and
Architecture, Supplements to Muqarnas, vol. 6, pp. 18-22, Leiden, Brill, 1992.

76
 A detailed description of the palace is provided by Evliya: “the domed royal quarters

are to be found in the upper citadel. [Where] there are canopied chambers roofed with pure

lead and numerous chambers and turrets. The palace is a double-storied, stone structure of a

truncated shape which spreads over the steep, red rock and extending from east to the south-

west of the castle; it is the aesthetic high point of the castle and the most overbearing

compartment of the quintipartite castle. Its perimeter measures 2,500 paces”.93

The earliest source after 1369 reporting on the use of the sultanic residence at

Dimetoka by Murad I is a 14th c. anonymous Byzantine chronicle.94 In 1373, Murat I crossed

Dardanelles to campaign in Anatolia with his vassal John V Paleologus. It was then that

Murad’s eldest son Savcı Çelebi and John V’s Andronicus revolted against their fathers.

They declared themselves sultan and emperor at Bursa and Istanbul respectively. On the 25th

of March 1373 they were both defeated at Pikridion at the Bosphorus and while Andronicus

surrendered to his father, Savcı Çelebi fled to Dimetoka and found shelter within the castle

where he held on until the 7th of September. Murad I now besieged the castle and starved the

garrison forcing it to surrender on the 29th of September. He watched the decapitation of his

son from his tent set up by the bank of the Kızıl Deli.

In 1433 the French counsellor and spy of the Duke of Burgundy-Betrandon de la

Broquiere on his trip to the Holy Lands reported during his sojourn at Dimetoka, that the

royal treasury was located there.95 As Zachariadou has pointed out the Treasury [hazine-yi

hümayun] belonged to the inner palace [enderun-i hümayun] of the royal household, which

corresponds to the royal privy champers [has oda]; therefore, we can conclude that the inner

palace was located at Dimetoka at this time.96

93
For the translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 327-335.
94
Schreiner (1975), p. 96; Charanis (1938), pp. 335-363; Charanis (1943), pp. 286-314; Dölge (1958), pp. 217-
232; İnalcık (2008), p. 159.
95
Kline (1988), pp. 173, 180.
96
Zachariadou (2007), pp. 357-361; Gibb-Bowen (1951), pp. 77-79.

77
 In 1444 Ladislas, king of Poland and Hungary, instigated by the Byzantines and the

Pope regarded the peace treaty of the 12th June 1444 as invalid and prepared for war. This

caused alarm at Edirne. Many of the panic-stricken people fled to Anatolia, new defence

systems started being constructed, while the officials had their valuables and treasures

transported to the castle of Dimetoka, where the treasury was located.97

Further evidence concerning the maintenance of the inner palace of the royal

household at Dimetoka until at least the reign of Bayezid II (1481-1512) can be found in the

presence of slaves recorded in the earliest known extensive register from Dimetoka dating

from 1485.98 These are discerned through the names: gulam, ‘atik or azade [manumitted

slave] attached to their proper names. An explicit reference to a Saruca gulam-ı enderun is

recorded in the breakdown of the Oruç Paşa quarter from 1485.99 The neighbourhoods with

the highest concentration in slaves are Oruç Bey (25%), Bazarlu Bey (29%), Hocaca (11%)

and the Muslim quarter of the castle (40%).100 The Hocaca and Bazarlu Bey (See map 1: G13

and 16) quarters are within the artisanal and commercial zone, where the presence of slaves as

a working force is expected101. Within the Muslim quarter of the castle, their presence is also

justified as courtiers of the ‘Outer’ imperial household [birun erkanı].

Based on the layout of the Topkapı and Edirne palaces the second courtyard housed

the Divan-ı hümayun with the ‘Outer Treasury’ [diş hazine], while in the contiguous third

courtyard housed the enderun or harem-i hümayun along with the ‘Imperial Treasury’

[hazine-i amire].102 The court of the inner palace was composed of several groups of

kapıkulu [mercenary] pages recruited by means of the pençik and devshirme systems or

captured during warfare. According to the devshirme practice, the ablest children between

97
Gazavat (1978), p. 43; this has been cited in Zachariadou (2007), pp. 357-361.
98
Consult Table 2: nos 6, 11, 12 of the appendix.
99
For the transcription consult Table 2: no. 6.
100
Consult Table 10 of the appendix.
101 th th
For the commercial exploitation of slaves in 15 and 16 Ottoman society: Sahilioğlu (1985), pp. 44-112.
102
Necipoğlu (1991): a) construction and layout of the palace: p. 8, b) the public treasury: pp. 86-90, c) the
inner treasury: pp. 133-141.

78
the ages of eight and eighteen were assigned to the Edirne, Galata and İbrahim Paşa palaces

where they became familiar with the manners and customs of the Turkish-Islamic culture in

order to serve the empire as military leaders and high ranking administrators or courtiers.

From there, they were then accommodated in designated chambers of the inner palace: the

seferli [Campaigning], kiler [Pantry] and the hazine [Treasury].103 At that stage, they

furthered their education and when prepared they joined the royal cavalry [kapıkulu süvari

ordusu] or the palace service as attendants identified by the terms gulam or iç-oğlan.104

Within the inner palace, the most highly regarded group of courtiers was that of Enderun

ağaları managing the affairs of the ‘Privy Chamber’ [hasoda] as the sultans’ domestic

attendants.

The institution of enderun ağaları was established under Murad II (1421-1451) and it

was furthered under Mehmed II (1451-1481) who attributed a humanistic outlook to their

educational curriculum. There was also the office of courtiers of the outer palace [birun

erkanı], who were charged with the public affairs of the sultan, such as the imperial imam,

doctor, surgeon, opthalmologist, the steward of the gatekeepers, the Chief Gardener, the

Chief Equerry [mirahur]. These officials were not compelled to reside within the palace

premises.105

The institution of slavery gained in importance under the centralizing polices of

Bayezid I in Anatolia who realised that in order to break the dominant families of the rival

Turcoman principalities, he would need to associate the state and military offices with slaves,

who would owe their allegiance only to the sultan. Bayezid’s efforts at centralization came to

a halt after the battle of Ankara (1402). However, during the recuperation period both

Mehmed Çelebi (1413-1421) and his son Murad II (1421-1451) succeeded in bringing about

103
Halaçoğlu (1991), pp. 28-31; Uzunçarşılı (1984), pp. 300-339.
104
Özcan (1996), p.184.
105
Halaçoğlu (1991), pp. 30-31; Uzunçarşılı (1984), pp. 459-464.

79
a political balance between the palace slaves and the sipahis by pursuing a soft approach.

The first use of the kapikulu to resolve a power struggle came in 1446 when Çandarlı Halil

engineered a Janissary revolt, removed Mehmed II and his advisers from power and brought

Murad II back to the throne. Mehmed II in his efforts to establish a centralized and absolute

power against the hereditary, semi-feudal system of the frontier principalities relied on the

empowerment of the slave [kul] system and made their involvement an indispensable part of

the central state apparatus and the army. In 1451 after his return from his Karaman

campaign, Mehmed II reformed the military force [kapıkulu askerleri] by demoting the

sekbans (troops assigned to accompany the sultan to the hunt) and actually expanded the size

of the corps to nearly triple its former size. In the aftermath of the conquest of Istanbul, he

dismissed Çandarli Halil Paşa and appointed to the post of grand vizier only viziers from

devshirme origins.106

The fact that the enderun-i hümayun along with the harem-i hümayun was installed at

Dimetoka prior to Edirne and at intervals hereafter can be confirmed by the valuable

testimony of the Italian traveller Giovan Maria Angiollelo from the 1470s. According to his

account, Mehmed II’s sister was living in the palace of Dimetoka, information which comes

to corroborate Zachariadou’s hypothesis that Murad II’s harem resided at Dimetoka.

Zachariadou107 contested Babinger’s indecisiveness on the birthplace of Mehmed II by

pointing to the fact that most of his examined texts were composed at the end of the 15th

century108, while the takvim of Murad II confirming Dimetoka as Mehmed II’s birthplace was

compiled during Murad II’s lifetime or very soon after his death in 1451.109

According to Angiollellos’ account: “in 1470 they camped at a castle, which was

called Dimestica, where a sister of the sultan was living, who was entrusted with the place by
106
Özcan (2001), pp. 347-349.
107
Zachariadou (2007), p. 360.
108
Babinger (1962), pp. 167-171; İnalcık (2003), pp. 395-407: İnalcık also accepts Edirne as Mehmed II’s
birthplace.
109
Menage (1976), pp. 573-575.

80
the sultan and she was living like a queen because she had taken the heads of twenty of her

slaves in order to attest, whether they could still be alive, but mostly, because she wanted to

prove her allegiance to her brother. Moreover, this woman was of disputable morality,

[since] she was [first] buying young slaves, the ones she liked and then, she was killing them,

out of fear of being accused; because, if the sultan became aware of her actions, he would

kill her. Sultan Murad, her father, had already stipulated in his testament that she should

honour her brother and should be obedient to him. After the victory of Mehmed II at

Negroponte, she reminded him of some of his barons, whom he released from captivity. Then

he married her to one of his slaves, named Isa Bey, who was a relative of the Paleologos

family”110. Therefore, if his sister was born at Dimetoka, then it is probable that he too was

born there and consequently his father’s harem was to be found there.

In 1452 Doukas recounts that Mehmed II after the completion of Rumeli Hisar

decreed that every boat crossing through the Bosphorus should pay tolls to the Ottoman

authorities. Around that time a Venetian vessel sailed through the Bosphorus without

stopping and was sunk by canon fire. The crew was captured and brought before Mehmed at

his court at Dimetoka, who ordered their death.111

Even after the end of Mehmed II’s reign evidence suggests that the palace was still in

use. According to Evliya “since this castle was the old seat of the state, Musa Çelebi son of

sultan Yıldırım resided there too; because there were many hunting attractions Bayezid II

settled there too for many years. In fact, when Selim Han I took the caliphate by force from

his father, this became Bayezid Han’s capital; that is to say, he got exiled [there] and when

110
The testimony of Angiolello is the first western recount of the journey from southern Greece to Istanbul
after 1453. The two brothers from Vicenza were captivated by Mehmed II in 1479 at Negreponte and while
Francesco died during the attack, Giovan Maria was driven enslaved through Thessaly, Macedonia and Thrace
to Istanbul. Angiolello (1982), pp. VII-XII, 18-19.
111
Doukas (1997), p. 475.

81
he died in the vicinity of Havsa, his shroud was brought to Istanbul and he was buried in

front of the mihrab of the mosque”.112

Muneçimbaşı provided information on an extensive scheme of repairs in the palace

and the walls of the citadel ordered by Bayezid II after the catastrophic earthquake of 1503.113

Moreover, the preservation of the palace throughout 16th century can be attested through a

reference made to a certain Kasim Abdin who was registered as one of the repair technicians

of the palace [meremmetci-yi saray] from the nearby neighbourhood of the Tatars that makes

its appearance in the register dating from the 1570s.114

Finally, the garrison of the castle was maintained throughout the 16th century.115 This

attestation confirms that long after the Ottoman banners were carried as far north as Buda

(1541), the geostrategic importance of Dimetoka—as the site of a royal provincial palace—

was still much valued.

To recapitulate:

a) The Ottomans, whose principal court was situated at Bursa, used the palace, settled in the

citadel and extended a second lower fortification around the first imaret site,

b) At Dimetoka, they re-used only the palace from the precincts of the citadel and allowed the

Christians to continue residing within its confines while they settled themselves in the

unfortified suburb and

c) At Edirne, the Ottomans’ third capital, they settled in the citadel but instead of using the

existing palace they built a new fortified palatial complex in the outer suburbs.

So why do we see these three different settlement patterns being adopted in the

Ottomans’ first three imperial cities? I believe that this is due to the varying conditions under

which these three cities had surrendered, taken in conjunction with an evaluation of the
112
For the translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 327-335.
113
Müneçimbaşı (1868), p. 472.
114
For the transcription consult Table 8: no. 5 of the appendix.
115
Consult discussion of the evidence under section C. Topographic reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka of
chapter 1.

82
geostrategic position of these towns within the regional network of the 14th century’s

Ottoman polity.

Although, technically speaking all three towns surrendered under terms, actually

surrendering after nine arduous years of besiege (the case of Bursa) greatly differs from

surrendering after no siege at all. The latter case, as we shall see, entitled those surrendering

to a privileged treatment. The Byzantines of Bursa, while having surrendered, were made to

evacuate the citadel and in effect had to buy their freedom at the price of 30,000 ducats. In a

sense, the city was punished for resisting. Historiographic sources record that most of the

locals fled to Istanbul, while an equally sizable part of the population, which chose to remain,

was eventually deported to the countryside around Bursa. Besides, we should also consider

the disruption caused by the plague during the Bursa investment; Aşıkpaşazade is explicit

about the fact that Orhan needed to evacuate the castle because of the piled up corpses, which

means that the choice of the expulsion of the Greek population can be also attributed to

public health concerns under the threat of an epidemic. The same situation seems to apply to

Edirne too. Edirne’s surrender followed a long and painful siege and thus after its conquest

the city needed to be repopulated.116

116
The most corroborated revision of the conditions under which Bursa was conquered has been provided by
G. Arnakis in his published doctoral thesis. According to this, Ottomans reappeared and settled outside the
Bursa castle in 1317; that is 9 years before its surrendering in 1326. At that time Osman was in control of the
Bithynian countryside apart from the urban centres of Bursa, Iznik and Izmit. The Ottomans attempted
disclosure of the city by setting up peripheral read-outs, but still Osman did not seem to have sufficient forces
in order to press for surrendering. The insufficiency of the Ottomans forces can be also confirmed by the fact
that Andronicus III managed to break the seizure and to supply Bursa with wheat from Trigleia port. Still, no
attempt was made by the Constantinopolitan government to support the besieged Bursa and Andronicus II
was explicitly criticized for this political decision of his, which is thought to have caused the actual surrendering
th
of the city. The city was surrendered on the 6 of April 1326, when the civil war between the two Andronicus
was at its peak. Two are the parameters which are thought to have urged Bursa’s citizens into surrendering:
the epidemic outbreak of plague and foremost, the broken moral of the citizens, who had realised that the
government had already abandoned the city to its own devices and that resisting would not take them
anywhere. Aşikpaşazade presents the superintendent of Bursa explaining the decision of the citizens to
surrender: they were becoming day by day aware of the empowering position of the Ottomans and the
decadence of the Byzantines, the Ottoman nodal read-outs disrupted the commercial life of the city, the
Ottoman peasants flooded the countryside and enjoyed a peaceful living, the city’s governor was cutting off
army supplies and the defenders were lacking arms. Köşe Mihal along with the governor negotiated the terms
of surrendering according to which the Greeks could leave the citadel in return for the total of 30.000 doucats.

83
 The same condition does not apply to the surrender of Dimetoka. Despite slight

discrepancies in the different accounts of the conquest117, one main literary plot emerges:

Hacı Ilbey was retreating at Pythion—a stronghold located less than 10 km north of

Dimetoka—and was pillaging the countryside around Dimetoka in the period immediately

preceding the town’s surrender.118 This short period of pillaging cannot justify Dimetoka’s

effortless delivery into the Ottomans’ hands considering the impregnability of the castle,

which had been repaired less than a decade earlier.119

The resolution is provided in Oruç Bey’s version in which the literary ‘topos’ of the

ambush was introduced in order to disguise the inability of the Ottomans to besiege or

directly attack the impregnable castle. This state of affairs resulted in an ‘off the record’

settlement between the aristocratic class of Dimetoka and the Turkish warriors that can be

recognised in the ‘ahd ü peyman’. This is the treaty agreed upon the surrendering of the town

by the tekfur. In exchange, the tekfur secured not only his unencumbered exodus from the

town along with his family and property, but also his maintenance through the concession of

revenues allocated from a village in the vicinity of Enez.120

If we were then to concider that the peasants were annihilated by the aristocracy of

the castle because they revolted against Kantakouzenos and his court in 1342, in conjuction

with the fact that since 1343 the Ottomans had been raiding the countryside around

Dimetoka121, it becomes then clear that the current allies of the Ottomans—the aristocracy of

the castle—had no reason to resist and were thus offered a privileged treatment.

Most of them fled to Istanbul, but the majority of the residents remained and were gradually converted.
Arnakis (1947), pp. 155-160.
117
Consult appendix The sources on the conquest, pp. 336-340.
118
Uzunçarsılı (1982), p. 158; Ercilasun (1995), p. 495.
119
The dating of the alterations has been discussed above, under the sub-heading “The explanation for the
introduction of minor alterations to the Byzantine citadel of Dimetoka” of chapter 1.
120
Consult appendix The sources on the conquest, pp. 336-340.
121
For the details consult section 2. Ottomanization as a colonization process of the introduction chapter.

84
 As much as the initial formation of a town planning solution was dependent on the

conditions of the conquest, equally decisive for laying further investment on a town and for

its consequent morphological evolution was its strategic position within the regional urban

network. Zachariadou draws our attention to a point that should be seriously considered; the

Ottomans were dividing their time between Dimetoka, where a part of the Ottoman court

resided and Edirne, where the Ottoman palace and administrative offices, as meant for the

embassies, were located.122

Dimetoka was the only secure castle in the Enez valley. Edirne due to its vulnerable

position on the Via Militaris would have been left unprotected in the event of an incoming

attack. The incident with Vladislas clearly shows that the Ottomans turned to the walls when

their settlement was insecure. In this context, the establishment of the Ottoman fringe belt at

Dimetoka can be conceived as an absolute breach of the Western and Eastern medieval

conventions. The core motive for the development of this pattern can be identified in

Demetrius Kydones’ testimony, as expressed in one of his letters: “such is the present time

that everyone outside the walls has been submitted to the Turks, and everyone within the

walls has been exterminated by the famine, the upheaval and thousand other troubles and

have turned their hopes only to the Christian help”.123 Under the Ottoman methods of

conquest, the walls are turning into a curse, which can be averted only through the filter of

the Ottoman fringe belt; the Ottoman structural addition that further reinforced the

defensibility of the castle by infiltrating the access routes and canalising control over the

citadel.

Thus, discussion of the conditions under which the aristocracy of Dimetoka delivered

the town to the Ottomans means to justify why all Christian quarters registered in the
122
Zachariadou (2007), p. 360.
123
“[..] καιρός δὲ οἷος οὐκ ἄλλος ὃ νύν, τῶν μὲν ἔξω τειχῶν πάντων δουλευσάντων τοῖς Τούρκοις, τῶν δὲ
ἔνδον πενία και στάσει καὶ μυρίοις ἄλλοις κακοῖς ἀναλισκομένων, πρός μόνην δέ τὴν παρά τῶν Χριστιανῶν
βοήθειαν ἀφορώντων” Liber XIX: Epistula 190 (9) Ioanni Lascari Calophero Romam, Constantinople 1378-1379:
Démétrius Cydonès (1960), p. 63.

85
subsequent Ottoman tax surveys are contained within the walls.124 The Ottoman presence in

the castle was restricted to the inner palace and to one Muslim quarter, the mahalle-yi kal’e

that accommodated the garisson of the Muslim timariots. The essential Ottoman investment

can be substantiated in the colonization of the outer suburb or—as alluded in the

introduction— of the Ottoman fringe belt. The morphological evaluation and periodization

of the Dimetoka fringe belt follows in the section above.

C. Morphological analysis

Topographic reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka: the argument

In his seminal work, Veinstein put forward the theory that the existence of the typical

Ottoman town lies in the morphology of the north-western Anatolian and Balkan cities. He

encapsulated the common characteristics of the group in: a) easily identifiable continuous

great axes, b) straighter and longer dead-end streets and c) less densely settled habitat. More

importantly, he concluded that “there existed an original urban type, halfway between the

Arabic and the Western towns; and if this analysis is confirmed from future studies, then the

term—Ottoman town—will be legitimately used to refer to this type”.125

In this section it will be argued how the first substantial urban conquest of the

Ottomans in the Balkans complies with this normative paradigm. At the same time, an

elucidation of the factors that influenced the adaptation of such a morphological solution will

be also attempted. Towards this objective, we would apply the periodization system for

Ottoman urbanism as enunciated in the introduction: the proto-Ottoman phase (reigns of

Murad I to Mehmed I), the classical phase (reigns of Murad II to Bayezid II) and the

124
Consult Table 1: no. 17 of the appendix.
125
His conclusive theory was based on the works of Pinon and Panerai. Veinstein (2008), p. 217.

86
consolidation phase (reigns of Selim I and Süleyman I).126 Our aim is to encapsulate the state

of the inferred changes, as viewed at the time of their conception.

In order to make the stages of urban development intelligible, we would need to

provide answers to questions related to urban patronage: what were the quarters of Ottoman

Dimetoka 127, when were the pious foundations [vakfs] of the city established and how was

the lay-out of the city affected by their arrangement? The urban vakfs of Dimetoka in terms

of their financial potential and power are all classified within the same category of medium-

sized vakfs with cash above 2,000 akçes and less than 100,000 following the classification

suggested by Gerber in his work on the vakfs of neighbouring Edirne.128 Even the two

sultanic vakfs set up by Bayezid I and Mehmed I, did not share the magnitude of the genuine

economic enterprises as described by İnalcık.129

The reconstruction of the proto-Ottoman morphological phase will help us understand

the town-planning solution devised under the first sultans in the period prior to the

interregnum (1402-1413). The classical phase of the town-plan should be seen as the

culminating stage of an evolutionary process that unfolds over the course of a century and a

half, subdivided under the reigns of six sultans. We should, though, bear in mind that this

evolution cannot be considered as the product of a state orchestrated initiative, but rather a

local and instinctive response to functional and pragmatic changes.

Architects were organised officially into the ‘corps of royal architects’ under Bayezid

II (1481-1512). Before then, its kernel should have been formed during the building activity

exerted after the conquest but architects were submitted under the miscalleneous group of

‘distinguished royal servants’ [müteferrika]. By the time of Suleiman I (1520-1566), the

corps has been beaurocratically consolidated as an administrative branch of the centralised

126
As discussed under the subheading the Analytical Model of the morphological theory and the adapted
model section.
127
Consult Table 10: A cross-referencing table of Dimetoka neighbourhoods of the appendix.
128
Gerber (1983), p. 31.
129
İnalcık (1969), p. 134.

87
state that coordinated construction enterprises throughout the empire either through the

dispatch of royal architects or the stationing of city architects.130

In 16th c., the royal storehouse was provided with two official seats: the city prefect

[şehremini] and the chief architect [mi’marbaşı] that has been compared to the minister of a

board of public works. Evidence derived from Bayezid II’s book of royal donations suggest

that the architectural profession, and thus ascendancy to the positions, was running families

until the beaurocratizaiton of the corps under Sinan (Suleiman I).131

Major provinces began to acquire their chief architects during Sinan’s time. These

architects were appointed to the periphery in order to realise extensive repair works at the

nodal fortifications. For the completion of these projects local craftsmen were levied in

return for tax exemptions.132 Meanwhile, although the Jerusalem post of chief architect was

virtually the preserve of the Nammar family, it seems that it was the kadi who notified the

sultan in 1586 of the shortage in manpower.133 Another decree dated 1545 informs the kadi

and warden of the castle of İzdin in Morea that Mimar Kasim was sent with a building

supervisor [emin] and a secretary [katib] to renovate the castle. Upon completion of the

project, a second inspection would have been conducted by another architect arriving from

the capital. It is further stipulated that if any difference in cost arises from the original

assessment, then the warden, kadi and building supervisor would have been regarded

responsible.

Bayezid II’ book of royal donations suggests that there was the custom of appointing

a building overseer [bina naziri], a building supervisor [bina emini]and a building secretary

[bina katibi].134 At Dimetoka, the south dedicatory inscription of the Bayezid I mosque

130
G. Necipoglu, The Age of Sina: Architectureal Culture in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton and Oxford,
Princeton University Press, 2005, chap. 5: Institutional framework of architectural practice, pp. 153-176.
131
Necipoglu (2005), pp. 153-155.
132
Barkan (1943), pp. 396-397.
133
Necipoglu (2005), p. 159.
134
Ibid., p. 177.

88
dating from 1420 explicitly stated that works towards the completion of the mosque were

resumed under the aegis of kadi Seyyid Ali.135 We should thus seriously consider the

possibility that the posts in charge mentioned in the 14th c. kitabe are setting the procedural

standards, the preservation and formalization of which we can attest in the 16th c. registers.136

Periodization: the proto-Ottoman phase

Let us now proceed with the discussion of each phase, starting from the initial project,

that of Murad I (1360-1389). His intervention entailed five lines of investment, with the

principle aim being the housing of the inner palace [enderun-i hümayun] and the treasury

[hazine] within the palatial premises of the Byzantine citadel.137

Second in importance comes the accommodation of the first Ottoman timariots, who

constituted the garrison of the castle, in the one and only Muslim “Quarter of the Castle”

[mahalle-yi kal’e]. Although, the mahalle-yi kal’e appears only in the 1485 register138, the

garrison and thus the neighbourhood were systematically maintained until the 16th century

(See map 1:B2).

The summary survey of 1520 numbers within the congregation of the Muslim of the

castle a constable [dizdar], a steward [kethüda], 15 members of the garrison [muhafaza

neferan] and an imam.139 The detailed survey of 1570 registers 6 timariots as pertaining to

the garrison of the Dimetoka castle. Amongst these are identified the castle’s constable, the

135
“Your humble functionary and most feeble of men Seyyid Ali Kadi of Dimetoka and the celebrated Doğan
son of Abdullah, May God mend them with fame and esteem, the glorious building was erected by the
prominent of engineers and the elected of architects who is a skilful master in his art Ivaz son Bayezid” Ayverdi
(1956), pp. 14-15; Ayverdi (1972), pp. 148, 150; Ayverdi (1982), pp. 193-194.
136 th
Orhonlu states that until the 16 c. in all other cities apart from Istanbul, Edirne and Bursa, the
responsibilities assumed by the Mimarbaşı office were exercised by the local kadi, Orhonlu(1984), pp. 13-17.
137
Consult discussion on the inner palace at Dimetoka under the subheading “What was the Ottoman use of
the Byzantine citadel” of the chapter 1.
138
For the 1485 survey consult Table 2: no. 16 of the appendix.
139
For the 1520 survey consult Table 6: no. 1 of the appendix.

89
operator manager of the tekye [tekyeci], an official of the external treasury at Edirne [dar

hidmet-i hazine’i haric dar Edirne] and a cavalryman [sipahi] assigned the highest income

(13,036 akçes) among the timariots realised through various villages and a farm.140 This data

elucidate aspects of the basic building blocks of Ottoman provincial administration, the timar

system. Before the withdrawal of the invasionary army, small garrisons were placed in

fortresses of strategic importance. Then cavalrymen [sipahis], who composed the main force

of the imperial army, were given timars in the villages; while those assigned the epithet

hisar-eri or kale-eri constituted the real military force of most 15th c. fortresses and were

stationed intra muros.141 In this period, the sipahis appointed to the Balkan lands were state

assigned settlers [sürgün] from Anatolia and vice versa.142

According to the earliest data (1431) on the timar system from the province of

Albania, out of 335 timariots 16% were Christians amongst whom numbered the

Metropolitan and 3 Bishops, 30% were Muslim settlers from Anatolia and the remaining 44%

were converted slaves [gulam].143 Until the reign of Mehmed II, the rates of Christian

timariots varied from 3.5% to 50% of the total depending on the area.144 It becomes therefore

understood that in the 15th century the local Greek, Serbian and Albanian military elites were

incorporated within the Ottoman timar framework, as Christian timar-erleri and were not

subjected to Islamization by force.145

Under the timar system, the agricultural production and the land, as owned by the

state, was assigned to the use of the farmer and the appointed sipahi. Sipahis were charged

140
For the 1570 data consult Table 9: no. 6 of the appendix.
141
İnalcık (1954), p. 107.
142
The state practice of sürgün was discussed under the subheading “Colonization practices: spontaneous
emigration (göcebe) and deportation (sürgün)” of the Introduction chapter.
143
İnalcık (1987), p. 159.
144
Evidence is retrieved from central Balkan provinces such as the counties of Krčevo (Montenegro), Vulçitrn
and Pristina (Kosovo), Prilep (Fyrom). Ibid., pp. 150-152, 168.
145
Ibid., p. 141.

90
with collecting the fixed tax from their çiftlu peasants, as their income.146 In addition of

serving as local administrators of their fiefs, they were compelled to perform well-defined

military functions in return for their rights of usufruct.147 Their main responsibility involved

joining the military campaigns every year, and since an average of 5-6 retainers were usually

obtained from each timar, they typically served in turns. Apart from that, these pre-conquest

timariots enjoyed fiscal autonomy, thanks to which they managed to maintain their estates. 148

In this fashion, timars were passed on a hereditary basis from father to son and no

privileged treatment of the Muslim sipahis was attested. Muslim timars could be transferred

to Christians, but no Christian timars could be transferred to Christians. However, the fact

remains that these Christian sipahis were gradually Islamized and finally disappeared from

the timariot class. This social phenomenon has been attributed to psycho-social incentives

which prompted Christians to conversion and has not been explicitly linked to a state policy.

It appears that Muslim timariots formed a particularly enticing circle for the Christian

military classes during the time of the campaigns.149

The fourth stage of Murad I’s investment entailed the reconstruction and

reinforcement of the two critical gates of the Byzantine castle—Köprü and Çarşı—with

towers and a second curtain wall (See map 1:B4, B3).150 The “Quarter of the Bridgehead”

[mahalle-yi Köprübaşı] was established adjacent to the reconstructed gate of the bridge with

the purpose of further securing the passage and regulating the traffic (See map 1:B6).151

Although, we don’t have evidence for the establishment of an early vakf, the accommodation

146
İnalcık (1991), p. 18.
147
Lowry (1992)³, p. 144.
148
İnalcık (1987), p. 151.
149
İnalcık (1987), pp. 166-168.
150
The topographic identification of the quarters relies on the work of Delibalta (2007). The architectural
analysis and dating of the Köprübaşı gate in Murad I’s reign has been discussed under the subheading “Why
minor alterations to the Byzantine citadel of Dimetoka” of section B. Ottoman city-planning in a comparative
perspective of chapter 1.
151
Consult Table 10: no. 14 of the appendix.

91
of the Köprübaşı community as guardians of a geostrategic position in exchange for the

granting of tax exceptions, complies with the customary practices of Ottoman colonization.152

Pl.15: South-east view (1912) of the neighbourhood of Köprübaşı from the south bank of Kızıl Deli
tributary depicting the minarets of Cercer and Abdal Cüneyid mescids.

The fifth stage of Murad I’s investment lies in the endowment of the first zaviye in the

town that of the Ahi Abdal Cüneyd.153 The zaviye was ensconced within the boundaries of

the eponymous quarter, which was to be found to the south of the Çarşı kapısı (See map 1:B5;

pls. 15-18). From this angle is also visible the extension of the Y axis, as shown on the

reconstructed map.(See Pl. 1)

152
Sentürk (1993), p. 90.
153
Consult Table 10: no. 1 of the appendix.

92
 Pl. 16: Another
south-east
view (1912) of
the
neighbourhood
of Köprübaşı
from the south
bank of Kızıl
Deli tributary
depicting the
Köprübaşı
kapısı and the
minarets of
Cercer and
Abdal Cüneyd
mescids.

Pl. 17: Detail

from
panoramic
picture
depicting the
neighbourhoo
ds of
Köprübaşı and
Debbağlar.

Therefore, it becomes clear that apart from the use of the palace quarters by the sultan

and his court until 1369, when the Edirne palace was completed and the official transfer of

the court was realized154, the first Ottomans were settled outside the walls by the north bank

of the river in what would evolve into the artisanal zone of the city. The artisanal dimension

derives from the second name of the quarter as that of the leather tanners [mahalle-yi

debbağlar, nam-ı diğer Abdal Cüneyd].

154
İnalcık (2008), p. 157.

93
 This
Pl. 18: “double
South-east consecration”
view of the Cercer, relates with the
Abdal Cüneyd and social
Karagözforces that the first Ottomans
Bey neighbourhoods; the two
frontal circles point to the Abdal Cüneyid and Karagöz Bey mescids, while the ones in the
background point to the clock tower and the minaret of the mosque of Bayezid I respectively.

This “double consecration” relates with the social forces that the first Ottomans

managed to mobilize towards the colonization of Thrace, such as the colonizing dervishes

and the ahis. The critical parameter of ahis’ life and polity consists in the settled character

and the artisanal basis of their comradeship which was mainly constituted of craftsmen and

evolved into the rule of guilds in the newly founded urban hubs of the Anatolian

principalities.155 In this sense, they not only set the basis for the repopulation of the newly

conquered areas through the organization and systematization of the artisanal production and

commercial activities, but also regulated the relations between producers and producers-

consumers. It becomes therefore understood why the first artisanal communities in early

Ottoman Dimetoka, namely, the leather-tanners [debbağlar] and the jewellers [kuyumcular]

were developed around the zaviyes of Abdal Cüneyd and Ahi Denek respectively.

155
The role of the ahis as agents of sedentarization and promulgation of the Turkish culture extends from the
fields of religious and spiritual guidance to issues of daily hygiene and housekeeping. Çağatay (1974), pp. 31,
101-107, 111-132.

94
 The earliest archival data on the zaviye are retrieved from the vakf inventory of the

1485 survey which reads: “the vakf of the zaviye of Abdal Cüneyd was endowed by Murad I

with a piece of land allocated at the suburbs of the city of Dimetoka. Until today, Abdal

Cüneyd’s granddaughter administers the zaviye, but no edicts [of proprietorship] were

shown”. The amount of 396 akçes was set aside for the upkeep of the tekye. This was

secured from reserved meadows [çayir-i hassa], the tithe on vineyards [öşr-i bağat] and other

miscellaneous revenue sources [sayir-i cihat].156 Still, the analytic breakdown of the quarter

shows that from the 38 taxable households only two are registered as debbağ and a third one

from the quarter of Burak.157 Obviously, by the 1480s almost 120 years after the first

formation of the leather- tanners’ guild their activity in the city had most probably been

relocated. In the 1519 register, an explicit reference on the zaviye being a Bektaşi one makes

its appearance within the quarter entry and further stipulates that “the dervishes Sersam Baba,

Derviş Mustafa, Kara Abdal, Derviş Cüneyd, Hacı Hasan Cüneyd and Abdal Cüneyd would

receive exemption from the ‘avariz tax according to a renewed imperial edict, which is to be

found in their possession. By 1519, the revenues of the zaviye reached the amount of 790

akçes which was generated from vineyards of 170 dönüm and 15 reserved meadows in the

vicinity of the city.158

During Bayezid I’s reign (1389-1401), the commercial and administrative zone of

Dimetoka came into formation along the suburban artery which evolved into the processional

road or çarşıya. His involvement in the town-planning is of crucial importance, since with

his endowment of the most prominent vakfs in the city—his medrese and his mosque—, he

practically constructed the spinal axis of the Ottoman city. As discussed above, under Murad

I the first settlement outside the castle occupied the southern terrain extending from the çarşı
156
For the Ottoman transcription consult Table 3: no. 11 of the appendix; Gökbilgin (1952), p. 174; Barkan
(1942), p. 338; Ayverdi (1982), p. 195.
157
For the breakdown of the Abdal Cüneyd quarter in 1485 consult Table 2: no. 1 of the appendix; for the
quarter of Burak consult Table 2: no. 3 of the appendix.
158
For the transcriptions consult Table 4: no. 13 and Table 5: no. 3.

95
kapısı. Under Bayezid I, the opposite side north of the Çarşı kapısı area was being developed

with the quarters of the Medrese [mahalle-yi medrese], Jewellers [mahalle-yi kuyumcular]

and the Mosque [mahalle-yi cami’i]. At this point, it would only suffice to say that these

three quarters were arranged along the main axis of çarşıya (axis Y), as can be attested

through the reconstructed map (See map 1: C8, C7, C9).

The first quarter to occupy the north fringes of the çarşiya at the level of Çarşı kapısı

was the “Quarter of the Medrese” [mahalle-yi medrese] (See map 1: C8 and pls. 19-21).159 This

evolved around the vakf of the medrese of Mehmed Çelebi, which, based on an entry from the

1519 survey, was not actually founded by Mehmed I (1413-1421), but by Bayezid I (1389-

1401).160

Pl.19: The springing of the çarşıya at the height of Çarşı Kapusu separating the northern quarter of
Medrese from Saat Külesi and the southern quarter of Abdal Cüneyid. Shot of 1912 taken from the şerefe
of Mehmed Çelebi mosque.

159
For the cross-referencing of the quarter consult Table 10: no. 4.
160
For the transcription consult Table 5: no. 9 of the appendix.

96
 Pl. 20: View of the paved carşıya at the height of the Medrese quarter
(right side) facing at the Çarşı Kapusu and Saat Külesi.

Pl. 21: South-west view of the city taken from the minaret of Mehmed Çelebi mosque depicting the
open market space westewards from the mosque and the adjoinment of the two axes of the city Y
and X1 before Bazarlu Beğ quarter.

A first reference to “the vakf of medrese and mescid from the city of Dimetoka” is provided

in the 1456 survey according to which, its upkeep was secured through urban, real estate

revenues amounting to 9,615 akçes. These resources included a hammam generating an

income of 7,700 akçes quarterly, rents from 6 shops in the bazar of the city amounting to 350

97
akçes, rents from the kervansaray of Dimetoka accruing 255 akçes per year and finally, rents

from 34 shops within the Kapan [Hanı] and the kervansaray of Edirne producing 1,255 akçes

per year.161 By 1485 the revenues of the foundation were considerably reduced (5,927 akçes)

and needed to be adjusted back to 10,777 akçes by the time of the 1519 survey. It should be

noticed that after 1519 the revenues were being secured from the collection of the poll tax

from the village of Ilica.162

The “Quarter of the Jewellers” [mahalle-yi kuyumcular] developed around the zaviye

of Ahi Denek (See map 1: C7).163 The archival entry on the vakf of the zaviye from the 1519

survey elucidates many questions generated by discrepancies arising from the professional

breakdown of the neighbourhood entries. According to this source: “the vakf of the zaviye of

Ahi Denek was to be found in the neighbourhood of the Butchers, or alternatively named of

the Jewellers in the city of Dimetoka; the aforementioned zaviye was erected by sultan

Bayezid I, who further endowed the vakf with a başhane within the market of Dimetoka,

which at that moment (1519) was in the hands of Ahi Kasim”.164

This explains primarily, why 10% of the professionals in the survey of 1485 were

butchers, while only the 5% were jewellers or related professionals in a neighbourhood which

in all references is cited as the “Quarter of the Jewellers”. 165 Secondly, this is the quarter

with the highest rate of converts (64%) generated in the interim between 1485 and 1519,

which can be attributed to the function of the zaviye, the impact of which remained strong

161
For the transcription consult Table 1: no. 4 of the appendix.
162
For the 1485 data consult Table 3: no. 3; for the 1519 data consult Table 5: no. 9. Gökbilgin supports that
the 1485 entry refers to the Çelebi medrese within the castle of Edirne and not to that in the town of
Dimetoka. In my opinion, the cross-examination of the 1453 with the 1519 data clarifies that the medrese
under question was the Çelebi medrese at Dimetoka, which has been initially endowed by Bayezid I. Besides,
Gökbilgin had previously misplaced the Oruç Paşa medrese too and located it at Edirne, against Hibri Efendi
and Evliya’s accounts. Gökbilgin (1952), p. 282.
163
For the breakdown of the quarter in 1485 consult Table 2: no. 9.
164
For the transcription consult Table 5: no. 5; Barkan (1942), p. 338; Gökbilgin (1952), pp. 190-191: He is
suggesting alternative readings of the name as Dönük, Dinek, Döğün; Ayverdi (1982), p. 195.
165
For the cross-referencing of the quarter consult Table 10: no. 9.

98
until the second half of 16th c. In the 1568 survey 10 households out of 32 consisted of new

converts (31%).166

The same confusing situation as with regards to the identity of the founder applies to

the “Quarter of the Mosque” [mahalle-yi cami’i], which developed around the Mehmed

Çelebi mosque.167 We know that the mosque was not endowed by Mehmed I (1413-1421),

but earlier by Bayezid I (1389-1401). In the 1485 and 1519 registers, the quarter appears

under the heading “Quarter of the Mosque” [mahalle-yi cami’i], while in the 1568 and 1570

registers it is referred to as “the quarter of the old mosque of the deceased and who his sins

have been forgiven Bayezid Han, may the mercy of God be upon him” [mahalle-yi cami’i-yi

atik-i merhum ve mağfurun lehu Yıldırım Bayezid han ‘aleyhi al-rahmetu ve al-mağfiret].168

The “Quarter of the Mosque” is located opposite the “Quarter of the Jewellers” and in

Pl. 22: East view of the city from the castle, where the quarters of the mosque, of the Jewellers and
Bazarlu Bey can be discerned (after 1950s)

166
For the breakdown of the quarter in 1568 consult Table 7: no. 10 and in 1570 consult Table 8: no. 10.
167
Consult analysis under subheading “The Bayezid mosque” of the current chapter.
168
For transcription of the evidence consult Table 2: no. 8; Table 4: no. 6; Table 7: no. 11; Table 8: no. 11.

99
this sense, it concludes the formation of Dimetoka’s commercial zone along the pivotal axis

of çarşıya (See map 1: C9 and pls 18, 1, 22-24).169

Pl. 23: Earlier shot from the same angle of the picture 22 when the Dimetoka Rüştiye and Idadiye
buildings were still standing.

Pl. 24: North-west view of the city taken from the south bank of Kızıl Deli. It can be discerned the
Karagöz Bey quarter, the Mehmed Çelebi Mosque and at far west side the Abdal Cüneyid quarter.

The earliest archival reference is provided by the 1485 survey citing the “vakf of the

mosque of Dimetoka, as being currently in the possession of the preacher”. The revenues of

169
For the cross-referencing of the quarter consult Table 10: no. 8.

100
the vakf are amounted to just 570 akçes and they derived from a vineyard at the borders of the

city (of 130 dönüm), which is confirmed by Mevlana son of an ahi as being in the possession

of the hatib.170

Finally, the vakf which was most likely endowed in the last years of Bayezid I’s reign

(1389-1401) and developed into a quarter [mahalle-yi Oruç Bey] (See map 1: D10) during the

subsequent period of the interregnum (1402-1413) is the vakf foundation of Oruç Bey [Oruç

Paşa] (See map 1: C10).171 It should be stated that in the absence of the deed of trust, the

recovered archival data point to its foundation during the interregnum period, while

historiographic sources and archaeological evidences indicate a dating during Bayezid I’s

reign.

Although, the founder appears in the first four registers (including the 1456 one) as

Oruç Bey, in the last two he is named as Oruç Paşa. However, it should be realized that we

are dealing with the same vakf since its upkeep was secured through the same resources

[villages of Prangi and Copanlu].172 The 1456 entry on the freehold [mülk] of the deceased

surveyor [yazıcı] Oruç Bey states that the freehold was to be found in the hands of Hacı

Mehmed, son of Ahmed, son of ‘Ali Bey, son of Oruç Bey. An imperial order bearing the

cipher of the exalted sultan (Mehmed II) was issued. The vakf was secured through income

deriving from Copanlu and Prangi villages and its accrued revenues had risen from 3,728

akçes in 1456 to 9,405 by 1519.173 In the 1485 survey the aforementioned freehold is

registered as the charitable foundation of Oruç Paşa’s descendants. The entry explains that

during Mehmed II’ reign, the vakf was confiscated and dispersed in landholdings [timars],

while its deed of trust was seized and lost. Still, the deed of ownership [mülkiyet] was found

170
For the transcription consult Table 3: no. 9.
171
For the cross-referencing of the quarter consult Table 10: no. 6.
172
For the 1453 survey consult Table 1: no. 3; for the 1485 survey consult Table 2: no. 6 and Table 3: no. 1; for
the 1519 survey consult Table 4: no. 1 and Table 5: no. 1; for the 1520 survey consult Table 6: no. 2; for the
1568 survey consult Table 7: no. 15; for the 1570 survey consult Table 8: no. 15.
173
For the 1453 data consult Table 1: no. 3; for the 1485 data consult Table 3: no. 1 and for the 1519 data
consult Table 5: no. 1.

101
written in an old register. The hereditary status of the freehold was granted by sultan Bayezid

II and an imperial edict was dispatched to the deputies of the county [kaza], as a result of

which, the descendants of Oruç Paşa were named as the beneficiaries of the endowment.174

The above details are also repeated in the 1519 survey.175

The legal precedent established in the above encapsulates glimpses of Ottoman

landholding history in its assumed form as a constant struggle between the absolutist state

and the private interests for the control over agricultural lands, which constituted the primary

form of capital formation or state finances.176 Absolute property ownership for the subjects

of the empire was not often recognised, while in light of the legal dictum of the sultan who

enjoyed the “ownership” of the entire realm, confiscation of subjects’ possessions as the

ultimate sanction was never far away.177 The monarch could eliminate individuals and

confiscate their wealth with ease in an attempt to curb the landholding elite and to consolidate

absolute political power. Benefiting from changing circumstances, after confiscating

freeholds and vakfs from the local beys in Anatolia and the Balkans, the state dispersed them

into timars and thus reclaimed them as state lands [miri]. These reforms in the public

expenses sector were accommodated through concomitant institutional practices such as the

requirement of renewing the deeds of trust upon every dynastic succession and the

conducting of thorough inspections before the compilation of the imperial land surveys. The

most systematic of all these highly confiscatory policies was introduced in Rumeli by

Mehmed II after the conquest of Istanbul and caused strong reactions; the confiscated lands

were returned to their owners by Bayezid II.178

174
For the 1485 data consult Table 3: no. 1; Gökbilgin (1952), pp. 246-247.
175
For the 1519 data consult Table 5: no.1.
176
İnalcık (1991), pp. 17-35.
177
Keyder (1991), p. 11.
178
Barkan in this article discussed the role of the “agrarian question” in the political struggle of the first sultans
against the landed aristocracy; he explained how the institution of the hereditary landed property [malikane]
evolved and what its common distinguishing properties were. Barkan (1980), p. 282.

102
 So who was Oruç Bey and when was his quarter established? Since the 1456 entry

presents a lineage of three generations, we have to estimate that at least 60 years had elapsed

between the initial endowment of the vakf. This track of thought takes us back to the

beginning of the century and thus to the period of the interregnum. Indeed, two personalities

can be recovered under such a name and both are related with the close circle of Süleyman

Çelebi. One is Oruç Bey son of Şeyhi Hacı Ali and spouse of Fatma Hatun and the second is

Oruç Bey son of Kara Timurtaş Paşa.

For the first case, the data is retrieved from a second entry in the 1456 survey, which

confirms that the freehold of Mahmud Çelebi son of Fatma Hatun and Oruç Bey, who was

the son of Şeyhi Hacı Ali, became a mülk after an edict granted from Süleyman Çelebi who is

known to have contested the throne between the years 1402-1411.179 The personality of

Fatma Hatun is instrumental for the narrative since only two princesses bore that name in the

period under examination: the daughters of Yıldırım Bayezid (1389-1401) and Murad II

(1421-44/1446-51). For the first one, we know that after the battle of Ankara, she was

brought by her brother Emir Süleyman from Bursa to Edirne. When Süleyman Çelebi made a

treaty with Byzantium, he sent his brother Kasim with their sister Fatma over to Istanbul, in

his attempt to provide his guarantee for the agreement. Fatma Hatun remained at Istanbul

until the reign of Mehmed I (1413-1421); she was then brought to his side and married to one

of his beylerbeys. After her death, she was buried in the mausoleum of Orhan Bey at

Bursa.180

Indeed, the Sicill-i Osmani notifies that Oruç Paşa was the son of Timurtaş Paşa and

companion of Süleyman Çelebi at the time of Timur’s attack. During the fratricide period he

took sides with Mehmed I (1413-1421). He was appointed Beylerbey of Anatolia in 1423 by
179
For the transcription consult Table 1: no. 1.
180
The second Fatma Hatun, who does not relate to our discussion, is buried adjacent to her father’s, Murad II,
mausoleum according to a charter of the deceased buried in Bursa’s mausoleums. Babinger claimed that she
was married to Zağanos Mehmed Paşa. But this should be wrong, since the documentation suggests that she
was married to the son of Çandarli İbrahim Paşa, Mahmud Çelebi. Uluçay (1980), pp. 26, 36.

103
Murad II and subsequently ascended to the vizierate. He died in 1426.181 Therefore, there is

some evidence to suggest that patron was Oruç Paşa son of Kara Timurtaş Paşa and spouse

of Fatma Hatun and that the entry on the mülk of Mahmud Çelebi was erroneous about the

identity of his father.

Still, although the activity of Oruç Paşa can be tracked down in the interregnum and

the subsequent periods, two of his monuments, the medrese and the hammam, date from the

last years of Bayezid I’s reign. Apart from these two monuments, his türbe is still extant and

allows the topographic identification of his quarter, as adjacent to the funerary enceinte at the

north-eastern fringes of the city (See map 1: D10).182 This is where we should place his medrese

too, while his hammam [fısıltı hammamı] was located by the river bank in the neighbourhood

of the Cercer (See map 1: 18).183

The erection of the no longer surviving medrese of Oruç Paşa at Dimetoka is

confirmed by Evliya, who recounts that “there are also four medreses of the learned amongst

which the medrese of Bayezid Han and the medrese of Oruç Paşa”.184 Hibri Efendi, who

served as a professor of the medrese in the late thirties of the 17th century, passes on the

information that the medrese was built in 1400-1401 and the hammam which was providing

subsistence for the medrese was completed a year earlier in 1398-1399.185 Indeed, the above

is also corroborated by the 1519 survey, where it is recorded that the “vakf of Oruç Paşa

medrese was secured through the following resources: a vineyard (of 3 dönüm), a share of the

hammam which was to be found in the city of Dimetoka with an undefined annual income

and shops”.186 Since, the annual income of the medrese is not provided we are not able to

estimate the financial potency of the foundation. However, judging from the reputable

181
Sicill-i Osmanı (1996), vol. 4, pp. 12, 81.
182
Delibalta (2007), pp. 78-84.
183
Delibalta (2007), pp. 153-157.
184
For the translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 327-35.
185
Baltacı (1976), pp. 107-108; Kiel (1981), p. 135.
186
For the transcription consult Table 5: no. 2; Gökbilgin (1952), p. 247.

104
scholars that taught in the medrese during the 16th century, such as Taşköprü-Zade Alaeddin

Ali and Abdulfettah Efendi, it can be deduced that it belonged to the highest echelon of

academic excellence of the time.187

Cross-examination of the data on the quarter suggests that it was the only quarter to

have vanished from the urban scenery of Dimetoka, since in 1570 it numbered just 3

households and even the imam came from the Bazarlu Bey quarter.188 A striking issue which

emerges from the 1485 survey is the high rate of slaves with 7 out of the 28 households being

owned by slaves, amongst which the senior slave of the aforementioned Oruç Bey was one.189

The foundation of an acclaimed educational institution, such as the medrese of Oruç

Paşa in conjunction with the 25% of its residents being able to afford slaves is significant in

light of the fact that: “the market value of slaves was at a level which not everyone could

afford. Slaves were a means of display for wealthy families and the leading men of the state

and constituted the swarms of servants, guards and other attendants, who by their presence

enhance the importance of their masters”.190 This indicates that the quarter of Oruç Bey

constituted Dimetoka’s aristocratic suburb during Bayezid I’s era, which disappeared from

the urban scenery due to the strategraphic redistribution contrived in Selim II’ reign (1566-

1574).

It should be therefore understood that the very infrastructure which unveiled the

Ottoman character to the city consisted in reinstating the commercial and religious umbilicus

outside the city walls under the tripartite scheme of citadel-mosque-çarşı should be

considered as a proto-Ottoman investment realized under the auspices of Bayezid I. More

importantly, the most revealing component of the morphological systemization alluding to

the central state’s ascendancy over centrifugal tendencies was encoded in the construction of
187
Baltacı (1976), p. 108.
188
For a cross-referencing of the quarter consult appendix Table 10: no. 8; For the 1570 data consult Table 8:
no. 1.
189
For the data consult Table 2: no. 6.
190
Sahillioğlu (1985), p. 47.

105
the centripetal axis of çarşıya. This should be understood as a chorotaxic index which

regulated the infrastructural development through the spatial acculturation of the suburban

terrain.

Another expression of Bayezid I’s social policy, which although implemented in the

rural areas of Dimetoka’s hinterland had a beneficial impact on the metropolis too, derives

from the act of securing provision for the sailors and deck-hands working in the Meriç River

under the legislative framework of the vakf. The entry of the vakf of sultanYıldırım Bayezid

Han in the vakf inventory of the 1485 survey indicates that the sailors and deck-hands were

made exempt from the tax of avariz through the grand of an imperial edict. In addition, the

deck-hands were meant to receive the income of 1,833 akçes generated by the village of

Sovaklar Mehmedi; a stipulation, which was however, not included in written form in the

relevant imperial certificate.

A second entry on the vakf of sultan Yıldırım Bayezid from the 1485 survey informs

that the sailors were registered since the time of Bayezid I and that the deck-hands at the

passage of the village Prangi had in their hands a deed of trust [vakfıyye] from previous

sultans. At that moment (1485), the vakf was in the hands of Mustafa son of Bayramlu,

Mustafa slave of Ibrahim and Şah Veli son of Mustafa, who were offering their services at the

Prangi ford over the Meriç River, as facilitators of the commuting traffic.191

Periodization: the Classical phase

Let us now proceed with the discussion of the classical phase, during which two main

tendencies can be observed: firstly, the formed clusters began to receive a buffering zone

which would evolve into the urban fringes through the peripheral settlement of troublesome

191
For the transcription consult Table 3: nos. 4-5; by 1519 the income of the vakf was reduced to 1296 akçes.
As shown in the Table 5: no.7.

106
ethnic groups [Magyars, Tatars]. Secondly, the addition of new quarters realized the

expansion of the commercial zone towards the south bridge; an evolution which can be

visually conceptualized through the emergence of the new axes X1 and Y2 (See map 1). The

axis X1 should be considered as a pre-tracked route, since it constituted the çarşıya of the

Byzantine castle. Still, the Ottoman contribution lies in the suburban expansion of the axis

and in its merging with a new appended chorotaxic unit, which allowed access to the south

bridge. The classical era can be discerned in the reigns of Murad II (1421-44/1446-51),

Mehmed II (1444-46/1451-81) and Bayezid II (1481-1512).

Pl. 25: South-east view of the city showing the Y2 axis to the south bridge, as in picture 24 but taken this
time from the balcony of the minaret of Mehmed Çelebi. It shows clearly the minaret of Bazarlu Bey
mescid and the track of the road leading to the south bridge before the Karagöz Bey mescid.

The “Quarter of Karagöz Bey” [mahalle-yi Karagöz Bey]192 along with that of Hocaca

defined the south sub-route Y2 and thus constituted the south entrance to the town. (See map

1:E11, 16 and pls. 18, 24-26)

192
For the cross-referencing of the quarter consult Table 10: no.2.

107
 Pl. 26: North-east view of the city showing the Karagöz Bey quarter from 1912.

Karagöz Bey, after obtaining a property grant from Murad II, erected an imaret in the

city of Dimetoka.193 The 1456 survey registers the freehold of Karagöz Bey as being at that

moment in the hands of ‘Acem Hoca, who possessed an imperial edict and a deed of trust

issued by the sultan (Murad II). He expended for the upkeep and the repairs of the imaret in

his attempt to prevent it from collapsing. The assigned income reached the amount of 2,495

akçes in 1456 and it was generated from incomes endowed to the vakf from: a) Hekimoğlu

village, b) a mill and c) 12 shops within the bazaar of Dimetoka, which were however in a

ruinous state.194

The 1485 survey makes no reference to an imaret but to a tekye owned by the vakf

and alludes to the same statutory evolution as discussed with reference to the Oruç Bey vakf.

According to this, the vakf of Karagöz Bey was a freehold property, which was bought by a

certain Hekimoğlu. He expended sums for the tekye of the vakf, which was situated in the

193
Gökbilgin appears to be positive on this being a Murad II’s property grant to Karagöz Bey. Gökbilgin (1952),
p. 289.
194
For the 1453 entry consult Table 1: no. 2.

108
city of Dimetoka. Then, under Mehmed II trusts and freeholds were confiscated and

dispersed into landholdings [timars]; while Bayezid II reinstated the deeds of trusts to a state

of validity.195 In 1485, the subsistence of the vakf was secured through a single resource, that

of Hekimoğlu village, which provided the amount of 4,042 akçes.

In the 1519 survey, there are two vakfs registered under the patronage of Karagöz

Bey, the first is that of the mescid of the Karagöz Bey quarter, which is co-registered along

with the vakf of Ali Bey and the second is that of the zaviye of Karagöz Bey.196 The upkeep

of the mescid was secured through the income of 2,000 akçes, which was collected from 114

shops in the city of Dimetoka, rents in cash and grants of 500 akçes from Abdi Çelebi Hatun

and Ayşe Hatun; the accrued capital was entrusted to the hands of the imam of the mescid.

The zaviye was maintained by the income of 3,788 akçes, which was generated by the

Hekimoğlu village.

For the quarters of the Magyars or Habib Fakih [mahalle-yi Habib Fakih nam-ı diğer

Macarlar] and that of the Tatars [mahalle-yi Tatarlar], due to the absence of archival data

elucidating the foundation history of the relevant vakfs, we would need to track down their

establishment in a different way(See map 1: F12-13). 197 The state practice of forced

deportation [sürgün] was intended to transplant ethnic groups [Yürüks, Tatars, Magyars] to

diverse parts of the empire for political and/or colonizing purposes. A broad infusion of

Tatar crowds was recorded in Rumeli since Mehmed Çelebi’s time and kept on through later

periods too. During Murad II and Mehmed II’ reigns Tatars were arriving in Rumeli as

guilds of craftsmen, which served as justification for their urban settlement.198 Moreover,

imperial law books from the reign of Mehmed II, record that the largest population of Yürüks

and Tatars was placed in the hinterlands of Dimetoka, Gümülcine and Ferecik between the
195
For the 1485 entry consult Table 3: no. 7 and Gökbilgin (1952), p. 268-269; for the 1519 entry consult Table
5: no. 4.
196
For the 1519 entry consult Table 5: nos. 4, 8; Gökbilgin (1952), pp.289-290;Ayverdi (1982), p. 194.
197
For the cross-referencing of the quarters consult Table 10: nos. 10, 16.
198
Aktepe (1953), p. 309.

109
years 1456-1467199; thus, the establishment of the Magyars and Tatars quarters can be

attributed to Mehmed II’s reign.

Finally, during the reign of Bayezid II (1481-1512), the vakfs of the mir-i liva of

Iskenderiye Nasuh Bey and Bazarlu Bey200 were founded and in a sense concluded the

formation of the X1 axis, which was leading to the south bridge (See map 1: G14-15 and pls. 1, 22,

21, 25). This axis evolved into a type of highway along which the kervansarays for the

travellers and one of the most famous soup-kitchens of the city were to be found. Evliya

recounts “the imaret of Nasuh Bey is a lead roofed eatery, where food is cheap for rich and

poor. There are also (...) charming commercial hans. Mainly, the lead roofed han of Nasuh

Bey is famous. Additionally, there are two kervansarays for travellers”.201

The freehold of Nasuh Bey, who served as mir-i liva of Iskenderiye, was a property

grant from his father in law, Bayezid II. Nasuh Bey erected his zaviye at Dimetoka, along

with a mosque and an elementary school [mekteb-hane] at Bey village; and since the zaviye

bore a dome, it was endowed into a mescid. The topographic identification of Nasuh Bey

zaviye or imaret was enabled through a note included within the entry of Doğan Bey quarter,

commenting on the proximity of the quarter with the imaret.202 The freehold was endowed

with two villages [Bey and Hacı or alternatively named Celtukçı] which generated the

income of 4,760 in 1485, which had increased to 19,261 akçes by 1519.203

199
Gökbilgin (1957), pp. 21-29.
200
For the cross-referencing of the quarters consult Table 10: nos. 13 and 11.
201
For translation consult appendix Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka, pp. 327-335.
202
For the transcription of the note on the quarter Table7: no. 13.
203
For the 1485 data consult Table 3: no. 2 and for the 1519 data consult Table 5: no. 10; Gökbilgin(1954), pp.
448-449.

110
Interpreting town-planning within a constructivist framework

In 1991 Crane argued with regards to Bursa’s urbanisation that: “the various

structures that went to make it up were scattered over irregular terrain in an organic manner

and that little attempt was made to impose a preconceived and arbitrary plan on the site”.204

The topographic analysis of the early Ottoman cities from the lower Balkans comes to

disprove this thesis. The landscape might have dictated the specifics of the planning but there

is a conscientious Ottoman response to that, which suggests conceptualisation and

systemizing; foremost, when such a conceptualisation is being professed in different case-

studies, then it constitutes an Ottoman modus operandi or a behavioural pattern. This thesis

is discussed in depth at the ‘town-planning conception’ sections of each chapter. Perhaps, if

the site-planning of Bursa was seen as a isolated urban phenomenon, then it could have lead

to such a conclusion; but when we add its experience to those already documented from other

early Ottoman cities, then the coincidences become too many. Then, the towns begin to

emerge as part of an overall pattern endeavoured during the proto-Ottoman era. Therefore,

the question remains: can it be argued that a normative spatial pattern is discernible as in the

Ottoman cities of the 14th century?

We will attempt to argue that the re-invention of Ottoman Dimetoka functions as a

normative archetype of an Ottoman town during the proto-Ottoman era which will be

reproduced in a series of Balkan towns with a Byzantine kernel and an Ottoman fringe belt.

The attested systemic arrangement, which evolved into a pattern of settlement, assumed the

form of a stable denominator indicated by a river or a major thoroughfare in relation to which

the çarşıya was aligned. Pirenne has already discussed how the conditions of nature, such as

the terrain conformation or the direction of the river courses, defined the site of the medieval

204
Crane (1991), p. 174.

111
cities, as the reasons which determined the direction of trade and in this way steered the

merchants towards them.205 Still, the Ottoman input lies in the intuitively transformation of

the natural parameters into an orchestrated bricolage of axes subjugated under the pivotal

syntactic value of çarşıya.

The geo-reference of the neighbourhoods and the reconstruction of the town’s

topographic congruity revealed that the clustering of the quarters was conceptualized around

the axis X—the Kızıl Deli river—and axis Y the çarşıya, which corresponds to the Edirne

route. The çarşıya functions as the town’s spine along which the religious and commercial

hubs are developed and where the most prominent architectural features are to be

encountered: the zaviye of Abdal Cüneyd, the clock tower, the Bayezid medrese, the zaviye of

Ahi Denek, the Bayezid mosque and the medrese of Oruç Paşa (See map 1: B5, CD, C8, C7, C9,

D10).

As shown on the reconstructive map of Ottoman Dimetoka (See map 1), the earliest

quarter of the suburban settlement, that of Abdal Cüneyd, constitutes the angle point of the

çarşiya and it has been visualized as the extension of axis Y. The fact that we can attest the

historical and geographic succession of the quarters of Abdal Cüneyid, the Medrese, the

Kuyumcular and the mosque in alignment and not under a chaotic pattern verifies the

understanding of a main axis and that this perception was methodically respected by

successive generations.

In light of the available data, a highly rationalized chorotaxic perception of spatial

hierarchy emerges, which is subjected to an intuitive geometrical adaptation. The intuitive

character of the Ottoman landscape enhancement is suggested from the fact that the

designation of the çarşıya and its sub-routes responds to pre-existent tracks of access. For

example the processional road Y corresponds to the Edirne route, the sub-route Y2 over the

205
Pirenne (1925), p. 140.

112
south bridge to the Via Egnatia exit and the Köprübaşı sub-route Y1 to the north-west exit. It

appears that the Ottoman political objective was to regulate the conditions of access and to

control the routes which were creating access. Still, the pre-existent tracks should be thought

only as a navigational grid, while the spatial hierarchy of the clusters remains a genuine

product of Ottoman conception. Therefore, the resourcefulness of the Ottoman town-

planning lies in the attainment of a systemic balance of spatial causality that develops as a

response to political objectives.

This inner causality of Dimetoka in geo-reference terms can be visualized through the

parallel arrangement of the çarşıya (axis Y) with the Köprübaşı sub-route (axis Y1) and their

transversal intersection with the Byzantine processional road of the castle (axis X1). The axis

X1 was extended during the classical phase outside the castle with the development of the

quarters of Bazarlu Bey, Karagöz Bey and Doğan Bey [Nasuh Bey]. The existence of the X1

axis can be attested from the historical pictures (See pls. 19, 21). The congruent angles

generated at the intersection of the transversal X1 correspond to the Çarşı and Köprübaşı

gates (See map 1:B3, B4) and in that way discern the two diverse operational zones of the city:

the religious/commercial (axis Y) from the artisanal (axis X).

In light of the above, the periodization of Dimetoka’s urban development can be

conceptualized under two main concentrations: the proto-Ottoman and the classical phases.

During the initial phase, the formation of the çarşıya functioned as the vehicle of

infrastructural development through which the spatial acculturation of the suburban terrain to

an Ottoman archetype was achieved. More importantly, the ascription of the core Ottoman

character to the city bears the cipher of Bayezid I. The complete form of this axial system

emerged only after the 1420s and it should be understood as a reflection of the city’s classical

phase, whose consolidation we have the chance to follow throughout the 16th c.

113
 Up to this point, the discussion was focused on making the stages of Dimetoka’s

urban development intelligible and on unveiling the process under which the town deployed

its Ottoman cultural armature. However, it needs to be stressed at this point that the

aforementioned process presupposes the cognitive jump of the ‘nullification’ of the walls.206

As discussed above, at Dimetoka the Ottomans discontinued the medieval norm of the West

by transferring ‘the rule of the bourgeois class’ outside the walled city; though, in this case

the term bourgeois should be employed to contextualize a broader spectrum of urban

activities and groupings, alongside the commercial aspect.

In light of the above, the social strategraphy of Ottoman Dimetoka, which emerges

through the analysis of the suburban quarters, can be divided into the following groups: the

military-administrative class or those to whom state authority was delegated [sipahis, merd-i

kal’e], the ulema and the head of the tarikats [imams, ahis, dervishes], the bourgeoisie

engaged in interregional trade and finance and finally guildsmen engaged in local trade and

handicrafts [debbağlar, kuyumcular, cercer].207

Thus, by re-defining the social synthesis of the “extended suburb”, they nullified the

very function of the medieval city, as the abode of the feudal class. It appears that in

Dimetoka Ottoman legitimacy was congruent with the balancing of the control amidst the

citadel—as the inherited Seljukid tradition would dictate208—and the suburban terrain, which

could secure access to the citadel. Under the Ottoman methods of conquest, the walls turned

into a curse, which can be adverted only through the filter of the Ottoman fringe belt or

varoş. In this way, the Ottoman structural addition further reinforced the defensibility of the

castle by infiltrating the access routes and canalising control over the citadel.

206
I don’t regard Bursa as a pioneer in this evolution because of the walls of the lower castle. This point has
been analytically discussed under the subheading “The interpretation of Dimetoka’s urban profile within a
comparative framework: Dimetoka-Bursa-Edirne” of chapter 1.
207
İnalcık (1977), p. 37.
208
Bacharah (1991), p. 112.

114
 The conceptualization of town’s lay-out along the main access arteries shows that the

Ottomans diverted the loci that physically and semantically dominated the city and created a

new urban “umbilicus”: from the apex to the plane, that is from the castle to the Mehmed

Çelebi mosque. In this sense, they diverted the centre of gravity and set a second neuralgic

focus point, which practically marginalized the pre-existent centre and re-instated the city

under new terms. The signifier of “Ottomaness” was encapsulated in the redefinition of what

a commanding position was, which assumed visual representation through a two-fold device:

the appendage of the suburban fabric (fringe belt) and the introduction of minor interventions

to the Byzantine citadel.

D. Demographic fluctuations in Dimetoka from mid. 15th to mid. 16th centuries and their

interpretation

The use of the Ottoman tax registers towards the elucidation of the demographic

history of given areas within the Ottoman Empire has been initially devised by Barkan. 209

The tax and population registers, which were compiled every 30-40 years, record the number

of adult males residing in all residential units (city, town or village) and state their land

properties; based on these data, tax liability was calculated.210 The richness of the provided

information, with regards to the legal status, the privileges-duties and the demographics of

the diverse social classes, allowed historical queries on issues of social strategraphy to be

generated.

209
Barkan (1940-1941), pp. 20-59 and 214-247.
210
In the Ottoman Empire the basic raiyyet tax paid in principle by every Muslim peasant who owned a çift,
that is the unit of agricultural land which could be ploughed by two oxen, was the çift resmi. A çift was
determined as from 60 to 150 dönüms according to the fertility of the soil. The fractions of this tax can take
the form of nim çift (half çift), ekinlü bennak (land less than a half çift) or caba bennak (married peasant with
no land). Barkan (1957), pp. 14, 19; İnalcık (Čift-Resmi); İnalcık (Bennāk)

115
 Furthermore, the material enabled the reconstruction of the fiscal status of certain

imperial domains through the denotation of the status of the lands, which constituted the

annual revenue sources of these districts. These lands are discerned in imperial domains, fiefs

of dignitaries, military fiefs [timars ascribed to sipahis, za’ims], freeholds [mülks] and pious

foundations [vakfs].211 Last but not least, the multifocal dimension of the information

provided through the cadastres enabled their use in research conducted within the fields of

historical topography and geography.212 As Kolovos has pointed: “they can provide a basis

for the comparative study of the economic and social history of the Ottoman provinces,

through the lens of the Ottoman financial administration”.213

Still, the limitations of the material have been equally stressed. Lowry emphasized

their restrictive nature as provincial tax registers for the timar system intended for the listing

of taxable revenue sources allocated as income for the timariots. Because of this targeted

function, they fail to record tax-free income generated from private properties, properties

attached to vakfs or any source of revenue intended for the centre.214

The 15th c. evidence

Although, the first surviving, detailed survey on the county [nahiye] of Dimetoka was

conducted between the years 1455 and 1473, it does not offer any information on the

breakdown of the urban quarters.215 Therefore, we need to turn to the first detailed

[mufassal] survey that follows from 1485; this provides us with a breakdown of the

neighbourhoods, villages, timars, mülks and vakfs of the Dimetoka County.216 The 16

211
Barkan(1957), p. 16.
212
Barkan (1951-1953), p. 4; Kotzageorgis (2007), pp. 237-239.
213
Kolovos (2007), p. 202.
214 4
Lowry (1992)¹, p. 8; Lowry (1992) , p. 124.
215
Consult Table: nos 1-5.
216
Consult Tables 2 and 3.

116
Muslim quarters in 1485217 contained a total of 396 adult married male-headed households

[hanes]; from this total a 13.0 % share were celibates of tax-paying age and a 12.1 % share

was represented by the exempted households.218

From the breakdown of the Christian quarters as recorded in the successive surveys it

seems that in 1485, they somehow ignored the subdivision into the diverse Christian quarters

and they classified all the Christians under the title neighbourhood of the Christians of the

castle [mahalle-yi Gebran-ı kal’e], which nevertheless, was rectified in the follow up survey

from 1520. The Christian quarter of the castle in 1485 contained a total of 113 households

among which 7 households headed by widows [bives] were included.219 Utilizing a

hypothetical coefficient of five individuals per adult male headed household as suggested by

Barkan220, it appears that Dimetoka’s total population in 1485 comprised of some 2,326

individuals from which 1,772221 were Muslims and 554222 were Christians.

There can be no doubt that these 554 Christians recorded at Dimetoka in 1485 were

the descendants of the Christians of Byzantine Didymoteicho, since the city was surrendered

in return for certain guarantees for the safety of its inhabitants.223 The challenge lies in the

determination of the identity and provenance of the Muslim population. In the previous

section of the current chapter, the establishment of the Ottoman quarters was conceptualized

within the time-frame of a periodization system. If we were to attest the resilience of this

217
Consutl Table 10.
218
Consult Table 13 showing the breakdown of Muslim tax male-headed households, exempted households,
th th
celibates of taxpaying age households and converts at Dimetoka in 15 and 16 centuries.
219
Consult Table 17 showing the breakdown of Christian tax male-headed households, celibates of taxpaying
th th
age and widow-headed households at Dimetoka in 15 and 16 centuries.
220
On the use of the coefficient towards the computation of the total I consulted: Barkan (1957), p. 21; Lowry
(1992)², p. 52.
221
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 396 total adult male - headed households - 52 celibates of
taxpaying age = 344 x 5 = 1720+ 52 {the celibates} = 1772 {Total of Muslims at Dimetoka in 1485}. The data
used for the computation of the formula are edited in Table 2 and in Tables 10, 11, 13.
222
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is 113 total adult male - headed households - 1 bachelor of
Tax - paying age = 112 x 5 = 560 - 7 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 553 + 1
{bachelor} = 554 {Total of Christians at Dimetoka in 1485}. The data used for the computation of the formula
are edited in Table 2 and in Tables 10, 11, 16, 17.
223
The circumstances of the conquest are analytically discussed under the subheading “What was the Ottoman
use of the Byzantine citadel?” of chapter 1.

117
system, we would expect to find the highest shares of new-settlers and converts in the

quarters of the classical phase224, which would be extended over the period of approximately

60 years before the conducting of the survey. This notion is based on the hypothesis that

quarters founded closer to the 1485 survey, would reflect clearer the identity of their

population, when compared to quarters formed during the proto-Ottoman phase.

In topographic terms, this hypothesis would be construed in the concentration of new-

settlers and converts groups in the urban fringes [quarters of Macarlar and Tatarlar] and

along the Y2 axis towards the south bridge [quarters of Karagöz Bey, Bazarlu Bey, Hocaca].

For the identification of new settlers, we would need to turn to a resolution devised by Lowry

with regards to the population of Selanik in 1478. He supported that the registering of male

married Muslims with their proper names and occupations, rather than the most common

practice of proper name and patronym suggested forcibly deported settlers.

These new settlers would be called with their profession by their fellows within the

micro-environment of the mahalle, so as to become easily recognised.225 Still, it would not

be possible to include in this computation the registering of the leather-tanners [debbağlar] at

the quarter of Abdal Cüneyd, of butchers [kasaban] and jewellers [kuyumcular] at the

“Quarter of Kuyumcular” and of guides [kilavuz] at the “Quarter of the Mosque”. Obviously,

these cannot be recognised as new settlers, since, they are the descendents of the first settled

communities of Ottomans, which flourished through the commercial and artisanal

infrastructure developed under the guilds and the operation of the zaviyes.

Indeed, cross-examination of the data with the location of the quarters on the map has

revealed that the population of Hocaca quarter (See map 1: 16), which constitutes the eastern

boundary of the Y2 axis, contained a total of 53 households out of which, a 16% share were

224
For periodization purposes the classical phase would be discerned into the reigns of Murad II (1421-
44/1446-51), Mehmed II (1444-46/1451-81) and Bayezid II (1481-1512).
225
Lowry (1992)², p. 52.

118
converts and another 16% share were professionals.226 More importantly, the raw figures of

these two groups are the highest in the entire 1485 survey. These rates conjured with the

marginal location of the quarter reconfirm that the quarter was established close to 1485,

since the quarter was still receiving new settlers. The next quarter configuring the same

synthesis is that of the Magyars with a 25% share of professionals and 10% of converts,

followed by the quarter of the Tatars with a 26% share of professionals and Bazarlu Bey with

a 14%.227 It is not accidental that in the first three quarters, there is at least one reference to a

male Muslim with the patronym Anadolu, as a new settler from the Anatolian lands.

An interesting aspect of the demographic synthesis as emerging from the 1485 survey

is the institution of slavery. There are 32 slave households recorded which vanish after

1485.228 As discussed above229, some of these 32 slaves can be explicitly associated with the

inner palace as accomodated within the citadel; therefore, their extinction from 1519 onwards

could possibly point to the period when the palace had stopped being used.

The 16th c. evidence

The data from the second in the extant series of tapu tahrirs, dated from 1519, come

to corroborate what has been previously attested by Barkan, İnalcık and Lowry.230 A

decrease in the number of Muslims at Dimetoka occurred in the period of 35 years elapsing

from the earlier survey of 1485. The 16 Muslim quarters in 1519 contained a total of 320

adult married male-headed households [hanes] and they were thus reduced by -19.2%

compared to the total Muslim population in 1485.231 This has been interpreted as the return

226
Consult Table 10: no. 12.
227
Consult Table 10: nos. 10, 11, 15.
228
Consult chart 2.
229
Consult discussion under subheading “What was the use of the Byzantine citadel” of chapter 1.
230
Lowry (1992)², p. 58 and footnote 33.
231
Consult Table 10, 12, 13 and chart 1 of the appendix.

119
to their homelands of a portion of the forcibly deported population to the city in the previous

generation.232 Only two quarters retained or augmented their population during this period:

the quarters of the classical phase Cercer and Magyars.

However, the reduction of the Muslim population negatively correlates with two other

parameters: firstly, the rise of the Christian population by 60.2 % compared to the total

Christian population in 1485 and secondly, the rise of the Muslim converts by 26.6 % that

equates with the highest rate of converts in the entire century.233 Utilizing a hypothetical

coefficient of five individuals per adult male headed household as suggested by Barkan234, it

appears that Dimetoka’s total population in 1519 comprised of some 2,053 individuals of

which 1,308235 were Muslims and 745236 were Christians.

In 1519 the names of the four Christian quarters of Kosta Papa, of the Jews

[Yahudiyan], of Aya Todora and Manastir make their appearance for the first time. The 1568

survey records that the collection of the poll tax [cizye], the land tax [ipençe] and other taxes

[sair rusum] from the Christians of the city of Dimetoka was allocated to the vakf of Murad

Hundavendigar, while the payment of old wartime taxes [‘avarız] was exchanged for their

services at the groves and vineyards of the imperial palace in Edirne.237 In the same survey it

is also attested the addition of two new Christian quarters, these of Ayo Nikola and

Arnavutlar.238 The community of Albanians has been residing (i.e., settled) in the town for

more than 20 years. Therefore they have the right to remain and be registered as part of the
232
Ibid., p. 58.
233
Consult Table 12, 13, 17 and chart 2.
234
On the use of the co-efficient towards the computation of the total I consulted: Barkan (1957), p. 21; Lowry
(1992)², p. 52.
235
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 320 total male-headed households - 73 bachelors of tax-paying
age= 247 x 5 = 1235 + 73 {the bachelors} = 1308 {Total of Muslims at Dimetoka in 1519}. The data used for the
computation of the formula are edited in Table 4, 10, 11, 13.
236
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 180 total adult male-headed households - 34 bachelors of tax-
paying age = 146 x 5= 730 – 19 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 711 + 34 {the
bachelors} = 745 {Total of Christians at Dimetoka in 1519}. The data used for the computation of the formula
are edited in Table 2, 10, 11, 16 and 17.
237 For the transcription consult Table 7: nos. 15-21. However, the identity of the vakf as that of Murad
Hudavendigar derives from the TT 370, p. 19. For this consult Table 6.
238
Consult Tables 16-17.

120
permanent residents making up the households presently on the ‘outside’ of the inner citadel

[birun-i kale]. They are listed with the others who reside within [enderun] because of their

proximity to the castle keep.239

As with reference to the town’s Jewish congregation, in the 1520 survey the quarter of

the Yahudiyan is recorded as that of Dimitri or alternatively stated of the Jews [Mahalle-yi

Dimitri nam-ı diğer Yahudiyan] and the subjects recorded bear Christian first names.240

Therefore, we can deduce that at least until 1570 when we can follow the records the quarter

had retained only the name but not its Jewish congregation.241

The high rates of new converts in the 1519 survey, speak for the state’s promptness to

deal with the city’s depopulation by providing incentives and establishing a network of

zaviyes. In 1519, the rates of the converts are discernible from the names of the adult male

residents of the city, determined by virtue of the fact that converts along with taking a new

Muslim proper name, appear in the register as “veled-i or ibn-i Abdüllah” , thus with the

name ‘Abdullah as patronymic. “Clearly, it was used as a marker to identify new converts to

Islam”.242 It seems that the process of apostasy from Christianity to Islam was a social reality

throughout the 16th c. at Dimetoka. This becomes clear when examining the rates of the

converts from the 1568 survey in which they still constitute the 19.4% out of a total of 340

households.243

To date, the most detailed analysis of the apostasy in a 16th century Ottoman city is

that provided in Lowry’s study of the Black Sea port of Trabzon, where he demonstrates that

no less than 28.60% of Trabzon’s 1553 residents were converts, while, a generation later in

1583, the total was 22.57%.244 Bearing the population analogy in mind, the similarity

239 Consult appendıx Table 7: no. 18.

240
Consult Table 6.
241
Consult Tables 7: no. 19, 8: no. 24, 10: 17.
242
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 117.
243
Consult Table 13.
244
Lowry (2010), p. 117.

121
between the figures for conversion at Dimetoka (26.6% and 19.4%) with those seen in

Trabzon during the 16th c. is striking.245 Todorov has equally shown that at the beginning of

the 16th c. Christians constituted a considerable part of the population and that the Muslim

new comers in these previously Christian lands were in their majority converts.246

As Minkov has argued conversion to Islam in the Balkans was primarly a social

phenomenon which follows the pattern established by Bulliet for the central Islamic lands.

He recognises a 0.3% conversion rate in 1490 compared to 1489 which interprets as the early

beginnings of the conversion process in the Balkans and concludes that with the exception of

Bosnia and Herzegovina, no more than 2.5 % of the population had converted to Islam by the

end of the century. Even for 15th c. the rates of converts at Dimetoka are significantly higher

(6, 3 %).247

The phenomenon of the religious conversion is strongly interrelated with the

emergence of at least 4 zaviyes, older and newer, at all the sizeable quarters marking the

boundaries of the town’s fringe belt: Debbağlar, Köprubaşi, Cercer, Haraçcı, Hocaca. The

importance of the zaviye network in the process of Turkification has been discussed in

depth248; it has been further argued the extinction of the zaviye type structures by Süleyman

I’s reign (1520-1566). The material from Dimetoka can extend the period of their alleged

extinction, since in the 1570 survey the number of zaviyes rises from 5, as recorded in the

1568 survey, to 7. This is attested through indirect references to the number of the attendants

or functionaries exchanging their services for exemptions.

245
Consult Table 13.
246
Todorov (1983), pp. 185-202.
247
Mintov (2004), pp. 34, 40; table 13.
248
Barkan (1942), pp. 279-387; Lowry (2008), pp. 66-106.

122
The theory of social engineering

The Muslim population regains after 1519 and in 1568, when the number of

households reached 340 from 291; interestingly, the same growth is also noted for the

Christian quarters too, where the growth is from 181 to 198 households with the addition of

two more quarters. Therefore, it can be observed that in the third quarter of the 16th c. the

demographic supremacy of the Muslims over the Christians tended to be disturbed, a fact

which, bearing in mind the colonizing methods applied during Mehmed I’s reign, required

attention.

Indeed, in the following detailed survey conducted just two years later, the number of

exempted households had risen from 55 to 155 constituting almost 44.7% of the Muslim

population. Table 15 and chart 3 show the percentage share of the exempted households in

comparison to the overall number of households. Within the two year period from 1568 to

1570 there is a significant increase of the percentage share of exempted households of 31.5%.

This is intriguing as in the period of the previous 83 years before 1568 there is a maximum

variation of 5.1%. Residents who in 1568 had been registered as tax-payers, simply appear in

1570 as fully exempted based on all sorts of grounds, with the most popular being their

capacity as religious functionaries [members of the ‘ulema’].

Striking is the fact that many of the functionaries were registered as residing in

different neighbourhoods from where they were actually serving; Emen made a note of the

fact in her MA thesis, though she suggested that this movement was related to the local

demands of the civil service.249 I can see how such a conclusion was reached, when focusing

on material from a particular point in time. However, the use of a series of registers for the

city of Dimetoka and in particular the cross-referencing of the 1570 survey with the 1568 one

249
Emen (2010), p. 93.

123
alerts us to the fact that in 1568 adult married male-headed taxable households appear as

exempted in 1570 and that in the period of two years half of the city’s Muslim populace

received tax breaks. What initially appear to have been a few isolated phenomena begin to

emerge as part of an overall policy followed by Selim I (1512-1520) and Süleyman I (1520-

1566) throughout the course of their reigns which meant to drastically reconfigure the

demographic synthesis of the city. The application of a mechanism, in other words, of a state

policy attempting to strengthen the demographic density of the Muslim population of this,

otherwise, firmly-annexed territory.

Barkan was the first to suggest a reading of the registers from the point of the

exempted, in an attempt to elucidate who actually constituted the social classes of the

privileged in the Empire. He identified as exempted those who exercise an honorific function

such as the functionaries of the various sects, the descendants of celebrated families

renowned for their contribution to the welfare of the community, the civil servants (miners,

wardens of passages, bridge officers and superintendents, the sultanic horse and camel

breeders, the sultanic suppliers of saltpetre and arrows). In this category should be also

included senior [piri] and disabled citizens, who were unable to fulfil their fiscal duties.250

But let us discuss the data as emerging from the actual quarters: in the quarter of

Abdal Cüneyd in the interim of these two years the number of the imams doubles (from 1 to

2), two new converts in the neighbourhood Hüseyin and Pervane are exempted [muaf] and a

new addition as al’mu’arrıf (without further defining whether it was the hafız, müezzin or the

kayyum of the mosque) is awarded with a berat.251

It was promptly realised that the Muslim populace was reducing. We can thus, extend

the hypothesis that tax incentives were offered in order to re-enforce the demographic density

of the Muslim element and to prevent the Muslim de-population of the city. If this is correct,

250
Barkan (1957), p. 15.
251
Consult Tables 7: no 2 and 8:no. 2.

124
then these measures were expressions of a conceptualized, official policy that aimed at the

social engineering of the urban landscape during Selim I and Suleiman I’s reigns.

The conducting of a consecutive detailed survey in such a short time implies that they

meant to attest the application of these measures and their efficacy. Indeed, this has been

proven successful, since the Christian quarters lost almost ¼ of their population in 2 years

and almost half of the Muslim population was made exempt and under this status continued

to reside in Dimetoka.252 This shows clearly in the table 17 that records the crude numbers of

the Christian tax male-headed households, these of the celibates of tax-paying age and these

of widow-headed households. For a reason that we cannot attest, the 44 households of

singles and the 10 households of widows disappeared from Dimetoka in the period of 2 years

elapsing between 1568 and 1570.253

The above policy should be seen as another sophisticated extension of the state

control policies of mass deportation, ingeniously mastered under Mehmed II; his reshuffling

of the available manpower in three formerly Christian cities (Istanbul-Selanik-Trabzon) has

interpreted as striving to achieve an inner religious and ethnic balance.254 There can be little

doubt that the above policy aimed towards the same direction.

Another point that emerges through the registers extending over the reign of Selim I

and Süleyman I is the well-attested phenomenon from Ottoman Anatolia of a near doubling

of the taxpaying population between 1500 and 1600.255 This is interpreted within the

framework of the 16th century that is regarded as a period of economic and demographic

upswing for the entire Mediterranean. Compounding the effects of the demographic rise, the

importation of American silver further disturbed the Ottoman economy that reacted in the

252
Consult Bar chart 4: values for the years 1568 and 1570; Bar chart 3: values for the years 1568 and 1570 and
Table 15: percentage of total in 1570 compared to 1568.
253
Consult Table 17.
254 5
Lowry (1992)², p. 57; Lowry (1992) , pp. 86-87.
255
Barkan (1951-1953), pp. 1-27; Orhonlu (1984), p. 3.

125
form of a “price revolution”256; which led to financial strain placing pressure on both peasants

and townsmen and resulted in the extinction of certain branches of textile manufacture. This

in turn can be seen as part of a general crisis in Ottoman craft production in the same

period.257

Parallel demographic growth is observed in 16th c. Europe too. The number of the

cities with at least 10.000 inhabitants rose by over 40% to 220% in 1600 and perhaps more in

the decades immediately following. This urban growth was well distributed over nearly

every part of Europe. In the non- Mediterranean regions urban growth began slowly in the

first half of the sixteenth century, quickened its pace dramatically in the century from 1550 to

1650, and then decelerated, reaching a low point in the first half of the eighteenth century. In

Iberia and Italy urban growth was rapid throughout the sixteenth century only to collapse in

the seventeenth. Still, the second half of the sixteenth century was the only period in which

rapid population growth and rapid urbanization occurred together.258

A major impact of the crisis has been also felt on one of the most decisive organs of

the urban life, the vakfs. Due to the debasement of the currency, the revenues of the pious

foundations declined which led to the downsizing of their service provision. Another side-

effect can be seen in the overstuffing of the payrolls of these institutions with employees,

who eventually constituted a parasitic group of sinecure holders. These effects were felt

alongside the flourishing of exploitative practices imposed by corrupt officials exercised at

the expense of peasants and urban producers.

256
Faroqhi (1984), op.cit.; Barkan (1975), pp. 3-28.
257
Faroqhi (1984), op.cit.; Barkan(1975), pp. 3-28.
258
De Vries (1984), pp. 28, 39-40.

126
D.Architectural Analysis

The Bayezid mosque

Its construction was initiated under Bayezid I and it was completed under Mehmed

Çelebi; an interpretation which abides with Evliya’s allusion to the monument as the Bayezid

mosque and explains why Ayverdi explicitly recognised two phases of construction .(See Pl. 27)

The initial or Bayezid’s plan, which was abandoned under the inauspicious circumstances of

the interregnum (1401-1413), ordained the construction of a double-domed structure

supported on two square, central pillars and on the outer walls by the means of arches

mounting over sets of pilasters attached to the outer walls. When construction works were

resumed on the edifice under Mehmed I, they resulted in the adaptation of a pyramidal

roofing system, which necessitated the erection of an extra set of pillars. This reminds of the

wooden version of high pitched, stone roofs of Seljukid mosques and tombs such as the

Afyon Ulu Mosque (1272-1277) and at Aksaray the Ulu mosque (12th-13th c.), the Ahi

Şerafeddin Aslanhane Cami’i at Aksaray (13th c.) and Ahi Elvan Camii (14th c.).259 The

attribution of the mosque to Mehmed I derived from the commemoration of the sultan in the

mosques’ foundation inscription [kitabe], which sealed the culminating phase of its

constructional odyssey.260

To sum up, this chapter has argued that the re-invention of Ottoman Dimetoka

functions as a normative archetype for the original type of the Ottoman town with a

Byzantine kernel and an Ottoman fringe belt. Investment was articulated along pre-existent

259
H. Karpuz, A. Kuş, F. Şimsek, İ. Dıvarcı (eds.), Anadolu Selcuklu Eserleri, Selçuklu Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları
No: 28, 2008, pp. 29, 75, 105, 107.
260
“The order for the building of this blessed mescid and holy place of worship [it was given from] the exalted
sultan, who is supported by the Absolute Judge (God) from the heavens with his overshining state being
always aided to further success. With his overpowering sultanate, he is the representative of the God in the
world and the protector of the Islamic state, world and faith; and the exalted name of the sultan, who is a son
of a sultan, is progenitor of military victory. Mehmed son of Bayezid son of Murad son of Orhan, Gods’
companion, who is rewarding the world with his acceptance and benevolence and his munificent edifice (....)
[which is to be found] in the heart (centre) of the famous city [built] in the third month of 823 H.(1420 A.C)”,
Ayverdi (1956), pp. 14-15; Ayverdi (1982), pp. 193-194; Riyazi Beldeyi Edirne, vol. 3, pp. 16-19.

127
tracks of axes which evolved into the arteries of the Ottoman fabric. The fact that we can

attest the chronological and spatial succession of the quarters of Abdal Cüneyid, Medrese,

Kuyumcular and Cami’i in alignment verifies that they were formed with an axis as their

reference.

We can then periodize the morphological phases of this evolution. During the

initiation phase (proto-Ottoman), the çarşıya emerges as the vehicle of infrastructural

development. The spatial acculturation of the suburban terrain to an Ottoman archetype is

commenced under Bayezid I. Still, the formation of the axial system should be viewed as the

result of an evolutionary process that acquires a concrete format only after the 1420s; it is

after then that we should also set the beginning of the classical phase.

We have further shown that the quarters of the classical zone encompassed as an outer

ring the quarters of the proto-Ottoman phase after the concentration of new-settlers and

groups of converts in the urban fringes. The highest rates of these group in 1485 register

arose exclusively in the peripheral quarters of Hocaca, Magyars, Tatars, Bazarlu Bey and

Cercer. This means that the town’s morphological evolution followed a normative ring

pattern of accretional growth articulated along the syntactical value of the axial system.

Pl. 27: a) Ground plan of Mehmed Çelebi mosque at Dimetoka in its present state (Ayverdi 1972, p. 137) and
b) reconstructive ground plan of the first phase (Bayezid I) of the Mehmed Çelebi mosque at Dimetoka
(Ayverdi 1972, p. 141) and c) reconstructive section of the first phase (Bayezid I) of Mehmed Çelebi mosque
(Ayverdi 1972, p. 138)

128
Chapter 2: Gümülcine

129
A. Review of the archival sources

Before proceeding with the analysis of the neighbourhoods of Gümülcine, it is

essential to discuss in a separate section the town’s vakfs. Due to a gap of archival

information on the town- quarters of 14th and 15th century Gümülcine, through an

examination of data provided in three, surviving vakf registrations, we are able to determine

that the pattern of urban development in this city deviates significantly from what had been

attested for the other case-studies from the mainland discussed in this thesis. It appears that

Gümülcine followed a different path of urban development, since the vakfs listed in the

earliest register dated from 14561 do not correspond to any of the neighbourhoods appearing

in the 1530 register (with the only exception being the vakf of debbağlar).2 Even in the cases

of the vakf of the zaviye of Evrenos, there is no onomastic relation with any of the quarters; or

on the other side of the argument, the quarter of the “Old mosque” does not correspond to any

of the vakfs listed, despite the fact that the physical evidences for both monuments are still

extant and witness to their construction in the 14th century. To complicate the image even

more, the vakfs listed in the first register are in their entirety vakfs of tekyes and zaviyes.3

These vakfs appear to have survived and have augmented their income in the

subsequent register dating from 1530, along with a number of newly founded vakfs which

constitute the new additions to the urban vakfs’s list.4 Since, the first register does not

provide us with an analytic breakdown of the neighbourhoods and it is only by the third

1
Cevdet Muallim Yazmalları, Atatürk Kütüphanesi: 0.89, 860-878(1456-1473), pp. 18, 30-31; for the
transcription consult Tables nos. 18-20 of the appendix. Lowry adoptes the dating 1456/ H860 (11 December
1455-29 November 1456). Lowry (2008), p. 44.
2
BOA. TT167, pp. 7, 11-19.
3
Consult Table 20.
4
TT167, pp. 11-19.

130
register that such information is offered5, we can therefore conclude on the names of

neighbourhoods based only on 16th century sources. That is to say, we can only witness the

name of the quarters as they stood at the end of the 15th and in the early 16th century.

Abiding with this last observation is the fact that in the 1530 register, the sixteen new vakf

entries endow mescids of the relevant quarters. These are clearly new additions, on the

grounds that they do not appear in the 1456 register and they all refer to newly founded

mescids with modest incomes. In that sense, the 1530 register portrays an image of the town

which much conforms to the urban experience from the other case-studies, where there is a

correspondence between the vakfs and the town-quarters. As Ülken has pointed out, the

growth rate in infrastructure of the Ottoman cities is reflected by the number of the

established vakfs, as the pivotal socio-political institutions around which urban hubs

evolved.6

Therefore, through the examination of the archival material, we mean to attest how

the geo-referencing of the town’s founding cellular, i.e., the zaviyes can help us reconstruct

the town’s initial, morphological phase which at the moment remains cryptic.

B. The proto-Ottoman phase: 1362-14567

Transition from Byzantine to Ottoman Gümülcine was realised under investment laid

by Hacı Evrenos between the years 1363-13838 in his attempt to assert political

5
(Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü) TTD. 187 (1568), pp. 110-113.
6
H.Z. Ülken, “Vakıf sistemi ve Türk şehirliği”, Vakiflar Dergisi, vol. IX (ayri basim), 1971, pp. 15, 31.
7
This corresponds to the quarters of the “First Ottoman Phase: 1363-1456” as shows on map 2. The quarters
of this phase bear the letter B as a diacritic, because technically this is the second phase in the town’s
evolution after the Byzantine phase denoted by the area of the castle (See map 2:A)
8
The chronological framework during which Hacı Evrenos turned Gümülcine into his seat has been recently
redefined by Kılıç, as between 1373, date when the town was conquered for the second time and 1383, when
Siroz was surrendered to Hayreddin Paşa and was given to Hacı Evrenos as a border zone. We can thus
conclude that during the period of 10 years when Hacı Evrenos maintained his residence at Gümülcine pursued
his building program. A. Kılıç, “Guzât vakıflarına bir örnek : Gümülcine’de Gazi Evrenos Bey Vakfı ”, Balkanlarda

131
legitimization.9 Until his death in 1417, Hacı Evrenos lead the Ottoman banner through

Thrace and Macedonia to the shores of the Adriadic Sea, through the commandment of large

contingents of Turkmen raiders [akıncı].10 The hereditary status he enjoyed over the

conquered lands allowed him to set up the basis for the infrastructural development of the

Ottoman state in the Balkans.11

The current chapter examines the spatial manifestation of Hacı Evrenos’s

involvement in the establishment of the town’s proto-Ottoman core through the

reconstruction of the Ottoman town plan and the periodization of its morphological phases.

In particular, the mapping of the proto-Ottoman phase will help us realise the scale of his

investment and to conceptualize the subsequent, classical phase of the town’s morphological

development from the end of the 15th century as subjected to the application of the dynamic

practices of Ottoman colonization.

In this chapter the argument that Hacı Evrenos was a freelance coordinator, who

conceived the project of Gümülcine’s Ottomanization and worked for 20 years towards this

goal will be advanced. In these years his ambitions grew greatly to the extent of dynastic

claim, which Gümülcine however, did not have the potential to sustain as it was subjected to

Osmanlı Vakıfları ve Eserleri Uluslararası Semposyumu, 9-11 Mayıs 2012 Istanbul, Başbakanlık Vakıflar Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayınları No. 107, Ankara 2012, p. 261; H. Inalcik., “Murad I”, İ.A., vol. 31, 2008, p. 159.
9
S. Cağaptay, “The Road from Bithynia to Thrace: Gazi Evrenos’ İmaret in Komotini and its Architectural
Framework”, Byz. Forschungen, vol. 30, 2011, p. 432.
10
V. Dimitriadis, “The Tombe of Gazi Evrenos Bey at Yenitsa and its Inscription”, BSOAS, vol. 39, issue 2, 1976,
pp. 328-332.
11
Hacı Evrenos has recently attracted a fair amount of academic attention by young and senior historians,
which has resulted in the production of an impressive corpus of literature. Far from attempting to provide an
exhaustive list of the relevant litterature on the topic, key works of the last decade can be listed as follows: A.
Çalı {Kılıç}, “Akıncı Beyi Evrenos Bey’e Ait Mülknâme : the Conveyance of Raider Ewrenos Beg”, OTAM, vol. 20,
2006, pp. 59-79; idem, “Guzât Vakıflarına bir Örnek : Gümülcine’de Gazi Evrenos Bey Vakfı ”, Balkanlarda
Osmanlı Vakıfları ve Eserleri Uluslararası Semposyumu, 9-11 Mayıs 2012 Istanbul, Başbakanlık Vakıflar Genel
Müdürlüğü Yayınları No. 107, Ankara 2012, pp. 259-276; idem, “Evrenos Bey’in Kökeni Hakkında Tartışmalar ve
Yeni Bir Değerlendirme”, Belleten, vol. 75, 2011, pp. 745-768; idem, Bir Osmanlı Akıncı Beyi Gazi Evrenos Bey,
Istanbul, İthaki yayınları No. 902, 2014; L. Kayapınar, “Osmanlı Uç Beyi Evrenos Bey Ailesinin Menşei
Yunanistan Coğrafyasındaki Faaliyetleri ve Eserleri”, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Enstitüsü Dergisi,
vol. 2004, issue 8 (2004), pp. 133-142; Lowry (2008), pp. 15-64; idem (2009); Z. S. Zengin, “İlk dönem Osmanlı
vakfiyelerinden Serez’de Evrenuz Gazi’ye Ait Zaviye Vakfiyesi”, Vakıflar Dergisi, vol. XXVIII, 2004, Ankara, pp.
93-111.

132
the immediate geo-political control of the sultanic capitals of Dimetoka and Edirne.

Therefore, he left the town, after securing his household under the legal loophole of the

‘ta’alluqat’, in the search of a new settlement which he would turn into his ‘signature city’

and where he would be allowed the independence and uncompromised potential he was

seeking.

Methodologically, the attempt to theorize on the scale of Hacı Evrenos’ patronage at

Gümülcine is subjected to an over-bridging analysis which aims to define the level of his

engagement in the town’s infrastructural development in relation firstly, to the social forces

which were activated in the town’s micro-environment and secondly, to his investment

projects in all three urban frameworks, namely Gümülcine, Siroz and especially Yenice-i

Vardar. In that respect, the entries of the 1456 register on the various tekyes and zaviyes

elucidate the synergistic role of the fütüvvet organization towards the town’s repopulation and

infrastructural development.

Hacı Evrenos as a coordinator of an infrastructural micro-environment

We would first need to define the chronological framework during which Hacı

Evrenos turned Gümülcine into his seat. According to Neşri, the conquest of Gümülcine was

realised between those of Edirne 1360-1 and Biga 1364-65, thus in the years 1362 - 1364.

When, it comes to the transfer of his residence to Siroz, Neşri provides the hijri year 787

(1385-86) as when Siroz was surrendered to Hayreddin Paşa and when it was equally given

to him as a border zone12; whereas Kaftantzēs, who discusses thoroughly the sources related

to the first occupation of Siroz in 137, establishes a dating for its final conquest in 19th of

12
In that very year Hacı Evrenos conquered İskeçe and Maronya, while Kavala, Dirama and Siroz were
surrendered to Hayreddin Paşa. In the same year Karaferya with all its suburbs was conquered, its fiefs were
dispersed to timariots and the tieth was imposed to its Christian population. At last, Siroz was given to Hacı
Evrenos as a border land”, Neşri (2008), pp. 394-395.

133
September 1383 based on references derived from five Greek codices.13 Based on this

chronology we can then conclude that during a period of approximately 20 years Hacı

Evrenos maintained his residence at Gümülcine during which time he pursued his building

program.

The monuments which can be attributed to Hacı Evrenos’ patronage with certainty are

related to the vakf of his zaviye, which is identified with the extant imaret-cami’i (See map 2:

B1) and the nowadays lost kervansaray and hammam which were ascribed as revenue to his

vakf. The earliest data on these monuments are derived from the 1456 register and are

discussed under the following subheading: The vakfs of the proto-Ottoman phase.14

The last monument which is identified by Kiel15 as his mosque is the extant ‘Old

mosque’ in the “mahalle-yi Eski mescidi” (See map 2: B2).16 Evliya does not identify the initial

patron of the monument, mentioning only its restoration in 1677 (1088) by a certain sipahi:

“All in all, there are 16 prayer spaces. But, the most prosperous and embellished, ancient

shrine having the most populous congregation is situated within the market district. The Old

mosque is not lead roofed and is built in the old style”.17 From its description as a tiled

mosque built in the old style, its dating in the 14th early 15th century cannot be debated.

However, the ascription of the Old Mosque under the patronage of Hacı Evrenos cannot be

attested with certainty either. This conclusion is drawn from the following three

observations: Evliya assigns only a mescid to Hacı Evrenos which Ayvedi relates to his

13
İ.H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 1, Ankara 1982, pp. 164-165; Lowry (2008), p. 41.
14
Consult Table 20.
15
M. Kiel, “Observations on the history of Northern Greece during the Turkish Rule: historical and architectural
description of the Turkish Monuments of Komotini and Serres, their place in the development of Ottoman
Turkish architecture, and their present condition”, Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans,
Norfolk, Variorum, 1990, 1971, p. 421; idem., “The oldest monuments of Ottoman-Turkish architecture in the
Balkans: the imaret and the mosque of Ghazi Hacı Hacı Evrenos in Gümülcine (Komotini) and the Hacı Evrenos
Khan in the village of Ilıca/Loutra in Greek Thrace (1370-1390)”, Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the
Balkans, Norfolk, Variorum, 1990, pp. 124-127.
16
Consult Table 22: No. 1.
17
Çelebi (2003), pp. 37-39.

134
‘imaret-cami’18, his building program at Yenice-i Vardar did not entail the construction of a

mosque either19 and Ayverdi associates the ‘Old mosque’ with the mosque of Hacı

Hayreddin.20

The vakfs of the proto-Ottoman phase

The zaviye of the deceased Evrenos Bey

His financial predominance in the micro-environment of Ottoman Gümülcine shows

through the discussion of the financial power of his vakf in relation to the rest of the town’s

vakfs. The section on the evkaf of the Gümülcine County in the 1456 register opens with the

entry of the ‘vakf of the zaviye of the deceased Evrenos Bey’. What needs to be noted at this

point is that in all three registers the only reference to any of Evrenos’s endowments in

Gümülcine relates to his zaviye.

The zaviye of Hacı Evrenos at Gümülcine complies with the norm as regards the

breakdown of its sources of revenues. Still, this is not instantly apparent due to the fact that

the 1456 defter is one of the earliest and does not present the systematized layout we

encounter in later tax registers. Following the annual account book from 1489 the sources of

revenues of the imarets can be discerned in two categories: urban and provincial. The rents

secured from real estates [emlaks] as hans, hammams and shops, while the second category

refers to the production of the villages that belonged to the vakf. The biggest part of the

imarets’ revenues (82%) was secured from the villages; in fact, the administrators of the

18
Ibid., p. 38; Ayverdi (1982), p. 220.
19
Consult discussion under subheading C. The monuments: Urban planning under Hacı Evrenos of chapter 4.
20
Ayverdi (1982), p. 219.

135
vakfs were the ‘owners’ of the villagers and since these lands belonged to the state, the vakfs

were collecting their various dues and taxes.21

For further facilitation of the analysis and of the taxonomic classification into urban

and provincial revenues, the sources of revenues are shown analytically in tables 20 and 21 of

the appendix. Up to the entry no. 9 [Imam-ı tekye], we understand that these resources are

urban, despite the fact that revenues of a mill and the lump sum from the allotment of

Küstemir are also included in this section. This is due to the semi-urban status of the town of

Gümülcine, as it is will be discussed in the conclusions.22

In order to calculate the actual revenues of the ‘imaret both in cash and kind, we

would need to take into consideration that: a) the contributions are either quarterly or per

entry year and b) that for the calculation of the yield are the prices of the commodities at the

time are needed. Data extrapolated from the 1456 register show that the upkeep of the vakf

was secured through a variety of urban and agricultural revenues which amounted to a total

of 40,787 akçes without the attribution of the yield from the allotment of Küstemir. Amongst

these sources, the Hacı Evrenos, or alternatively known as the eski hammam produced the

highest annual revenue of 8.005 akçes23, while lesser contributions of 1,400 akçes were

rendered quarterly by: a) 45 shops within the city of Gümülcine, b) lump sum taxation and c)

vineyards. The kervansaray rendered 1,000 akçes quarterly. The provincial revenues of the

vakf amounted to 65,077 akçes and were derived from the village of Helvaci established by

the descendants of the un-emancipated slaves of the vakf. Forty-five percent of this revenue

was derived from income in kind.

The most interesting entry registered under the vakf of the zaviye is the group of

dependants; that is to say, the sixteen households of his extended family at Gümülcine

21
Ö.L. Barkan, “Osmanlı Imparatorloğunda imaret sitelerinin kuruluş ve işleyiş tarzına ait araştırmalar”, Iktisat
Fakültesi Mecmuası, vol. XXIII, 1962-63, pp. 252-253: Table 1.
22
Part C: conclusions, pp. 278-285.
23
Çelebi (2003), p. 38; Ayverdi (1982), p. 222.

136
[ta’allukat-ı Evrenosluyan].24 This entry is associated with another group of dependents

registered under his ‘imaret at Siroz. As, there is no indication of these groups contributing

to the income of the vakf, we can understand that their entry was meant to denote that they

were provided for by the vakf. Then, a common practice emerges according to which,

individuals from his immediate environment or household at Gümülcine and Siroz, would be

provided for after his death by being appointed to certain positions or by simply having a

stipend allocated for them.

The revenues of the Zaviye of Hacı Evrenos in Gümülcine reached in 1456 the

amount of 111,664 akçes, while in 1489 the sultanic ‘imaret vakfs of Fatih in Istanbul,

Bayezid I at Edirne and Murad II at Ergene were wielding 1,500,611 and 161,564 and

106,285 akçes respectively.25 Barkan further points to the fact that more than the half of the

annual expenses (52,5%) of the ‘imarets were allocated for the coverage of the functionaries’

salaries, while the remaining 47,5% was invested in diverse sources such as food and

pharmaceutical supplies, hotel equipment and building material. In the analytic breakdown

of the salaries of functionaries and attendants of the vakfs, special attention was drawn to a

particular group of employers that of zevaidhor’lar, that is to say, to the ones appointed to

consume [lit. ‘eat up’] the surplus of revenues. It was observed that this specific category of

employees existed in older institutions and not in the newly founded, as synchronic to the

1489 yearly account book and it was responsible for the debasement of the institution. For

example, at the modest vakf of the zaviye of Süleyman Paşa at Bolayir (86,985 per year) the

fact that 1/3rd of the total employees were zevaidhor’lar was a threatening factor for the

prosperity and viability of the institution.26

24
See Table 20: no. I. 11 of the appendix.
25
Barkan (1962-1963), p. 253: Table 1.
26
Ibid., pp. 284-291: Tables: 9-10.

137
 This situation rings true for the zaviye of Hacı Evrenos too, for which we can attest a

reduction of its annual revenues from 111,664 akçes in 1458 to 55,902 in 1519, despite the

inflation rates observed in the Ottoman economy over the period from 1474 to 1528.27

Although, we do not possess direct information on the exact number of its

employees28, these can be estimated to be a group of 40 to 70 people29, part of which can be

retrieved with certainty from the entry ‘ta’allukat-ı Evrenosluyan’ which counted sixteen

households. Twenty of these functionaries and attendants of the zaviye can be recognized

through the breakdown of the quarters as extrapolated from the 1568 register30: (1) Hüsseyn

‘Abdin tabbah-ı ‘imaret, (2) Fu’ad ‘Ali ibn-i Ramazan an bevvab-ı ‘imaret, (3) Tanri Ali

cabi-yi ‘imaret, (4) ‘Ali Bali ibn-i Mehmet Evrenos, (5) Hacı ibn-i Musa Evrenos, (6) Hasan

ibn-i Yusuf ra’iyyet Evrenos, (7) Nasuh ibn-i Oruç ra’iyyet Hacı Evrenos al-merhum, (8) ‘İsa

Bali Hacı Eliyas ra’iyyet Hacı Evrenos Bey, (9) Mehmed ibn-i ‘Ali Hacı Evrenos dar vakf,

(10) Hacı Apri Evrenos, (11) Eliyas ‘Abdin Evrenos, (12) Ferhad ‘Abdin Evrenos, (13)

Mehmed Hacı Ramazan Evrenos, (14) Mustafa ‘Isa dar vakf, (15) Bali nazır-ı ‘imaret dar

kira, (16) Mustafa kebeci-yi ‘imaret dar kira, (17) Mustafa ibn-i Mehmed hüddam-ı ‘imaret ,

(18) Isa Bali hizmetkar-ı ‘imaret, (19) Mehmet hizmetkar-ı ‘imaret, (20) Hüsseyn ser-i

bevabbin-i ‘imaret. These are the dependents or the members of the extended Evrenosoğlu

family, which were acting as the celebrated functionaries of the vakf and could be regarded as

responsible for the considerable shrinkage of the vakf’s revenues.

In terms of the services provided, in absence of further evidence we need to assume

that the same principles applied to the sultanic ‘imarets with regards to the public services

provided, were to be applied also to the Hacı Evrenos ‘imaret. In 1489 the Fatih ‘imaret was

27
See Table 21 of the appendix.
28
TTD187, pp. 110-113.
29
When compared with vakfs of the same scale such as: a) the Murad II at Ergene with annual revenues of
106.285 per year and 42 functionaries and, b) the zaviye of Süleyman Paşa at Bolayir with annual revenues
86.958 and 68 functionaries.
30
TTD187, pp. 110-113.

138
offering food to at least 1,117 people daily, while Bayezid the II’s ‘imaret at Edirne with

annual revenues amounting to 578,663 akçes was serving daily 99 employees and distributing

1,424 loaves of bread to indigents and travellers. Civil servants [nazir, şeyh, katib and imam

of the ‘imaret], workers (cooks, rice expurgators, busboys) and medrese students all

benefitted from the meals provided, while the remaining food was dispersed to indigents,

widows, travellers and visitors.31

One of the customary practices ascribed to the benevolent services of the institution

was the protection of the orphans and widows in the form of a benefit settlement. For

example the vakfs of Fatih, Ayasofya and Murad II ‘imarets at Edirne provided allowances to

200 and 40 orphans respectively, with the allocated expenditure reaching, for the case of

Fatih, the amount of 3,000 akçes annually.32 Can it be therefore coincidental the fact that in

the 1568 register a new quarter that of the Orphans at Gümülcine [Mahalle-yi İbrahim nam-ı

diğer Orfana] makes its appearance? 33

The vakf of the leather-tanners (See map 2: B4)

A much more modest vakf is the one which belonged to the leather-tanners. Its people

were excluded from the current register [harici az defter] and its income consisted of only

100 akçes for the entry year and was derived from one shop and an orchard. As already

mentioned, this case is the only overlapping one that we encounter between an early vakf and

a quarter. Still, the proper quarter of the leather-tanners appears only in the 1568, while a

certain vakf of the debbağhane mosque makes its appearance already in the 1519 register

31
The data on the Fatih ‘imaret are provided from the distribution records (tevziname kayıtlar), the foundation
charters and the annual account books; specifically, the relevant entry citing that the superfluus food was
distributed to the poor is included at the end of the tevziname. Nevertheless, it is not stated the exact amount
of the disposed meals. The data on the Bayezid ‘imaret are retreated from an abstract of a food charter (Aş
defteri) appendixed to the annual account books from 1489. Barkan (1962-1963), pp. 281-282.
32
Ibid., p. 295.
33
TTD187, p. 113.

139
with revenue of 1,343 akçes.34 The modest size of the vakf is judged upon relative criteria of

the prices of commodities at the specified time; for example 100 akçes would suffice to

purchase 10 kile (250,66 kgs) of wheat flour, a typical annual quantity for the sustenance of

an imaret-tekye foundation. 35 The topographic identification of the zaviye was possible,

since in its position stands nowadays the contemporary structure of debbağhane mosque.36

The vakf of the tekye of Ahmed

The third vakf was that of the tekye of Ahmed son of Bali Yunus. It was explained that

this was the private property of Ahi Mehmed who turned it into a vakf. Although, the register

neglects to provide its total revenue, from the list of its belongings including orchards, a mill

and seven shops, it seems to be the second richest in Gümülcine after the zaviye of Hacı

Evrenos. Of course this can be also a speculative attestation. The traces of the tekye cannot

be attested in the 1530 register. The only vakf which appeared to have belonged to an Ahi in

the 1530 register is that of the zaviye of Ahi Oran which was, however, at that current

moment in the hands of the debbağ Bayezid. The zaviye was maintained by revenues of just

300 akçes accrued from two allotments, a mill and a shop.37

The Zaviye of Kasap Süpüren (See map 2: B3)

For the zaviye of Kasap Süpüren we possess more information, since the 1456 register

brings to our attention that it experienced serious problems with its upkeep, despite being

34
TT167, pp. 7, 15; İ. Bıçakçı, Yunanistan’da Türk Mimarî Eserleri, Istanbul, 2003, p. 131.
35
If 1 Istanbul kile= 20 oka and 1 oka= 1,283 kg then 1 kile= 25,66 kgs. Therefore the correct weight for 10 kiles
is 256,6 kg. The usual value for the okka is 1,2828 kg thus making the kile 25,656 kg. By that rate, the weight of
10 kiles would be 256,56kg. M.I. Marcinkowski, Measures and weights in the Islamic World, Kuala Lumpur,
2003, pp. 68-69.
36
For the information, I am indebted to the architect M. I. Redvan from Gümülcine.
37
TT167, p. 15.

140
well-provided with sources which could generate adequate revenues. For example, all 8

shops found in its possession are recorded as being in ruins, while from the three orchards

one was turned into a graveyard, the second was neglected and only the third orchard along

with three allotments accrued the sole revenue of the vakf consisting of 360 akçes.38

Its financial state seems to have deteriorated in the interim of seventy years, since in

the 1530 register its revenues were reduced to 239 akçes.39 But more importantly, the zaviye

itself was ruined and it was after the issuing of an edict from the dergah-ı mu’alla that the

reconstruction of the edifice in the place of the old zaviye was ordered. Two relevant entries

from the same register cite the vakfs of the mescids of Süpüren Mahmud and (simply) of

Süpüren, which we need to assume were founded during the same interim, based on their

modest revenues- of 190 and 309 akçes respectively-and the fact that they were in close

proximity of the zaviye. The mescid has survived and its location can be topographically

identified.40

The zaviye of Konukçu Şemseddin

The fifth of the early vakfs is that of the zaviye of Konukçu Şemseddin, which presents

a different evolution. When in the hands of Köykusu Imam Bey during the second half of

the15th c. it was quite impoverished possessing annual revenues amounting to only 74 akçes.

This situation was much changed by 1530, when its possessions included 27 shops in

Gümülcine and Yenice-i Karasu that generated 1,217 akçes.41

38
Consult Table 20: no. IV of the appendix.
39
TT167, p. 15.
40
Ayverdi (1982), p. 222.
41
Consult Table 20: no. V of the appendix; TT 167, p. 15.

141
The zaviye of Puşi Puşan (See map 2: B5)

A zaviye that appears in 1456 and has been intriguingly omitted from the 16th

century’s registers is that of the zaviye of Puşi Puşan located at the allotment of Dehurcu

Apri. According to Ayverdi, its existence was known from a series of sicils from 17th

century onwards42 and from a 20th century view. In these sicils the zaviye appears as

registered under a slightly altered name as Pust Puş, Pus Buş and Boş Boş or as known

nowadays at Gümülcine Poç Poç. It constitutes a key part of the proto-Ottoman phase of the

town-plan, since it marks the town’s north-west entrance towards the mountainous villages of

Rhodope.

The town-planning conception

The Byzantine castle of Koumoutsina [Gümülcine] was placed at a point of

geostrategic importance adjacent to the Via Egnatia –at the very end of a mountain route

leading to the Thracian inland-and by the eastern shore of the Boukloutza or Şirkalı River.43

Although, the first reference to the Koumoutzina castle is derived from 14th century

historiographical sources, its foundation dates from the 4th century B.C. based on recovered

inscriptional data.44 The remains of the square shaped historical structure are located at the

north-western part of the modern city of Komotini [Gümülcine] (See map 2: A). Boukloutza

stream was reclaimed and its watercourse was converted into the central artery of

contemporary Gümülcine (axis X), which assumes several names at different parts of its route

42
The documentation dates from H. 1090, 1134, 1172: Ayverdi (1980), p. 222.
43
Çelebi (2003), p. 37; G. Vassiliadis, “To kastro tēs Komotēnēs: architektonikē analysē kai tekmēriōsē”, Byz.
Forschungen ,vol. 30, 2011, p. 143 and Pl. 2.
44
Vassiliadis (2011), pp. 139-154; P. Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi, Egnatia Odos Istoria kai diadromē sto xōro tēs
Thrakēs, Athens, 2005, pp. 32-35.

142
Demokritou - Orfeos – Demokratias (See map 2: axis X). This evolution can explain the

serpentine shape of the route which snakes through the city’s heartland.

The castle bears at its four corners, robust round turrets and a central, double gate at

its north-eastern side (See map 2: A1). Excavation results have revealed the remains of the Via

Egnatia at a distance of 6 km eastern from the city center of contemporary Gümülcine.45

This recovered route should be conceived as running parallel to at a distance of one km. to

the north of the old motorway between Gümülcine and Dedeağac [Alexandroupolis].

Consequently, the Via Egnatia can be identified with the Vletsiou – Sismanoglu -

Konstantinoupoleos Avenue, which when placed one km. to the north, passes by the front of

the Süpüren Mahmud mosque (See map 2: B3).

As discussed under the subheading on proto-Ottoman vakfs, the aforementioned

mosque was built in the vicinity of one of the earliest zaviyes of Gümülcine dating from the

14th century. The fact that the 14th century’s zaviye of Süpüren Kasap Süpüren (See map 2: B3)

was built at a location contiguous to the Via Egnatia indicates that Via had been used as a

spinal axis (See map 2: axis Y) upon which the spatial development of the fringe belt was

interwoven. From the junction point of Via Egnatia (See map 2: axis Y) with Şirkalı River (See

map 2: axis X), a sub-route of the Via Egnatia (See map 2: axis Y1) as leading to the central gate of

Gümülcine castle (See map 2: A1) can now be reconstructed with confidence.

The meeting point of the river (See map 2: axis X) with Via Egnatia (See map 2: axis Y)

should be reconstructed at the area where nowadays stands the municipal park of Agia

Paraskeuē. This is also identified by Evliya as the meeting point of Şırkalı River with its

tributary the Kalfa stream, but alas the text does not preserve the Ottoman name of the

quarter. According to the source “... And within the city the water of life and running

fountain is called Şirkalı stream. Along this small river, you can cross at five appointed

45
Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi (2005), pp. 32-35.

143
places over wooden bridges. The city extends over the two sides of this river and further

down (Şikarlı stream) meets with its tributary Kalfa stream at the (...) neighbourhood, which

is very close to the city and [from there] they join the Aegean. These two streams originate

in the summer pasturages to the north of the city (....), and they provide water to the many

thousands orchards of İrem, the gardens of contentment and irrigating the reticulated

orchards of the city, to pour into the Aegean”. 46

However, what most convincingly emerges from the geo-referencing of the proto-

Ottoman nuclei on the map is the centripetal quality of axis Y and its extension Y1 based on

which property, they should be identified with Gümülcine’s çarşıya or public road. The

town’s most prominent quarters, [i.e.], the quarter of the Cooks [mahalle-yi Aşcı Mescidi] (See

map 2: B1), the quarter of the ‘Old mosque’ [mahalle-yi Eski cami’] (See map 2: B2) and the

quarter of the ‘Exalted mosque’ [mahalle-yi cami’i şerif] (See map 2: C2) can be all

reconstructed as developed along the çarşıya. The importance of the aforementioned

realisation for the field of Ottoman morphology shows clearly when connected with the

functional division of Islamic, urban space as advocated by Tekeli.47 The centrality of the

commercial district [çarşı] in the early Ottoman suburbium was articulated upon pre-tracked

axes. Such a sense of reflective axiality presupposes a monitoring process of the access

network; by this process, the Ottomans were able to assess how the landscape of the outskirts

was configured and then, to canalize access to the citadel accordingly.

In the case of Gümülcine the axial dimension of the çarşıya is further corroborated

through archival references. The abstract from the 1553 endowment inventory registers 13

urban vakfs as endowed with real estate properties such as shops, a han, a medrese, rooms

46
Çelebi (2003), pp. 37-38.
47
I.Tekeli, “Evolution of spatial organisation in the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic”, in L.C. Brown (ed.),
From medina to a metropolis: heritage and change in the Near Eastern city, Princeton University, 1973, pp.
244-273; idem, “Urban patterns in Anatolia: organization and evolution”, in R. Holod (ed.), Proceedings of the
conference on conservation as cultural survival, Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard
University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980, pp. 15-27.

144
and houses within the city of Gümülcine.48 The architectural description of these urban

sources of revenue is particularly detailed. They refer to the number of the stories and the

rooms of these properties, the existence of inner courtyards and the facilities such us furnaces

and cellars. More importantly, the fact that these properties are defined by their position in

relation to the public road [tariki ‘am], with a clear distinction between the properties that are

bordering the public road and those viewing to private streets [tariki has] seems to suggest

that their position in relation to the çarşıya affected their value. Such is the example of the

vakf of Murad which was comprised of “one singled-storied house and one double-storied

house with a wooden-floored platform [on the roof for clothes drying] and an [outdoor] privy

which was bordered on either side by the freehold properties of Baltaci Ali and Ketenci Hacı

and on the front by the public highway”.49 It can be then deduced that not only was there a

spatial perception of the axes at a social level, but that this morphological arrangement was

the regulating factor of the town’s economic life.

We need at this point to take a step back in order to allow the pattern in this ‘mighty

maze’ adopted in Gümülcine’s micro-environment to emerge and to attest its cross-

referencing with parallel morphological solutions adopted in early Ottoman urbanism. It is

then that the following pattern of settlement shows clearly: the town-planning perception at

proto-Ottoman Gümülcine can be summarised in the emergence of a stable denominator

indicated by a river (See map 2: axis X) or a major, pre-existent thoroughfare (See map 2: axis Y) in

relation to which a central public highway [çarşıya or tariki ‘am] is aligned (See map 2: axis Y1).

Morphological analysis of the towns of Dimetoka, Siroz, and Yenice-i Vardar suggests that

this becomes the normative pattern of the proto-Ottoman phase.

48
(Divan defterhane-i amire kalemi evrakı) A.DFE.d 50. 980.Z.29 (1553), pp. 1-4.
49
“Vakf-ı Murad bir bab kettanı haneyi ve bir bab fevkanı haneyi ve ket-i puş ve kenif ki Baltacı ‘Ali ve Ketancı
Hacı mülk ve tarika ‘am ile mahduddur”, A.DFE.d 50., p. 3.

145
 In fact, the orientation of the imaret-cami’ of Hacı Evrenos can only make sense

when read within this morphological context in the sense of this being the environment in

which the imaret-cami’ was meant to be viewed. The monument was located at the southern

extremes of what should be reconstructed as the core quarter of early Ottoman Gümülcine.

Strikingly enough, the name of the quarter does not derive directly from the sources, but I

would extend a tentative identification based on the concentration of Hacı Evrenos’

descendants and the name of the quarter as appearing in the 1568 register.50 According to

this, the imaret should have been located at the quarter of the mescid of the Cooks [mahalle-

yi Aşcı Mescidi], which was expanding southwards from the main gate of the castle (See map 2:

A1) and along the çarşıya.51 The orientation of the imaret facing the re-constructed axis Y1,

along with the understanding of the function of the eyvan—as an open space which welcomes

the view—comes to justify the lack of a kibla orientation for the building and to indicate its

function as the domed sofa interior of a private ‘konak’.

Under this light, the principles of early Ottoman town planning can be conceptualized

under the variables of objective and ‘modus operandi’. The ‘modus operandi’ can be

wittingly encapsulated in Kafadar’s argument on Ottoman state building, which can be

applied on the Ottoman town-planning context too: “although all the principalities were heirs

to the political culture of Seljuk Anatolia—where I would add architectural culture too—the

Ottomans were much more experimental in reshaping it to need, much more creative in their

bricolage of different traditions, be they Turkic, Islamic or Byzantine”.52 Indeed, adaptability

appears to be an instinctive response to the setting and natural resources, which regulated the

patterns of Ottoman landscape enhancement.

50
TTD187, p. 111.
51
Consult Table 22: No. 14 of the appendix; TTD 187, p. 111: “Nasuh ibn-i Oruç ra’iyyet Evrenos Bey al merhum
and ‘Isa Bali Hacı Eliyas ra’iyyet Evrenos Bey”.
52
K. Kafadar, Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman State, University of California Press, 1995,
p. 121.

146
 As for their objective, the identification of the two early quarters—Aşci and

Süpüren—and their placement along the axes Y and Y1 revealed that the Ottomans were

interested in seizing the access to the castle and not the castle per se. In support of this

argument comes Isfahani’s work, who advocated that routes also function as anti-routes, in

the sense that they restrict access and channel circulation.53 On the same path Braudel argued

that in Mediterranean, space continued being “enemy number one” of political states as late

as the 16th century54, while Harvey pointed that “ the anti-route function of routes is a

function not only of linearity and topography but also of political decision, economic

advantage or disadvantage, and social, cultural and collective psychological orientation”.55

In this sense, we can attest a breach with the settlement pattern of Dimetoka—where

the infrastructural investment under Murad I made use of the castle and marked its two gates

from the south and east—and also of Bursa, and Edirne, which involved extensive intramural

and restricted extramural investment zones. Thus, at Gümülcine, seizure of the main exits

loses the sense of access to secured and enclosed grounds. So, if the castle is not their target,

what was their target?

They were after the pre-tracked network creating access towards this urban hub,

because they valued its position. They recognized the geostrategic importance of the position

and foresaw the dynamic the site would have for their plans to form a network of cities.

Then, they appropriated the dynamic of the site by reinstating the urban hub outside the

walls, under a new convergence point: the proto-Ottoman commercial core (See map 2: B1, B2

,B4). With semiotic subtlety, they reversed the dynastic centre from the castle to the suburb;

and the moment that the screen of reversal reality was set up, they assumed authority through

53
M.Z. Isfahani, Roads and Rivals: The political uses of access in the Border-lands of Asia, London, 1989,
pp. 2-3, 7.
54
F. Braudel, La mediterranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II, Paris, 1966, vol. I., p. 326.
55
D. Harvey, “Models of the evolution of spatial patterns in human geography”, in R.J.Chorley and P.Haggett
(eds.), Models in Geography, London, 1967, pp. 559-561; T. Stoianovich, “A route type: the Via Egnatia under
Ottoman rule”, in The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule 1380-1699, Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Crete
1996, pp. 208.

147
visual transference. By this way, they managed to transform Byzantine Koumoutzina into the

Ottoman Gümülcine.

It is not accidental that Evliya, when descripting the outskirts, chooses to identify the

sehr-i ma’mur with the varoş.56 This means that only the outskirts constituted the inhabited

and thus urbanised part of the town, since the castled city has passed into a state of disarray.

In this context, the use of the word ma’mur used by Evliya should be interpreted as inhabited

and thus, prosperous. Then, the core concept of the proto-Ottoman era clearly emerges at

Gümülcine: all Ottoman efforts were directed to the infrastructural development of the

suburban area, [i.e]., the fringe belt.

The castle was inhabited by the Christians, who in 1456 counted some 135

households , the Jews57 and the Ottoman garrison of the hisar-eri or kale-eri. These hisar-

eris constituted the real military force in most of the fortresses in the 15th c. and as a security

measure, they were recruited from distant parts of the empire, thus in Rumelian Gümülcine

we would expect to encounter Anatolian deportees or settlers. 58 Apart from these three

groups, information on the existence of two Muslim quarters within the castle is retrieved

from the 1553 endowment inventory. The vakf of Hacı Eliyas possessed properties in two

quarters within the castle, the quarters of Denizli Oğlu and Hacı Islam [Mahalle-yi Denizli

Oğlu] [mahalle-yi Hacı Islam].59 However, the existence of these two quarters cannot be

reconfirmed in the extensive register of 1568.

56
Çelebi (2003), p. 37.
57
Consult Table 18 of the appendix.
58
İnalcık (1954), pp. 107.
59
A.DFE.d 50., p. 3; TTD 187, pp. 110-113.

148
C. Classical and consolidation phases (late 15th/beginning of 16th c.): a town in transition

Archival evidence

The inspection of the 167 defter dating from 1530, compiled almost sixty years after

the first register, portrays an image of a that has been expanded under a multi-clustered

formation that arrranges satellite quarters around a triangular umbilicus. This is achieved

through the systematic attempt of endowing a series of modest charitable foundations to the

town; the religious and educational character of these charitable foundations reveals the

agenda of priorities which mean to induct the new-settlers into a communal life conformed to

the demands of orthodox Islam.60 The new vakfs constituted the seeds for the development of

the eponymous quarter, the evolution and strengthening of which, we have the chance to

observe through the last register from 1568.

Out of the seventeen quarters registered in the 167 defter, twelve are directly

associated with the establishment of a modest vakf, the resources of which do not exceed the

2,000 akçes per entry year.61 In reality 13 out of the 17 quarters can be associated with a

vakf, the 13th being the vakf of the cami’i şerif which based on its architectural features dates

from late 15th/ early 16th century but cannot be comprised in the list with the rest of the vakfs

on the basis of its financial precedence. Consequently, out of the 17 quarters only three can

allude to their foundation during the proto-Ottoman phase: the quarters of the cooks

[tabbahlar], the quarter of imam-ı sarayı, the quarter of the arsenal [cephanlu] that according

to the information retrieved from the 1568 register, they seem to have vanished from the

urban scenery in the span of 38 years.

These 13 neighbourhoods are: 1) mahalle-i Eskici Hacı, 2) Hacı Yavaş, 3) Karagöz,

4) Kadi mescidi, 5) Hacı Hizir, 6) Hayreddin, 7) Hoca Nasuh, 8) Velioğlar, 9) Şehre Küşti,

60
Consult Table 22 of the appendix.
61
TT167, pp. 15-19.

149
10) Yenice, 11) Aşci mescidi, 12) Bergamlu. They all developed around the foundation of the

vakf of an eponymous mescid with revenues starting from just 145 akçes, as in the case of

Hacı Hayreddin, and reaching up to 2,800 akçes, as in the case of Hacı Karagöz. Primary

source of income for these foundations are the rents from shops within the town of

Gümülcine, followed by orchards, allotments and rented properties.62

Apart from these vakfs, of interest is the foundation of two new zaviyes, the one of

which was of a somehow upscaled status on the basis of its income when compared with the

newly founded mescids. That was the zaviye of the börekciyan, which was sustained through

the income of 3,351 akçes secured from shops within Gümülcine, agricultural plots and two

mills in the possession of a certain Ahi Ali. The second zaviye is that of Hacı Şemsüddin

which was secured through the income of 300 akçes as derived from an orchard.63

Topographic identification

Topographic reconstruction of all thirteen classical quarters was not possible. Still,

we managed to reconstruct the core and borders of the classical phase by using miscellaneous

metadata. The Bergamlu quarter (See map 2: C5)was identified through reference to the extant

19th century Tekye mosque, which was located at that quarter.64

The ‘Old mosque’(See map 2: B2) is associated by Ayverdi with the mosque of Hacı

Hayreddin based on information derived from 18th century Kamil Kepeci documents. The

1530 register records two different quarters as mahalle-yi Eski mescidi and Hacı Hayreddin,

while in the 1568 register the Eski Mescidi quarter vanishes and we can only profess the

existence of the quarter of Hayreddin where the imam of the Old mosque resided.65

62
TT167, pp. 15-16.
63
TT167, pp. 15-16.
64
Evkaf Kamil Kepeci 757, Ayverdi (1982), p. 221.
65
Consult Table 22: No. 7 of the appendix; TT167, pp.7, 15; TTD187, p. 110.

150
Therefore, it seems that the merging of the two quarters and the obliteration of the first

patron’s name occurred in the interim of 38 years between 1530 and 1568. Since, the

obliteration of the title ‘Old mosque’ from the town’s collective memory occurred at least a

century before the restoration (1677) of the mosque from a certain sipahi66, then, the

association of the mosque with Hayreddin is not derived from its restoration, but needs to be

further investigated with reference to deferent parameters.

The second, in finanscial scale, charitable foundation operating in early 16th century

Gümülcine was the cami’i şerif; which has been preserved to the present day as an

operational shrine by the Muslim community of Gümülcine. Kiel dated the mosque in the

last decades of the 16th century based on the style of the Iznik tiles used in the revetments of

the mihrab.67 However, the archival reference of the vakf of the cami’i şerif in the 1530

register68 predates the monument and establishes a dating in the beginning of the 16th century.

Further information is provided on the salaries of three of its functionaries: Mevlana hatib

Hoca received the amount of 1,835 as generated from urban and provincial sources such as

shops, orchards and allotments, the imam Hoca with a salary of 1,160 akçes and the muezzin

Hoca with 453, all together receiving a total of 4,148 akçes. 69

The town’s expansion through the formation of the new quarters at the end of the 15th

and beginning of the 16th century can be most convincingly attributed to the mass deportation

[sürgün] of settlers. The broad infusion of Tatar and Yürük tribesmen can be recorded in

Rumeli since Mehmed Çelebi’s time, as having followed an exclusively rural pattern of

settlement. This infusion kept on through later periods too, though in a different trend.

66
Çelebi (2003), p. 37:
“This mosque which has been dismantled from the wind,
Felt into a completely ruinous state
The sipahi pronounced as the date of its restoration
The heart of the mosque, a wonder(ous), illuminated place”1088 (1677).
67
Kiel (1971)¹, pp. 422-423; S. Doukata, “Yeni mosque”,Ottoman Architecture in Greece- Hellenic Ministry of
Culture Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, Athens, 2008, pp. 321-323.
68
TT167, p. 15
69
TT167, p. 15.

151
During Murad II and Mehmed II’s reigns Tatars and Yürüks, in broad terms, tribesmen from

Anatolia were arriving in Rumeli as guilds of craftsmen; a fact which can justify their urban

settlement. Foremost, law books from the reign of Mehmed II attest that the largest

concentration of Yürüks and Tatars to have been transplanted in the littoral of Dimetoka,

Gümülcine and Ferecik is to be traced in the period between the years 1456-1467.70

Evidence of the urban settlement of these groups of settlers can be recovered from the

1530 and 1568 registers.71 Although the first survey does not provide us with the onomastic

breakdown of each quarter’s residents, it lists the quarters along with their final countdowns

in households, celibates and exempted. We can then attest that there are 48 individuals listed

in 1530 and 42 in 1568 as çeltukçı, eşkuncu, yamak, yağci, küreci and akıncıs. These

categories, which reflect the transplanted Yürük nomads, speak for the state’s promptness to

establish a class of peasants-soldiers that would secure the colonization project of the Balkan

lands. Eşkuncus were irregular cavalryman, practically sipahis who assumed the title after

they joıned the campaigns. They were assigned with timars in the lands of their settlement

and enjoyed tax exemptions.72

A. The ‘imaret-cami’ of Hacı Evrenos revisited: from a proto-imperial ‘konak’ to an

imaret?

The ‘imaret-cami’ of Hacı Evrenos constituted the convergence point of proto-

Ottoman Gümülcine. The geo-reference of the town’s earliest monuments on the map, [i.e.],

the imaret and the ‘Old mosque’ made possible the reconstruction of the town’s çarsıya or

tarik-i ‘am (See map 2: axis Y1). Axis Y1 is identified with the extension route connecting Via

70
Gökbilgin (1957), pp. 21-29.
71
Consult Table 22: Nos. 1-17 of the appendix and TTD187, pp. 110-113 for the 1568 register.
72
Gökbilgin (1957), pp. 30-35.

152
Egnatia with the main entrance of the Byzantine castle (See map 2: A1). The ‘imaret was

facing to the tariki ‘am and it was erected in close proximity to the main gate of the

Byzantine castle. In this sense, it reflects the accustomed proto-Ottoman site reasoning we

attested at Bursa, Dimetoka and as we will see, at Siroz.73 According to this, the first

Ottoman monuments which were erected outside the city-walls were aligned along pre-

tracked routes of acess that extended from the gates of the Byzantine castle. In this sense, the

orientation of the monument as allowing to the tariki ‘am justifies the lack of a kibla

orientation for the building.

The first scholar to have published the monument was Kiel in his articles from 1971

and 1983.74 In the first, he suggested that it was a typical example of an early T-shaped

mosque, but of a plan and set-up of which there exist no other examples. Although, Ayverdi

noticed that there is no evidence of a central section of the revak, he agreed with Kiel’s

overall analysis and only objected to the size of the reconstructed revak.75 Doukata and

Bakirtzis who discussed the imaret after 1980s, although, they complied with Kiel’s argument

as a T-shaped mosque, observed main discrepancies to his architectural examination: the

73
Consult the ‘Town-planning conception’ sections of chapters 1. and 3.
74
Kiel (1971)¹, pp. 415-444; Kiel (1983), pp. 117-138.
75
I am providing the translation of Ayverdi’s text, since all articles on the ‘imaret made use of his work, but
they did not notice his objection to Kiel’s description. “The Gazi Hacı Evrenos mescid and imaret: we have in
our hands the Gazi Hacı Evrenos foundation deed from Siroz. But it doesn’t refer to its foundation at
Gümülcine. It only cites the deceased Sami Hacı Hacı Evrenos from 1950’s, who was the first decendant to
become an administrator of the vakf with such an epithet. Evliya and three documents of the Evkaf Kamil
Kepeci class refer to the mescid at Gümülcine. In one document it even appears the hall lot of the vakfs at
Yenice-i Vardar, Gümülcine, Siroz, Selanik and Vodine. The imaret is preserved in a state of ruins. Kiel provided
a ground-plan of the imaret. The alterations inferred at the right wing and the central dome are shown on the
tentative ground-plan in a different sketched line. His inspection, at its biggest part, is correct. Besides, the
building could not have been of a different type. Still, evidences have only survived from the right wing.
However, it is not possible that the revak was roofed with four cross-vaults, since no evidence is shown of a
middle opening of the porch. Additionally, the size of the columns is also doubtful. May as it be, since his
drawing gives us an idea, we include this as a picture. As it can been seen from the pictures, the building exists
but only at a miserable state. The masonry is of the type of alternating layers. Still the domes are carrying their
tile coating with the lower sequences made of old tiles, while the upper sequences of newer, round tiles.
Ayverdi (1982), p. 220.

153
central compartment of the tripartite structure is open on the north side, it has no frontal

portico and there are no remains of a minaret.76

In 2008 when the articles from Doukata and Bakirtzes appeared, Lowry published the

first in a series of books on the process of Ottomanization in Northern Greece. In this, he

presented literary evidence which extended the theory that the initial allocation of the

building was that of Hacı Evrenos’ residence, before the transfer of his seat from Gümülcine

to Siroz in 1384. Quoting from Lowry, the Ottoman chronographer Gelibolu Ali from the

second half of 16th c.writes: “after he had lived in Gümülcine for a period, he converted his

home there into an imaret and han and moved to Siroz. After he had conquered Yenice

Vardar he converted his home in Siroz into an imaret and han and moved to Yenice”, b) “it is

related that when the famous Commander was residing in Gümülcine he was disturbed by

some incident and moved to Siroz. At that point in time he converted his houses in

Gümülcine into an imaret. Afterwards he was unhappy and left Siroz as well. When he came

to Yenice Vardar he settled down there. Then he endowed his houses in Siroz to his imaret.

When the time had come that he journeyed to the other world his Palace in Vardar was also

turned into an imaret. It is well-known that the aforesaid pious foundation is permitted to be

the recipient of the incomes of several prosperous villages”.77

In view of this ground-breaking testimony and in conjunction with a significant

schematic deviation from the accustomed plan of the T-shaped mosque that both so-called

‘imarets’ of Hacı Evrenos at Gümülcine and Yenice Vardar present, we should then seriously

examine the possibility of this being the earliest sample of Ottoman vernacular architecture

that survives to our days. Although, the dating of the monument has been defined with a

precision, the question of its architectural identification is still under discussion. In this
76
S. Doukata, “Imaret”, Ottoman Architecture in Greece-Hellenic Ministry of Culture Directorate of Byzantine
and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, Athens, 2008, pp. 324-326; C. Bakirtzis - P. Xydas, “Imaret, Komotini, Greece”,
in A. Stephanidou (ed.), Kosmikē Mesaiōnikē Architektonikē sta Balkania 1300-1500 kai ē diatērēsē tēs,
Thessaloniki, 2009, pp. 294-295; Lowry (2008), pp. 41-47; Lowry (2009), pp.32-34.
77
Lowry (2008), pp. 41-43.

154
section, we will examine whether a theory extending the possibility that the monument has

undergone two utilitarian phases, from a house to an ‘imaret could be typologically

supported.

The Gümülcine paradigm is a tripartite structure which comprises of an axially

arranged, volumetric unit of domed sofa-vaulted eyvan as devised by Eren, flanked by two

side rooms [tabhanes] equipped with storage spaces and fireplaces. The domed sofa section

measures 7.40 x 7.60 m. Its dome is supported from south on the vaulted eyvan and from

east and west on two arches tectonic to the walls by the means of pendentives (See pl. 28).

What constitutes essential diversion from any parallel of the type is the fact that the domed

sofa remains open.

Pl. 28:
Ground
plan of the
imaret of
Hacı
Evrenos at
Gümülcine
(Bakirtzēs-
Xydas
2008, pp.
294-295)

According to the T-shaped mosque theory, the monument would be categorised under

the I planimetric sub-typo as devised by Dogan.78 In this case, the domed sofa functions as

the pivotal unit that allows access to the prayer space proper and to the side rooms.

Typological parallels can be then considered the ‘imarets of Koca Mehmed Paşa at Osmancık

(1439) (See pl. 29), the Mezid Bey at Edirne (1441-42) and to a lesser extent, since they have a

portico, the Gazi Mihal (1422) and Beylerbeyi (1429) ‘imarets at Edirne. None of these

78
A.I. Doğan, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Tarıkat Yapıları, Tekkeler, Zaviyeler ve Benzer Nitelikteki Fütuvvet Yapıları,
PhD Thesis, İTÜ, İstanbul, 1977, pp. 109-199.

155
examples nor, for the matter, do any of the inspected ‘imaret parallels, exhibit an open domed

sofa unit axially arranged within a tripartite layout with lateral gravity.

Pl. 29 In search of typological parallels: a) Abdullah Muhin Zaviye (Emir 1994, vol.1, pl. 118) and b)
various zaviyes bearing similarities with the Gümülcine ground plan (Dogan 1977, pp. 196, 212)

However, one monument from the broader spectrum of the zaviye-cami’ type presents

such a dynamic treatment of the domed sofa unit. This is the mescid of Akçebe Sultan at

Alanya dating from the 1230s. A single domed space is abutted by a domed sofa-vaulted

eyvan unit, which form together a rectangle. Access is allowed from the main domed unit

and the domed sofa, which is entirely open at one side.79 However, contrary to our example

the arched opening does not occur along the axis of the vaulted eyvan and more importantly

the domical unit of dome sofa-vaulted eyvan is not bound within a tripartite layout with

lateral gravity.

To return to the ‘imaret, the fact that the axially arranged domed sofa unit remains

open means that is being turned into a free-standing eyvan. The moment this qualitative shift

is perceived the layout of the imaret can be read as a tripartite layout with an axial eyvan. In

this context, the frontal eyvan can be left open since it allows to an inner courtyard or in any

case is perceived as bounded by perimetric fencing. Then the architectural parallels are

79
O. Aslanapa, Anadolu’da ilk Türk mimarisi başlangıcı ve gelişmesi, Ankara 1991, pp. 60-61.

156
infinite. Tripartite layouts with axially arranged vaulted eyvans flanked by lateral rooms that

allow access to an inner courtyard [the sofa] are attested in Ottoman vernacular architecture.80

As evidence one could point to the Ottoman houses of Suratlı Malike at Tire and the

residence of Selime Hatun at Adana (See Pl. 30).

Pl. 30 Tire Suratlı Malike and Adana Selime Hatun residences (Eldem 1955, p. 53) and the yazlık
compartments of the Şifahane of the Bayezid II complex at Edirne (1488) (Photo: Bessi)

Tripartite vernacular structures with axially arranged eyvans where used in our

analysis as archetypes in order to derive the core planimetric scheme and to stress the

residential character of the type. However, the actual parallel survives not in a synchronic

frame to our 14th century ‘imaret, but in a 16th century building, namely the main Şifahane

section of Bayezid II’s külliye at Edirne (1488). The octagonal layout of the Şifahane

arranges four tripartite units—planimetric micrographs of the ‘imaret—around an inner

domed courtyard (See pl. 31). To the entrance of the octagon leads a corridor which is

comprised of identical units arranged in a manner so as to face one another. These domed

sofa-lateral chambers tripartite layouts were discerned into kışlak and yazlık and were meant

80
S.H. Eldem, Türk Evi Osmanlı Dönemi, İstanbul, 1955, pp. 28-53.

157
for the accommodation of the patients. Thus, the residential dimension of these structures

should be seriously considered.

Pl. 31 The imaret of Hacı Evrenos at Gümülcine and the interior of the Şifahane of Bayezid II complex at
Edirne (1488) (Photo: Lowry-Erünsal 2010 and Bessi)

In view of the frontal eyvan opening employed as an attested architectural convention

in the ‘imaret of Hacı Evrenos at Gümülcine— and more clearly at Yenice-i Vardar— as

much as it reconfirms Emir’s initial theory with regards to the dynamic character of the

volumetric unit domed sofa-vaulted eyvan, it would be difficult to put forward an argument

without accepting the agency of the scheme of a court with four eyvans traditionally extended

by Eyice.81 What we propose is that both monuments under Hacı Evrenos’ patronage were

created under the synergistic influence of both schemes as hybrids. This became possible

thanks to the multi-functional character of both types. On that respect, we can refer to the

well tracked dimension of the domed sofa-vaulted eyvan as the domical unit of various spatial

81
S. Emir, Erken Osmanlı mimarliğinda çok işlevli yapılar: kentsel kolonizasyon yapılar olarak zaviyeler, Izmir
1994, vol. I. pp. 25-30.

158
organizations. Its recurrence in a 16th century’s Şifahane shows how resilient and versatile a

scheme it was. Its versatility becomes further evident from the fact that it has served a great

scope of religious and secular purposes from mosques, gonbats and ziyaretgahs to medreses,

daruşifas, hans, pavilions and konaks (See pls. 32-33). In this sense, the plasticity of the scheme

is unquestionable.

Pl. 32 Hacı Evrenos imarets at Gümülcine and Yenice-i Vardar (Lowry-Erünsal 2010, pp. 30, 88)

Pl. 33: Khorasan : a) Kermani mosque at Torbate Cam (14th c.) and b) Cuma mescid at Bastam (13th
c.) (Photo: Bessi)

159
 Therefore, we should seriously concider the possibility that the initial construction of

the Hacı Evrenos imaret at Gümülcine meant to house his household, which can be thus

identified as his ‘konak’. Given the fact that, only one construction phase of the monument

can be identified, we can conclude that the conversion from a house to an ‘imaret was

possible because the first use was compatible with the second. That is to say, the building

continued accommodating a dwelling function with a shift from the private to public sphere.

The schematic deviation from the T-shaped mosque remains a reminder of its first use and

corroborates the written source attesting to its initial building as the ‘konak’ of Hacı Evrenos.

However, nowadays we only see part of the initial phase. The domed sofa unit remained

exposed because it was enveloped within a courtyard that has not been preserved nowadays.

Unpublished excavational data that came to light by the 15th Directorate of Antiquities

reveled remnants of a perimetric wall.82

To summarise, this section has argued that although Hacı Evrenos’ financial

predominance in Gümülcine cannot but be incontestable, the broader project of

Ottomanization was sustained in the frontier principalities [uç beyliks] of the Balkans through

the activities of the Ahis. In return for their services in conquering these lands, the first

sultans awarded to them land freeholds [mülk] or concessions of the profits generated from

appointed lands, which they used for the establishment of a type of convent, the zaviye. The

examination of the archival material has shown that the first zaviyes established in Gümülcine

were endowned with gardens, orchards and abandoned lands, the cultivation of which along

with the laying of further infrastructure on pivotal thouroughfares ensured the maintenance

and enhancement of the urban network and suggests the role of the ahis as cornerstones of

stability within the urban context. In light of the developed network of the zaviyes, it

82
For this information I am indebted to the archaeologist Ms. Sophia Doukata from the 12th Directorate of
Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities of Kavala.

160
becomes understood that the first sultans conceptualized a dynamic mechanism, which

generated tailor-made administrative solutions for the newly conquered lands by empowering

capable administrators (ahis-dervishes) with administrative and fiscal autonomy (tax-

exemptions).

The pragmatic and rational mind of these first agents of Ottomanization reflects in the

morphological development of the early Ottoman town. The elucidation of the axial

morphological solution adopted in Gümülcine proves that early Ottoman patterns of

settlement far exceed the simplistic description of an anarchal settlement in the uninhabited,

rural or peripheral zones of the cities. The attested systemic arrangement, which evolved into

a pattern of settlement, assumed the form of a stable denominator indicated by a river—the

Şirkalı—and a major route—the Via Egnatia—in relation to which the çarşıya or tarika ‘am

(axes Y and Y1) was developed. This level of morphological synthesis pressuposes the

development of a monitoring process that allowed the early Ottomans to assess how the

landscape of the outskirts was configured and then, to canalize access to the citadel

accordingly. In this sense, the case-study of Gümülcine came to corroborate the argument put

forward in the introduction on how the formation of the Ottoman town lies in the synergy of

two pivotal geographical divisions, [i.e.],the kernel and the fringe belt.

161
Chapter 3: Siroz

162
A. Post-conquest Siroz: the reconfiguration of a town

Archival material

The review of the archival material on the demographic synthesis of Siroz means to

serve the purpose of systemizing the stages of urban development within a periodization

structure parallel to that for the town of Dimetoka. The published archival material on the city

of Siroz, when compared to other major cities of the lower Balkans, is ample.1 Due to the

extensiveness of the published material, it was necessary that a selection of pivotal surveys

was made and that a certain period of study was defined. The criteria for the selection can be

summed up as follows: the surveys were of the extensive variety [mufassal], that only short

interims should have elapsed between surveys and that they were, wherever possible, dated

with precision. Therefore, we will focus on the period of 30 years of urban history extending

from the first, surviving survey of 14542 until the 1478 survey3, with the inclusion of the

intermediate survey of “Kiril i Metodji”.4

The “Kiril i Metodji” survey which dates from Mehmed II’s reign, contains entries

concerning a period of twenty-two years (1456-1478) and is thought to precede the 1478

register.5 The importance of the “Kiril i Metodji” survey lies in the fact that it is the earliest

source of analytic information on the breakdown of the quarters; since, the securely dated

1454 survey provides us with only two generic entries of Muslims and Christians with no

1
Stoyanovski (1978); Balta (1995); Lowry (2008), pp. 140-208.
2
BOA. TT3 858 (1454-1455), pp. 156-173; This survey has been published by Stoyanovski (1978). However, I
did not have the chance to consult this source. Therefore, for the use of any data extrapolated from this
survey, I relied on my own readings and the notes from Balta(1995). The dating of the survey in 1454 as
against the previously accepted date of 1464-1465 was argued by Ursinus (1986), pp. 25-36.
3
BOA. TT7 883 (1478-1479), pp. 220-237. An abridged, first publication of its transcription is provided by
Balta(1995), pp. 258-260; a detailed transcription is provided by Lowry(2008), pp. 180-184.
4
Narodna Biblioteka“Kiril i Metodji”(Sofia), Orientalski Otdel: Fonds 122 A, a.e. 425A: Balta (1995), pp. 251-
256.
5
The justification of why this survey precedes the 1478 is provided by Balta (1995), p. 251, footnote 1.
163
reference to the breakdown of the quarters. In this way, it is reminicent of the practice we

encountered in the 1485 survey from Dimetoka with regards to the registering of the Christian

population.6

In this section, we will attempt to establish an image of the demographic fluctuations,

examine what might have caused them and how these were reflected in the urban fabric. At

the second stage, using the same methodological approach as in the previous chapters, we will

cross-reference demographic with topographic data in our attempt to periodize the stages of

urban development.

The 1454 survey contains a total of 573 adult married male-headed households

[hanes]; from this total a striking 37% share is registered with their occupations. 7 This

practice served to denote newly arrived settlers, which for the facilitation of the scribers

would be differentiated among them with their occupations as an identifier.8

From the above, we can attest that some 70 years after the conquest of the town, the

Muslim demographic supremacy was insured through the transplantation of new settlers. The

repopulation of the town was devised through the application of forced deportations

accompanied by voluntary migration.9 During Murad I’s reign (1360-1389), deportation of

new-settlers to Siroz can be attested on two occasions. In the first case, the seizure of Kavala,

Drama, Siroz and Karaferya valley by the forces of Lala Şahin Paşa was followed in 1374-5

by the colonization of the Siroz hinterland with migratory yürüks from the Saruhan

principality.10 The second influx of Yürük masses from Saruhan (Manisa) to the Siroz and

Vardar valleys was realized either after the battle of Murad I with the Karamanoğulları in

1386-7, when Kara Timurtaş Paşa passed over to Anatolia with all the military forces of

6
Consult Table 1 of the appendix.
7
Consult Table 25 of the appendix.
8
Lowry (2008), p. 177.
9
Consult discussion under subheading “Colonization practises” of the introduction.
10
Aktepe (1953), pp. 300-301.
164
Rumeli; or following the conquest of Istip, Drama and Siroz in 1386 when the need for the

repopulation of the newly conquered areas was acutely sensed.11

By all means, Yürüks cannot be accounted as the only ethnic group, which was

transplanted to Siroz; Lowry in his transcription of the 1478 survey, allows us to catch a

glimpse at the 4.4% share of the total residents carrying ethnic or geographic markers instead

of patronyms.12 A lesser proportion of ethnic names appears in the 1454 survey, which

registers two Arnavuts, two Karamanlus, a Selanikli, a Sofialu, a Bursalu, two Çerkez, two

Acems and two Arabs.13 These samples on their own may seem small; though, they should be

read more as an indicative flavour of the lands from whence these settlers came and an

allusion to the scale of the demographic turbulence caused by new settlement, which

contributed to the repopulating of Siroz.

The influx of the new settlers in the 1454 survey has been interpreted as having

followed the fall of Istanbul and thus, it is placed between the autumn of 1453 and before the

end of year 1454, when the survey was compiled.14 Then, the time of their settlement will be

used as the terminus post quem for the formation of the vakfs appearing in the “Kiril i

Metodji”, while the terminus ante quem should be set just before the 1478, when the quarters,

which bear the names of these vakfs, appear in the Bulgarian survey.15

The 1454 survey registers the following five vakfs: the endowment of the small,

communal mosque of Gazi Hudavendigar [vakf-ı mescid-i Gazi Hüdavendigar], the

endowment of the small, communal mosque [vakf-ı mescid-i Ismail Bey], the endowment of

the dervish convent of Gazi Evrenos [vakf-ı zaviye-yi Gazi Evrenos], the endowment of

Turhan Bey [vakf-ı Turhan Bey], the endowment of Bahaeddin Paşa [vakf-ı Bahaeddin Paşa]

11
Barkan (1950-1951), pp.67-68, 72; Gökbilgin (1957), pp. 13-14.
12
Lowry (2008), p. 176.
13
TT3 858 (1454-1455), pp. 156-173.
14
Karanastasis (1991), pp. 228-229, footnote 94.
15
Balta (1995), pp. 27, 251 and footnote 757.
165
and the endowment of Mahmud and Davud Çelebi, descendents of Kara Halil Hayreddin

Paşa [vakf-ı Mahmud ve Davud Çelebi, evlad-ı Kara Halil].16

From these six vakfs four can be identified with namesake quarters of the “Kiril i

Metodji” survey; namely, the quarter of the mosque [mahalle-yi cami’] evolved around the

mescid of Gazi Hudavendigar that was interrelated with the endowment of the descendents of

Halil Hayreddin Paşa [vakf-ı evlatlik Halil Hayreddin Paşa].17 The quarter of the dervish

convent of Gazi Evrenos [mahalle-yi zaviye-yi Gazi Evrenos] developed around the dervish

convent of Gazi Evrenos [vakf-ı zaviye-yi Gazi Evrenos], the quarter of Isma’il [mahalle-yi

Isma’il] developed around the small, communal mosque [vakf-ı mescid-i Ismail Bey] and the

last quarter developed around the zaviye of Bahaeddin Paşa.18 Then, these four quarters

along with the dervish convent [zaviye] of Şeyh Bedreddin and the quarter of the Royal mint

[mahalle-yi darbhane] can be securely reconstructed as the town’s proto-Ottoman core that

chronologically extends from the town’s conquest in 1383 until Murad II’s reign.19

The vakfs of the proto-Ottoman phase and their topographic identification

The vakf of the mosque of Gazi Hudavendigar (Murad I), which is interchangeably

registered as Eski, ‘Atik or Kebir cami’, is the first mosque erected by the Ottomans soon after

the town’s conquest. According to its dedicatory inscription cited by Evliya it was erected by

Murad I’s grand vizir Kara Çandarlı Halil.20 Oruç Bey tarihi recounts that Murad I charged

16
TT3, pp. 183, 202, 236, 238, 240 ;Balta (1995), 25-26.
17
See footnote 68.
18
See footnote 108.
19
Georgios Kaftantzēs, Ē historia tēs poleos tōn Serrōn, vol. 3 (Thessaloniki, 1996), 176-177. Kaftantzēs
discusses thoroughly the sources related to the first occupation of the city in 1373 and establishes a dating for
th
its final conquest in 19 of September 1383 based on references derived from five codices.
20
The inscription as translated by Lowry reads: “In the name of the God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This
House of Prayer was built for God, may his name be exalted, in the time of Sultan Murad the son of Orhan, by
166
his grand vizier with the conquest of Siroz, which was realised in 1385 after an ambush

devised by certain Azap Bey.21

Pl. 34 Eski mosque with the minaret of Tatar Hatun mosque showing at the far right corner
(Kaftantzes 1991, p. 53)

According to the 1454 survey, the salaries of the functionaries of the mosque were

secured through the allocation of various urban revenues to the vakf. Among these sources of

income are registered: a) an annual contribution of 7.200 akçes derived from the cizye on the

residents of the city, b) rents from 6 shops and c) a share of 1.080 akçes accrued from the

revenues of the vakf of the Çandarlı descendents, which was meant for the salary of the imam.

The Bulgarian survey provides us with a more detailed breakdown of the revenues and

expenditures composition. In this source, the attempt to balance the total revenue inflow by

the expenses of the current period can be attested; since, the detailing of 10.560 akçes of

income (secured through cizye and rents) was meant to cover the annual expenditure of

11.280 akçes for the cost of purchased staples (oil and straw) and the salaries of the

the one who stands in need of his Creator, Halil the son of Ali al-Çandarlı in the year h. 787 (1385-1386)”. Lowry
(2008), p. 145.
21
Oruç Beğ tarihi (2008), p. 28.
167
functionaries. By 1478, the revenues of the vakf were increased to 13.080 akçes and two

grants from the vakf of Esleme Hatun were meant for the purchase of annual oil supplies.22

The Eski cami’ along with its medrese and hammam constituted the first külliye of the

town, which was complemented with the posterior endowment of the bedesten by Halil’s son

Ibrahim Paşa (See map 3: B3, B1). For the topographic identification of Eski hammam23, we

adopted Nikolaou’s view24, who locates it at the north-east of Eski cami’ at the junction of the

streets E. Andronikou kai Plastira, rather than the most recently argued position by the

junction of Solomou and Papapavlou streets (See Pl. 35).25

Pl. 35 Remains of Eski hammam from the last quarter of 14th century at E. Andronikou and Plastera
streets. (See map 3: B3) (Photo: Bessi)

Eski hammam appears in two photos published by Tzanakares from the foundation of the

National Bank’s branch in 1918 (See Pls. 35-36). Still, Tzanakares did not spot the hammam in

the picture, let alone recognising its identity.26 Three domes of the hammam are clearly

22
Balta (1995), pp. 92-93, 106-108, 175.
23
Ayverdi (1982), p. 283; Uzunçarsılı (1974), p. 26; Balta (1995), p. 171.
24
Nikolaou (1977), p. 25, Pl. 1.
25
Lowry (2008), pp. 147-149.
26
Tzanakares (1995), pp. 163-168.
168
shown on the picture; the two higher ones correspond to the tepidarium and the side, the

lower one to the hot section proper.

Pl. 36 The Eski hammam in a 1918 picture, which depicts the foundation of the National Bank’s branch
at Siroz (The picture was published by Tzanakares 1995, pp. 166-167. The identification of the
monument is product of my own research)

Pl. 37 The Eski hammam. (The picture was published by Tzanakares 1995, p. 130. The identification of
the monuments is product of my own research)

169
 The other hammam at Solomou and Papapavlou should be identified with the

Debbağlar hammam (See map 3: C7). The placement of the monument on the reconstructed

map revealed its spatial affinity with the adjacent Debbağlar cami’ and made its identification

incontestable (See map 3: C6). Therefore, although, the Debbağlar hammam was described by

Evliya as an old monument with pleasant water and ambience, it cannot be considered as

dating from any earlier than the second half of the 16th century.27

If this is correct, then why was the külliye placed at that position? The reconstructive

map shows that these three congruent parts of the külliye [mosque-hammam-bedesten] were

aligned along the çarşıya (axis Y). Axis Y constitutes the extension of the Byzantine çarşıya

(known as günlük) outside the walled city, which became the spine of the proto-Ottoman

settlement. As attested in the case-studies of Dimetoka and Gümülcine, the çarşıya and its

sub-routes (axis Y2) were extending from the gates of the Byzantine castle, such as the gate of

the Forum (See map 3: A1) and the A3 side-gate. That means that the arteries of the Ottoman

town correspond to pre-existent tracks of access and that the earliest külliye endowed to the

town was positioned based on the main gate of the castle (A1) as a reference. It becomes then

understood that the Ottomans marginalized the inner polarity (the Byzantine castle) and

reconfigured the town under the new, external polarity, which assumed the configuration of

the first Ottoman külliye of Siroz. The külliye constituted the converging point of the axial

system (axes Y-Y1-Y2), which regulated infrastructural development in the outer suburb [varoş].

We would also need to reflect on what the spatial interrelation of Eski cami’ with its

dependencies suggests? As shown on the reconstructed map, the hammam and the mosque

which are both dated from the last quarter of the 14th c. were built at a distance. If we accept

the prevailing dating for the bedesten in the second half of the 15th century, then this space

27
Ayverdi (1982), p. 283, entry no. 2587; “Ve Debbağlar hammam, kar-ı kadimdir, ab u hevası latifdir”, Çelebi
(2003), p. 59.
170
inbetween was filled by a century later. Given the spatial congruity of these three monuments

in conjunction with a number of architectural irregularities attested in the masonry of the

bedesten, it seems that such an interpretation cannot be considered as plausible. The

architectural survey of the bedesten under the subheading ‘Vakfs associated with extant

monuments’ of the current chapter means to establish its building phases and to readdress the

issue of its dating.

The last component of the külliye was the medrese which was located in the vicinity of

the cami’i Kebir. Evliya describes that the mosque was lacking a courtyard, as it was built on

a small plot of land, which justifies the placement of the medrese in the vicinity and not

within the precincts of the mosque.28 The same arrangement is also attested at Dimetoka,

where the Bayezid I [Mehmed Çelebi] mosque was lacking a courtyard and its medrese was

erected at a distance. Throughout the second half of the 16th century, the allocated revenue of

3,384 akçes meant to cover the salary of the müderris of the medrese, who was also serving as

the mütevelli of the vakf. This revenue was derived from the rents of 16 shops within the

town.29

The second most significant vakf of the proto-Ottoman phase that of the zaviye of Hacı

Evrenos (See map 3: B4).30 Evliya recounts that Murad I conquered Siroz for the first time in

1376 by the hand of Hacı Evrenos; though, shortly after the Christians managed to reoccupy

the city. Once again, Hacı Evrenos conquered the city in 1385, who in order to prevent it

28
“ama teng mahalde bina olunmak ile haremi yoktur”, Çelebi (2003), p. 57.
29
Balta (1995), p. 134.
30
Based on the information provided by the “Description plates” nos. 6271, 6242, 6271-2 of the exchanged
land parcels, Kaftantzes reconstructed the position of the imaret as located at the junction of Rakintze-
Karaiskake-Miaoule and Kresnas streets. Kaftantzēs (1996), p. 270, footnote 205. Before the publication of
Balta’s work, he had published an historical picture with the following caption: “this is the mosque (medrese) of
Evrenos at the quarter of Evrenos Bey, which was to be found eastern from the neighbouring Idadi (imaret
quarter); further down, it can be seen the Sevayit Bey cami’i i at Esleme Hatun quarter. This was burnt in 1955
and in its place was erected the house of G.Floka (Kresnas Str. 3). This picture has been taken from a bridge
over Klopotitza tributary, the nowadays Kōstopoulou street”. Kaftantzes (1986), p. 108, Pl. 196.
171
from becoming their stronghold once more, tore down parts of the castle.31 Although we

cannot rely on the dates of the conquest as provided by Evliya 32, a valuable piece of

information remains that Hacı Evrenos played a key role in the conquest of Siroz and as a

result, Murad I (1360-1389) bestowed on him extensive part of the lands conquered under his

sword. This is confirmed by a 1386 berat of Murad I compiled at Bursa that endows to

Evrenos the areas of Gümülcine, Siroz, Manastır, Behleşte and Hurpişte as sancak.33 The

lands of his vakf encompassed a surface of 1.200 km. of the Vardar valley stretching between

the rivers of Aliakmon and Axios.34

According to the canonical law, Gaza attainments were meant either to be expended

for the benefit of the deprived and the travellers or to be set aside as a reserve in the interest of

the future Muslim generations35; under this spirit, Murat I granted to Hacı Evrenos extensive

part of the lands conquered under his sword as freehold property [mülk]. Subsequently, Hacı

Evrenos converted the freehold property [mülk] granted by Murad I into vakfs and appointed

from amongst his descendents administrators, who would manage the revenue generating

sources allocated for the maintenance of his pious foundations.36

The endowment deed of his zaviye at Siroz was granted by Mehmet Çelebi (1413-

1421) and dates from 1415; the sources of income allocated to the zaviye can be identified in

the taxation collected from the villages of Valtos, Gölka and Malıcay in the Vardar valley, of

Toumba at Zıhna and of Bolka, along with the revenues generated from orchards, vineyards,

31
“777 tarihinde Gazı Hudavendigar fethidir be dest-i Gazi Evrenos. Ba’dehu küffar-ı bed-kırdar-ı murdar bu
şehre yine istila edüp yine sene 786 tarihinde Gazi Evrenos feth edüp bir dahi küffar-ı haksara cay-ı me’men
olmasın deyü kal’asın cabeca rahnedar etmişdir”, Çelebi (2003), p. 56; Moschopoulos (1936), p. 158.
32
For a thorough discussion on the conditions and dates of the conquest as derived from the Byzantine
sources: Kaftantzēs (1996), pp. 175-177.
33
Z. S. Zengin, “İlk dönem Osmanlı vakfiyelerinden Serez’de Evrenuz Gazi’ye ait zaviye vakfiyesi,” Vakıflar
Dergisi, vol. 28, 2004, p. 96.
34
Vassilēs Dēmētriadēs, “Forologikes katēgories tōn chōriōn tēs Thessalonikēs kata tēn Tourkokratia,”
Makedonika Μακεδονικά vol. 20, 1980, pp. 375-448.
35
Barkan (1963), p. 240; Köprülü (1942), pp. 26,29.
36
Balta (1995), pp. 139-143.
172
shops, salt mines, an estate and plots at Siroz.37 The 15th century structure was rebuilt in the

18th century by one of his descendents, Isa Bey. According to the testimonial of Esat Serez

who wrote on the Hacı Evrenos Cami’ of Siroz: “it was a large, historical cami’-yi şerif,

located at the quarter of Eğri Çinar (See map 3: B7), where the famous Bedreddin Simavi was

hung. The structure which was built under the supervision of Hacı Evrenos himself had fallen

into ruins and it was built by his descendent Isa Evrenos in the year 1778. It had a large dome

covered with lead and one slender and very tall minaret”.38

The sources of income allocated to the zaviye can be identified in the record of

taxation collected from the villages Valtos, Gölka and Malıcay in the Vardar valley, of

Toumba at Zıhna and of Bolka39; along with the revenues generated from orchards, vineyards,

shops, salt mines, an estate and some inns at Siroz. The data extrapolated from the Bulgarian

surveys, register revenues derived from the aforementioned village of Tumba, a farm [çiftlik]

within the boundaries of the neighbouring Kameniça quarter (See map 3: C13) and rents from

urban estates. In addition, three groups of dependants as suggested by Balta, are registered

under his vakf: the cema’ats of Christian slaves and Yürüks; in 1530, the first group remitted

to his vakf the amount of 60 akçes per capita for the ispençe, poll-tax and other of the

extraordinary taxes, while the second group remitted the amount of 1,533 akçes.40

The last group of dependants, namely the employees of his imaret, cannot be

associated, in my opinion, with the aforementioned groups. The entry of this group should be

rather connected with the group of dependants registered under his Gümülcine imaret; that is

to say, the nineteen households of his extended family at Gümülcine [ta’aluqat-ı

37
Zengin (2004), 97-99; Ayverdi (1982), 277. An idea of the total revenue allocated for the maintenance of the
zaviye can be derived from the tax registers. The data extrapolated from the 1454 survey are fragmented and
we have a concrete idea only of the contribution from the Toumba village (9,957 akçes); the 1519 survey
records revenues of of 43.664 akçes. Balta (1995), pp. 142, 144.
38
Lowry (2012), p. 27.
39
Zengin (2004), pp. 97-98.
40
Balta (1995), p. 141.
173
Evrenosluyan].41 As, there is no indication of these groups contributing to the income of the

vakf, we can assume that their entry meant to denote that they were provided for by the vakf.

This means that his descendents or individuals from his household at Gümülcine and Siroz,

would be provided for after his death by being appointed to certain positions or by simply

having a stipend allocated for them.

Finally, in order to realise the financial scale of his ‘imaret at Siroz, we would need to

compare its total revenue with that of his ‘imaret at Gümülcine for which we possess concrete

information. Nonetheless, the data for the Siroz ‘imaret in 1454 are fragmented and from all

sources of revenue (as recorded in the 1414 vakfiyye), we have a solid idea only of the

contribution from the Toumba village. This amounts to 9,957 akçes42, in the same time when

the amount of some 111,664 akçes was allocated to his ‘imaret at Gümülcine43, through a

variety of urban resources, taxation from villages, lump sums passed on from previous years

and the sales of the yield. A more balanced impression is provided from the 1519 data, when

the income from Siroz reached the amount of 43.664 akçes and from Gümülcine an income of

55,902 akçes was recorded.44

The third vakf which relates to an identified quarter is that of ‘İsma’il Bey (See map 3:

B5, D3 and map 5: ii) located to the south of the Hacı Evrenos quarter.45 The identification of the

quarter is provided by Kaftantzes, who although being able to define the borders of the

quarter with precision (as shown on the map), identified the mosque of the quarter with the

mosque D3, which clearly lies outside the boundaries of the quarter.46 The 1454 survey

records the vakf of the mescid of ‘Isma’il Bey, as being endowed with 6 shops that remitted

41
See Table 20: No. I.11 of the appendix.
42
Balta (1995), p. 144.
43
Mc.Yz. 0.89 (1455-1473), p. 30; For the analytic breakdown of the revenues consult Table 21 of the appendix.
44
Balta (1995), p. 142; BOA, TT.d. 70 925(1519), p. 32 and Table 21 of the appendix.
45
References on the name of the vakf and of the quarter are provided by Balta (1995), pp. 104-105, 252, 258,
263.
46
Kaftantzes (1996), p. 172.
174
annually to the vakf 620 akçes and a mill that remitted quarterly 400, thus some 1820 akçes of

total revenues.47 Since, Ayverdi records only the mosque of Evlad-ı Fatihan at the quarter of

‘İsma’il Bey48, and no reference to either a mescid or a mosque is made in Evliya’s list of the

town’s twelve Friday mosques49, we can extend the hypothesis that the Evlad-ı Fatihan Cami’

corresponds to the convertion of the aforementioned mescid into a mosque in the period after

1500s. If this is correct, then a communal mescid cannot be considered as outside the

boundaries of its quarter, which means that the identity of the D3 mosque remains still

undetermined.

Such a hypothesis seems plausible, since, ‘Isma’il Bey derives his right over the land

from the time of the conquest. Based on information retrieved from from the vakf of his

çiftlik, he can be associated with the period of the interregnum. Emir Süleyman granted

‘Isma’il Bey’s grandfather a mülk; the main bulk of his lands were at Ipsala and another part

should be with certainty reconstructed at Siroz. Under the confiscatory policy of Mehmed II

the mülk was dispersed in timars and during Bayezid II’s reign it was returned to ‘Isma’il

Bey’s son, Ilyas Çelebi. In 1485, ‘Isma’il Bey’s great granddaughter, Ayşe Hatun inherited

one third of the çiftlik, which she sold to Mustafa Paşa. Mustafa Paşa, in his turn, endowed

the land to a mosque and an ‘imaret he founded at Siroz.50 The mosque of Koca Mustafa

Paşa has survived to our days and we can also identify the name of its quarter. It was located

47
Information on the vakf and the namesake quarter: TT3, 202; Stoyanovski (1978), p. 185; Balta (1995), 104-
105, 252, 258, 263.
48
Ayverdi (1982), p. 279.
49
The mosques are: 1) Eski cami’i , 2) Zeyni Kadi cami’i, 3) Ahmed Paşa cami’i, 4) Makremeli cami’i, 5) Alaca
cami’i, 6) Selçuk Sultan cami’i, 7) Türbe-i Pür-envar cami’i, 8) Koca Mustafa cami’i, 9) Kara Ahmed cami’i, 10)
Kara Hasan cami’i, 11) Abdizade cami’i and 12) Ali Bey cami’i. Çelebi (2003), pp. 57-58.
50
Gökbilgin, XV-XVI asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa livasi, mukataalar, vakıflar, mülkler, p. 198; Balta (1995), pp. 108-
109.
175
within the confines of the quarter Bacdar Hayreddin, which was adjacent to ‘Isma’il Bey’s

quarter (See map 3: C14).51

The fourth vakf that constitutes one of the most venerated shrines of proto-Ottoman

Siroz is the vakf of the zaviye of Şeyh Bedreddin, located adjacent to the Orta Mezarlik (See

map 3: B6, B7). Although the exact date of its foundation is not known, as there is no reference

to the vakf in the 1454 survey and the earliest data are retrieved from the reign of Suleiman I

(1520-1566)52, Şeyh Bedreddin’s return to Asia Minor coincides with the period of the

interregnum (1402-143). From 1410 to 1413, he served as kazasker of Musa Çelebi, from

which position was removed and was exiled to Iznik by the contender to the throne Mehmed

Çelebi. However, he managed to escape to northern Thrace, where he revolted against the

state and expressed his intention to usurp the throne. He was defeated by the beylerbey

Bayezid Paşa, and was caught and hanged in 1416 in the courtyard of a shop within the

market of Siroz. From 1410 to 1413, he served as kazasker of Musa Çelebi, from which

position was removed and was exiled to Iznik by the contender to the throne Mehmed Çelebi.

However, he managed to escape to northern Thrace, where he revolted against the state and

expressed his intention to usurp the throne. He was defeated by the beylerbey Bayezid Paşa,

and was caught and hanged in 1420 in the courtyard of a shop within the market of Siroz.53

His body was buried in a türbe at Siroz, which was described by Babinger who visited

the city sometime after the population exchange (1926).54 The identification of its position

within the contemporary city-plan was realised by Zengines, who in collaboration with the

city-planner Nikolaou defined the street and the dimensions of its plot of land (16 sq.m.).55

This occupies in our reconstructive map the western fringes of Orta Mezarlık (See map 3: B7).

51
Consult discussion under the subheading: Vakfs associated with extant monuments, pp. 213-217.
52
TT167 937 (1530-1531), p. 78 and TT403 934 (1528-1529), p. 521 as cited in Balta (1995), pp. 119-120.
53
Uzunçarşılı (1982), pp. 362-365; Babinger (1921), p. 47.
54
Babinger (1928), pp. 100-102, 121.
55
Zengines (1996), p. 144, footnote 67.
176
In the same year, Kaftantzes published a series of historical pictures from the beginning of the

19th c. depicting the thatched türbe of the Şeyh, enveloped by the Qadiri zaviye.56

Pl. 38: Pür Envar and Qadiri zaviye of Şeyh Bedreddin

(Kaftantzes 1996, p. 183).

Ayverdi records five monuments as related to the zaviye and its precincts.57 The first

was the Emir Efendi cami’ located at the harim [courtyard] of the Şeyh Bedreddin türbe.58 He

56
Kaftantzes (1996), pp. 182-187; Konuk (2010), pp. 326-327.
177
further explains that this mosque was recorded under the entry of the Koca Emin Efendi

zaviye.59 Indeed, further down he records the zaviye of Koca Emin Efendi cami’, as being

located at the harem of the Şeyh Bedreddin tekye.60 The third monument was the mosque of

Pür Envar türbe; this is listed as the 7th Friday mosque by Evliya and is regarded as the actual

türbe of Şeyh Bedreddin by Ayverdi61. The fourth monument is the tekye of Bedreddin

Simavi and the fifth is the funerary tekye of the Simavi Şeyh Bedreddin. These are obviously

two different buildings; the latter should be reconstructed within Orta Mezarlık, where it was

located adjacent to the Orta Mezarlık cami’ (See Pl. 39), a 14th c. structure destroyed by the

Bulgarians in 1912.62 While, the Bedreddin zaviye proper should correspond to the humble

structures showing at Kaftantzes pictures, as encompassing the Pür Envar. This was

destroyed in 1938 by the Greek proprietors, who purchased the plot of land as an exchanged

property.

Pl. 39: Orta

Mezarlık
mosque
(14th c.
monument
repaired at a
later stage)
(Kaftantzes
1996, p.183).

57
It needs to be mentioned that the foundations related to Şeyh Bedreddin should be distinguished from these
pertaining to Bedreddin Bey’s quarter (C10), which is one of the quarters of the classical phase. These are: the
Bedreddin mahallesi mescidi and the zaviye of Hadice Hatun. Ayverdi (1982), pp. 276, 283.
58
Balta translates this part the other way around; that the türbe of Şeyh was to found in the mosque of Koca
Emir. Balta (1995), p. 120.
59
Ayverdi (1982), p. 276.
60
Ayverdi (1982), p. 279.
61
Ayverdi (1982), p. 281.
62
Ayverdi (1982), p. 280.
178
 An equally important foundation for the topography of proto-Ottoman Siroz was the

zaviye of Bahaeddin Paşa endowned by Emir Suleiman, Murad I and Bayezid I (1389-

1401).63 Its discussion has been left for the end of this section, as its topographic

identification lies on a logical, yet tentative hypothesis. Molla Bahaeddin, son of Hizir of

Tokat, participated in the conquest of Siroz in return for which, he was rewarded with lands

within the town.

Since, Tokat was not part of the proto-Ottoman state during the reign of Murad I, the

presence of Molla Bahaeddin reconfirms Barkan’s theory on the pivotal contribution of the

emigrating Anatolian populations to the formation of the early Ottoman state.64 Their role as

fermentation agents has been also discussed by Beldiceanu-Steinherr, who emphasized on the

identity of Bahaeddin and his father as şeyhs and founders of a zaviye. Besides, Gökbilgin

states that he and his father are explicitly described as mevlanas in the vakfiyye.65 According

to Beldiceanu: “the existence of Bahaeddin... attests to an important phenomenon, the

colonization of Rumeli by the dervishes”.66

According to his first vakfiyye from 1388, Bahaeddin endowed his zaviye with one

orchard, ten shops and seven houses within the city; based on his second vakfiyye from 1390,

the villages of Gümüş and Sarciste were conveyed to his zaviye by Bayezid I as a mülk.67 The

total revenue allocated to the zaviye amounted to 6,299 akçes in 1454 and 14,056 akçes in

1519.68

63
TT3, p. 240: vakf-ı merhum Bahaeddin Paşa merhumun Bayezid Hündavendigardan ve Emir Süleyman
Beyinden mülkiyet üzere mektubleri vardır zaviyeye sarf olunurmuş; The total revenue allocated to the zaviye
amounted to 6,299 akçes in 1454 and 14,056 akçes in 1519. Balta (1995), pp. 113-116.
64
Consult discussion under subheading “Colonization practises” of the introduction.
65
Gökbilgin (1952), p. 221 (second part).
66
Beldiceanu-Steinherr (1967), pp. 144-247; Balta (1995), pp. 113-116.
67
Gökbilgin (1952), p. 221 (second part).
68
Balta (1995), pp. 113-116.
179
 In 1995, Tzanakares published a picture of the so-called tekye, which stood until the

1930s at the junction of Kostopoulou with Merarxias streets (See map. 3: B8 and Pls. 40-41). From

the picture the following structure can be discerned: a diagonally arranged single-domed

space allowed to an inner courtyard, the shape of which cannot be defined. Ten chimneys are

shown on the south-east side of the courtyard, which correspond to the mutfak of the zaviye.

Therefore, we can deduce that the building under question was a zaviye-‘imaret and that the

courtyard made part of the structure. The dome is executed in the exact same fashion as that

of Hacı Evrenos ‘imaret at Gümülcine; it is a low dome with a flattened, perimetric rim and is

covered with tiles. This is unquestionably a 14th century zaviye.

Pl. 40: The

Bahaeddin
Paşa ‘imaret
in 1930. (The
picture was
published by
Tzanakares
1995, p. 242.
The
identification
of the
monument is
product of my
own research)

Pl. 41: Domes of Bahaeddin Paşa ‘imaret at Siroz and Hacı Evrenos ‘imaret at Gümülcine.
(Photo: Bessi)
180
 Amongst the proto-Ottoman monuments [Hacı Evrenos ‘imaret, ‘Isma’il Bey, Şeyh

Bedreddin ‘imaret] the tekye is the one closest to Eski cami’, an attestation which is consistent

with its dating as a 14th c. structure. Moreover, it lies on the Y2 axis and is aligned with the

Eski cami’, which explains the diagonal arrangement of the domed space in relation to the

road (Merarxias str.), as it was oriented south-east (towards Mecca). On the other hand, it is

positioned at the same latitude with Bedreddin’s zaviye, the second of the three zaviyes of the

proto-Ottoman phase and in this way allows a first glimpse to the conception of the proto-

Ottoman zoning, which will be discussed extensively in the town-planning section. Based on

these stylistic and topographic pieces of evidence, we can deduce that the tekye of the picture

was the zaviye of Bahaeddin Paşa.

The discussion of the vakfs of the proto-Ottoman phase will be concluded with the

only Ottoman foundation that was placed within the castle (See map 3: C1). The quarter of the

imperial mint [Darbhane] was placed within the castle by the eastern gate (See map 3: A7) and

close to the church of the Saints Antonios and Marina.69 The quarter is related to the vakf of

Hacı Kemal, attendant of the ancient imperial mint of Serres; the identity of the founder is

established in a berat dating from the reign of Mehmed II. However, the initial foundation of

the mint at Siroz was placed by Lowry in the reign of Mehmed Çelebi (1413-1421), based on

the evidence of a silver akçe struck in 1420.70 The vakf was maintained through the income

of 7,200 akçes secured from thirty shops, four houses, an orchard, a bakery and ten mills. By

the reign of Suleiman I, the allocated income of the vakf was increased to 12,314 akçes. The

1478 survey provides detailed information on the community of the mint, which based on an

imperial patent, was receiving exemption from all extraordinary levies and taxes.71

69
V. Papazoglou, “To nomismatokopeio Serrōn,” Serraika Analekta, vol. 4, 2006, p. 120.
70
Lowry (2008), pp. 177-179.
71
Balta (1995), pp. 145-146.
181
Unpublished cartographic evidence: the 1914 topographic survey, the assessor plates of

1923 and the methodology towards the reconstruction of the map of Ottoman Siroz (map 3)

For the case-study of Siroz, the reconstruction of the town plan was much aided by the

recovery of the twentieth century’s cadastres72 preserved in the form of assessor plates (See

maps 3-4). The plates are made from hard paper stuck on canvas with water-based adhesive

and stabilized with a waxing coating. These are archived at the local [Serres] branch of the

State’s Real Estate registry, which is subjected under the Department for the Management of

Exchanged Properties. The plates along with the 1914 topographic survey (See map 3) became

available to me through the Department of Technical Works of the Serres Municipality.73

These plates—that provide topographic cues on the town’s mosques—constitute the first

official attempt to map and register acquired lands obtained by the Greek state after the

Lausanne Treaty of 1923. In a way, these plates compliment the material published by

Kaftantzes on the “Entry plates” [Description plates] of the exchanged land parcels. 74 In his

material, the exchanged plots of land were annotated with details of the type of the plot, their

dimensions, the names of the neighbourhoods, the names of the new and the old proprietors.

It is my understanding that my material constituted the topographic survey, subdivided into

consecutive assessor plates, which were meant to complement the ‘Entry plates’.

The material retrieved from these plates can be topographically reconstructed only

when collated with the 1914 topographic survey and the street plan of 1994. 75 The

topographical survey is not dated. However, based on evidence retrieved from the draft report

72
Cadastre: official map recording values pertaining to location, quantity, value and ownership of land parcels
within a government jurisdiction, GIS Glossary (1997), p. 88.
73
The material was obtained during a fieldtrip realized in November 2010. This was subsidized by Roberts Fund
and the University of Birmingham.
74
Kaftantzes (1996), pp. 268-294.
75
The central section of this map was published by Yerolymbou (2008), pp. 25-60; The analysis of the 1914
street plan, its perspectives and ammendements were discussed in Rantou (2008), pp. 61-114.
182
on the proposal for a regulation of the Greek Parliament (2517/1920) adjusting “The rebuilt of

the city of Serres on a new street plan”, we can deduce that this is the topographical survey in

scales of 1:2000 conducted by the topographic department of the Greek army around 1914,

which incorporates features of the street-system of the lost 1880s Ottoman survey in scales of

1:2000.76 This is the first attempt to use this source towards the reconstruction of the town’s

Ottoman substratum by employing topographic, defterological and geodetic cues

synergistically. All previous efforts were focused on the delineation of the burnt zones

following either the 1849 or the 1913 fires.77

The topographic survey is a unique cartographic evidence of the city’s mapping before

the 1913 fire. It depicts the terrain through references to elevation contours and to the

topographic relief, in the form of controlling measurements of land within the Siroz plateau

and its geodetic datum. Additionally, it integrates a primitive annotation system of map

features by delineating the land parcels and build up areas with the abutting properties, the

streets, the utility nodes and links. Still, there is no denotation of building blocks or marking

of the mosques.

The city as shown on the 1914 topographic survey is the result of a town-planning

reform launched after the 1849 fire. This affected an elongated zone extending from Orta

Mezarlık up to the church of Agioi Theodoroi in the castle (See map 3: B6 and church No. 31). The

reconfiguration of the city followed the Tanzimat specifications, under the influence of which

76
The draft report cites that the Ottoman survey was in scales of 1:2000 and that they relied on it when
compiling the street plan of 1913 in scales of 1:500. Along with the 1913 street plan, it was also ordered the
compilation of a topographical survey. This is the heretofore presented topographic survey of 1914 in scales of
1:2000. The draft report on the proposal of Papanastatiou is published in Yerolympou (2008), p. 29 (footnote
9) and appendix I: 257-261.
77
Nikolaou used the central section of the 1914 topographical survey when delineating the burnt zone after
the fire of 1846. Nikos Nikolaou, “Ē megalē pyrkagia tou 1849”, Serraika Analekta, vol. 1, 1994, pp. 136-151, Pl.
2; the analysis of the 1914 street plan, its perspectives and ammendements were discussed by Eleni Rantou,
“Paradosiakos istos kai nees xaraxeis. To sxedio tou 1914 gia tis Serres”, in A. Yerolympou-Karadēma and L.
Theodōridou-Sōtēriou (eds.), Serres 1900-1940 xōros kai istoria, Serres, 2008, pp. 61-114.
183
they attempted to eliminate dead-ends, so as to ensure frontality of the properties to the public

road, draw straighter axial arteries and construct grandiose public buildings like the Hükümet

konağı and the Uzun çarşı.78 Still, as Nikolaou argues, these principles were loosely applied

and thus, the 19th century city has clearly retained its early Ottoman character.79

The 1914 topographical survey is the only surviving evidence that maps the street

system of 19th century Siroz. Based on these tracks, I managed to reconstruct the fixation line

of the fringe belt—the castle wall—and respectively, the arteries of the Ottoman town plan.

The demarcation of the churches on the reconstructive map and the boundaries of the castle

are derived from the Nikolaou map on the destruction plan of 184980 and the topographic

sketch of the castle by Papageorgiou81, as enriched with evidence collected during field-work.

Thus, the numbering of the churches in our map starts from number 26 to 55, since it follows

Nikolaou’s systemization.

As alluded in the introduction, defining the kernel of the Ottoman fabric was of utmost

importance for the determination of the Inner Fringe Belt (IFB). This task at Siroz, compared

to Dimetoka and Gümülcine, became extremely arduous, as the wall was destroyed since the

14th century and the Papageorgiou map was more of a sketch, rather than a cartographic work

proper. The main problem resided in the location of the main and subordinated gates [kör

kapusu], which became clear only after the placement of the Ottoman monuments/quarters on

the map and the digitization of the perplexed street network in the periphery of the castle. For

the facilitation of the reader, I preferred to omit the digitized parts of the street plot in the

visualisation and to emphasize on the axial system, the boundaries of the castle and the

Ottoman neighbourhoods.

78
Yerolympou (2008), p. 28-29.
79
This is his contention when reconstructing the map of the market area before the 1913 fire. Nikolaou (1994),
map 1.
80
Nikolaou (1994), map 2.
81
Papageorgiou (1894), Pl. 1.
184
 At a second stage, the 1914 topographic survey was georefered using the 1994 street

plan as reference (See map 6).82 The latter provides us with the demarcation of modern streets

and building blocks, so as to understand the relation of the Ottoman to the modern city. The

product of the georeference functioned as a bridge between the assessor plates and the

topographic survey. The 1994 street plan used the same numbering system of building blocks

as the assessor plates. The assessor plates, in their turn, constitute the only source that

combines all types of evidence: the 1994 numbering of building blocks, the delineation of

land parcels as shown on the 1914 topographic survey and the marking of the mosques

through the diacritic of the crescent. Thanks to this material, I managed to locate the mosques

at quarters C2, D3 and D4 that would not have been recovered otherwise. (See map 3: C2, D, D4,

key to map 3 and Pl. 42)

82
The process was realised with the use of AutoCAD software importing the 1994 street plan to coincide with
the 1914 map area. For their geographical correction, a transformation with a 2nd degree polynomial was
executed by using the churches and the Ag. Sophia stream as ground control points. The result was a raster
format file portraying the map in digital form.
185
 Pl. 42: Panoramic view of Siroz taken from the akropolis showing the minarets of 9 mosques (Konuk 2010,
p.228). From left to right: 1) Tanrivermiş mosque (C2), 2) Doğan Bey (C3), 3) Selçuk Hatun (C8), at the left
side of Eski mosque is 4) Arapcılar mosque, 5) Eski mosque with two minarets (B2), at the right side of
Hükümet konağı 6), unidentified D3 mosque, 7) Hacı Evrenos mosque (B4), 8) Esleme Hatun mosque
(C12), 9) Koca Mustafa mosque at Bacdar Hayreddin (C14) .(Konuk provided the picture with no
explanatory caption; the identification of the mosques is product of my own research. The alphanumeric
values in the parentheses correspond to the key to map 3)

Through the cross-referencing of evidence provided from these three cartographic

sources and their enrichment with metadata acquired through historical pictures, archival and

secondary literature references and collection of field-work evidence, it became possible to

identify all 4 quarters of the proto-Ottoman phase (Murad I-Mehmed I) and 15 out of the 23

quarters of the classical phase (Murad II-Bayezid II). In addition, a number of monuments

186
was recovered which: (a) cannot be associated with a specific quarter of the proto-Ottoman or

classical era, such as the Şeyh Bedreddin zaviye (See map 3: B7), Bahaeddin paşa zaviye (See

map 3: B8), the Selçuk Hatun cami’ and hammam (See map 3: C8-C9), the Mehmed Bey cami’and

hammam (See map 3: C4), or (b) chronologically exceed the reach of the present study, such as

the Köprülü quarter with its hammam (See map 3: D1), the Bostancılar quarter (See map 3: D2) and

the ‘imaret hammam (See map 3: D5) or (c) could not be identified, such as the mosques D3 and

D4. However, their inclusion on the map contributes to the reconstruction of the city’s overall

topographic image.

The last map included in this study, is the 1914 street plan (See map 7). This is the

response to the need for a new town-planning reconfiguration after the catastrophic fire of

1913, which was caused by the Bulgarian army upon its exodus from the city. This was

georefered using map No. 6 in order to show the part of the city that has been affected by the

1994 street plan. As it can be seen, the burnt zone corresponds only to the areas of the castle

and the market. The urban fabric, apart from the broadening and partial refinement of the

streets, retained its Ottoman character intact.83

The town-planning conception of the Proto-Ottoman phase

The spatial reference of the five proto-Ottoman concentrations (vakfs/quarters) to the the

Byzantine castle, allows us to draw conclusions on the rational of proto-Ottoman town

planning. All proto-Ottoman quarters were arranged along pre-conceived tracks of access,

which were extending from the gates of the Byzantine castle. The Evrenos Bey and Isma’il

83
For Gerolympou the preservation of the Ottoman character retains a negative connotation. She
characterizes the 1914 street plan as a step back from the previous one, since it failed to rationalize the image
of the chaotic Ottoman city. However, for our study this is a positive point, since it allows the emergence of the
proto-Ottoman city-plan. Yerolympou (2008), p. 43.
187
Bey quarters were arranged along the Byzantine çarşıya that was extending westwards from

the gate of the Forum (See map 3: axis Y). The gate of the Forum (See map 3: A1), also known as

zincirli kapu, was known to be closed with a chain and to be guarded by a police booth. This

is the reason why church no. 47, which was placed next to the gate, was known as Saint

Athanasios or zincirli kilise.84 The gate of the Forum (See map 3: A1) was the meeting point of

the çarşıya (axis Y) with the Byzantine processional road [günlük] that traversed the castle from

east to west (See map 3: gates A1-A7).

The Eski cami’, Şeyh Bedreddin’s zaviye and Bahaeddin Paşa’s zaviye developed

along the axes Y1 and Y2 extending south-west from the subordinated gate of Saint Nikolas or

Bostancılar kör kapusu.85 Therefore, we can attest an analogy with the settlement pattern of

Dimetoka, where the infrastructural investment under Murad I marked the two gates of the

castle from the south and east. Still, at Siroz we have the chance to get a glimpse of the core

concept of what, I believe defines the modus operandi behind the settlement pattern of the

proto-Ottoman era. In the case of Dimetoka, this does not show clearly, because it is being

blurred by the Ottoman need to make use of the fortification in order to house the enderun-i

hazine. Thus, the core concept falls into the background.

It is known that at Siroz the castle had lost its function as a fortified position since the

14th century, when Hacı Evrenos tore down parts of the wall.86 Thus, at Siroz seizure of the

main exits loses the sense of access to secured and enclosed grounds. So, if the castle is not

the Ottoman target, what was their target?

They were after the pre-tracked network creating access towards this urban hub,

because they valued its position. They recognized the geostrategic importance of the position

and foresaw the commercial dynamic the site would have for their plans to form an urban
84
Papageorgiou (1894), p. 244.
85
Papageorgiou (1894), p. 245.
86
Çelebi (2003), p. 56.
188
network. Then, they appropriated the dynamic of the site by resuming the urban hub under a

new convergence point-the Çandarlı külliye; and managed to transform Byzantine Serres into

the Ottoman commercial landmark of the lower Balkans, Siroz.

The transformation occurred as the result of a process that can be conceptualized

through the theory of “reversal polarities”.87 The Ottomans marginalized the pre-existent

inner polarity, that is, the Byzantine castle, and they resumed the urban kernel under the new

grounds of the external polarity, (i.e., the outer suburb). With semiotic subtlety, they reversed

the dynastic centre from the castle to the suburb; and the moment that the screen of reversal

reality was set up [the külliye], they assumed authority through visual transference.

Then, the orchestration of the nodal nuclei begins. At Siroz we can study the topology

of colonization through the mapping of the zaviye netwok within the micro-environment of a

town. With reference to the Seljuq zaviyes of the late thirteenth century Anatolia, Ethel

Wolper has argued that they meant to transform the hierachy of city spaces. 88 In the case of

Ottoman Siroz, we are in the position of demonstrating that this transformation was based on

principles of rationalized continuity, since the process that conjures up the picture of an

original urban system is structurally rationalized. The periodization and georeference of the

zaviyes of both proto-Ottoman and classical phases on the map allow a glimpse to a system of

zaviye zoning. The zaviyes of Hacı Evrenos, of Şeyh Bedreddin and Bahaeddin Paşa

constitute the landmarks of the initiation phase of the fringe-belt, which essentially fixed the

urban boundaries. These functioned as the gates of the Ottoman town that created and

accomodated access to the citadel, in the same time when they opened new ground for

prospective development. We can thus deduce that the centre of political power and

administration was not uniform in character but from the presence of the zaviyes, we

87
Consult discussion under the subheading: Morphological theory of Part A, pp. 5-18.
88
Wolper (1995), 39.
189
understand that a number of administrative services were dispersed along relatively straight,

rectilinear streets that linked the zaviyes with the gates of the citadel.

Moreover, their spatial relation suggests that their placement was subjected to a

monitoring proccess of the available tracks of access; as, they are positioned on routes that

extend from the gates of the castle (axes Y-Y1-Y2). In order to understand this monitoring

process, we need to pose the following question: what did the first settlers (conquerors) see in

the town, that made them decide on where to built their zaviyes? Apart from Bedreddin’s

zaviye, whose position was dictated by the Şeyh’s grave within the neighbouring Orta

mezarlık (an after 1420s addition anyway), how did Evrenos and Bahaeddin come up with

their choices at the end of the 14th century? They needed to have assessed how the landscape

of the outskirts was configured so as to canalize access to the citadel. This process can be

summarised as monitoring of the access network.

A second layer of the Ottoman modus operandi derives from the trajectories, towards

which development was laid at Siroz. The westward development of the proto-Ottoman phase

is a reflection of geostrategic reasoning, which confirms one of the hypotheses extended in the

introduction of this thesis namely, the Ottoman expansion and the subsequent investment on

the cities under question is primarily subjected to a highly conceptualised geostrategic

reasoning and to the position of these cities with reference to the all-extendable frontier line of

the early Ottoman principality. It is a declaration of their wish to expand westwards and to

create the intrastructural network which would adjoin Siroz with Selanik (1430) and the newly

founded Yenice-i Vardar. In this sense, the proto-Ottoman phase of Siroz contextualizes

spatially the political statement “we are here to stay and to expand westwards”.

190
B.Classical phase

Archival material

It appears that in total Siroz’s population in 1454 comprised of some 5,022 individuals

of whom 2,79089 were Muslims and 2,23290 were Christians. An aspect which comes across

quite strikingly throughout the study of the survey is the high share of households registered

to widows both Muslim and Christian. The numbers speak volumes: a 47% share was

accounted for by Christian widows and a lesser share of 13% of households was in the hands

of Muslim widows. Lowry when faced with the same phenomenon of the registering of

Muslim widows in the 1478 survey characterised this as unprecedented. Indeed, none of the

surveys inspected for the remaining cities discussed in this thesis presents this phenomenon

apart from the 1454 and 1478 surveys for Siroz. The ‘uniquum’ of this situation in

conjunction with the observation that none of these widows is the wife of a settler91, help us to

reconstruct a more concrete idea of what might have happened at Siroz prior or even

simultaneously to 1454, which would necessitate the compilation of the survey by the state.

We can securely reconstruct that the high percentages of widows are the results of

some catastrophe which decimated the 28% of the population in the previous generation.92 If

we were to subtract the percentage of the widows and settlers from the Muslim congregation

89
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 573 total adult male-headed households = 573 x 5 = 2865 – 75
{missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 2790 {Total of Muslims at Siroz in 1464}.
The data used for the computation of the formula were extrapolated from BOA. TT3 858(1454-1455), pp. 156-
173.
90
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 494 total adult male-headed households - 1 celibates of
taxpaying age = 493 x 5 = 2465 + 1 {celibate} = 2466 – 234 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed
households} = 2232 {Total of Christians at Siroz in 1464}.The data used for the computation of the formula are
extrapolated from BOA. TT3 858(1454-1455), pp. 156-173.
91
They are all registered with the names of their husbands and none with their professions. Only in one case,
we can deduce that the husband was a settler; that of Fatma widow of Davut the Persian (Fatma bive-i Davut
‘Acem) which practically reinforces the argument that the rest of the cases, where no settler profile was
detected, were locals.
92
This result is produced by summing up the totals of both Christian and Muslim widows registered in the 1454
survey as extrapolated from TT3 858 (1454-1455), pp. 156-173.
191
the result in raw numbers would equal some 286 adult married male-headed households, in

the same time when Christian households, after the same deductions, would reach the number

of 260. In other words, the Christian population could afford to lose members, but not the

Muslim populace. Then the demographic balance would return back to the 14th century’s

realities, when the Muslims were the minority. This evolution has been averted through the

injection of a 37% share of new settlers.

The reason why this phenomenon receives this attention in the present analysis is

because I mean to stress the analogy between the sequences of events reflected in the 1454

survey with the 1478 survey.93 My intention is to make the underlying pattern emerge; it

seems that throughout the 15th century Siroz suffers from a series or repetitive outbreaks of

various catastrophes, which urged the state into rectification through a systemized course of

action. Although, it might not be always possible to link the results with the cause that

inflicted them, we can track their traces in the surveys. This is a point which I feel calls for

further clarification, since it seems that attestation of the results alone is not enough. It is my

contention, that by focusing on the results we allow the state policy to emerge more clearly as

a response to the causes.

Under the light of the above, Lowry attributes the influx of a 76% share of new settlers

to the depopulation caused by two successive outbreaks of plague in 1455 and 1467.94

Indeed, the demographic decrease attested between the 1454 and the Bulgarian surveys,

compiled some time before 1478, shows that the town lost 19% of its population. The “Kiril i

Metodji” survey from Mehmed II’ reign records 23 Muslim quarters, which contained a total

of 488 adult married male-headed households [hanes]; from this total an 8.0 % share were

celibates of tax-paying age. The Christian quarters were 35 and contained a total of 372 adult

93
With reference to the 1478 survey as discussed previously by Lowry (2008), pp. 176-177.
94
Ibid., pp. 176-177.
192
married male-headed households [hanes], from which total a 17.0 % share was headed by

widows [bives]. Utilizing a hypothetical coefficient of five individuals per adult male headed

household as suggested by Barkan95, it appears that Siroz’s total population between the years

some time before 1478 comprised some 4,018 individuals from which 2.25496 were Muslims

and 176497 were Christians.

The “Kiril i Metodji” data need to be compared with the 1478 data because, it is only

then that we can realise the re-emergence of the pattern suggested above. I tend to believe

that the “Kiril i Metodji” survey was compiled right after the second outbreak of plague in

1467, somewhere around the 1470s and thus, it would allow a ten year period for the

repopulation of the city with new settlers before the conducting of the 1478 survey. Both

surveys come to report the results of the outbreak of plague: its direct effects in the case of the

Bulgarian survey and its indirect effects, in the sense of its repopulation (colonization) in the

case of the 1478 survey.

This is a conclusion drawn when considering the raw numbers. 98 The two consecutive

outbreaks of plague caused the population to drop by 19% in the 1470 survey. In this case,

both congregations were equally effected by the plague and thus their reduction percentages

are balanced. After the conducting of the survey, the message was sent to the capital and

action towards the rectification of the situation was taken. This resulted in transplanting a

33% share of new settlers, to which the increase of the population in 1478 is due. As it can be

95
On the use of the co-efficient towards the computation of the total I consulted: Barkan (1957), p. 21;
Lowry(1992)¹, p. 52.
96
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 488 total adult male-headed households - 46 celibates of
taxpaying age = 442 x 5 = 2210 + 462 {the celibates} = 2256 - 2{missing adult male figure in widow-headed
households} = 2254 {Total of Muslims at Siroz between 1456-1478}. The data used for the computation of the
formula are extrapolated from Balta (1995), pp. 251-256.
97
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 372 total adult male-headed households - 8 celibates of
taxpaying age = 364 x 5 = 1820 + 8 {the celibates} = 1828 – 64 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed
households} = 1764 {Total of Christians at Siroz between 1456-1478}.The data used for the computation of the
formula are extrapolated from Balta (1995), pp. 251-256.
98
For analysis purposes let us adopt the conventional 1470 dating for the Bulgarian survey.
193
seen on table 23, the increase of 16% can be exclusively attributed to the Muslim

congregation, while the Christians experienced a slight drop of 5%.

However, a second reading of the material could also suggest that the high percentages

of widowed households could be equally attributed to an engineering policy of the state which

meant to keep the Christian populace in the town by providing them with tax-exemptions.

Murphey has suggested such an interpretation when faced with the high percentages of

widows in the Tokat-Amasya region.99 As known, widows were exempted from taxation and

if we consider that the region was decimated by war, outbreaks of diseases and various

misfortunes, this could be a possible means of keeping the Christian population from fleeing

the city; which would affect negatively the economic life of the town.

The vakfs of the classical phase and their topographic identification

i. Vakfs associated with quarters

The development of the town in the second half of the 15th c. can be attested through

the formation of a series of 27 Muslim vakfs, around which twenty new Muslim quarters

evolved.100 Balta has argued that the formation of these vakfs should be set between 1453,

when the influx of new settlers can be attested and the 1470 and 1478 surveys, when the

quarters bearing the names of these vakfs make their appearance.101

From these 20 Muslim quarters, it was possible to identify the location of twelve;

these are the quarters of Darbhane, Tanrivermiş, Doğan Bey, Hacı Ali, Ayşe Hatun, Murad

99
Murphey (1996), pp. 111-131.
100
Balta lists 23 quarters as derived from the Bulgarian survey, from which we deduct the three quarters of the
proto-Ottoman phase: Hacı Evrenos, ‘Isma’ıl Bey and Cami’i. For the listing of the quarters consult table 24 of
the appendix.
101
Balta (1995), p. 27.
194
Debbağ, Bedreddin Bey, Tatar Hatun, Esleme Hatun, Kameniça, Bacdar Hayreddin and

Hakim Davut.

Reference to the quarter of the imperial mint [Darbhane] was made in the section of

the proto-Ottoman phase.102 The boundaries of the quarter of Tanrivermiş occupied the

eastern fringes of the city and developed along the axis X1 (See map 3: C2 and Pls. 42-43). The

quarter evolved around the vakf of the mescid of the tanner Tanrivermiş, which in the first

decades of the 16th century103 secured the revenue of 1,548 akçes from rents and a grant from

the vakf of Esleme Hatun.104

Pl. 43: Panoramic view of Siroz taken from the suburb of Kalithea (north-west) showing the minarets of
6 mosques (Kaftantzes 1996, p. 240): 1) Darbhane mescid (C1), 2) Tanrivermiş (C2), 3) Mehmed Bey
(C4), 4) Doğan Bey (C3), 5) unidentified mosque D3, 6) Tatar Hatun (C11). (Tzanakares provided the
picture with only a reference to Kalithea, from where it was shot; the identification of the mosques is
product of my own research. The alphanumeric values in the parentheses correspond to the key of the
reconstructive map 3.)

102
Consult discussion under the subheading Vakfs of the Proto-Ottoman Phase and their topographic
identification, pp. 196-197.
103
Balta supports that the inventory of the vakfs in the Bulgarian survey dates from the reign of Bayezid II and
specifically between the years 1501-1510, while the breakdown of the quarters was compliled before the 1478
survey. Balta (1995), pp. 26, 215, 251 and footnote 757.
104
Balta (1995), p. 97.
195
 The exact location of a mosque within the boundaries of the quarter is indicated in the

1923 assessor plate no. 9.105 The mosque appears on a series of historical pictures, with the

clearest of all depicting its kibla view. This should have been taken from the minaret of

Mehmed Bey since it is taken higher from the houses and south-eastern from the mosque.106

The picture depicts a mosque with a large, lead-covered dome, a slender minaret, elongated

volumetric form and systematic fenestration; elements which suggest a structure of late 17th or

18th century. Although, Ayverdi does not list the mescid of Tanrivermiş, its existence is

verified through the aforementioned grant of Esleme Hatun, which meant for the salary of the

the hatib of Tanrivermiş mescid.107 If the mosque of the picture is not the converted into a

mosque Tanrivermiş mescid, then Ayverdi identifies two other foundations within the

boundaries of the quarter: the mosque of Abacı Mustafa Bey and the mescid and mekteb of

Hacı Ali Cakii from the neighbouring quarter (See map 3: C3). Then, it could also be that the

mosque under question is the Abacı Mustafa Bey.108

Pl. 44:
Tanrivermiş or
Abacı Mustafa
Bey mosques
(C2).
(The picture
was published
by Tzanakares
1995, p. 170.
The
identification
of the
monuments is
product of my
own research)

105
Consult Map 5 (plate 9) of the appendix.
106
Tzanakares(1995), pp. 122-123, 130.
107
Consult discussion under subheading Vakfs associated with extant quarters, p. 212.
108
Ayverdi (1982), pp. 276, 278; Kaftantzes (1996), p. 276.
196
 The position of the quarters Doğan Bey and Hacı Ali109 is indicated by Kaftantzes (See

map 3: C3 and Pls. 42-43); however, the boundaries of these two quarters seem to be blurred.

Therefore, we preferred to use a common alphanumeric for both, as indicative of their

position. For the position of the mosque, I relied on the testimony of the Sirozean city-

planner Mr. Maronetes, since it was not indicated in the 1923 assessor plate no.9 (where we

would expect to find it indicated). Ayverdi refers to the Doğan Bey mosque-mescid and the

quarter Doğan appears for the first time in the 1470 survey.110

The identity of Doğan Bey has been associated with Doğan Bey Kurtçu or Kurucu,

who served as sekbanbaşı and yeniçeri ağası under Murad II. Southern from his quarter, we

encounter that of his daughter Ayşe Hatun [mescid-i Ayşe Hatun, Doğan Bey], as suggested by

the 1478 survey (See map 3: C5).111 Although, the surveys from the reign of Suleiman I include

three different entries under the title vakf of the mescid, Balta argues that they all refer to a

single mescid. In any case, the revenues of Ayşe Hatun mescid did not exceed the 3,423

akçes.112

The quarter of Debbağ Murad, also known as ‘Tabahana’ proper [Debbağlar],

developed by the eastern bank of Klopotitza tributary (axis X) and extended over the area of

contemporary Eboriou square (See map 3: C6, C7). Ayverdi records the mosque of Murad

Debbağ as owned by one of the communities of Evlad-ı Fatihan; Kaftantzes published a

picture of the mosque as it stood until 1972, when it was demolished by the municipality (See

Pl. 43). As discussed above, in close proximity survives the hammam of Debbağlar.

109
Ayverdi (1982), 278; Balta (1995), p. 102; Kaftantzes (1996), pp. 277, 293.
110
Ayverdi (1982), p. 276; Kaftantzes (1996), p. 272.
111
Gökbilgin (1952), pp. 224-228; Ayverdi (1982),p. 276; Kaftantzes (1996), p. 270.
112
Balta (1995), p. 108-109.
197
At the beginning of the 16th century, the vakf of the mescid of Murad Debbağ was secured

through the income of 1,800 akçes accrued from rents of 7 shops.113

Pl. 45 The Debbağlar (Murad Debbağ) mosque (Kaftantzes 1996, p. 289)

Pl. 46 Debbağlar hammam dated from the 15th c. (C7)

(Photo: Gianogloudis 1990)

113
Ayverdi (1982), pp. 276, 283; Balta (1995), p. 100; Kaftantzes (1996), pp. 276, 289.
198
 The boundaries of the quarter of Bedreddin Bey, as located southerly from the mosque

of Selçuk Hatun, are equally indicated by Kaftantzes (See map 3: C10). Ayverdi records the

mescid of the quarter Bedruddin, which according to the early 16th c. survey was secured

through the annual income of 1,896 akçes accrued from rents of 13 shops and a mill. For the

identity of the patron, two hypotheses have been suggested; either that he was Bedreddin

subaşı of Keçiçlik or Bedreddin Bey defterdar of Rumeli.114

The next two quarters were formed around vakfs, which were established under female

patronage: the Tatar and Esleme Hatun. Ayverdi records two mescids in the quarter of Tatar

Hatun: the namesake one and that of Yağcı Nasuh. According to the early 16th century

survey, the vakf of Tatar Hatun mescid was allocated the income of 1,440 akçes, which was

derived from the rents of eight shops and allotments.115

Esleme Hatun was the daughter of Halil Paşa, son of Ibrahim Paşa Çandarlı; from

her wedding with Yahşi Bey, son of Hamza Bey, she had a son Sofu Ali Bey, whose zaviye was

also located in the quarter. The concentration of the Hacı Evrenos and Esleme Hatun quarters

along the axis Y suggests that, in terms of social stratigraphy, these constituted the wealthy

semi-suburban zone of classical Siroz. Reference is made to them as semi-suburban quarters,

since, as it will be shown further down, the classical city was concluded westwards at Esleme

Hatun (See map 3: C12) and Orta mezarlık (See map 3: B6); while, the quarters of Bacdar

Hayreddin (See map 3: C14) and Kameniça (See map 3: C13), which were equally formed during

the classical phase, constituted the cut-off suburbs of the city until the 19th century.

Ayverdi records that two endowment deeds of Esleme Hatun existed, one of which

endows part of her legacy to the coverage of the annual oil expense necessitated for the elders

of a religious foundation; as discussed above, this should be identified with Eski cami’. We

114
Ayverdi (1982), pp. 276; Balta (1995), p. 98; Kaftantzes (1996), p. 275.
115
Ayverdi (1982), p. 281; Balta (1995), p. 105; Kaftantzes (1996), p. 275
199
would also need to assume that when Uzunçarşılı cites that she also endowed revenues

derived from her domains at Bursa and Mudania for the upkeep of the mosque of Hayreddin

Paşa Çandarlı, the beneficiary was again the Eski cami’. The survey from the reign of

Suleiman I records that her mescid was maintained through the income of 215 akçes accrued

from the rents of a başhane, ten shops and an estate. The village of Prosinki is another

property of the vakf that was confiscated under Mehmed II and returned back to the vakf

under Bayezid II. The village generated the revenue of 7.622 akçes, which was meant for the

salaries of the reciters of rogatory prayers [hatibs] at some of the town’s mescids, like that of

Tanrivermiş as seen above.116

The last two quarters which define the western extremities of the city are these of

Bacdar Hayreddin and Kameniça; historical pictures suggest that they were not connected

with the town but were more cut-off suburbs (See map 3: C13, C14 and Pl. 47). As Nikolaou

points, they were adjoined with the city after the formation of Venizelou street, which is the

only axis running across the city from east to west. However, Venizelou is a result of the

town-planning reconfiguration following the fire of 1913. From that, we can conclude that

the town’s western frontier until the classical phase was Orta mezarlık, which as the town was

expanding ended up being positioned in the middle of the town and acquired the name orta.

Pl. 47 The quarters

of Bacdar Hayreddin
(C14) and Kameniça
(C13); it shows the
minaret of Koca
Mustafa mosque
and the minaret of
Haznedar mosque at
Kameniça
(Kaftantzes 1996, p.
38)

116
Uzunçarşılı (1974), p. 107; Ayverdi (1982), pp. 280, 282; Balta (1995), pp. 106-108; Kaftantzes (1996), p. 272.
200
 The position of Bacdar Hayreddin quarter was identified by Kaftantzes117; it was then

understood that the still extant mosque of Koca Mustafa lies within the confines of this

quarter. As shown under the discussion of ‘Isma’il Bey’s quarter, the land bought by Koca

Mustafa made part of ‘Isma’il Bey’s çiftlik, which was extending westwards from his quarter

(See map: B5). Then as the town was expanding, it was sold to Mustafa Paşa, who through his

investment attracted new settlers. (See Pl. 48)

Pl. 48: Koca Mustafa mosque (late 15th c.): a) exterior surface of kibla wall
showing the difference in building phases, b) view of the western wall of the
principal building phase allowing to western tabhane (Photo: Bessi 2010)

This seems to be suggested by the conversion of the mosque from a single domed to a

T-shaped type; the repair phase (second phase) of Koca Mustafa mosque can be substantiated

in the addition of the lateral units [tabhanes] and the frontal, four-tiered portico to the initial

square unit. This expansion was obviously meant for the accommodation of a bigger

congregation (See Pls. 49-50).

117
Kaftantzes (1996), pp. 270, 277.
201
Pl. 49 Ground plan of Koca Mustafa mosque (2nd half of the 15th c.) (Drawing: Bessi)

202
 Pl. 50 Section of Koca Mustafa mosque showing the building phases (2nd half of 15th c.)
(Drawing: Bessi 2013)

Historical pictures suggest that the boundaries of Bacdar Hayreddin, also known as

lower Kameniça were mingled with upper Kameniça or Kameniça proper (See Pl. 47). These

two quarters were seperated, when Venizelou street was formed. From the early 16th century

survey, we can recover two vakfs related to the area occupied by these quarters. The vakf of

the mescid of the tax collector [bacdar] Hayreddin was maintained by the income of 3,300

akçes; this sum was derived from rents of urban estates and a mill at Siroz, along with the

impressive number of 38 shops and 5 houses at Sidrekapisi (nowadays Siderokastron).118

118
Balta (1995), p. 100.
203
 The second vakf is that of the mescid and the school for teachers [mu’allimhane] of the

treasurer Hacı Hayreddin. This is also identified as a quarter at the north-west fringes of

Kameniça by Kaftantzes. At the beginning of the 16th century, the income of 10,412 akçes

was allocated to the vakf, as derived from the rents of 16 shops, one bakery and one shop

within the kervansaray. The remains of a hammam can be still visible in the area occupied by

the quarter, but its name cannot be identified since a Hacı Hayreddin hammam is missing

from Ayverdi’s list and the archival entries on the vakf (See Pls. 51-52).119

Finally, Ayverdi locates at the courtyard of Koca Mustafa mosque the zaviye of Salih

Efendi; Balta records the vakf of Salih Fakih mescid and a quarter as Salih. However, it

cannot be deduced with certainty whether these entries refer to the same foundation. If this is

confirmed, then the quarter of Salih should be also included in the area of lower Kameniça.120

Pl. 52 Unidentified hammam of Kameniça (C13) (Photo: Bessi 2013)

119
Ayverdi (1982), pp. 276, 279; Balta (1995),pp. 99, 100, 110.
120
Ayverdi (1982), p. 283; Balta (1995), p. 110.
204
Pl. 51 Ground plan of the surviving part from the hammam at Kameniça quarter (C13)
(Plan: Bessi 2013)

205
ii.Vakfs associated with extant monuments

The Selcuk Hatun mosque

At the end of the section on the vakfs of the classical era, we will include the

discussion of three extant monuments: the Selçuk Hatun and Mehmed Bey mosques and the

Bedesten. Although the Selçuk Hatun vakf does not correspond to an identified quarter, it

relates to a still extant monument. In the recent years the mosque of Selçuk Hatun, previously

known in the literature as Zincirli mosque, has attracted a fair amount of scholarly research.

However, there is still a clash between the historical and art historical works on the

monument, which do not seem to come to an agreement. The resolution, with regards to the

identity of the mosque was provided by Lowry, who associated it with the vakf of Selçuk

Hatun, daughter of Bayezid II and spouse of Mehmed Bey.121 He further elaborated on his

hypothesis that both mosques were built by the couple in not only a geographical but also a

chronological proximity.

Pl. 53 Interior view of Selçuk Hatun mosque : the gallery (Photo: Bessi 2010)

This thesis contradicted the already established dating of the monument in the second

half of the 16th century and its ascription under the architectural mark of Sinan. That was the

121
Lowry (2008), pp. 156-164.
206
initial theory maintained by Kiel in 1971122, followed by Ayverdi in 1982123, by Gavra in

1986 and 2007124 and until recently by Sambanopoulou 2008.125 Therefore, the review of the

archival evidence serves to argue towards a dating of the monument in late 15th/early 16th

century.

Selçuk Hatun was the daughter of Bayezid II and became wife of sancakbey Ferhad

Paşa of Herzegovna, from which marriage Gazi Hüsrev Bey mir-i liva of Bosnia (1480-1541)

was born.126 In 1485, after the death of Ferhad Bey she was espoused to Mehmed Bey, who

was either the son of the grand-vizir Ahmed Paşa Gedik or the son of Mustafa Paşa.127

According to her endowment deed [vakfiyye] composed in 1508, she founded and endowed a

medrese at Siroz. Apart from that, she also founded mescids at Bursa and Istanbul, a mosque

and a hospital [ribat] at Siroz and allocated an annual grant of 1,800 akçes for the poor of

Medina. Between the years 1500-1505, she built her mausoleum in the courtyard of her

father’s mosque. In 1508, when the vakfiyye of her mausoleum was compiled, she died and

was buried there.128

The resolution, as regards the identification of the mosque was provided by Lowry,

who linked the extant Zincirli mosque (See map 3: C8) with the vakf of Selçuk Hatun by pointing

to the earliest known vakfiyye.129 Based on this first vakfiyye, which has been previously

published by Uluçay, the first building to have been endowed by Selçuk Hatun at Siroz was a

mosque; this first vakfiyye was followed by a second one compiled in 1508, as mentioned

122
Kiel (1971)¹, pp. 442-444a.
123
Ayverdi (1982), p. 281.
124
Gavra (1986); Idem., (2007), pp. 140-141.
125
Sambanopoulou (2008)², p. 284; Bakirtzis-Sambanopoulou (2009), p. 110.
126
Balta (1995), p.132, footnote 362.
127
İnalcık (Ahmad Paşa), p. 301.
128
Uluçay (2011), pp. 51-52.
129
Lowry (2008), pp. 156-164; Uluçay (1959), p. 123, footnote 150.
207
above. This was published by Gökbilgin and it has been used by both Balta and Kiel in their

discussion of the vakf.130

According to this, Bayezid II conveyed to Selçuk Hatun a number of villages, which

she endowed, as mülks to a medrese with 12 chambers she founded at Siroz; Evliya notes that

the medrese was lacking a particular chamber for the reading of the Koran and the

interpretation of the hadis.131 The villages endowed to the medrese are: Ivrindi, Kromişte,

Yanaciste, Nesiz, Kosorik, Davudça, Zikoşta at Zihne and Dırnova, Gradişte at Siroz. The

income derived from the taxation of these villages was meant to cover the daily wages of the

müderris (20 akçes), the monthly stipend of the boarding students (40 akçes) and the daily

wage of the warden (1 akçe). The vakfiyye allocated funds for the erection of a zaviye and of

a tabhane at an appropriate place in Siroz; it further prescribed that a mescid would be erected

in between these building and allocated fixed allowances for the functionaries of these

foundations.132 Apart from these monuments subsidized by Selçuk Hatun, Evliya records a

mekteb, as being one of the three most famous amongst the city’s 26 mektebs and a sebil-

hane.133

The earliest fiscal data on the mülk of Selçuk Hatun are extrapolated from an early 16th

c. survey. However, these are only fragments which do not provide analytic breakdowns of

the population and the taxation of the villages allocated to the mülks, except for the total of

299 households and the derived income of 30,575 akçes.134

In the 1519 survey (TT 70), these nine villages yielded revenue of 85,817 akçes.135 In

the 1528 survey, (TT 143) the same villages are registered under the following three

130
Gökbilgin (1952), pp. 185-186; Balta (1995), p. 126; Kiel (1971)¹, pp. 432-433.
131
Moutsopoulos (1939), pp. 163-164.
132
Gökbilgin (1952), p. 185.
133
Moutsopoulos (1939), pp. 163-164; Ayverdi (1982), pp. 280-281.
134
Balta (1995), pp. 126, 130.
135
Balta (1995), appendix I, pp. 243-245.
208
geographic concentrations: a) the Zihne villages of Koromişta, Nesi, Vitaçişta, Kusoromlu and

the çiftlik of Kosiniça monastery which generated a revenue of 52,968 akçes, b) the Siroz

villages of Ivrandi Bala, Apano Gradeşta, Kato Horopişta, Dranova which generated a

revenue of 31,446 akçes and finally the Drama villages of Brekilo and Zigovişti with a

revenue of 6,235 akçes.136 In the 1530 survey (TT 167), it is reconfirmed that the income of

31,446 akçes deriving from the Siroz villages was allocated to the medrese of Selçuk Hatun at

Siroz.137

From the above, it is asserted that a mosque was founded by Selçuk Hatun at Siroz

sometime in the late 15th century. The allocated revenues suggest that her vakf and the

endowed foundation equalled the budgets of provincial sultanic foundations; indeed Evliya

parallels her mosque to a sultanic [selatin]. The perimeter walls of the mosque form a

rectangular ground plan (22,65m x 9,30 m.) with its kibla wall oriented south-east and its

portico north-west (See Pl. 54).

136
Ibid., p. 130.
137
Gökbilgin (1952), pp. 388-389.
209
Pl. 54 Ground plan and section of Selçuk Hatun mosque
(Bakirtzis-Sampanopoulou 2008, p. 109)

210
The even walls of the rectangle are interrupted on the south-east side by the protruding niche

of the mihrab. This is, equally, of a rectangle plan. The niche is perforated on three sides by

two pairs of windows at the second level and it is then covered by a half-scafoid vault, the

profile of which equals to one of the vaults, which support the dome from south-east (See Pl.

55).

Pl. 55 Selçuk Hatun mosque at Siroz : a) the mihrab as delinated at the exterior, b) view of the mihrab
niche. (Photo: Bessi 2010)

The spatial development consists of a central square space—the prayer hall—encircled

by a perimetric two-storied gallery [stoa] of an inverted Π shape, on which the octagonal

dome is supported by the means of an octagonal spandrel (See Pl. 56). Four pairs of columns

and a pair of monolithic pillars, organised on a square arrangement, carry four cross-axially

arranged vaults and four intermediate squinches which transfer the load of the dome to the

external walls. In this way, the mosque acquires a transeptal planimetric configuration, while,

the domical unit of the perimetric gallery assumes the function of a buttressing device. This is

211
a typical example of the plan that Millet called the “church with corner squinches” or “Greek-

cross octagon” of the expansive type, as reproduced in a series of middle Byzantine designs at

Dafni and Stiris of the Greek mainland.138

Pl. 56 Interior view of Selçuk Hatun mosque: the gallery (Photo: Bessi 2010)

The Mehmed Bey mosque

The second extant Ottoman monument in the town of Siroz that demarcates the eastern

frontiers of the classical fringe belt is that of Mehmed Bey. The mosque according to its

dedicatory inscription was built in 1492-1493 by Mehmed Bey the son of the grand vezir

Ahmed Paşa and spouse of Bayezid II’s daughter Selçuk Hatun139, whose monument lies on

the same latitude in a westernly direction. The mosque of Mehmed Bey is typologically

related to the repair phase (second phase) of Koca Mustafa mosque discussed earlier, since

138
Millet (1916), pp. 105-118.
139
Anhegger (1967), p. 321; Ayverdi (1982), p. 278.
212
they can be both classified as ‘zaviye cami’, multi-functional or T-shaped mosques (See Pl. 57).

This is an amalgative type of building that was broadly diffused alongsides religious and

secular buildings during the first century of Ottoman rule, while it seems to have disappeared

by the end of Suleiman I’s reign (1520-1566).140

Pl. 57: Mehmed Bey mosque at Siroz (1492/3): a) view of the south-western tabhane, b) mihrab
(Photo: Gianogloudis 1990)

Eyice summarises the domical components of the T-shaped mosques in two congruent

domed spaces arranged along the longitudinal axis. These are the prayer hall or mihrab

compartment [i.e] the mosque space proper and the domed sofa. These two central units are

flanked by side rooms—the tabhanes—that give access to the domed sofa unit.141 The very

definition of the type as multi-functional mosques derives from the existence of these flanking

compartments. The fact that these compact volumetric units were directly accessed from

outside and were connected with the focal mihrab unit only through the domed sofa shows

140
Eyice (1962-1963), p. 4.
141
Eyice (1962-1963), pp. 6-8.
213
that they were designed for dwelling purposes. These side wings are small places, with no

prayer niche, while for the accommodation of the residential purposes they were provided

with the necessary closets, niches and fireplaces.142

In some cases, the gallery of the final assemply [son cemaat yeri] is added; this is the

portico extending over the facade, which completes the architectural composition of the type.

Finally, minarets were the only non-original parts, which most often constituted posterior

additions. Although, some early examples retain minarets which give out an original

impression, a group of significant, early monuments do not bear a minaret (Geyve, İznik:

Yakub Çelebi, Nilüfer Hatun, Yenişehir: Postinpuş). This confirms the theory that initially T-

shaped mosques were not functioning as communal mosques, but the construction of the

minaret follows a course of evolution parallel to the posterior function assumed by these

buildings [i.e] that of a mosque.143 The Mehmed Bey mosque constitutes one of the late

expressions of the type, when such buildings had already lost their multi-functional dimension

and were confined to their concrete function as mosques. This occurred through the loss of

the domed-sofa unit and the emergence of the mihrab unit as its main volumetric and

operational component, to which the lateral spaces [tabhanes] still allowed access even after

their significant reduction in size (See Pl. 57).144 However, slight discrepancies in the treatment

of the lateral spaces attest to the process of dissolution of the tabhanes and the empowerment

of the focal prayer hall.

142
Eyice (1962-1963), pp. 8-9.
143
Eyice (1962-1963), pp. 9-10.
144
Eyice (1962-1963), p. 10; Doğan (1977), pp. 210-214.
214
 Pl. 58: Mehmed Bey mosque at Siroz (1492/93)
(Ottoman Architecture 2008, p. 281)

In the Mehmed Bey mosque, the square shape of the main prayer hall (14,58m x 26 m)

is interrupted at its south-east side by the projecting kibla apsis and by a series of ten door

openings, four of which allow access to the lateral tabhanes. The tabhanes are roofed with

cross-vaults and communicate with the exterior and the frontal portico. Its typological
215
parallels are the T-shaped mosques of Davud Paşa (1485) at Istanbul and Piri Paşa at Silivri

(1530).145

The Bedesten

The bedesten constituted the core of the convergence point in the Ottoman town. The

three main axes Y, Y1 and X1 intersected through its gates.146 Unlike its neighbour the Eski

cami’, it escaped demolition thanks to the intervention of Orlandos in 1930s, who defied the

pressure applied by the local commercial community.

The architectural description of the monument as provided by Ayverdi, will help us to

identify the issue of its dating: “This is the bezzâzistan, which although it had its outer shops

demolished, it has preserved the proportions of its core structure and of its domes in a way

that it can be described as a six domed structure. Under the upper arrangement of windows,

there is a phase of repair which becomes evident from the traces of the arches of the shops.

The masonry is comprised of scruffy sculpted, chiselled blocks of stone interchanging with

two brick sequences and on each side of the stones there are vertically inserted bricks. The

upper windows are arranged in pairs under each dome; this could have happened because

the domes meant to be bigger. Basically, the bezzâzistan of Serres is bigger and higher than

that of Thessaloniki. Its domes are covered with tiles. It is located at the flat part of the city,

at its nucleus- that is to say, the market”. It is, therefore, conveyed clearly that there is a

phase of repair, which becomes evident at the upper parts of the masonry.147

Before proceeding with the inspection of the material evidences, let us first review the

recovered archival material confirming the dating of the monument. In the 1568 survey (TT
145
Anhegger (1967), p. 323; Doğan (1977), pp. 210-214.
146
Orlandos (1959), pp. 141-142; Ayverdi (1982), p.284; Theodorides (1986), pp. 112-125.
147
Ayverdi (1982), p. 284.
216
251), the bedesten of Siroz is registered amongst the allocated sources of revenue to the vakf

of Çandarli Ibrahim Paşa at Istanbul, which was founded during the reign of Bayezid II. The

two vakfiyyes related to Ibrahim Paşa’s vakf at Istanbul date from 1494 (h.899) and 1499

(h.904).148

The next available information on the bedesten is recorded in the 1530 survey (TT

167), according to which, the amount of 11,946 akçes, as derived from the rents of 82 shops at

Siroz, was allocated to the vakf of the mosque of Ibrahim Paşa at Siroz.149 The earliest

reference to the vakf of the mosque of Ibrahim Paşa in the city of Siroz is found in the early

16th c. surveys published by Balta.150 Finally, the aforementioned 1568 survey conveys that

the income derived from “The bedesten with the shops which surround the bedesten at the city

of Serres” was remitted to Ibrahim Paşa’s vakf at Istanbul. The breakdown of these

contributions is as follows: a) the rents from the shops surrounding the market hall amounted

annually to the sum of 6,708 akçes and b) the rents from the shops inside the market hall

amounted annually to the sum of 3,420 akçes.151

From the above, one conclusion can be drawn with certainty: in 1494 the bedesten was

allocated to the vakf of Ibrahim Paşa at Istanbul amongst its sources of income. 1494

coincides with the final phase of repair, which entailed the addition to the pre-existent

bedesten of an external zone of shops. Architectural evidence reveals that the monument

underwent two phases of construction, with the second building phase being identified in late

15th century. The laconic entry in the 1568 survey, where the revenues derived from the

bedesten of Siroz are discerned in two categories: a) the bedesten with the shops which

surrounded it, b) the town’s [old] bedesten may well have referred to this phase of repair.

148
Gökbilgin (1952), p. 418; Barkan-Ayverdi (1970), pp. 82-83; Cezar (1983), pp. 192-194; Lowry (2008), p. 153.
149
Gökbilgin (1952), p. 425, footnote 665.
150
Balta (1995), pp. 94-95.
151
Gökbilgin (1952), p. 425.
217
 If this interpretation is correct, then we would need to readdress the question of when

the principal building phase commenced and if indeed Ibrahim Paşa was the initial founder.

The archaeological survey of the building, as discussed in this section, means to establish the

existence of two building phases dated in the first and the second half of the 15th century

respectively. Towards this direction points also the spatial relation of Eski cami’i with Eski

hammam; as they are positioned in controlled alignment, we would need to accept that the

intermediate space was left empty for a century, until the end of the 15th century (See Pl. 37).

Such a resolution is highly problematic; especially considering the known fact that at

least two other bedestens were built before the conquest of Istanbul. The Bursa bedesten was

endowed by Bayezid I, when the need for a more secured storage than that offered by Emir

han was felt (See Pl. 59). The Koca bedesten at Edirne, on the other hand, was completed by

Mehmed Çelebi as an endowment to his father’s Ulu cami’i.152

Pl. 59: Bursa bedesten (Bayezid I), b) Edirne bedesten (Mehmed Çelebi)
(Photo: Bessi 2009/2012)

152
Kuban (2010), pp. 158-160.
218
 Consequently, I cannot see any reason why this practice would not have been followed

in the case of Siroz too; in other words, why the erection of Eski cami’i and hammam would

not have been followed in the next twenty to forty years by a bedesten. Finally, an

architectural analogy should be seriously considered when dating the first building phase of

our sample. The bedesten of Tire, which shares the same layout with the Siroz bedesten dates

from the reign of Bayezid I and is attributed to the patronage of the local dignitary Abdüllatif

ibn Latif (See Pl. 60). Under this light, we could extend the hypothesis that the patron would be

someone from the family network of the Çandarlis, such as the first son of Hayreddin

Çandarli, Ibrahim Paşa, who died from the plague in 1429.153 The vakf evlatlik of him and

his brother are listed amongst the earliest vakfs of the city. From the record of the vakf we

learn that significant allowances were secured throughout the 15th c. for the Çandarli

descendents.154

Pl. 60: Tire bedesten ground plan (late 14th c.) reflecting the ground plan of Siroz bedesten
(Kuban 2010, p. 159)

153
Uzunçarşılı (1970), pp. 46-55.
154
Balta (1995), p. 175.
219
Architectural analysis

The ground plan of the building is a rectangle with its dimensions reaching

approximately 21 x 31 m. and with four gates, one at the middle of each side. It is covered by

six domes arranged in two rows in a way that it reflects the plans of Tire, Thessaloniki and

Sarajevo bedesten (See Pls. 60-61). The six domes are supported on the side walls and on two,

centrally arranged, elephant legs, by the means of seven slightly pointed double arches. The

elephant legs are solid up to the springing of the arches, while from that point onwards they

dilute in a pair of arches, the intermediate gap of which, is filled with a narrow vault. The

same solution has been also followed at the bedesten of Sarajevo, with the main difference

being that in the Siroz example the apex and the sides of these domes were perforated by

small skylights and sets of windows. These revisions of the openings constituted the only

sources of lighting to the building, after the inferred repairs at the end of the 15th century.

Pl. 61: Sarayevo “Bursa” bedesten (Rüstem Paşa 1551) and Thessaloniki bedesten (Mehmed II 1472/73)
(Photo: Bessi 2010)

The monument demonstrates proclaimed features of two different building phases,

which are discernible through irregularities attested in the masonry. The stonework up to the

springing of the pendentives is that of a coarse commixture of cloisonné and alternating layers

techniques indicative of early Ottoman masonries. This conglomerate masonry consists of

220
 horizontally inserted bricks in the vertical

beds and an irregular alternation of

horizontal brick sequences. This style of

masonry is also used in the corresponding

surface of the exterior wall, up to the point

where the wall is chopped back from its

original line. (See Pl. 62)

Pl. 62: Siroz bedesten: exterior wall surface of the

principal phase (Photo: Bessi 2010)

The zone extending above the gates is executed in a stylised version of alternating

layers technique indicative of masonries of the Ottoman era. This stylised technique is used

in the corresponding surface of the interior wall, as a pseudo-plastering arranged in two

parallel friezes on high relief. The first frieze runs along the extrados of the blocked-up

windows. (See Pls. 63.a-c.)

Pl. 63. a-c. Siroz bedesten: interior wall surface of repair phase (Photo: Bessi 2010)

221
 The fact that this is a superimposed coating over pre-existent masonry becomes

evident in many ways. At places where it has not been adjusted properly, the pre-existent

fabric shows underneath; or the brick bordure of the frieze protrudes like an impost moulding

(See Pl. 63. b-c.). This first frieze is succeeded by a second stucco frieze adorned with inverted

palmettes; at places this palmette frieze is destroyed and allows the layers of the pre-existent

fabric to show clearly. (See Pl. 64 .a-b.)

Pl. 64. a-b. Siroz bedesten : interior wall surface of repair phase (Photo: Bessi 2010)

That the upper zone of the fabric is later in date than the lower one is clearly indicated

by the difference in masonry. The primary building phase reaches up to the springing of the

arches, while the repair phase corresponds to the arches and the domes. This is also reflected

at the exterior, where the thickness of the walls gradually diminishes from 1.40 m. to 0.90 m.;

thus, the exterior wall surface acquires an articulated profile. (See Pl. 62)

Under the light of the above, the repair phase can be summarised in: the extension of

the building in height and the blocking of its 32 windows. During the principal building

phase, these windows constituted the only source of lighting, which became useless, when

they heightened the domes, added the skylights and the external tier of shops (See Pl. 65. a-b.)

The first building phase, based on the evidence of the early masonry, can be dated to around

222
the second quarter of 15th century and the repair phase from the second half of the 15th century

onwards.

Pl. 65 a-b. Siroz bedesten : blocked windows of the principal building phase (Photo: Bessi 2010)

The town-planning conception of the classical phase

The proto-Ottoman zone of the zaviye network is succeeded by a second parallel zone,

that of the classical zaviyes, which expands the urban boundaries and encompasses both the

proto-Ottoman (initiation) phase of the fringe belt and the Byzantine kernel. In this sense,

Siroz epitomizes the morphological evolution in the Ottoman town as described in the

introduction of this thesis. As the town grew and underwent reorganization, the external

polarities of the proto-Ottoman phase became inner and thus, the classical or expansion phase

of the fringe belt came to a formation. The vakfs and the related quarters within the classical

zone date exclusively from mid. 15th century onwards.

The zaviyes of the second zone—Koca Moustafa and Mehmed Bey—along with the

mosque of Selçuk Hatun are all placed on the same lattitude and are dated in the same

chronological phase. They constitute the new external polarity and the new zone of the fringe

belt that succeeds the initiation phase. Their placement is subjected to the same monitoring

223
process followed for the proto-Ottoman zaviyes; they demarcate the new gates of the town

from east-south-west and function as induction centers for new settlers, “revande and

ayande”. In the same time, they pre-announce the trajectories towards which further

development will lead.

The case-study of Siroz constitutes the cornerstone of the theory advanced in this

thesis on the adaptation of an axial morphological solution in the urban environment of the

lower Balkans by the Ottomans. In a way, the first two case-studies discussed in this thesis

can be seen as the ‘prelude’ inducting towards the ‘crescendo’ of what the engineering of a

multi-axial solution would look like.

If at Dimetoka and Gümülcine we attested the mastering of a biaxial type, then, at

Siroz the venture reaches its zenith. The Ottoman political objective remains, in this case too,

the same: to regulate the conditions of access and to control the routes which were creating

access. However, the filtering device at Siroz assumes a highly advanced configuration under

the dynamic format of an axial grid, which when appended to the pre-existent Byzantine

kernel releases its transformative power. It reconfigures the core substance of the latter from

an introvert and stagnant built environment into an all extendable and dynamically evolving

urban fabric.

This transformative quality of the axial grid lies in its capacity to merge the

boundaries between the kernel and the suburbs and to reconfigure the fragmented fabrics into

a unified morpheme: the classical city. While proto-Ottoman town-planning is a revision of

the Byzantine tracks on the suburban area, classical town-planning discovers how to enhance

the potential of the landscape through improvisation and independent planning. In the

classical phase, the Klopotitza tributary (axis X) evolves into a pivotal axis along which the

artisanal hubs of tanners (See map 3: C6) and potters by the quarter of Hakim Davut (See map

224
3:C19) were accommodated. Urban development is being furthered to untracked trajectories of

the proto-Ottoman axes Y, Y1, Y2, as the formation of quarters of Bacdar Hayreddin (See map

3: C13), Bedreddin Bey (See map 3: C10) and Ayşe Hatun (See map 3: C5) suggest.

The most significant development of the classical town-planning consists in the

introduction of the eastward axis X1 that balanced growth at both sections of the town and

consolidated the role of the külliye as the convergence point of the Ottoman town. It is after

the formation of axis X1 in the second half of the 15th century, with the establishment of

Tanrivermiş (See map 3: C2), Doğan Bey (See map 3: C3) quarters and the Mehmed Bey cami’ (See

map 3: C4), that the cross-axial enhancement of the landscape shows clearly. Since, it is then

that the classical çarşıya (axis X1) intersects with the Byzantine/proto-Ottoman çarşıya (axis Y)

over the cross-point of the bedesten. Classical çarşıya is essentialy the Orta çarşı (See map 3:

C15) that adjoins the bedesten with the first quarter established westwards, that of Debbağlar

(See map 2: C6). In the same phase, we should also date the formation of the other markets (See

map 3: C16-18) developed around the bedesten. The synthesis of the market area concludes in

the beginning of the 16th century with the establishment of the kervansaray endowed by

Sadrazam Ali Paşa (See map 3: C20).155

Although, schematically axis Y seems to adjoin with axis X1, this is not correct. Axis

X1 in the classical phase intersected with axes X, Y2, Y1, crossed through the bedesten and

met with axis Y over Tereke pazarı. As discussed above, these two axes became juxtaposed

only after the 1913 fire and the formation of Venizelou Street that transverse the town from

east to west. For this reason, I have decided to consider them as two different tracks of access

that represent two different morphological phases of urban development.

155
For information on the kervansaray consult: Ayverdi (1982), p. 283; Karanastasis (1991), p. 231.
225
Chapter 4: Yenice-i Vardar

226
 A. Justification for the incorporation of Yenice as a case-study in the thesis

The fourth case-study which will be discussed is that of Yenice-i Vardar marking the

south-western extremes of Via Egnatia. This town constitutes one of the few surviving

paradigms of Ottoman urban entrepreneurship that preserve their historical core fabric intact.

When considering the chronicle of the Ottoman conquest, Yenice-i Vardar along with Tatar

Pazarcık represent the first, uninhibited experimentations of the Ottomans with urban

planning in the southern Balkans.1 Yenice was set up by Hacı Evrenos, after the transfer of

his seat from Siroz in 1385. Thus the proto-Ottoman phase of Yenice’s urban development

falls well within the reign of Bayezid I and the interregnum period. In this way, the town’s

historical nucleus allows a unique glimpse at an uncompromised urban solution that is

valuable to our comparative analysis.

The current section will commence with a review of the published cadastral material

providing the breakdown of the neighbourhoods, the demographic synthesis and the recovery

of non-extant infrastructure. At a second stage, architectural analysis of the surviving and,

wherever possible, recovered monuments will be employed towards the reconstruction of the

historical topography and the periodization of the phases of the town’s urban development

throughtout the first two centuries of its morphogenesis (14th to 16th centuries).

The dating and the architectural analysis of these monuments is of outmost

importance, since the earliest, detailed survey (1529) on Yenice dates from a hundred and

seventy years after the date of the town’s establishment by Hacı Evrenos.2 The second survey

1 th
Tatar Pazarcik is a late 14 century creation too established by Crimean Tatars. Boykov (2010), pp. 75-77.
2
BOA, TT 424 936 (1529), pp. 4-13.
227
follows in 15403 and the third one in 1555.4 Despite the fact that these first archival sources

offer retrospective information on the vakfs and their founders, they cannot be used as

synchronic testimonies for the lacuna of a hundred and seventy years. Therefore, the

intelligence gap for this period can be partially filled with evidences retrieved from the

analysis of the material remains.

B. The breakdown of the neighbourhoods

Methodology

The three detailed surveys from the first half of the 16th century allow a constructive

insight to the demographic synthesis of Yenice during Süleyman’s reign belonging to the

consolidation phase.5 The information retrieved from the surveys relates primarily to the rates

of the city’s population growth tracked down over the span of the three consecutive decades

from the 1530s to 1550s. Despite the restrictive character of the material—on the basis that it

records a short period of thirty years from the first half of the 16th century—its importance is

still invaluable as a synchronic source of evidences on the social stratigraphy and

subsequently on the tax categories.

Of particular interest for the present study is another aspect of information allowed

through the surveys. The material provides us with indirect references on the existence of the

city’s humble charitable foundations [mescids, tekyes, zaviyes], through the recording of their

functionaries and personnel. Their existence would have remained unknown to us, since

Evliya does not provide the number and the names of the mescids and tekyes of Yenice. These

references can be then corroborated with the information provided by the Evkaf Kamil Kepeci
3
BOA, TT 433 947 (1540), pp. 925-932.
4
BOA, TT 723 962 (1555), pp. 530-539.
5
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), pp. 115-116.
228
category of documents (from 19th c.), which have been extensively used by Ayverdi in his

volumes on the Ottoman architecture of the Balkan lands.6 The information on the prominent

vakfs of the Evrenos family as provided by the şecere, in conjunction with the recovery of the

town’s humble endowments enables a balanced interpretation of the town’s development. For

these reasons, it has been considered necessary to revisit these three registers previously

published by Lowry and Erünsal. The authors have chosen to use the material from the angle

of population growth and demographic synthesis, the balance between the Muslim and

Christian congregations, the class of the half-taxed celibates and the rates of the converts.

The aforementioned publication was a detailed summary of the quarters with their

demographic totals. The current study adds additional pieces to this body of work by

providing the transcription of entries which critically attest to the existence of recovered

foundations and further provides the breakdowns of the exempted, celibates and converts.

The identification of the class of the exempted suggests a taxonomic reading of the quarters

based on their social stratigraphy and whereas possible attempts to establish their topographic

correlations, as in the cases of the quarter of Hacı Lala and Hacı Evrenos.

The Christian quarter and Muslim quarters with Christian population

Over the span of these 25 years population of Yenice increased by 12.5%.7 Utilizing a

hypothetical coefficient of five individuals per adult male headed household as suggested by

Barkan8, it appears that Yenice’s total population in 1529 comprised some 2,661 individuals

6
Ayverdi (1982), pp. 303-306.
7
Consult Table 27 of the appendix.
8
On the use of the coefficient towards the computation of the total I consulted: Barkan (1957), p. 21; Lowry
(1992)², p. 52.
229
of whom 2,5419 were Muslims and 12010 were Christians. The 1530 survey records eighteen

Muslim quarters and one Christian [Mahalle-yi eski] which constituted 3% of the overall

population. The 1540 survey records seventeen Muslim quarters with the quarter of Mehmed

Bey son of Hizir Bey being omitted and shows that the Christians in the otherwise Muslim

quarter of Ahmed Bey lived side by side with the converts.11

The 1555 survey shows that the number of Muslim neighbourhoods was reinstated

back to 18 with the addition of the neighbourhood of Yusuf Bey, while significant changes are

noticed in the settlement of the Christian congregation. The Mahalle-yi eski vanishes and in

its place we encounter small Christian communities developing within 4 Muslim quarters: the

Ahmed Bey, Şehre Küşti, Hacı Resul, Ali Bey and that of mescid-i of Hacı Lala. Amongst

them, the quarter of Şehre Küşti presents the most unusual evolution. Although, it appears in

1530s as an exclusively Muslim quarter in 1555 ended up being an entirely Christian quarter

with the exemption of one convert.12

This initial entry of the old neighbourhood becomes understood as the quarter which

pre-existed from something [i.e.] from the Ottoman settlement. More importantly in 1540s

this old quarter co-existed with the first Christian community created within a Muslim

quarter, that of Ahmed Bey. This very detail shows that we are dealing with two different

lines of evolution, which should be understood as the consecutive stages of a relocation of the

Christian population in the town.

9
The formula utilized in deriving the figure is 581 total adult male-headed households - 91 bachelors of tax
paying age= 490 x 5= 2450 + 91 {the bachelors} = 2541 {Total of Muslims at Yenice-i Vardar in 1529}. The data
used for the computation of the formula are derived from BOA, TT 424, pp. 4-13 and their breakdowns are
presented in table 27.
10
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is 24 total adult male-headed households - 0 bachelor of
tax-paying age = 24 x 5 = 120 {Total of Christians at Yenice in 1529}.The data used for the computation of the
formula are derived from BOA, TT 424, pp. 4-13 and their breakdowns are presented in table 27.
11
Consult Table 26: no. 11.
12
TT723, pp. 536-538.
230
 According to excavation data that came to light by the 16th directorate of Prehistoric

and Ancient Antiquities of Pella, traces of a late-Byzantine settlement were revealed to the

west of the Hacı Evrenos mosque (See map 8: A1) under the area occupied by the ‘Old Market’

(See map 8: A4). This hamlet along with a few other, scattered settlements of similar type

constituted the Byzantine Bardarion, which was destroyed a century after the first Ottoman

settlement.13 This pre-existent Christian nucleus should be identified as the mahalle-yi eski of

the surveys which existed until the 1540s.

The initial entry on the mahalle-yi eski along with the presence of 229 Christians in

the 1555 survey raises questions about the fate of this quarter. If we consider that the

Christian population did not vanish but was increased by 20.8% in the interim of 15 years

between the 1530 and 1555 surveys, in conjunction with the archaeological evidence attesting

to a destruction stratum in the area where the mahalle-yi eski was located, then we are dealing

with a case of forced relocation as a result of urban re-development. In morphological terms,

a reversal of polarities phenomenon though in this case without a circumscribed Byzantine

kernel.

Given the fact that, the commercial precincts were expanding towards the north-west

of the Via Egnatia, the existence of a residential settlement in the middle of a commercial

district would impede the progress of such a project. Moreover, we should not forget the

existence of the Isa Bey bedesten (See map 8: B1), which was constructed in the heart of the

commercial district, that is to say, the ‘Old Market’. Evliya’s testimony comes to corroborate

this theory: “the market had 740 shops, the bazaar and the bedesten. There is a sturdy and

secure bedesten made of stone, bearing six domes like precious stones and with 4 iron gates;

13
Xryostomou (1990), pp. 167-189.
231
such a wonderful establishment cannot be met in any other city”. 14 Therefore, it can be

suggested that the alienation of the land occupied by the ‘Old Quarter’ preceded the

construction of the bedesten and resulted in the relocation of the Christians at the north and

north-eastern quarters of the town [Ahmed Bey and Şehre Küsti]. This can also explain how

all Christian quarters ended up being located at the north-east part of the city, as attested from

the 19th century’s surveys.15 This was the result of a gradual process starting from the mid

16th century onwards.

Under this light, it would be useful to identify the location of the quarters that received

Christian settlers, as this will help us to conceptualize the Ottoman modus operande in a town

where they could dictate their own rules from the early stages of its establishment. The 1555

survey shows that four quarters received Christian settlers.16 From these four, we can identify

two. The Quarter of Ahmed Bey was extending to east of the mosque of Ahmed Bey at the

area between the hilltop and the medrese of Ahmed Bey (See map 8: C3), while for the quarter of

Şehre Küsti its identification can be produced through a different level of synthesis.

Quarters with the same name are also encountered at Bursa and Gümülcine (See map 8:

C4). They denoted a small community which had settled within the precinct of Orta mezarlik

of Bursa and amidst the fringes of the quarters of Hacı Ipekçi, Arif Hane and Kır Mahallesi.

Still, this community did not belong either to the central quarters or to Kır quarter; these

topographic specifics corroborate the oral tradition that has prevailed about the naming of the

quarter. According to this, because they were not on good terms with the other communities

they were settled separately and therefore, they turned their back [küsmek] to the already

14
Dimitriadis (1973), p. 220.
15
Maurokefalidou (2010), p. 53.
16
Consult table 26 of the appendix.
232
formed neighbourhoods- to the town. Even after the incorporation of the quarter to the urban

framework along with the expansion of the city, the name of the quarter remained intact.17

Exactly the same topographic specifics are echoed at Yenice too. The Şehre küstı

quarter of Yenice (See map 8: B4) was bounded by the mezarlik to the south (See map 8: A5), by

Isa Bey quarter to the west (See map 8: B3) and by Ahmed Bey quarter to the north (See map 8: C3).

At the position B4 of the reconstructed map, the minaret of the Şehre Küsti mosque is still

extant. This was renamed into Lower neighbourhood during the late Ottoman period and

constituted one of the five Christian quarters around which the commercial centre of

contemporary Yenice evolved.18 The archival evidence suggests that until mid 1550s, it was

just a small quarter of the fringe belt which expanded significantly after the settlement of the

Christian populace. 19

Under this light, the reversal of polarities phenomenon can be equally discerned at

Yenice. Initially, the Ottomans were settled around the area of the pre-existent Byzantine

settlement (See map 8: A4) that was bounded by Via Egnatia and started expanding their town

westwards and northwards. As the town grew, the area occupied by the Byzantine settlement

evolved into the convergence point of proto-Ottoman and classical Yenice, the ‘Old market’.

Thus, they relocated the Christians at the town’s fringe belt, which coincides with the town’s

north-eastern boundaries. In the later centuries, the town’s classical fringe belt evolved into

the town’s modern convergence point, where all commercial activities were transferred from

the area of the ‘Old market’(See map 8: B1). The modern commercial centre of Yenice lies in

the square of G. Yiota that coincides with the 19th century’s Christian quarter Cumra or Ag.

Konstantinos.

17
E. Kadiroğlu, “Şehreküstü Camii”, http://www.ogretmeninsesi.org/dergi/128/eminkadir.asp, 2010, (accessed
15 August 2011).
18
The Christian neighbourhoods in the 19th century tapu-tahrirs are: Lower neighbourhood, Cumra,
Bucava,Upper neighbourhood and Varosh. Demetriades (1975), p. 214.
19
Consult table 26: no. 15.
233
The Muslim Quarters

Amongst the most populous Muslim quarters were these of Isa Bey, of Yakub Bey,of

Hacı Lala, of the zaviye of Isa Bey, of Hacı Evrenos, of Hizir Bey, of Davud Bey and Acem

Kadi while the largest of all was that of Ahmed Bey.20 All these quarters, with the exception

of Hacı Lala and Acem Kadi, were created in the name of Hacı Evrenos’s decendants. It is

therefore possible to estimate the date of their formation from the information on their

founders provided by the şecere.21 The Hacı Evrenos quarter, which developed around his

eponymous imaret (See map 8: A1), was one of the first quarters which were formed at the end

of the 14th century. For the Yakub and Isa Bey quarters, the terminus post quem should be

regarded the 144122 and consequently, the formation should have taken place in the second

half of the 15th century.

The “Quarter of Hizir Bey” should be attributed to Hizir Bey Böğrü “the first born son

of Barak Bey.... [who] looked after the accounts of Ahmed Bey, when the latter was governor

of Vidin, and became the administrator of Hacı Evrenos’s pious foundation for some period

of time. When he died Ahmed Bey became the administrator once again”.23 If we consider

that Hizir Bey belonged to the second generation after Hacı Evrenos and that the first

generation like Isa and Yakub Bey died in 1441, while the third generation like Ahmed Bey

died in 1502-3, then we can estimate that Hizir Bey died in the second half of the 15th century

and consequently, the formation of his quarter should be set in the same period too.

It becomes then understood that the majority of the quarters were established in the

second half of the 15th and the first half of the 16th century. Although, the topographic

20
Consult table 26: nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16, 18, 11.
21
For all the references on the şecere I consulted Lowry-Erünsal (2010).
22
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 44.
23
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 46.
234
identification of all the quarters is not possible at that point, we can, nevertheless, recognise

one of the convergence points of classical Yenice [i.e.] the quarter of Isa Bey that evolved

around his eponymous mosque. This was highly acclaimed by Evliya who notices that: “and

the Isa Bey mosque, which was built by one of the ancient architects, whose architectural

design is carried with such mathematical precision, that in all sincerity astonishes all who see

it”.24

Since there are no remains of the mosque, it would not be possible to identify the

position of the neighbourhood if it hadn’t been for a reference appearing in the 1555 survey.

In this source, the neighbourhood is cited as the “mahalle-yi Isa Bey nam-ı diğer hazine”25,

which can be then corroborated with the testimony of the local author M. Lountemis from

1928. In his article to a local newspaper comments on the topography of Yenice as follows:

“the most pivotal and vibrant spot of our small, seven-hilled town is a roughly-made

crossroad called chaznes”.26 From the testimonies of the locals it can be further reconstructed

that a stream was springing from Ahmed Bey hilltop and crossed through Hazine and the

Lower quarter [i.e., Şehre Küsti] down to Via Egnatia. By this way, the stream formed a

natural boundary dividing the Christian from the Muslim quarters.

24
Lowry-Erunsal (2010), p. 142.
25
TT723, p. 530.
26
Maurokefalidou (2007), p. 54.
235
 Pl. 66:
Ground plan
of the
mekteb of
Şerif Yusuf
Bey (?)
(Drawing:
Bessi 2012)

Pl. 67: South–

east view of
the mekteb of
Şerif Yusuf
Bey (?)
(Drawing:
Bessi 2012)

236
 The aforementioned cross-road should be placed to the east of the nowadays square of

St. George and close to the junction of the streets Papadopoulou and Papaioannou (See map 8:

B3). Thus, Isa Bey mosque should have occupied the area where nowadays stands the church

of St. George and was to be found within walking distance from a monument (See map 8: B2)

which was recently identified as the elementary school of Şerif Yusuf Bey.27 (Pls. 66-68)

Pl. 68 The mekteb of Şerif Yusuf Bey (?) (Photo: Bessi 2007, 2010)

Recovered foundations of classical Yenice

Evliya lists 17 mosques in the city, but only names the following five: İskender Bey,

Badrali, Isa Bey, Receb Çelebi and Ahmed Bey. He also records twelve mescids but apart

from these of Hacı Evrenos and Şeyh Ilahi, the names of the other ten have not survived.28

Therefore, these monuments could be recovered through examination of the entries of the

functionaries at the various charitable foundations of 16th centuries Yenice.

27
Lowry (2012), pp. 47-52.
28
Lowry-Erünsal(2010), p. 142.
237
 By this way, the present study recovered the names of ten mescids and four mosques.

The existence of the (1) mescid of Acem Kadi is verified through the reference of its

administrator Hasan in the 1530 survey, which is also recorded as the mosque of Acem Kadi

by Ayverdi. It was restored by a certain Abdulrahman Bey, who endowed the mosque with a

few shops.29 The administrator Hacı Mustafa of the (2) mescid of Murad Re’im is recorded in

the 1529 survey.30 At the (3) Ali Bey quarter is recovered the eponymous mescid under the

reference of its imam Seyid Halife.31 In the same quarter it is registered the muezzin Ali Seyid

of the (4) mescid of Mehmed Bey. At the quarter of Mehmed Bey son of Hizir Bey is

registered Davud Isa, the muezzin of the mosque.32 The fifth recovered (5) mescid is that of

Hacı Mustafa known through the entry of its imam Muslih al-Din Halife, as resident of the

quarter of Hacı Evrenos.33 In the quarter of the zaviye of Isa Bey are registered the hatib and

imam Umur Halife Şeyh Siyah of the d)mosque of Mustafa Paşa ,which is the only close

reference to the mosque of Badrali Mustafa Bey described by Evliya as an imposing and awe

inspiring work of art.34 In the same quarter are registered the imam Mahmud Halife of the (6)

mescid of the zaviye of Hacı Evrenos, the existence of which is corroborated by Evliya35, the

imam Muslih al-Din Halife of the (7) mescid of Hizir Bey founded in the selfsame quarter

most probably in the memory of Hizir Bey Böğrü36 and the imam Ahmed Halife Karagöz of

the (8) mescid of Dur [Ali Bey]. From the entry of this last mescid is only legible Dur and the

reconstruction of its reading was achieved through Ayverdi’s reference on the mosque of Dur

29
TT424, p. 11; Ayverdi (1982), p. 303.
30
TT424, p. 10.
31
TT424, p. 8; Ayverdi (1982), p. 304.
32
TT424, p. 10; Ayverdi (1982), p. 305.
33
TT723, p. 533.
34
TT723, pp. 532-533; Ayverdi (1982), p. 304.
35
TT723, pp. 532-533; Lowry-Erünsal(2010), p. 142.
36
TT723, p. 532-533.
238
Ali Bey.37 The neighbourhood of the (9) mescid of Hacı Lala and the (10) mescid of the Şeyh

Ilahi are mentioned by Evliya. In TT.d. 723 the neighbourhood of Çinarlu is referred as in

the vicinity of e) Abdi Bey38, the selfsame mosque of whom is mentioned by Ayverdi.39

Therefore, from the twelve mescids mentioned by Evliya the present study has

recovered the following: 1) Acem Kadi, 2) Murad Re’im, 3) Ali Bey, 4)Mehmed Bey, 5) Hacı

Mustafa, 6) of the zaviye of Hacı Evrenos, 7) Hizir Bey, 8) Dur Ali Bey, 9) Hacı Lala, 10)

Şeyh Ilahi. Ayverdi mentions three more mescids but there is no further evidence about the

date of their formation: the mescid and imaret of Burak Bey, which are known to belong to his

vakf at Yenişehir, the mescid and imaret of Hacı Mehmed Efendi and the mescid of Ismail son

Ali.40

With reference to the mosques of Yenice, the present study has recovered four out of

the twelve unlisted mosques: a) Acem Kadi, b) Ali Çelebi, c) Mehmed Bey, d) Abdi Bey, if we

do not include in this list the mosque of Mustafa Paşa already named as the Badrali mosque

by Evliya. For the remaining eight, we have to speculate that each quarter would have been

provided with one mosque, hence the registering of their functionaries; and then, if we

abstract from these quarters the mescid of Hacı Lala and that of the zaviye of Isa Bey, we

come up with the mosques of e) Yakub Bey, f) Yusuf Bey, g) Hacı Resul, h) Hacı Oğurlu, i)

Hüseyin Bey, k) Davud Bey, l) Hüseyin Bey or Çinarlu and m) Debbağlar.

37
TT723, pp. 532-533; Ayverdi (1982), p. 304.
38
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 116, read the name of the quarter as dar kurb-i Isa Bey but I would suggest a
reading as dar kurb-i ‘Abdi Bey after comparing it with the writing of Isa Bey on page 530.
39
TT723, p. 533; Ayverdi (1982), p. 303.
40
Ayverdi (1980), pp. 304-305.
239
C. Reconstructing town-planning under the patronage of Hacı Evrenos

The imaret of Hacı Evrenos: a classical revision of an early Ottoman tripartite plan

The layout of the Hacı Evrenos imaret at Yenice known as the İskender Bey mosque

encapsulates glimpses of architectural ingenuity unprecedented within the field of Ottoman

architecture. This is due to its amalgamative physiognomy that was formed under the

synergistic interaction of historical circumstances with influences inbred within the multi-

cultural environment of the borderland. Concluding to the definition of a typo for such a

hybrid structure is a challenging task. We can extend the term classical revision of an early

Ottoman tripartite plan—the ‘imaret of Hacı Evrenos at Gümülcine –with an axial eyvan (See

Pl. 69). Each of the components of this term corresponds to specific spatial properties

identified in the monument.

Pl. 69: Ground plan of Imaret of Haci Evrenos at Yenice-i Vardar (known as İskender Bey mosque) denoting
the two successive construction phases from 15th and 16th century. [Drawing: Lokma (2013), delineation of
phases Bessi]

240
 Firstly, the Yenice imaret is a revision of Hacı Evrenos’s ‘imaret at Gümülcine

because of the typological similarities it shares with its counterpart:

a) a tripartite layout and a spatial development along the latitudinal axis,

b) a central domed sofa unit which transforms into a free-standing eyvan and

c) lateral gravity with an axial centre achieved through the flanking rooms [tabhanes].

At the Yenice example the central unit, which can be perceived as the equivalent of the

domed sofa, assumes the function of a free-standing eyvan itself since it is not an enclosed

space. The ‘imaret is suggested to be primarily a sample of vernacular architecture that

assumed the function of an ‘imaret at a later stage. This was possible, since both phases

accomodated a residential function. We extended, thus, the hypothesis that both monuments

under Hacı Evrenos’ patronage were probably based on the fusion of the domed sofa-vaulted

eyvan with the four eyvan court plan (See pls. 32-33, 70). However, at Yenice example the

influence of the latter scheme becomes far more pronounced, since the central eyvan opening

is flanked by two lateral eyvans. The tripartite scheme of a central eyvan flanked by narrow

doors is encountered in 12th and 13th century palaces of Syria and Jazira. Yasar Tabbaa when

re-visiting the issue of the origins of the four eyvan court plan in 2010 pointed to its so far

ignored association with cruciform palacial plans adopted in Ayyubid Syria and Jazira from

Abassid Iraq.41

41
Y. Tabbaa, Construction of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo, Penn State Press 2010, pp. 84-93 (chap. 4:
The Palace: Forms and Meanings/ The Cruciform Four-Iwan Plan and The Tripartite Court Facade).
241
 Pl. 70 Cuma
mescid
Isfahan:
south eyvan
th
ca. 14
century
(Photo:
Bessi 2011)

In the Yenice sample, the central unit which can be perceived as the equivalent of the

domed sofa assumes the function of a free-standing eyvan itself since is not an enclosed space.

In the same time, the lateral compartments, although reflective of the latitudinal planimetric

development of archaic zaviye formations, such as the Sünbül zaviye at Tokat, substantially

divert from the lateral vaulted eyvan spaces of the Sünbül zaviye. The domed sofa of the

Sünbül zaviye is volumetrically congruous, since it can function as an independently standing

unit, while at Yenice the lateral parts are fully merged and none of these three units that

correspond to the sofa and the tabhanes can be perceived as an autonomous structure.42

Pl. 71 Material evidence attesting to the existence of two different construction phases.
(Photo: Bessi 2012)

42
Emir (1994), vol. 1, pp. 51-64 and Pl. 74.
242
 The first to have recorded the monument was Kiel43, who provided the only, up to the

current moment, layout of the monument. Kiel, attributed the mosque to Evrenosoğlu Ahmed

Bey, but in the postscript of his article based on a second reading of Evliya he attributed it to

İskender Bey. The most recent edition of the extract of Evliya on Yenice was translated by

Lowry – Erünsal as follows: “There are a total of seventeen mosques, each of which is built

by rulers and nobles and other people. But the most impressive of all, with its large

congregation, is the İskender Bey Cami’ i which lies within the market place. It is an ancient

sanctuary whose dome is covered with lead. Over its door which lies across from the

direction of Mecca is the following inscription which gives its date: Iskender, from the line of

Gazi Evrenos, rebuilt a house of charity [imaret] of his ancestor and disseminated its

advantages. In return for which may his place in the next world be Paradise. Year: H.

916(=10 April 1510- 30 March 1511).” 44

The second, reference on the construction phases of the monument is provided in the

şecere with regards to İskender Bey, an antecedent of Hacı Evrenos. According to this: “the

deceased İskender Bey was a Provincial Governor, who, having replaced Koca Ahmed Bey as

the administrator of Hacı Evrenos’s pious foundation, tore down and rebuilt the Cami’i and

he died while serving as the Governor of Iskenderiye and was buried in the Honored tombe.

He died on the 27th day of Sefer in the year h. 935(February 26, 1519).”45

The inspection of the masonry corroborates the aforementioned description. The

delineation of the construction phases shows on the updated ground plan of the mosque,

43
Kiel (1971)², pp. 300-329.
44
Ve cümle 17 aded câmi’i mîr-i mıîrân ve gayri kibâr-ı a’yân câmi’leridir, ammâ cûmleden mükellef ü
mükemmel ve ma’mû ve mûzeyyen cemâ’at-i kesîreye mâlik çârsû içinde İskender Bey câmi’i, kurşum kubbeli
ma’bedgâh kadîmdir. Kıble kapusu üzre tahrîr olunan târîhi budur: Ammere’l-İskender min nesli Gâzî Evrenos,
Dâre hayrı ceddihi’l-a’lâ fe’amme nef’uhâ, Ecruhâ fî dârı’l-uhrâ cennetü’l-me’vâ limâ, Câe fî târîhihâ dârun
karârun ecruhâ. Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 141.
45
Merhum IskenderBey sancak Beyi olup ve Koca Ahmed Bey’den sonra Hacı Hacı Evrenos mütevellîsi olup
câmi’i şerîfi bozup tekrâr yeniden bünyâd etmişdir ve İskenderiye Sancağı Beyi iken vefât edip türbe-i şerifesine
defn olunmuşdur. Mâh-ı saferü’l-hayrın yirmi yedinci gününde sene 935, Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 56.
243
which was kindly provided by the architect M.Lokma (See Pl. 69).46 There is a clear distinction

between the masonry of the ‘imaret and the masonry of the mosque. Phase B corresponds to

the ‘imaret and it has been realised in the technique of alternating layers. This tripartite

structure reflects the note retrieved from the Evrenosoğulları şecere on the rebuilding from

scratch in 1510-1511 of the late 14th century imaret of Hacı Evrenos by the administrator of

his vakf İskender Bey. Evidence attesting to the existence of two different construction

phases are visible in the interior of the mosque, at the north and south walls (See Pl. 71). The

‘imaret that was rebuilt by İskender Bey reached up to the springing of the arches of the pre-

existent mosque. At these points, the beds of the alternating layers’s masonry are distructed

and traces of the cloisonné of the phase A are showing. (See Pl. 72)

Pl. 72: Masonry of the first phase (phase A: the mosque) dated from the beginning of the 15 th century
(Photo: Bessi 2012)

46
M. Loukma, The Shrine of İskender Bey at Yanitsa-Accreditation and Restoration Survey, MA Thesis,
Aristoteleian University of Thessalonikē, 2012.
244
 In 1670-1671 Süleyman Bey restored the dome. The building technique of alternating

layers cannot be considered as evidence per se but only in conjunction with two other

elements: the building techniques used in the only securely dated structure from 14th century

Yenice-i Vardar, the hammam of Hacı Evrenos, and the common architectural features it

shared with two other monuments from late 14th century, the ‘imaret/mosque of Hacı Evrenos

at Gümülcine and his han at Traianoupoli. In the construction of all three of these monuments

the cloisonné technique has been used in accordance with the style employed by the local

Byzantine workshops that were working a la maniera byzantina.

The cloisonné and the ceramic decoration of the hammam of Hacı Evrenos in Yenice

bears similarities with the cloisonné executed in the late 14th century Byzantine monuments

from the neighbouring Beroia [Karaferya], which suggest that a local workshop was active in

the area under the patronage of both Byzantine and Ottoman lords. In none of these buildings

can we atteste the use of alternating layers. Moreover, the other Balkan parallel of an ‘imaret-

mosque dated from the beylik era (14th century), such as, the Mihaloglu ‘imaret at Ihtiman, is

also executed in cloisonné. This accentuates the argument that at least for the surviving

monuments executed under the patronage of Hacı Evrenos, there have been employed local

workshops, which were using the locally accustomed and affordable technique of the Greek

school of the mainland, as opposed to the techniques of the hidden brick or that of the

alternating layers familiar to the Constantinopolitan school and to the areas under its

influence. The use of the alternating layers, and specifically, the highly stylized version we

encounter in a series of late 15th and 16th century at Yenice it can be probably identified as

dating criterion of the classical era. (See Pl. 73)

245
 Pl. 73: Masonry of the second phase
(phase B: the ‘imaret) dated from the
16th century (Photo: Bessi 2012)

The İskender Bey mosque and the ‘imaret of Hacı Evrenos at Gümülcine differ in

scale, architectural type and supporting system. These inconsistencies were most probably

ignored because of the initial typological classification of the structure as a T-shaped mosque

[zaviyeli cami’i] by Kiel.47 The spatial development of the İskender Bey mosque is laid along

the transverse axis; what is striking is the sense of uninterrupted, unified space achieved

through the use of two semi-domes. The, 18 m. in diameter, dome is laid by the means of

pendentives on two blind arches by north and south and on two semi-domes by east and west

that subsequently transmit its load on the exterior walls and flanking spaces. Closer

observation suggests that the way in which the frontal eyvan has been deformed—at the point

of the springing line of the arch—proves that, due to the huge opening, the wall failed to fulfil

47
Kiel (1971)², p. 325.
246
its buttressing function, as bearing the load of the dome. This very deficiency speaks for the

experimental character of the type.

These semi-domes bear a transition zone comprised of two conches and a middle blind

arch, which externally takes the form of a low, polygonal tympanum. Therefore, the absence

of interrupting pillars for the support of the dome, which were replaced by the use of semi-

domes, indicates a stage of architectural development viewed in the second half of the 15th

century, and specifically after the advancement achieved in the mosque of Bayezid II in

Istanbul. What is nevertheless, missing is the spatial development along the longitudinal axis,

which characterises the mosque of Bayezid II.

Hence, we can now suggest the following interpretation: the note regarding the

dismantling and the rebuilding of the mosque at the beginning of 16th century [Hacı Evrenos

mütevellisi olup cami’ şerifi bozup tekrar yeniden bünyad etmiştir48] denoted the front part of

the mosque that coincides with the imaret of Hacı Evrenos. This first imaret had been

expanded into the cami’i şerif of Yenice during the period of one century which elapsed

between the death of Hacı Evrenos (1417) and 1519. The phase of expansion was the actual

mosque and corresponds to the phase A of the plan. This is based on the evidence that the

south addition to the mosque, from where it acquired its nowadays visible, longitudinal shape

is executed in perfect cloisonné with windows that bear slightly pointed, semi-circular arches.

Moreover, it is encountered a feature indicative of early masonries (14th and early 15

centuries): the intercession, amongst the layers of the cloisonné, of units completed filled with

horizontally arranged bricks. (See Pl. 72)

48
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 30.
247
 From three historical postal cards published by Lowry49 and Maurokefalidou50, it

becomes instantly visible that we are talking about two different buildings. The frontal one is

in such a way higher and wider than the lateral units, which correspond to the spaces under

the semi-domes, that these are showing as flanking naves. Such lack of symmetry is certainly

not accidental. If this is correct, then the reference in the şecere can be interpreated as

follows: the administrator dismantled only the frontal part of the cami’i şerif that corresponds

to the ‘imaret of Hacı Evrenos. In his attempt to respect the form of the edifice, he

reproduced the same plan but with the material and the established architectural conventions

of his era.

The Hacı Evrenos hammam (See map 8: A3)

The hammam of Hacı Evrenos is aligned with the ‘imaret of Hacı Evrenos along the

çarşıya that leads from Egnatia to Mount Paiko (Strantzi Street) (See Pls. 74-75). In the proto-

Ottoman phase, the hammam occupied the northern fringes of the commercial quarter.

49
Ibid., p. 30.
50
Maurokefalidou, p. 208.
248
Pl. 74: Ground plan of the hammam of Haci Evrenos at Yenice-i Vardar from ca. 1400
(Drawing: Bessi 2013)

249
 The hammam is not preserved in its entirety. The principal late 14th century core was

turned into a double bath at a later stage, most probably during the refurbishment of the

İskender mosque, since the remains of the walls abutted to its west side are built in the style of

alternating layers. The section depicted in the plan corresponds to the principal building

phase judging from the cloisonné masonry and the elaborate ceramoplastic decoration (See Pl.

75). This contains friezes of geometrical patterns running at the lower parts of the masonry.

Typologically, the hammam is reminiscent of the Beylerbeyi hammam and Tahtakale

hammam at Edirne dating from the beginnings of the 15th century.51 The plan shows sections

of the domed tepidarium that communicates with peripheral utility units (the square domed

rooms) and the domed caldarium, which is roofed with the help of two deep, pointed arches.

Pl. 75: Hammam of Haci Evrenos (Photo: Bessi 2011)

51
Aslanapa (1991), p. 91.
250
The Hacı Evrenos kervansaray (See map 8: A2)

Lowry-Erünsal published a picture depicting the kervansaray of Hacı Evrenos in the

old market. According to Evliya: “in addition there is one inn (with a large courtyard) whose

services are without charge to all who come and go. That too is among the charitable works

endowed by Gazi Hacı Evrenos ...”.52 The georeference of the kervansaray was based on two

historical pictures and recovered material evidence. Plate 76.b shows a double-storied

commercial building on the right side of the kervansaray (See Pl. 76). The building is a 19th

century structure with five windows on the upper floor and two big square openings on the

lower level. Since, the İskender Bey mosque stands on the south-east side of this building, we

can reconstruct the kervansaray as within the area of the old-market.

Pl. 76 a) South view of the ‘Imaret of Hacı Evrenos (İskender Bey mosque) and b) The kervansaray of Hacı
Evrenos at Yenice-i Vardar 246 (Maurokefalidou 2007, p. 130)

Plate 77 is a later shot of the area taken after the demolition of the kervansaray that

containes cues, which indicate its exact position (See Pl. 77). These are: the facade of the

52
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), pp. 104, 145; Demetriades (1973), p. 222.
251
building (building A) showing on the far left side of the plate 77 and another 19th century

double-storied building on the far right edge of the same picture (building B).

Pl. 77: The commercial district of the Old Market after the demolishing of the kervansaray of Hacı
Evrenos (Lowry-Erünsal 2010, p. 29)

Building A has two closely opened windows on the upper floor and a single, square door on

the lower ground. This is still standing and it can be seen on the street Isauron; the building

nowadays has a third window below the set of two but judging from the framing this is a mid

20th century addition (See Pl. 78).

Pl. 78: The commercial building A in its present state (Photo: Bessi 2009)

252
Building B, a storehouse, is also preserved and it was restored by the 11th directorate of

antiquities. Plate 79 shows the building from west, where the trace of a door at the lower

north-west corner can be slightly discerned (See Pl. 79). Its front facade was facing Via Egnatia

and in this manner it was following the orientation of the kervansaray.

Pl. 79 The commercial building B in the process of restoration (Photo: Bessi 2010)

The mausoleum of Hacı Evrenos (See map 8: A6)

The present form of the mausoleum of Hacı Evrenos is a 17th century edifice, which

came to adjoin two existing mausolea: that of early 15th century that corresponds to the burial

place of Hacı Evrenos (the north-eastern wing) and that of his son İki Yüreklü Ali Bey (the

south-western wing). Although Lowry correctly assumed that ‘mezar-ı şerif’ refers to a larger

funeral complex with different components, it was not possible to attest the proportional

similarities between the two equally sized wings (naves) of the structure, that correspond to

the two mausolea. According to the şecere “the constructed mausoleum of İki Yüreklü Bey is

that which lies in the direction of the deceased Evrenos head in the sacred burial place”.

From a look at the published ground-plan with the sketch of the burial, it becomes obvious

that the second mausoleum is aligned with the head of the deceased. Hacı Evrenos.53

53
Skiadaresis (2008), p. 293 and Lowry-Erünsal (2010), pp. 136-137, 142.
253
 Pl. 80: Ground plan of the mausoleum of Haci Evrenos (Ottoman architecture 2008, p. 293)

Hacı Evrenos or Ahmed Bey medrese? (See map 8: C3)

In their last publication, Lowry-Erünsal argued that a series of historic photographs

depicted the theological seminary of Hacı Evrenos based on Evliya’s testimony that “there is

a total of one theological seminary. That too is built by Hacı Evrenos and is decorated with

lead covered domes”. In a footnote they noted their concurrence with the identification of

Thomas Leisten as an early Ottoman medrese.54 Although the monument in question has not

survived, its position can be reconstructed at the junction of the streets K. Giota and Kyprou

and westernly from the Memorial Grave for the victims of the 2nd W.W. This is based on

54
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), pp. 136-137, 142.
254
evidence derived from a series of historical card postal published by Maurokefalidou that

show the medrese as located at the southern end of the 1st Elementary school of Yenice.55

Pl. 81: The medresse of Ahmed Beğ at Yenice. From north shows the 1st elementary school and from
south the clock-tower (Maurokefalidou 2007, pp. 5, 87)

Still, what seems to be inconsistent in this identification is the proximity of the medrese to the

mosque of Ahmed Bey and the distance that separates the medrese from the rest of the Hacı

Evrenos establishments (See Pl. 80). Although Evliya initially cites that the town had only one

theological school, further down on his extract on the soup kitchens of Yenice he refers to

another theological seminary, that of Şeyh Ilahi.

55
Maurokefalidou (2007), pictures on pages 6, 59, 125, 126.
255
 This is further corroborated in the şecere, where it becomes explicit that “Ahmed Bey...

built in Yenice-i Vardar a medrese and a cami’i. Next to the mosque he constructed a türbe

for the deceased Şeyh Abdullah Ilahi. He (i.e., Ahmed Bey) died in the year 1502-1503 and is

buried next to the exalted Şeyh”.56 This testimony suggests that we should seriously consider

the possibility of this being one of Ahmed Bey’s foundations, since this medrese is close to the

surviving Şeyh Ilahi (türbe) mosque (See map 8: C2). Apart from the geographic proximity of

the medrese to the Ahmed and Şeyh Ilahi mosques, the dating of the medrese as a fourteenth

or a sixteenth century monument can be further decided upon typological evidence.

If we were to accept that this is an early Ottoman medrese then the only early parallel

that we could draw as reference would be the medrese of Süleyman Paşa at Iznik (1358) (See

Pl. 81.a.). The Π-shaped courtyard comprises of four cells from east and west and the dershane

from south. The dershane allows to a lateral space reserved for the Şeyh that can be accessed

from the adjacent eastern cell too.

56
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), pp. 46, 142-143.
256
 b

Pl. 82: Ground plans of a) the Süleyman Paşa medrese at Iznik (ca. 1358),
b) Ishak Paşa medrese at İnegöl (1482), c) Tip medrese at Edirne (1488).

The Π-shaped courtyard of the medrese that we examine shares the same spatial

conception in principle but with several points of departure that might suggest a different

dating (See Pl. 80.a.). This is comprised of five cells from south and three or four cells (the

exact number cannot be clearly discerned in the picture) from east and west. I include the

corner cells to the south wing because they give the impression of compact, volumetric units.

In the historical postal card published by Lowry shows clearly that the lateral units of the

south wing are further divided into two smaller, domed cells that equal in size the central unit

257
of the dershane (See Pl. 81.b.). Since, the central cell with the protruding dome on high

tambour, almost equals the two flanking ones, a better suited parallel would be the medrese of

Ishak Paşa at İneğöl built in 1482.

Unfortunately, the scale of the buildings cannot be assessed through the pictures.

However, the treatment of the central space occupied by the dershane is the same as in the

İneğöl example. In this case, the emphasis on the primacy of the dershane is expressed

through the balance of volumes that is lacking from the Iznik medrese. A second element that

points towards a dating at the end of the 15th/ beginning of the 16th century is the protrusion of

the dershane unit from the plan and its assimilation in the overall system of fenestration. In

both medreses of Ishak Paşa and Beyazid II’s Tip Medrese at Edirne from 1488, the dershane

unit takes the form of a rectangular apse perforated on three sides with windows.57 In our

example, the protrusion of the dershane apse and its perforation with one window shows

clearly. If we can thus extend a dating for the monument at the end of the 15 th/ beginning of

the 16th century, this would mean that the depicted monument is not Hacı Evrenos’ but Ahmed

Bey’s medrese.

Town planning under Hacı Evrenos: proto-Ottoman phase

The geo-reference of the three monuments accomplished under Hacı Evrenos’s

patronage has revealed that development at Yenice was conceived under a highly rationalized

axial arrangement. The 14th century nucleus was knitted along a framework delineated by

two axes forming an acute angle of 45°: the Via Egnatia (See map 8: axis X) and the çarsıya (See

map 8: axis Y). At the origin of these two axes lies the imaret (See map 8: A1). Axis X is defined

57
Goodwin (2003), pp. 30-31, 116-117.
258
by the kervansaray (See map 8: A2) and axis Y is defined by the hammam (See map 8: A3). The

development of the commercial district was directed westwards and followed the curved route

of the Via Egnatia. When Hacı Evrenos erected his Traianoupoli han along a thoroughfare of

particular geostrategic importance that controlled both Dimetoka and Edirne, he laid the

infrastructure that accomodated communication between the Via Egnatia and the Via

Militaris. Along the same lines, he meant to secure the western fringes of the Via Egnatia.

Thus, investment at Yenice reflects the geopolitical importance of the site, as a commercial

and administrative hub on the route of the Via Egnatia towards the west and the north

(Dubrovnik route).

These priorities are equally reflected in the bipolar idiosyncracy of the town-planning

conception. The orientation of the monuments gives the impression that the town’s one

half— the commercial—is an extrovert, opened to the Via Egnatia district. While, the other

half—the residential/spiritual—conveys the tendency to expand towards the mountainous

pasture lands, the hinterland extending beyong Via Egnatia. No other town discussed in this

thesis, and in particular town that bears Hacı Evrenos’s imprint, displays such a clear

seperation between the residential and commercial sphere.

Laying his investement at Yenice could be, then, interpreated as his only opportunity

to an uncompromised option. The Yenice landscape constitutes a tabula rasa where

unfettered from the prevalence of a grand-vizier or the dictative presence of a pre-tracked

network of access—as in the cases of Siroz and Gümülcine—he could establish a town-shrine

for him and his descendants.

Still, in order to conceptualize the town-planning conception, we would need to define

the position of the cemetery. This is aligned with the [mezar-ı şerif] the funerary precinct

developed around the mausoleum of Hacı Evrenos, where the members of the Hacı Evrenos

259
family were resting, but it lies further east (See map 8: A5). In geo-reference terms, the section

defined by axis Ψ forms an acute angle with the çarşıya (axis Y), which then complements the

first acute angle between the axes Via Egnatia (axis X) and çarşıya (axis Y) thus constituting two

complementary angles, with the sum of their degree measurements equalling 90°. If then

these complementary angles are placed on the map, along with the 15th century monuments,

they all-together re-produce a diamond shaped form, at the centre of which the mausoleum of

Hacı Evrenos is to be found (See map 8: A6).

It needs to be clarified that this layout incorporates the monuments of 14th and 15th

centuries with the additions of the bedesten and the mosque of Isa Bey from the beginning of

the 15th century (See map 8: B1, B3). Therefore, it leaves out the monuments undertaken under

the patronage of Ahmed Bey from the beginning of the 16th century (See map 8: C1-C3) based on

the understanding that there is only a certain degree of premeditation that could have been

achieved. The first formed axes would have had the power to direct the urban expansion up

to a certain level. From then onwards, the urban growth was subjected to more or less

circumstantial parameters.

260
Part C: Conclusions

Ottoman town planning in a comparative perspective

Revisions of the morphological theory in Islamic urbanism have contributed greatly to

the disassociation of the Ottoman strata from the anarchal, corrupted interpretation of the

Greco-Roman substratum. For example, André Raymond criticised the dismissive

interpretation accorded to the Muslim model and, particularly, to the Ottoman substratum of

the Mediterranean cities as an inorganic assemblage of quarters, by marking the structural

analogies between the western and the Oriental city.

Along the same syncretistic lines, Gilles Veinstein advocated that the existence of the

typical Ottoman town lies in the morphology of the north-western Anatolian and Balkan

cities, and concluded: “there existed an original urban type, halfway between the Arabic and

the Western towns; and if this analysis is confirmed from future studies, then the term—

Ottoman town—will be legitimately used to refer to this type”. The case-studies examined in

this doctoral project corroborate the existence of an original urban type for this group of

towns, as Veinstein predicted. They legitimately deserve to be called ‘original’ since the

genesis of the earliest and unrestrained from the impact of the Byzantine substratum fabrics is

to be traced in these towns. Still, this thesis mainly contributes cognitively to the field, as it

defines that the identifier of ‘originality’ or ‘purity’ for this type derives from its particular

geographical divisions. Accordingly, the coining of the type that we extended was reflective

of these particular geographical divisions, as an obvious functional and formal analogy

amongst the towns of this group. We thus concluded that the typological identification of the

‘original’ Ottoman town can be encapsulated in the Balkan-Anatolian type with a Byzantine

kernel and an Ottoman fringe belt.

261
 In order to rationalize the arrangement and diversity of such a hybrid urban morpheme

we had to devise a new methodological model. This made possible the identification of

principles that qualify authentic samples of Ottoman fabric in the 14th century’s settlements.

Through the cross-disciplinary application of morphological and defterological concepts, we

were able to trace existing and reconstructed forms back to their formative processes and to

interpret them within the theoretical framework of structural rationalism. Within this

framework, we made extensive use of defterological evidence on the urban vakfs that

provided us with retrospective information on the formation and the upkeep of the vakfs,

around which the numerous quarters evolved.

Cross-examination of these pieces of evidence with an array of miscellaneous

metadata helped us map the 14th to 16th centuries’ street-blocks and essentially the core layout

of the street-system within the 20th century’s city plan. Thus, through the reconstruction of

the urban fabrics of four mainland towns, which played a pivotal role in the chronicle of

Ottoman expansion in the Balkans [Dimetoka (1354), Gümülcine (1361/2), Siroz (1383) and

Yenice-i Vardar (1385)], we concluded that the early Ottoman town planning was prioritized

upon a rationally structured settlement process. Although spontaneous in its conception, the

detailed articulations of the early Ottoman town plan have been carried in a systematic way

that gave a structural order to their internal spatial relationships. This force can be

encapsulated in the principle of reflective axiality.

The broad pattern of growth resulting in the plan development of our towns in the

lower Balkans conforms closely to M.R.G Conzen’s theorization on the Inner Fringe Belt

(IFB). In Dimetoka, Gümülcine and Siroz, the Old Town coincides with the Byzantine castled

citadel, which becomes clearly discerned from the subsequent exterior development

conditioned by the existence of the city walls and the differentiation of the building fabric.

262
The understanding of the Byzantine citadel as the kernel of the Ottoman urban fabric allows

to conceptualize the accretional growth within the Ottoman town. In all four towns of our

investigation, the settlement of the first Ottomans caused the outward growth from their

kernel as substantiated through the peripheral addition of a fringe belt to their built-up area.

The fringe belt coincides with the suburbium, commonly encountered in Evliya as the varoş

of the Ottoman town. This can be identified with the un-walled, non-agricultural settlement

outside the gate of a pre-urban nucleus, often representing an early stage in the development

of the late medieval/early modern town.

Essentially, we have shown that the Ottoman part of the late medieval/early modern

town can be substantiated in the development of the IFB, since it surrounds the Byzantine

castle and is arranged asymmetrically around an antecedent fixation line the castle wall. This

IFB was articulated along pre-existent tracks of access that radiated from the gates of the Old

town. These tracks evolved into the arteries (axes) of the Ottoman town with pivotal being

that of the çarşıya. The spatial reference of the five proto-Ottoman concentrations

(vakfs/quarters) to the Byzantine castle helped us realize that the earliest endowments

bequeathed to the towns—the Mehmed Çelebi mosque and medresse at Dimetoka, the Haci

Evrenos ‘imaret at Gümülcine and the Eski cami’ külliye at Siroz—were positioned along the

main gates of the castle as a reference.

The next step was to conceptualize the normative pattern emerging from the ‘mighty

maze’ of axes in these towns. A river or a major thoroughfare assumed the position of a

stable denominator in relation to which a central public highway [çarşıya or tariki ‘am] was

aligned; at Dimetoka this principle can be verified in the emergence of the Erythropotamos

axis, at Gümülcine through the Boukloutza and the Via Egnatia axes and at Yanitsa through

the Via Egnatia axis too. While at Dimetoka and Gümülcine we attested the mastering of a

263
biaxial type, at Siroz the venture reaches its zenith through the adaptation of a multi-axial

morphological solution. We were further able to confirm, based on archival evidence

regarding the town of Gümülcine, that not only was there a spatial perception of the axes at a

social level, but that this morphological systemization—as relied upon the pivotal çarşıya—

was the regulating factor of the town’s economic life.

Thus, application of the Conzenean theorization helped us conceptualize the broad

pattern of growth, since it provided the epistemological tools to elucidate the steps of the

morphological evolution. Still, although Conzenean theory helped us rationalize the ‘what’ in

our enquiry, Muratorian theory, through the reversal of polarities phenomenon, helped us

understand the ‘how’. Within the comparative framework of our analysis, Gümülcine first,

and then Siroz allowed us to encapsulate the core concept of the Ottoman morphological

reasoning. At Dimetoka, this is not immediately apparent because it is blurred by the

Ottoman need to make use of the fortification in order to house the enderun-i hazine.

At Gümülcine, the identification of the two early quarters—Aşci and Süpüren—and

their placement along the axes Y and Y1 revealed that the Ottomans were interested in seizing

the access to the castle and not the castle per se. The same applies to Siroz. The Eski cami’,

Şeyh Bedreddin’s and Bahaeddin Paşa’s zaviyes developed along the axis Y1 and Y2,

extending south-west from the subordinated gate of Bostancılar kör kapusu. In this case too,

the castle had lost its function as a fortified position since late fourteenth century, when Haci

Evrenos tore down parts of the wall. Thus, seizure of the main exits loses the sense of access

to secured and enclosed grounds. Then, if the castle is not the Ottoman target, what was it?

In all four cases discussed in this thesis, the Ottomans appropriated the pre-tracked

network and created access towards the Byzantine kernels. Yanitsa is not an exemption to

this; the only difference lies in the fact that its kernel was not circumscribed. The Ottomans

264
valued the strategic importance of the positions and foresaw the dynamic the sites would have

for their plans to form a network of cities. Thus, Ottoman expansion and the subsequent

investment laid in the towns under question was subjected to a conceptualised geostrategic

reasoning defined by the position of these cities with reference to the all-extendable frontier

line of the early Ottoman principality.

As it can be attested in all four case-studies, the Ottomans appropriated the dynamic of

the site by marginalizing the inner polarity (the Byzantine castle) and reconfiguring the town

under the new, external polarity the proto-Ottoman commercial core.1 With semiotic subtlety,

they reversed the dynastic centre from the castle to the suburb; and at the moment the screen

of reversal reality was set up, they assumed authority through visual transference. Then, the

new commercial core—traditionally centred around the earliest külliye—evolved into the

converging point of the axial system upon which infrastructural development was regulated in

the outer suburb [varoş].

The importance of the aforementioned realisation for the field of Ottoman morphology

shows clearly when connected with the functional division of Islamic urban space, as Tekeli

advocated.2 The centrality of the commercial district [çarşı] in the early Ottoman suburbium

was articulated upon pre-tracked axes. Such a sense of reflective axiality presupposes a

monitoring process of the access network. By this process, the Ottomans were able to assess

1
Even in the case of Yanitsa that do not possess a circumscribed kernel, the phenomenon of reversal polarities
can be equally attested; though not through visual transference but through the relocation of the Christian
polarity. The relocation of the Old Christian Quarter, most possibly due to the need for a radical urban re-
development, lead to the emergence of the proto-Ottoman convergence point through the assimilation of
reclaimed lands from the Old Quarter.
2
I. Tekeli, “Evolution of spatial organisation in the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Republic”, in L.C. Brown (ed.)
From medina to a metropolis: heritage and change in the Near Eastern city, Princeton University, 1973, pp. 244-
273; idem, “Urban patterns in Anatolia: organization and evolution” in R. Holod (ed.), Proceedings of the
conference on conservation as cultural survival, (Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard
University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology), 1980, pp. 15-27
265
how the landscape of the outskirts was configured, and then to canalize access to the citadel

accordingly.

Thus, morphological sustainability and eventually, evolution of the urban type that we

are coining relied upon the dialectic balancing between the geographic divisions of the

Byzantine kernel and the Ottoman fringe belt. Any hypothesis of a preconceived plan can be

immediately ruled out. However, the positioning of the dervish convents along major trade

routes and thoroughfares (the colonization zoning as discussed in the Siroz chapter) attest to

the use of a monitoring process of the access network that develops into a spatial behavioural

pattern. Then, the urban fabric resulting from such process (i.e., the Ottoman fringe belt)

evolves into a highly conceptualized system—a dynamic organism—that, when adapted to a

site, maximized the opportunities of the landscape for settlement by setting up or enhancing

connectivity of the fabric.

In the second half of the 14th century, the Seljuk cities of Tokat, Sivas, and Amasya

equally developed dervish lodges along major thoroughfares, which remained however

circumscribed. Wolper argued that all these dervish lodges, kervansaray and medreses did

not duplicate the services of the urban core but reinforced them. In a sense, although

travellers saw a fortified city with a traditional centre, they would not need to travel to the city

centre for their business. Quests could have easily visited the closest lodge to fulfil all needs

of daily life.3 At first, it seems that the development of the Ottoman zaviye network

constitutes a parallel evolution. However, the very fact that the Ottomans extended the

principle of reflective axiality outside the city walls to the open landscape speaks for the

different levels of critical engagement required. At Dimetoka, Gümülcine, and Siroz, these

3
Wolper (2003), p. 2, 42-60
266
charitable foundations were not meant to compliment the services of the citadel, but to

reinstate its functions in the periphery.

It starts then becoming clear that the practice of uncircumscribed settlement under the

Ottomans is no less a form of power expression (as the struck of coins or the acts of

patronage) that in context with other official public images meant to assert political

legitimacy.4 In this sense, establishing themselves outside the walls should be read as more of

a statement to the travellers and residents of the region that a change in who controlled the

region and the peripheral network has occurred. Then, the fringe belt becomes an urban

idiom that evolves into the visual identifier of Ottomaness.

The impact of this practice becomes even clearer if we consider what the reception by

the locals (i.e., the Byzantines) was. A 14th c. century historiographer, Demetrius Kydones,

wrote in one of his letters: “such is the present time that everyone outside the walls has been

submitted to the Turks, and everyone within the walls has been exterminated by the famine,

the upheaval and thousand other troubles and have turned their hopes only to the Christian

help”.5 Under the Ottoman methods of conquest, the walls are turning into a curse that can be

averted only through the filter of the Ottoman fringe belt. Thus, instead of repairing the walls,

they reinforced the defensibility of the castle, by infiltrating the access routes, and canalising

control over the citadel. This empowering dimension of the fringe belt bears visual authority.

We can thus deduce that the centre of political power and administration was not

uniform in character but from the presence of the zaviyes, we understand that a number of

4
This is a point that Ethel Wolper draws with reference to the erection of Seljukid portals in multicultural
Anatolia. Ethel S. Wolper, “Understanding the public face of piety: philanthropy and architecture in late Seljuk
Anatolia”, Mésogeios 25-26, 2005, pp. 311-336.
5
“[..] καιρός δὲ οἷος οὐκ ἄλλος ὃ νύν, τῶν μὲν ἔξω τειχῶν πάντων δουλευσάντων τοῖς Τούρκοις, τῶν δὲ ἔνδον
πενία και στάσει καὶ μυρίοις ἄλλοις κακοῖς ἀναλισκομένων, πρός μόνην δέ τὴν παρά τῶν Χριστιανῶν
βοήθειαν ἀφορώντων” Liber XIX: Epistula 190 (9) Ioanni Lascari Calophero Romam, Constantinople 1378-1379:
Démétrius Cydonès, Cydonès Démétrius Correspondance. Studi e Testi 208, vol. II, edited by Raymond J.
Loenertz (Rome, 1960), 63.
267
administrative services were dispersed along relatively straight, rectilinear streets that linked

the zaviyes with the gates of the citadel.

It this context, we need to question whether we can speak of a marked sense of

separation between “public” and “private” zones in the proto-Ottoman phase.6 The listing of

the mahalle-yi cami’ at Dimetoka, Gümülcine and Siroz shows that habitation existed around

eski cami’—the per se public zone—but at what radius, we are not in the position to defining.

Besides, the fact that the proto-Ottoman quarters are loosely distributed on the reconstructive

map seems to reconfirm both Veinstein’s understanding that the type we are casting had a less

densely settled habitat and Petruccioli’s prediction of a “semi-rural open space” outside the

walls that as an urban tube was fermenting further development. 7 Under this light, the

development pattern assumes the form of a multi-clustered centrifugal scheme—a ring of

zaviye-quarters—that radiates from the pivotal position of the külliye. Thus, although the

centrality of the külliye and its dimension as a public zone of the urban system remains

indisputable, we need to accept that the same balancing between public and private zoning

occurs on a lesser scale (a micrograph) within each cluster. This can be expressed via the

weaving of residential fabrics around, or as dependent from charitable endowments.

6
Johansen, B.,“Eigentum, Familie”, Die Welt des Islams 19, 1979, pp.19-24.
7
Veinstein (2008), p. 217; Petruccioli (2002), p. 209.
268
Appendices

269
 CHAPTER 1: Dimetoka

Transcriptions

 Mualim Cevdet Yazmalari 0.89 (1455-1473), pp. 3-9.

Table 1

Nahiyet-i Dimetoka

1)Mülk-i Mahmud Çelebi1 (Fatma Karye-yi Haydar Hori Karye-yi Vulgar Hori
Hatunun oğludur) veled-i Oruç Bey Raiyyet: ‘an sinurlu
bin Şeihi Hacı Ali aslinde Babaları  çiftlu 22 Raiyyet:
üzerine yazılmışdır Ahir Süleyman  arabacı 1  çiftlu 14
Çelebi hükmile haraçınla kapusını  bive 4  arabacı 1
kapuyı verilmiş mülkdür  müsellem: çift 1  bennâk 11
 mülk:  müsellem
asiyab: otak 2, göz 4 çift 2, bennak 1
 nefer-i baciyan:
çiftlu 4
bennak 1
bive 1
 Hasıl-ı muka[ta’a]
fi senet-il kamile
11,5002

2)Mülk-i Karagöz Bey 3 şimdiki Karye-yi Hekimoğlu Note:

halde Dimetoka cami’inin imam-ı Raiyyet: ‘an sinur anca ki
‘Acem Hoca elindedir padişahımuz  çiftlu 18 harab olmağın şimdi
hazret tevki’i şerif var berat ve  bennak ‘Acem Hoca
vakfiyyeüzere Karagöz Beyin 11 meremmet etmiş
imaretinden sarf eder  imam 1 hasıl: 2,495
asiyab-ı vakf: 1
nefs-i Dimetoka dahil bazarı
dekakin harab: 12

1
Mc.Yz. 0.89, p. 5.
2
The writing of five and zero is confusing in this survey. I decided to read as five the wider roundels with a
space in the centre and as zero the smaller roundels allowing no space in the centre.
3
Ibid., p. 6.
270
3)Mülk-i Merhum Yazıcı Oruç Bey4 Karye-yi Prangi Karye-yi Çopanlu
şimdi Hacı Mehmed veled-i Murad Raiyyet: mülk-i mezkur
Bey bin Ahmed veled-i ‘Ali Bey bin  çiftlu 8 Raiyyet:
Oruç Bey ellerindedir. Sultan al-allam  imam 1  çiftlu 18
musulmanımız sultnanımuz hazret  bennak 3  bennak 14
tevki’i şerif var berat. Vakfiyyeüzere hasıl: 1,464  imam: 1
tasarruf ederler  ‘arabacı 1
hasıl: 2,264
Al- cümle: 3,829

4)Vakf-ı Medrese ve Mescid ‘an  hammam sene kıst: 7,700  ‘an Edirne ‘an
nefs-i Dimetoka5  bağ harab tabi’i Kapan
 dekakin 6 taksimat 35 taksimat 34 ve
 kiraye-yi karuban saray karuban saray
ma’a dekakin: sene 200 mukata’a fi sene:
1,255

5)Vakf-ı Merhum Gazi Hammam-ı kıst fi senet-il Cami’i Edirnede

Hudavendigar 6 kamile Mevlana Çelebi
Asil deftere altı bin akçe yazılup asağı 4,455 mescidinde olan
yazılmış gibidir hafızlarnır bin sekiz
yuz akçe ve Baksi
Kadi elinden hafızlara
ve imamlara sarf
olunurmuş amma
merhum sultan
zamanından beru
Kadi olan yom beş
akçe bu zikr olun
mücebinçe Balıban
paşalar fetretden
yazılmışdir giru ol
üzere yazıldı

4
Ibid., p. 6.
5
Ibid., p. 7.
6
Ibid., p. 7.
271
 BOA. TT20 890 (1485), pp. 141-150, 244-279.

Table 2

Name of the Number of Households Number of In total

Quarter exempted/celibates/
slaves/ widows
1) {Hane-yi muslim}:38 { Among which}: Hane: 38
Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted:
Debbağlar ki  Paşa Fakih imam 3(7%)
Abdal Cuneyid  Eliyas veled-i Tura  Celibates:
mahallesi dahi müezzin 7(18%)
derler  Mehmed veled-i Kara  Slaves7: 5(13%)
‘Ali kethuda
 Yusuf keçici
 İsmail dellak
 keresteci ‘Ali
 boyaci Hasan
 Ramazan papuçcu
 Armağan bardakçı
 Hoşkadem debbağ
 Kara debbağ (2%)
 Eliyas gulam-ı Hacı
Hamza
 Karagöz gulam-ı Timur
 Hamza gulam-ı Hacı
Hamza
 Şami ‘atık-ı Kogaci
Hacı
 Hamza azade Hoca
Sinan
2) {Hane-yi muslim}:35 {Among which}: Hane: 35
Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted:
Karagöz Bey  Melvana Yakub 3(8%)
sahib-i cami’i  Celibates:
 Süleyman veled-i imam 7(20%)
 Kasim veled-i Eliyas  Converts:
kethuda 5(14%)
 Slaves: 3(8%)

7
In the category of slaves are included the following three nouns: gulam, ‘atık, azade.
272
3) {Hane-yi muslim}:12 {Among which}: Hane : 12
Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted:
Burak  Eliyas veled-i Hakim 2(16% )
imam  Slaves:
 Hızır çulah kethuda 2(16%)
 Barkgül (?) papuçcu
 İsmail gulam-ı Umrşah
 Hızır veled-i zindancı
 Nasuh çulah
 Hacı tabah
 Hamza muy-tab

There are 3 weavers in this

neighbourhood.

4) {Hane-yi muslim}:13 {Among which}: Hane : 13

Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Excempted:
Medrese  Mühiyeddin imam 3(23%)
 Halil veled-i İbrahim  Celibates: 1(7%)
müezzin
 Halil kethuda papuçcu
 papuçcu Çelebi
 Seyyidi bardakçı
 Mola papuçcu
 Ali hayyat

5) {Hane-yi muslim}:22 {Among which}: Hane :22

Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted:
Haraçcı  Hacı Eliyas imam 5(22%)
 kürekçi ‘Ali müezzin  Celibates: 2(9%)
 Timur Paşazade kethuda  Slaves:
 Abdullah gulam-ı 3(13%)
Fazlullah Şeyhi Fani
 Atmacı gulam-ı Zakaria
 Behtar ‘atık-ı Abdul
Hamid
 Sefer veled-i çanakcı
 Kasim nayzen
 Dervişan:
‘Ali Derviş
kethuda Abdal

6)Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:28 {Among which}: Hane : 28

Oruç Bey 8 {Among which}:  Excempted:
 Zeyn Hoca imam 49(10%)
 ‘Umur veled-i Halil  Celibates:

8
BOA.TT 20 890 (1485), p. 143.
9
In these 4 I am including: Zeyn Hoca Imam, ‘Umur veled-i Halil Müezzin, Papuçcu Hızır Kethuda and Eliyas
müsellem nev, who has a double status as a new excempted and a celibate.

273
 müezzin 4 (14%)
 Papuçcu Hızır kethuda  Slaves:
 Süleyman gulam-ı 7(25%)
Sarban
 Doğan gulam-ı Çelebi
 Oğurlu ‘atık-ı Mahmud
 Şahgeldi gulam-ı Çelebi
 Kirkuz gulam-ı Hızır
Bey
 Piri gulam-ı Oruç Bey
 Eliyas müsellem-i nev
mücerred
 Hasan gulam-ı Zakarya
Hoca
 Saruca gulam-ı enderun
 Hasan yamak-ı o
 Rum Hızır
 Hamza Rum
7) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:12 {Among which}: Hane : 12
Cercer {Among which}:  Excempted:
 Süleyman Hoca imam 3 (25%)
 Ramazan Divana  Slaves:
müezzin 3(25%)
 Mahmud kethuda
Anadolu
 Karagöz ‘atık-ı Selcuk
 İshak azadlu veled-i
Cercer
 Karagöz ‘atık-ı Selcuk
 Hasan gullam-ı Oruç
Paşa

8) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:25 {Among which}: Hane : 25

Cami’i {Among which}:  Excempted:
 Taht al-Din imam-ı 6 (24%)
cami’i  Slaves:
 Mahmud müezzin 2(8%)
 Murad veled-i Ata Bey
kethuda
 ‘Ali veled-i Hamza
kayyum
 Veyisı Fakih na’ib-i
kadi
 Hızır müsellem-i nev
etmekci
 Karagöz muy-tab
 Sinan veled-i Kilavuz
Şeyhi Fani
 Nasuh veled-i Kilavuz
 Hızır habar
 Hamza dukkandar
274
  Yunus dukkandar
 Karagöz azade-yi Veyisi
Kadi
 İskender gulam-ı Sinan
Bey
 İskender hizmetgar-ı
Halil Bey
9) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:37 {Among which}: Hane : 37
Kuyumcu {Among which}:  Exempted:
 Mustafa veled-i 3(81%)
kuyumcu imam  Celibates :
 Hasan bartakçı müezzin 5(13%)
 Derviş Hızır veled-i  Slaves:
İshak 2(5%)
 Yusuf veled-i kuyumcu  Converts:
 Süleyman haddad 3(8%)
 Musa veled-i kalaycı
 Ramazan tamirci Professional
 Hoşkodam gulam-ı Hacı breakdown:
Siyah  Butchers:
 Mahmud gulam-ı 4(10%)
Süleyman  Jewellers and
 Hızır hayyat related
 Abas eskici professions:
 Halil papuçcu 3(5%)
 Hızır sabuncu  Various artisans:
 Ramazan tamirci 5(13%)
 Assistants:
 Hızır kasab
3(8%)
 Mehmed kasab
 Yusuf kasab
 İsmail kasab

10) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:28 {Among which}: Hane : 28

Habib Fakih {Among which}:  Exempted:
nam-ı diğer  ‘Ali Fakih veled-i Habib 3(10%)
Macarlar imam  Celibates:
 İbrahim müezzin 3(10%)
 Mustafa kethuda  Slaves:
Anadolu 3(10%)
 Şirmerd gulam-ı Ahmed  Converts:
 Şirmerd gulam-ı Habib 3(10%)
Hoca
 İsmail gulam-ı Kara
Danişmend
 Burak dellak
 İbrahim hayyat veled-i
Süleyman
 Hacı Hasan muy-tab
 Yahşi arabacı
 Aliyas arabacı

275
11) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:34 {Among which}: Hane : 34
Kum ki {Among which}:  Exempted:
Bazarlu Bey  Seyyidi ‘Ali imam 2(5%)
mahallesi dahi  Mehmed veled-i  Celibates:
derler Mustafa müezzin 4(11%)
 Sinan gulam-ı Mahmud  Converts:
 Eliyas gulam-ı Mahmud 1
 Hamza gulam-ı  Slaves: 10(29%)
Mehmedi
 Sarica gulam-ı ‘Isa
 Çakir azade-yi Saru
Hacı
 Eliyas azade Hacı Saki
mücerred
 Hızır azade Hacı Saki
mücerred
 Eliyas azade Haraci
 Eliyas ‘atık-ı Şark
 İsmail ‘atık-ı Yusuf
Emreci
12) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: 53 {Among which}: Hane : 53
Kum ki Hocaca {Among which}:  Exempted:
dahi derler  Hamza Fakih veled-i 3(5%)
Mehmed imam  Celibates:
 Mustafa veled-i bostanci 18(33%)
müezzin  Converts:
 Hızır veled-i Eliyas 9(16%)
kethuda  Slaves:
 Hoşkodam gulam-ı Çauş 6(11%)
 Kirkuz azade Çauş
 İsmail azade Mustafa
muy-tab
 Süleyman azade Hoca Occupational
Sinan breakdown:
 Eliyas azade Hocaça hayyat 2
 Kirkuz gullam-ı Hasan papuçcu
Ağa muy-tab 3
 Ali gedik çulah
 Eliyas hayyat dellak
 Mustafa muytab
 Yunus çulah
 Eliyas arabaci
 Behtar muytab
 Yunus muytab
 Şirmerd kürekçi
 Mustafa hayyat
 Yusuf cerrahı
 Hamza dellak
Mücerred
13) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:5 {Among which}: Hane : 5

276
Doğan Bey {Among which}:  Exempted:
 Mustafa Fakih imam 3(60%)
 Ali veled-i ‘Abdi  Converts:
müezzin 1(20%)
 Hacı Mehmed kethuda
 Hasan veled-i Hoca
‘Umur
 Mehmed veled-i
Abdullah
14) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:20 {Among which}: Hane : 20
Köprü Başi {Among which}:  Exempted:
 Mustafa veled-i Şah 3(15%)
Paşa imam  Celibates:
 Hamza müezzin 1(5%)
 Kemal Derviş  Slaves:
 Yusuf gulam-ı Kadi 3(15%)
 Hızır gulam-ı Yusuf  Converts:
 İskender gulam-ı Gürani 2(10%)
 Hamza yamak-ı Gemici
 Ramazan kürekçi
 Ramazan dukkandar Occupational
 Yusuf segban breakdown:
gürekci
dukkandar
segban

15) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: 29 {Among which}: Hane : 29

Tatarlar {Among which}:  Exempted :
 Mesut Hoca imam 2(6%)
 Murad müezzin  Celibates:0
 Şahin ‘atık-ı al-Din  Convert:
 Tanrivermiş ‘atık-ı 1(3%)
Abdullah  Slaves:
 Şirmerd gulam-ı Rustem 4(13%)
 Turhan yamak-ı Rahman
 İsmail ‘atık-ı Rahme
 Kaya ‘Ali paşmakcı Occupational
 Kara hammamcı breakdown:
 bozacı Hacı paşmakcı
hayyat
 Ahmed nalbant
hammamcı
 Doğan degirmenci
nalbant
 Veled-i Atmacı çulah değirmenci
 Mustafa veled-i Ahi
16) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:5 Hane : 5
Kal’e-yi {Among which}:
 Saruca gulam-ı Çaker-
zen
 Hızır veled-i Argyros
 Hamza azade-yi
Mehmedi

277
Christian
Quarters

17) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}: 106 Bive-i Gebran: 7 Hane : 113

Gebran kale’yi {Among which}:
 Nikola Papas
 Yorgos yamak-ı Istrati
 Tomas irgat
 Mihalikayı tamias
 Yani kontos
 Linos yamak-ı Bergiot
 Polyzot [Polyzois]
keremitci
 Şevastianos veled-i
Papas
 Theofylaktos veled-i
papas
 Nikola Papas
 Yorgos Bazarlis
 Manolis Anastasis
 Manolis Mastoros
 Proto Yeros Palios
 Manolis Kaluta
 Pratiko değirmenci
 Yorgi Dragasinos
 Yani ispano
 Yorgos mastoris
 Mihail Katsivelou
 Dimitri Protomastor
 Dimitri Politi
 Manolis Evretanos
 Orguropiyos
Pavlos
 Patakos
 Kosta Evretanos
 Giorgis Kaluta
 Yani kamilari
 Bazarlu
 Logara keremetci
 Yani Yormanos
 Vasilikos
 Christodoulos
değirmenci
 Nikola Gounari
 Nikola Dandrinos
[Dendrinos]
 Dimitris Ispanos
 Todoros Gounaris
 Tragodos Birgaris
(Boulgaris)

278
  Giorgis kamilaris
 Doukas Atranou
[Adrianou]
 Dimitri eskici
 Todoros Makrygiannis
 Yorgi Sari
 Manolis Kalutsikos
 Mihail Exidavelo
 Manolis Exidavelo
 Amalotos Mavrayenis
 Yorgi yamak-ı Bazarlu
 Todoros değirmenci
 Mihail Ipsalinos
 Mihail Dedeye
 Yanni Peritos
 Giorgi Ispathari
 Vasilikos gramatikos

Table 3

Evkaf ve Emlak
1)Vakf-ı Evlad-ı Oruç Karye-yi Çobanlu Karye-yi Prangi Cema’an:
Paşa10 Yekun: Yekun:  karye: 2
sonra alınup timara verilecek  hane: 45  hane: 22  hane: 67
vakfiyesile mukarrer  mücerred: 3  mücerred: 6  mücerred: 10
nameleri bile alınup zâ’i’  hasıl: 4,939  hasıl: 3,372  Hasıl: 8,311
olmuş ama eski defterlerde
giru mülkiyeti mestur
bulunduğu sebebden
padişahımız sultan Bayezid
han hallada hilafete hazretleri
giru mülkiyeti vakf evlatlığı
mukarrer tutup hükm-i
firman-ı kaza ceriyan in’am
etmiş haliya ol hükm-i şerif
mücebince evladi vakf-i
evlatlık üzere
mutassarıflardır

2)Mülk-i Nasuh Bey11  Karye-yi Bey

mir-i liva-ı İskenderiye mülk-i mezkur
padişahımız sultan Bayezid  Karye-yi Hacı
han işbu köyü hibe ve temlik nam-ı diğer
edup bağışılmış cemi’ Çeltükçi hali
tevabi’ile ve levahıkıla re’ayetleri mezkur
mülkiyet üzere tasarruf Bey köyünde
olunur beratı görülmedi otururlar

10
BOA. TT20 890 (1485), pp. 244-245; Gökbilgin (1952), pp. 246-247.
11
TT20, pp. 246-247; Gökbilgin (1952), p. 448.
279
 Cema’an:
 hane: 39
 mücerred: 6
 hasıl : 4,760
3)Vakf-ı Medreseyi Çelebi12 Karye-yi Ilica
viranı
This is the “vakf-ı medrese ve Cema’an:
mescid ‘an nefsi Dimetoka”  hane-yi
From the 1453 register Muslim: 3
 hane-yi
Gebran: 80
 bive-yi Gebran:
1
 hasıl: 5,927

4) Vakf-ı Yıldırım Bayezid Karye-yi

han13 zamanından beru Sofılar Mehmedi14 ,
gemicilere vakfımış gemi vakf-ı gemiciyan
işledirler tasarruf edup  Gemiciyan ba
geçmiş padişahlardan berat-ı padişah
ellerinde hükm-i şerifleri  Raiyyet-i
vardır cemi’ ‘avarızatdan karye-yi
emin olalar diyu ve mezkur
padişahımız sultan sultan  cema’an
Bayezid han dahi hükm-i  hane: 15
cihan-muta virup bir karar  mücerred: 1
sabika gemi işledirler diyu.  hasıl: 1,833
Ama mezkur gemiciler işbu
köyün hasılı olurlarmış, lakın
beratlarında mestur değildir.
5) Vakf-ı Yıldırım sultan15
zamanından beru gemicilere
vakfımış Prangi gecudunda
gemi işledirlermiş geçmiş
padişahlardan vakfiyeti
ahkam-ı şerife vardır. Ama
padişahımız sultan Bayezid
handan dahi tacdid berat
etmemişler haliya şimdi
Mustafa veled-i Bayramlu ve
Mustafa gullam-ı İbrahim ve
Şah Veli veled-i Mustafa
beratsuz tasarruf edup
mezbur kimesne hizmet
ederler

12
Ibid., pp. 255.
13
Ibid., pp. 265-266.
14
Kotzageorgis lists the village of Sofılar Mehmedi as a plain area near Meriç river. Kotzageorgis (2007), p. 252.
15
Ibid., pp. 266-267.
280
7) Vakf-ı Karagöz Bey16 Karye-yi
Hekim oğlundan satun Hekim[li]17:
alınmış mülkimiş nefs-i imam-ı Mevlana
Dimetokada olan tekyesine Mahmud elinde
sarf olunurmuş bundan ol hükm-i şahı vardır.
evkaf ve emlak tebdil ve Dar makam ki
tegayyür olicak bozulup imam ola resm-i
timara verilmişimiş şimdi rüsum Raiyyetları
giru vakfiyyeüzere tasarruf ve ‘avarızları emin
alınur ama beratları ola diye
görülmedi cema’an:
 hane: 32
 mücerred: 8
 hasıl: 4,042
8)Vakf-ı veled-i Cercer 18 ‘öşür : 200 Asiyab–ı dolap: 5 Yekun:
200 hasıl:400
9)Vakf-ı Cami’i Dimetoka Bağ dar sinur-ı ‘an zemin-i vakf-ı Yekun:
dar tasarruf-ı Hatib 19 şehri muceb-i mezkur bir muceb-i hasıl: 570
Mevlana veled-i hocet veled-i Ahi
Ahi  ‘öşür 20
dar tasarruf-ı  ‘öşür 30
Mevlana Hatib
Süleyman
dönüm: 130
hasıl: 520
10)Vakf-ı zaviye-i Abdal hasıl:
Cüneyid20 Az çayir-i hassa ve
dar nefs-i Dimetoka şehir öşr-i bağat ve sayir
çivarında bir pare yer cihat: 396
çükermiş merhum Gazi
Murad Hudavendigar
zamanından beru vakfımış
şimdikihalde Abdal Cüneyid
neslinden oğlu kızı tasarruf
edup tekyeye harc
ederlerimiş ama hükümleri
görülmedi

16
Ibid., pp. 272-273; Gökbilgin (1952), pp. 289-290.
17
Kotzageorgis lists a certain village Hekimli, known in Greek as Yatrades. Kotzageorgis (2007), p. 254.
18
Ibid., pp. 274.
19
Ibid., pp. 274.
20
Ibid., p. 301; Gökbilgin (1952), p. 174; Ayverdi (1982), p. 195.
281
 BOA. TT 77 925 (1519), pp. 139-14821

Table 4

Name of the Quarter Number of Households Number of In total

exempted/celibates/
widows
1. Mahalle-yi Oruç {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which}: Hane : 14
Bey 1422  Exempted:
{Among which}: 2(14%)
 Davud Fakih imam  Celibates:
 İshak müezzin 4(28%)
 {Hane-yi}dar kira  Converts:
:3 1(7%)
 ‘Ali ‘Umur Dede
2. Mahalle-yi Hane-yi muslim}:11 {Among which}: Hane : 11
Medrese {Among which}:  Exempted:
 ‘Ali Fakih imam 2(18%)
 Halit müezzin  Converts:
3(27%)
3. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: 2023 {Among which}: Hane :20
Cercer {Among which}:  Exempted:
 Abdul al-Karim 5(25%)
imam ve hatib-i  Celibates:
câmi’i 5(25%)
 Eliyas müezzin  Converts:
muaf ve müsellem 5(25%)
 ‘Ali ‘Umur
imam-ı imâret-i Nasuh
Bey dar Dimetoka ba
berat
 Atmaci ‘ibn
Abdullah muaf ve
müsellem
 Davud Sefer
müezzin

4. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: 2724 {Among which}: Hane : 27

Kuyumcu tâbi’i {Among which}:  Exempted:
Dimetoka  Hamza Fakih imam 4(14%)

21
In this survey the totals are provided in the form of marginal notes at the left side of each quarter entry and
in many occasions do not correspond to the actual numbers of the recorded households. The problem lies in
the identification of the exempted. Therefore, for consistency purposes with the rest of the surveys, I have
chosen to provide the actual numbers of the recorded households followed by the listing of the entries which I
classify as exempted. In the same time, the totals as recorded in the survey are included in the footnotes. The
totals of the exempted, celibates and converts are provided in the third column.
22
The survey provides the breakdown of 9 households and 4 celibates.
23
The survey provides the breakdown of 12 households, 5 celibates and 2 exempted ; it thus suggests a total of
19 taxable households.
24
The survey provides the breakdown of 22 households and 2 celibates; it thus suggests a total of 24 taxable
households.
282
  Hüseyn Abdullah  Celibates:
müezzin 2(7%)
 Musa Kethuda  Converts:
 Nasuh ‘Ali imam-ı 16(59%)
mahalle-yi Tatar
 Rahit debbağ

{Hane-yi muslim}:29 {Among which}: Hane : 29

5. Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted:
Habib Fakih  İbrahim Fakih Imam imam: 1
nam-ı diğer  Mustafa müezzin müezzin:1
Macarlar25  Devleti Han Hızır muaf ve
eşkuncu ve müsellem: 1
müsellem eşkuncu müsellem:1
 Keşi ‘Ahmet muaf yağci:1
müsellem/ dar kira: 2= 7(24%)
mücerred  Celibates:
 ‘Ali Abdullah yağci/ 15(51%)26
mücerred  Converts:
 Süleyman Divani 9(31%)
dar kira /mücerred
 Hasan ‘atık-ı (?) dar
kira /mücerred

6. {Hane-yi muslim}:1627 {Among which}: Hane : 16

Mahalle-yi câmi’ {Among which}:  Exempted:
 Eliyâs Fakih imam 6(37%)
 Eliyas ba berat  Celibates:
müsellem 2(12%)
 Mustafa ‘ibn  Converts:
Abdullah câmi’i 4(25%)
evkaf
 Sari Iftar eşkuncu
hanan
 Mehmed Dede
eşkuncu yürük

7. {Hane-yi muslim}:2328 {Among which}: Hane : 23

Mahalle-yi Tatarlar {Among which}:  Exempted
 Nasuh imam 6(26%)
 Mehmed müezzin  Celibates:
 Hamza Abdullah 5(21%)
yağci  Converts:

25
TT77, p. 140.
26
The survey provides the breakdown of 11 celibates and we deduce that it excludes the categories of: muaf ve
müsellem (1), yağci (1), dar kira (2).
27
The survey provides the breakdown of 10 households, 2 celibates, 2 eşkuncu; it thus suggests a total of 14
taxable households.
28
The register provides the breakdwon of 13 households, 5 celibates, 1 yağci, 3 muaf and müsellem; it thus
suggests a total of 22 taxable households.
283
  Kilavuz Abdullah 8(34%)
muaf ve müsellem
 Mustafa Abdullah
muaf ve müsellem
 Yusuf Emir muaf
müsellem
 Mustafa tüccar
 Hamza çulah
 Yusuf papuçcu

8. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:629 {Among which}: Hane : 6

Kizlak-ı Burak  Seyyidi ‘Ali imam  Exempted:
1(16%)
 Celibate:
1(16%)
 Converts:
1(16%)
9. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which}: Hane :15
Köprübaşı 1530  Exempted:
 ‘Ali Fakih imam 3(20%)
 Murad ibn-i Kasim  Celibates:
mücerred /Şahin 3(20%)
zaviye31  Converts:
 Dede Bali Şahin 3(20%)
zaviye

10. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:532 {Among which}: Hane : 5

Doğan Bey Among which:  Exempted:
 Hacı İbrahim imam 3(60%)
 Hasan müezzin  Celibate:
 Mustafa müezzin-i 1(20%)
mescid-i Hocaca

11. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which}: Hane : 18

Karagöz Bey 1833  Exempted:
Among which: 2(11%)
 ‘Umur Fakih imam  Celibates:
 ‘Ali Sinan muaf ve 6(33%)

29
The register provides the breakdown of 5 households and 1 celibate. The quarter of Kizlak Burak constitutes
one of the most representative cases of the descripancies encountered in the counting system of this defter.
Does this mean that in this quarter the imam was not exempted?
30
The register provides the breakdown of 10 households and 2 celibates. Therefore, we need to consider as
exempted: ‘Ali Fakih imam, Murad ibn-i Kasim Şahin zaviye/ mücerred and Dede Bali Şahin zaviye.
31
I would suggest a reading of the name of the zaviye based on the list of the Dimetoka zaviyes provided by
Ayverdi. In this he records the Şahin Baba- Şahin Sufi Sultan zaviyesi. A provision for the tekye was made from
the allowance of Ahmed Çelebi vakf. Ayverdi (1982), p. 196.
32
The survey provides the breakdown of 3 households and 1 celibate, as if the two müezzins were not
exempted.
33
The survey provides the breakdown of 9 households, 6 celibate and 1 muaf müsellem and thus suggests a
total of 16 taxable households.
284
 müsellem  Converts:
4(22%)
12. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which}: Hane : 29
Bazarlu Bey 34 2935  Exempted:
 ‘Ali Fakih imam ba 6(20%)
berat  Celibates:
 Barak Hamza yağci 3(10%)
 Mustafa ibn-i Yusuf  Converts:
Çiftliğ-i bazdar 7(24%)
 Mustafa Sarica
Çiftliğ-i bazdar
 Mustafa Kovaklu
Gayub
 Nasuh Cerahor
mücerred ve ba
berat
13. {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which}: Hane : 44
Mahalle-yi 4436  Exempted:
Debbağlar nam-ı  Mehmed Ramazan 8(18%)
diğer Abdal imam  Celibates:
Cüneyid  Mustafa müezzin 15(34%)
 Converts:
14(31%)
 Dervishes:
6(13%)
Dar zaviye-yi Bektaşi {Hane-yi muslim}:6
Hane-yi zaviye-yi  Sersam Baba
Abdal Cüneyid  Derviş Mustafa
mezkur dervişler  Kara Abdal
‘avarız vermezler  Derviş Cüneyid
diyu ellerinde hükm-i  Hacı Hasan Cüneyid
şerifi cedidleri var  Abdal Cüneyid

14. Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:1837 {Among which}: Hane : 18

Haraçcı  Hamza Emral imam  Exempted:
 Mahmud 3(16%)
Tanrivermiş  Celibates:
müezzin 6(33%)
 Kasim Abdullah  Converts:
muaf ve müsellem 4(22%)

34
TT77, p. 142
35
The survey provides the breakdown of 21 households, 2 celibates; it thus suggests a total of 23 taxable
households.
36
The survey provides the breakdown of 22 households and 15 celibates; it thus suggests a total of 37 taxable
households. In my breakdown (44) I am including the 6 dervishes of the zaviye, since, although of a different
fiscal status, they belonged geographically to the neighbourhood.
37
The survey provides the breakdown of 10 households, 6 celibates and 1 muaf müsellem; it thus suggests a
total of 17 taxable households.
285
15. {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which}: Hane : 34
Mahalle-yi Hocaca 3438  Exempted:
3(8%)
Amongst which:  Celibates:
 Mehmed Hacı 6(17%)
Hamza imam  Converts:
 ‘Ali Hoca 6(17%)
 Emral müezzin
Nasuh Bey ba berat
 Nasuh ibn-i
Abdullah muaf ve
müsellem
 ‘Ali çulah
 Hacı salcu
 Yahşi çulah
 İskender salcu
Gebran-ı kal’e-yi
Dimetoka
16. Hane-yi Gebran:61 {Among which}: Hane :61
Mahalle-yi Kosta  Kostantınos Papas  Mücerredan-ı
Papas mezkure-yi mahalle-yi
kâfırlar cizyelerin ve mezkur:
ispençeleri hassa 10(16%)
verirler ve Edirnede  Bive-i mahalle-yi
saray-ı ‘amıraya mezkur: 8(13%)
tâbi’i olan bağlara ve
bahçelere hizmet
ederler
17. Hane-yi Yahudıyan: 20 {Among which}: Hane : 20
Mahalle-yi  Celibate: 1 39
Yahudıyan tâbi’i İsmail Davut
kal’e-yi mezbur  Widows: 2
18. Hane-yi Gebran:48 {Among which}: Hane : 48
Mahalle-yi Aya  Vasiliku Papas
Todora  Mücerredan-ı
mahalle-yi
mezkur
:10(20%)
 Bive mahalle-yi
mezbur: 4(8%)
19. Hane-yi Gebran:52 {Among which}: Hane : 52
Mahalle-yi  Yanni Papas  Mücerredan-ı
Manastir mahalle-yi
mezkur:
13(25%)
 Bive mahalle-yi
mezbur:
5(9%)
38
The register provides the breakdown of 25 households, 6 Celibates and 1 muaf müsellem and thus suggests a
total of 32 taxable households.
39
The register does not mention this celibate in the final breakdown.
286
Table 5

1. Vakf-ı evlad-ı Karye-yi Çobanlu vakf-ı Karye-yi Prangi vakf-ı

Oruç Paşa40sonra mezkur mezkur
alınup timara verilecek  hane: 30  hane: 17
vakfiyesi ve  mücerredan-ı karye-yi  From which
mukarrernamesi dahi Çopanlu: 11 mücerred: 5
bile alınup za’ı’olmuş  yekun: 5416  yekun: 3,989
ama eski defter-i
mülkiyet mestur
bulunmağın merhum Total: 9,405
Sultan Bayezid han
‘aleyhu’ al-rahmete ve
al’ma’gfiret mülkiyet
ve vakf evlatlığın
mukarrer tutup hükm-i
şerif erzanı kalmışlar
ol hükm-i hümayun
mücebince vakf
evlatlık üzere
mutassarıflardır.
2. Vakf-ı  Bağ dönüm 3  ‘an kıst-ı hammam dar
medrese-yi Oruç nefs-i şehr-i Dimetoka
Paşa41 fi sene
 Dekakin
3. Vakf-ı zaviye-yi  Hasıl ‘an bağat 170
Abdal Cüneyid42 dar dönüm fi 3
nefs-i Dimetoka şehr-i 380
civarında bir pare yeri  15 çayir-i hisse dar
varmış merhum Gazi kurb-ı şehri fi sene 50
Hunkar zamanından  Yekun: 760 43
beru vakf eylemiş.
Halıya, Abdal
Cüneyidin neslinden
oğlu oğlunun kızı oğlu
Seydi
tasarrufundayımış.
Mezkur yeri bağliğa
ulaştırub mahsulün
zaviyeye harcedermiş.
4. Vakf-ı mescid-i Dekakın dar nefs-i Mezkur akçe iki Hatun
mahalle-yi Karagöz Dimetoka 114 bab fi sene vakfımış
Bey 44vakf-ı Ali Bey 612

40
TT77 925 (1519), pp. 223-224.
41
TT77 925 (1519), p. 237; Gökbilgin (1952), p. 247.
42
Ibid., p. 242; Barkan (1942), p. 338.
43
Althought, it records 760 it adds up to 750.
44
Ibid., p. 242.
287
 Nakit 1,000
Fi sene 2,000
5. Vakf-ı zaviye-yi  ‘an mahsulat-ı
Ahi Denek45 dar başhane fi yom: 3
mahalle-yi kasaban
nam-ı diğer kuyumcu
mahallesi dar nefs-i
Dimetoka sabiken ve
zaviye-yi mezbure-yi
Yıldırım Han bina
edup ve nefs-i
Dimetoğında bazar
içinde bir başhane
yapup mezkur zaviye-
yi vakfımış, al an dar
tasarruf-ı Ahi Kasim
6. Vakf-ı Yıldırım Karye-yi Sofılar vakf-ı
Bayezid Han mezkur
zamanından beru  hane çift: 19
gemiciler vakfımıs  mücerredan-ı
Prangi gecudunde karye-yi mezkur:
gemiler işlermis selatin 8
maziyeden ahkam  Yekun 1,156
şerifleri vardır
7. Vakf-ı Karye-yi Sofılar47 vakf-ı
Yıldırım Bayezid Gemiciyan
Han46 zamanından  Cema’at-ı
beru gemicilere vakf Gemiciyan ehl-i berat
olup Meriçi suyu berat olan gemiciler fevt
gecudunde Prangi nam olup beratsız gemicilik
karye-yi eder oğulları vardır: 10
mukabilesinde  Evlad-ı gemiciyan: 6,
gemicilik ederler ve from which 4
haslar mutassarıflardır. mücerred
Selatin maziyeden  Ze’amet-i karye-yi
ellerinde hükm-i mezkur: 9 from which
şerifleri var. 3 bennak and 3 çift
 Yekun: 1,296
8. Vakf-ı Karye-yi Hekim[li] vakf-ı
Karagöz48 mezkur:
Hekimoğlundan  hane 24 (from which)
satunmuş Dimetokada 17 çift, 7 bennak
olan zaviyesine sarf  mücerredan-ı karye-yi
olunurmuş mezkur vakf-ı
mezbur: 10 (from

45
Ibid., p. 242; Barkan (1942), p. 338; Gökbilgin (1952), p. 190-191: He is also suggesting artenative readings of
the name as Dönük, Dinek, Döğün; Ayverdi (1982), p. 195.
46
TT77 925 (1519), p. 243.
47
Kotzageorgis suggests a tentative identification of Sofılar with the Greek village Sofiko. Kotzageorgis (2007),
p. 254.
48
TT77 925 (1519), p. 250.
288
 which) 1 muaf ve
müsellem
 Yekun: 3,788
Karye-yi Salih Viranı
9. Vakf-ı Medrese- nam-ı diğer Söğütlü
yi Çelebi, Yıldırım Dere50
Han49 vakf etmiş 10,777
10. Mülk-i Nasuh Karye-yi Bey köyü vakf-ı
Bey mir-i liva-yı mezkur
Silistre51 merhum  hane: 49 (from which)
Sultan Bayezid han 21 çift, 17 bennak, 3
‘aleyhu’ al-rahmete ve nim
al’ma’gfiret mezkur  mücerredan-ı karye-yi
Nasuh Beye hibe ve mezkur: 7
temlik edup mezkur  Yekun: 19,261
dahi Dimetokada bina
etuği zaviyesine ve
Bey köyünde olan
cami’ine ve mektub
hanesine ve mezkur
zaviye mutasil olan
mescidine vakf etmiş
merhum sultan
Bayezid Handan ve
padişahımız
a’azza’llahu
hazretlerinden dahi
mükarrer namesi var
olan vakfiyyeüzere
tassaruf olunur

 BOA. TT 370 926 (1520), p. 19.

Table 6

Name of the quarter Number of Households Number of Number of Widows

celibates

1) Musulman-ı  Dizdar: 1
Kal’e-yı  Kethuda : 1
Dimetoka  Muhafazan nefran:
15
 İmam: 1
2) Mahalle-yi Hane: 30
Oruç Bey

49
Ibid., p. 264.
50
This is also listed by Kotzageorgis as a mountainous area. Kotzageorgis (2007), p. 254.
51
TT77, p. 285; Gökbilgin (1952), p. 448: He records that the total from the Bey köy was 25.200 and he is
further adding cash amounts of 866,000 and 86,600 akçes provided from the defters a) TT370, p. 41, b) TT77, p.
293, c) TT138, p. 13, d) TT136, p. 20.
289
3) Mahalle-yi Hane: 6 Mücerred: 3
Medrese
4) Mahalle-yi Hane: 10 Mücerred: 3
Cercer
5) Mahalle-yi Hane: 18 Mücerred: 2
Kuyumcu
6) Mahalle-yi Hane: 10 Mücerred: 3
Habibi Fakih
nam diğer
Macarlu
7) Mahalle-yi Hane: 4 Mücerred: 1
Cami’
8) Mahalle-yi Hane: 12 Mücerred: 4
Tatarlu
9) Mahalle-yi Hane: 4 Mücerred: 1
Kizlak Burak
10) Mahalle-yi Hane: 17 Mücerred: 4
Köprübaşı
11) Mahalle-yi Hane: 1
Doğan Bey
12) Mahalle-yi Hane: 12 Mücerred: 5
Karagöz Bey
13) Mahalle-yi Hane: 15 Mücerred: 7
Bazarlu
Hane: 19 Mücerred: 4
14) Mahalle-yi
Debbağ nam-ı
diğer Abdal
Cüneyd
15) Mahalle-yi Hane: 8 Mücerred: 3
Haraçcı
16) Mahalle-yi Hane: 24 Mücerred 4
Hocaca nam-ı
diğer Kum
mahallesi
Yekun:  Cami’i: 1  Dizdar-ı kal’e:  Mahallat-ı şehr:
 Medrese: 1 1 15
 ‘İmaret: 1  Kethudayı  Hane-yi
 Hammam: 2 kal’e: 1 Müsellem: 163
 Muhafazan  Mücerred: 44
neferan: 18 Total of Muslim
 İmam-ı kal’e: 1 households:
163+44= 207
Gebran-ı kal’e-yi
Dimetoka cizyelerin
Hudavendigara ve
ispençelerin ve sair
rüsumu vakf–ı
mezburina eda
ettiklerinden sonra
‘avarızden bedel
Edirnede olun saray-
290
ı ‘amiraya tabi’i
bağlar be bağceler
hizmet ederler
Mahalle-yi Kostas Hane: 45 Mücerred: 1 Bive: 2
Papas
Mahalle-yi Dimitri Hane: 15 Mücerred: 2
nam-ı diğer
Yahudiyan
Mahalle-yi Ayio Hane: 37 Mücerred: 2 Bive: 6
Todor
Mahalle-yi Hane: 48 Bive: 5
Manastir
Yekun:  Mahallat: 4 Mücerred: 3 Bive: 15
 Hane-yi Gebran:
145
Yekun
 Kal’e: 1  Cami’i: 1
 Dizdar: 1  Hammam: 2
 Kethuda: 1  Medrese: 1
 Merdan-ı kal’e: 18  ‘Imaret: 1
 İmam: 1 
 Hane-yi
 Hane-yi Muslim: Mahallat ma’a Gebran: 145
163 Gebran: 19  Mücerredan-ı
 Mücerredan-ı Gebran: 3
Muslim: 44  Bive-yi
Gebran: 15
Hasıl 39,057

291
 BOA. TT 1090 976 (1568), pp. 72-75.

Table 7

Name of the Quarter Number of Number of Exempted/ In total

Households Celibates/
Converts
1) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 11
Medrese 11  Exempted:
{Among which}: 2(18%)
1. Hacı  Converts: 5(45%)
Mehmed imam
2. Seyyidi
‘Ali müezzin
2) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 26
Debbağin nam-ı 26  Exempted:
diğer Abdal {Among which}: 5(19%)
Cüneyd 1. İbrahim  Mücerred: 2(7%)
Hasan imam  Converts:
2. Hızır 5(19%)
Eliyas müezzin
3. Şa’ban
Mehmed Şeyhi
4. Hüseyn Abdullah
muaf
5. Şeyhi Mehmed
al-Din Seyyidi
zaviye-yi
Cüneyid Abdal
‘an evlad-ı
Cüneyid

 Mehmed ‘Ali
Hoca
 ‘Ali Hoca
 Veli Hamza
Halvatı
 Bali Kurd
Ahmed Hoca
 Masud Hoca
 Derviş Mustafa
 Ferhad
Abdullah
debbağ

3) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 26

Bazarlu Bey 26  Exempted:
{Among which}: 6(23%)

292
 1. Ahmet ‘Ivaz imam 2
imam müezzin 2
2. Mehmed Şeyh 1
Celebi al-Din hatib1
imam-ı  Mücerred: 3(11%)
‘imaretin  Converts: 4(16%)
Nasuh Bey
3. Tormuş Eliyas
müezzin
4. Seyyidi Bali
müezzin
5. Şeyhi Seyyidi
zaviye-i
Hüseyin
6. Piri Hoca hatib-
i Cami’i şerif

 Mahmud Seyyidi
mücerred
 Sa’ban debbağ
mücerred
 İbrahim Hamza
al-Din mücerred
 Yusuf ‘Abdullah
 Ahmet Süleyman
 Ahmed diğer
 Mustafa Serteraş
 Karağöz
Abdullah
 Hasan Abdullah
 Seyyidi Mehmed
Seyyid ‘Ali
4) {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 22
Mahalle-yi Cercer 22  Excempted:
{Among which}: 3(13%)
1. Mesud Musa  Converts 2(9%)
imam  Mücerred:
2. Kurd Ahmed 4(18%)
müezzin
3. Ramazan Hacı çiftlu 1
Kadi Kavak

 Mehmud Bazarlu Occupational

 Derviş Ramazan breakdown:
 Mustafa güreyi debbağ 4(18%)
 Ciftlik Hasan
Bey dar yed-i
Hüseyn bin
Abdullah
Ramazan
mücerred
 Ciftlik Hüseyn
293
 Bey solak ‘Ali
‘ibn-i Hasan Bey
çiftlu
 Mehmed debbağ
 Hüseyn debbağ
 Ahmed debbağ
 Hüseyn Mahmud
debbağ

5) {Hane-yi muslim}:  Exempted: 4(9%) Hane : 41

Mahalle-yi Tatarlar 41  Converts:
{Among which}: 4(9%)
1. Hacı Mehmed al-  Celibates:
imam 10(24%)
2. Yakub müezzin
3. Hacı Mehmed nim çiftlu 1
imam
4. Tormuş müezzin Occupational
breakdown:
nalbant: 2
aba’iye 3
 (?) paşmakçı tüccar
 Mustafa dukkandar 3
paşmakçı paşmakçı 3
 ‘Ali paşmakçı
 Hasan kelamcı
 Hamza nalbant
 Mehmed nalbant
 Mustafa
dukkandar
 Timur Mustafa
dukkandar
 Süleyman
dukkandar
6) {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 25
Mahalle-yi Haraçcı 25  Exempted:
Kasim {Among which}: 4(16%)
 Mehmed  Celibates:
Mustafa imam 3(12%)
 Hızır Abdullah  Converts:
al- müezzin 4(16%)
 Hüseyn Eliyas
müezzin-i
‘imaret
 Musa Halife
imam-ı cami’

7) Mahalle-yi Hoca {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane: 78

nam-ı diğer Kum 78  Exempted:
mahallesi {Among which}: 3(3%)

294
1. ‘Abdullah  Celibates:
Hoca imam 13(16%)
2. Hasan  Converts:
Mustafa müezzin 16(20 %)
3. Turak Hacı Kadi

 Osman Timurtaş çiftlu 8

tüccar-ı füruş nim-çiftlu: 7
nim çiftlu
 Tormuş Mahmud
tüccar-ı füruş Occupational
nim çiftlu breakdown:
 Hasan Nasuh çulah
tüccar nim çiftlu kasab 2
 Mehmed çulah tüccar 3
 Bayezid Caus aba’iye
nim çiftlu
 Mahmud kasab
 Veli kasab
 Çiftlik Hasan
Ramazan dar
yed-i Fatima
Hatun Hoca
Ciftlu
 Çiftlik Kelamı
Bey ‘an yed-i
Mehmed Çelebi
ve İbrahim Bey
haliya dar yed-i
Bayezid Bey ve
‘Ali Şirmerd
çiftlu
 Çiftlik Ferhud
‘an yed-i Resul
Bey çiftlu
 Çiftlik Pervane
Bey
 Çiftlik Hacı Bey
dar yed-i Sa’ban
Abdullah
 Çiftlik Mustafa
veled-i İskender
 Çiftlik Mahmud
Çelebi
 Çiftlik Hacı Bey
dar yed-i
Abdullah
merd-i timar
 Bağ Hacı Bey
dar yed-i Sinan
Bey merd-i timar
kat: 1
295
8) Mahelle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 26
Köprübaşı 26  Exempted: 1(3%)
{Among which}: imam 1
 Celibates: 3(11%)
1. İbrahim zade  Converts:
imam 6(23)

Occupational
breakdown:
debbağ 5

9) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 18

Karagöz 18  Exempted: 1(5%)
{Among which}:  Celibates: 4(22%)
1. Diğer Hoca  Converts:1(5%)
imam
 Hamza çiftlu 2
kethudayı nim çiftlu: 1
hümayun
 Çift Sarban
Hamza dar yed-i
Mehmed Çelebi
merd-i timar

 Çift Sarban
Hamza dar yed-i
Hamza Fetullah
merd-i timar
10) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 32
Kuyumcu 31 and  Exempted:
Çiftlik: 1 6(19%)
{Among which}: imam: 1
1. Davud Kemal kadi: 1
imam derviş: 4(16%)
2. Ali Kadi Mustafa  Celibates : 3(9%)
3. Derviş damat-ı  Converts: 8(25%)
Hüseyn
4. Hüseyn Derviş
mücerred Professional
5. Ahmed Derviş breakdown:
mücerred güreyi:3
6. ‘Abdullrahim hayyat:1
Derviş mücerred samarcı

 Hacı Ahmed
İbrahim
(he appears as muaf
in 1570)
 Çiftlik Çauş ve
Ahmed Çelebi
296
 dar yed-i Ahmed
Çelebi al-mezbur

11) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 17

Cami’i ‘atik 17  Excempted:
merhum ve {Among which}: 7(41%)
ma’furun Yıldırım 1. Musa Halife  Mücerred:
Bayezid han Imam 3(17%)52
‘aleyhu’ al-rahmete 2. Şa’ban müezzin  Converts: 2(11%)
ve al’ma’gfiret 3. Bayezid müezzin
4. Mehmed Eliyas
sarapdar
5. Hacı Mustafa
Sinan Dede
6. Mehmed Seyyidi
Hüseyn
7. Seyyidi veled-i
Mustafa Sa’ban
mücerred
8. ‘Ali Çelebi
‘Abdin
9. Mustafa Hacı
Eliyas
10. Süleyman Davud
11. Mustafa Hacı
Eliyas
12. Süleyman Davud
13. Musa Abdullah
aba’iye
14. Musa Hacı
Eliyaş
15. Umur Hacı
Eliyaş mücerred

12) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 17

Habib Fakih nam-ı 17  Exempted:
diğer Macarlar {Among which}: 2(11%)
1. ‘Ali İshak imam  Mücerred:
2. Eyup ‘Isa al- 2(11%)
mütevelli  Converts: 7(41%)

 Mehmed Halil çiftlu: 2

 Halil ‘Abdullah nim çiftlu:2
 Bayram
‘Abdullah
 Çift Mahmud
‘Abdullah
 Hasan ‘Abdullah
 Ferhad Abdullah

52
Seyyidi Veli Mustafa Sa’ban is mücerred and excempted as Seyyid in the same time.
297
  Derviş Abdullah
 Çiftlik Halil
Nasuh dar yed-i
Halil
Abdullrahim
çiftlu
 Mehmed
Süleyman çiftlu
 Çiftlu ‘Umur dar
yed-i Alide (?)
ve Fatma Hatun
bint-i mezbur.
Haliya dar yed-i
Alide Hatunun
zevce-yi Hacı
Mustafa nim
çiftlu
 Hamza kulak-ı
Hamza

13) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: 3  Exempted: Hane : 3

Mescid-i Doğan {Among which}: 2(66%)
Bey dar kurb-ı  Mustafa Sinan
‘imaret Dede Imam
 Mehmed
Mustafa al-
müezzin nim çiftlu1

14) Mahalle-yi Hacı {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which} Hane : 11

Burak 11  Exempted: 1(9%)
{Among which}:  Converts:
This the first time 1. Hamza Hoca 5(45%)
that the quarter is imam
mentioned as Hacı
 Derviş Şahkulu
 Zeyn al’Abdin
berader-i o
 Rüstem
‘Abdullah
 Hüseyn
‘Abdullah
 Mustafa
Abdullah
bostancı
 Eliyas ‘Abdullah
 Mustafa
Abdullah sayyad
15) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}: 2 Hane : 2
Oruç Paşa {Among which}:
 Hızır Ali
 Kasim Abdullah

298
Christian Quarters
Gebran-ı nefs-i
Dimetoka cizyelerin
hazret padişah alem
penahi hallada
hilafete hazretlerine
verup ispençelerinde
ve sair rüsumlarında
vakf-ı mezbure-ye
eda ettiklerinden
sonra ‘avarız bedeli
Edirnede olan saray-
ı ‘amıraya tabi’i
bağlar ve bağceler
hizmet ederler
16) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}: {Among which}: Hane :37
Kostas Papas 37  Celibates: 6
 Widows: 3

17) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}: {Among which}: Hane :49

Manastir 49  Celibates: 16
 Widows: 4

18) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}: {Among which}: Hane :25

Arnavutlu dar 25  Celibates: 1
birun-i kal’e-yi
mezbur yirmi yildan
mütecavüz imiş
kasaba-yi
mezbure’de temkin
etmişlerdir. Ber
muceb-i emr-i şerif-i
deftere kayid
olunduğu diyu
Ferecik Kadisi
kasabayı mezburede
temrir etuği defterde
mukayid bulunmağın
vech-i meşru üzerine
haliya defter-i cedide
deyu kayid olundu
mukayid dar defter-i
atiğe
19) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}: {Among which}: Hane :29
Yahudiyan 29  Celibates: 7
 Widows: 1

20) Mahalle-yi Ayo {Hane-yi Gebran}: {Among which}: Hane :32

Todora 32  Celibates: 8
 Widows: 2

21) Mahalle-yi Ayo {Hane-yi Gebran}: {Among which}: Hane :26

299
 Nikola 26  Celibates: 6

 BOA. TT 494 978 (1570), pp. 158- 166.

Table 8

Muslim Quarters
1) {Hane-yi muslim}:15 {Among which}: Hane : 15
Mahalle-yi {Amongst which} :  Exempted:9(60%)
Medrese  Ramazan Veli-yi imam  Celibate: 1
‘an mahalle-yi Cercer  Converts: 4(26%)
 Mehmed Bayram al-
müezzin
 İbrahim Süleyman
muhassıl
 Hasan sarapdar Mustafa
dar hane-yi rah
 Dar Hane-yi rah: 4
 Dar vakf: 2

2) {Hane-yi muslim}:27 {Among which}: Hane : 27

Mahalle-yi {Amongst which }:  Exempted: 7(25%)
Debbağin nam-ı  Ahmed Veli-yi imam Şeyh1
diğer Abdal  İbrahim imam-ı mescid-i imam2
Cüneyid Köprubaşi (berader-i o) müezzin 1
 Eliyas kanun al-müezzin ehl-i berat1
 ‘Ali Hızır al-mu’arrıf ba muaf2
berat  Celibates: 3(11%)
 Şeyhi Mehmed al-Din  Converts: 4(14%)
Seyyidi zaviye-i Cüneyid
Abdal ‘an evlad-ı
Cüneyid
 Pervane ‘Abdin muaf
 Hüseyn ‘Abdin muaf

 Yusuf Sefer güreyi

 Mustafa Mehmed
Güreyi
 Hamza Nasuh güreyi

3) {Hane-yi muslim}:2953 {Among which}: Hane: 29

Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted: 18(62%)
Bazarlu Bey 1. Mehmed ‘Ali imam imam: 254

53
In this neighbourhood I am counting 29 households. However, in the final breakdown are listed 9
households, 1 Şeyh, 1 imam, 1 müezzin, 7 ehl-i berat, 1 muhassıl, 1 mücerred, 4 dar hane-yi rah, 1 dar kira and
1 muaf. Since, all these add up to 28, they should have missed someone in the counting.
300
 2. Lütfi Fakih imam-ı müezzin:1
‘imaret-i Nasuh Bey Şeyh: 1
3. Mesud Fakih imam-ı dar hane-yi rah: 455
mahalle-yi Tatarlar dar dar kira: 1
vakf muaf: 1
4. ‘Abdu’l-Karim Mustafa ehl-i berat:756
müezzin muhassıl : 1=
5. Mustafa serteraş dar  Celibate: 1
hane-yi rah
6. Hasan dar hane-yi rah
7. Mehmed Fakih mu’alim
dar hane-yi rah
8. Kubad tüccar dar hane-yi
rah
9. Ahmed Vekil-i Cercer
‘imaret dar hane-yi rah
10. Ali Hoca imam-ı mescid-
i Oruç Paşa ba berat
11. Şeyhi Seyyid zaviye-i
Hüseyn ba berat
12. Piri Hoca hatib-i cami’i
şerif ba berat
13. Mahmud saka-yı ‘imaret
ba berat
14. Nasuh Hacı ba berat
15. Mesut Hoca
dar hane-yi rah ve ba berat
16. Abdu’l-rahim birader-i o
diğer muhassıl
17. Piri muaf
18. Yahya saka dar Kira
19. Sefer Mustafa mücerred

4) {Hane-yi muslim}:22 {Among which}: Hane : 22

Mahalle-yi Cercer {Among which}:  Exempted:
1. Piri Çelebi imam dar 13 (59%)57
mahalle-yi Bazarlu Şeyhi1
2. Ali Davud al-müezzin imam 3
‘an mahalle-yi Abdal müezzin 1
Cüneyid hane-yi rah3
3. Mehmed Fakih imam-ı dar vakf ve yetim 358

54
Although, the register records in the final breakdown only 2 imams, I have transcribed the names of the four
imams in order to avoid confusion. The fourth imam Mesut Fakih Imam Mahalle-yi Tatarlar) is also registered as
dar vakf and is included in the ehl-i berat category along with the ‘Ali Hoca imam-ı mescid-i Oruç Paşa who has
a berat.
55
The survey records 4, although there are 5 listed as dar hane-yi rah, most possibly because Mesut Hoca is
considered as ba berat.
56
6 ba berat and 1 dar vakf.
57
I counted 12 and not 14. Mehmed Fakih imam-ı Cami’ dar hane-yi yetim is already excempted due to
imamate and still the 14th excempted remains unidentified.
58
The dar vakf and yetim category numbers 2 because Mehmed Fakih imam-ı Cami’ dar hane-yi yetim is
excempted due to imamate.
301
 Cami’ dar hane-yi yetim zaviyedar 1
4. Ramazan Çelebi imam-ı ehl-i berat 1
mahalle-yi Medrese  Celibate: 159
5. Zaviye-i Hacı Bektaş
Sinan Dede Şeyhi
6. Hasan Hoca Yolcu dar
hane-yi rah
7. Ferhad Subaşi dar vakf
8. Hüsrev al-mütevelli ba
berat
9. Musa güreyi dar hane-yi
rah
10. Turbali Seyyid taraş dar
hane-yi rah
11. Bali zade Ramazan
12. Sefer ibn-i Ramazan

 Hacı Mustafa debbağ

 Ahmed debbağ
 Hüseyn Mehmed debbağ
 Bazarlu ‘Abdin tüccar
 Mustafa güreyi
 Çiftliğ-i Hasan Bey

5) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:38 {Among which}: Hane : 38

Tatarlar {Among which}:  Exempted: 22(58%)
1. Mustafa Hamza imam imam 2
2. Yakub ‘Arab al- müezzin 2
müezzin ehl-i berat5
3. Hasan muaf dar hane-yi rah 3
4. ‘Ali Mustafa fakir’ül- muaf 1
hal dar kira4
5. Mustafa merd-i kal’e-yi fakir’ül-hal 1
Dimetoka müsellem3
6. Mahmud ‘Abdin merd-i hassa1
kal’e-yi Dimetoka ehli berat1
7. Hodaverd Abdin dar kira 1
müsellem dar vakf 360
8. Hızır Hamza Halil  Celibate: 1
hassa (gulam-ı)  Converts:8(21%)
9. Bali Turkut Bali ba
berat nim çifltu: 1
10. ‘Ali ‘abayı dar hane-yi
rah
11. Yahşi ‘Ali dar hane-yi Professional breakdown:
rah tüccar

59
There are two celibates (Sefer ibn-i Ramazan and ‘Abdi veled-i o) but obviously only 1 was regarded as
exempted.
60
However, for the final countdown of the excempted in this quarter “Hüssein Eliyas müezzin ‘imaret-i Nasuh
Bey dar vakf“ has been counted with the müezzins.

302
 12. Halil tüccar dar hane-yi nalbant
rah aba’iye
13. Hacı Ramazan güreyi
müsellem
14. Ahmed ‘Abdin dar kira
15. ‘Ali ‘Abdin
meremmetci sarayi ba
berat
16. Mahmud Ibna veled-i
müsellem
17. ‘Abd-i mekyas-ı İshak
Paşa Nasuh aba’iye
18. İbrahim Çelebi müezzin
cami’i şerif
19. Hacı Ahmed imam
mahalle-yi mescid-i
Haraçcı
20. Hüseyn Eliyas müezzin
‘imaret-i Nasuh Bey
dar vakf
21. Hızır ‘Abdin müezzin
mescid-i Haraçcı
22. ‘Abd’ül-Kadir berader-i
o

 Turkut nalbant
 Hamza Kasim nalbant
 Turğut ‘an karyeyi Tatar

6) {Hane-yi muslim}: 2461 {Among which}: Hane : 24

Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Excempted:12(50%)
Haraçcı Kasim 1. Hacı Mehmed imam ‘an imam1
mahalle-yi Macarlar müezzin 1
2. Hızır ‘Abdin al-müezzin ehl-i berat 3
‘an mahalle-yi mezbur hane-yi rah 4
3. Emrullah Halife ba berat dar vakf 3
4. Ferhad subaşi merd-i
kal’e  Celibates: 5(20%)
5. ‘Ali Serdar merd-i kal’e  Converts: 4(16%)
6. Turak Sarban dar hane-yi
rah
7. ‘Abdul Halil çulah dar
mezbur
8. Hacı Piri güreyi dar vakf
9. Hacı güreyi dar mezbur
10. Hamza Pervane dar
mezbur aba’iye
11. ‘Ali Eliyas nalbant dar
hane-yi rah

61
I am counting 24 households while the breakdown suggests a total of 23 (6 taxable households and 12
exempted and 5 celibates).
303
 12. Veli Sarban dar hane-yi
rah

7) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:60 Hane : 60

Hoca nam-ı diğer {Among which}: {Among which}:
kum mahallesi Abdi Halife imam  Exempted: 24(40%)
imam1
1. Hasan al-müezzin müezzin1
2. Mustafa Kurd muhassıl muhassıl 1
3. Hamza ‘Abdin muaf nim muaf 5
çiftlu müsellem2
4. Mehmed doğanci muaf dar hane-yi rah7
5. ‘Ali Sa’aban dar hane-yi dar kira 3
rah ehli berat 3
6. Seyyidi ‘Ali güreyi muaf  Celibates : 2(3%)
7. Yusuf Mehmed nalbant  Converts:4(6%)
muaf
8. Hasan Hüseyn aba’iye nim çiftlu 6
müsellem çiftlu 7
9. Merdan-ı müezzin cami’i
şerif dar hane-yi rah62
10. Osman Hacı muaf nim
çiftlu Occupational breakdown:
11. Hızır ibn-i Şahkulu dar güreyi 5
hane-yi rah nalbant
12. Bayram ‘ahure-yi ‘imaret aba’iye 4
ba berat hayyat
13. Hasan merd-i kal’e tüccar
14. Hamza çulah dar hane-yi kasab
rah
15. Hasan Şedur dar kira
16. Ahmed hayyat dar kira
17. Divane Hacı dar haneyi
rah
18. Hasan ‘Abdin dar kira
19. Kaya tabah-ı ‘imaret nim
çiftlu
20. Pirali Eliyas dar hane-yi
rah
21. Ferhud ‘Abdin dar hane-
yi rah
22. Hüseyn habaz-ı ‘imaret
ba berat
23. ‘Ali bevab-ı ‘imaret ba
berat
24. Çiftlik Gillani Bey dar
yed-i Mehmed Çelebi ve
İbrahim Bey bude haliya
25. Çiftlik Ferhud Bey

62
I regard him being exempted as müezzin.
304
 26. Çiftlik Pervane Bey
27. Çiftlik Hacı Bey
28. Çiftlik Mustafa veled-i
İskender
29. Çiftlik Mahmud Çelebi

8) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:23 {Among which}: Hane : 23

Köprübaşı {Among which}:  Exempted:
 İbrahim Zade imam 3(13%)
 İbrahim Hacı Hasan dar  Converts:
Edrene 3(13%)
 Hızır Hoşkodam
fakir’ül- hal
Occupational breakdown:
dellak1
debbağ 3(13%)

9) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:21 {Among which}: Hane : 21

Karagöz Bey {Among which}:  Excempted: 7(33%)
imam 1
 Kurd Hasan imam müezzin 1
 Sinan Mehmed al- hane-yi rah 1
müezzin ba berat 363
 İskender ‘Abdin muaf muaf 1
 Nasuh ‘Abdin dar hane-  Mücerredan: 3(14%)
yi rah  Converts: 3(14%)
 Hamza Sarban ba berat
 Hüseyn Sarban ba bennak 2
berat/bennak nim çiftlu 1

10) {Hane-yi muslim}:2564 {Among which}: Hane : 25

Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted: 8(32%)
Kuyumcu  Süleyman Mustafa imam imam2
 Alladin Lütfi imam müezzin 165
 Hacı Ahmed İbrahim muaf 2
 Resvan Hamza güreyi dar hane-yi rah1
dar hane-yi rah muhassıl 1
 ‘Abd’ül kadir Alladin ehl-i berat 166
muhassıl  Celibates: 2 (8%)
 Derviş damad-ı Hüseyn  Converts: 3(12%)
muaf/Ehl-i berat

63
Although, ba berat is not written over the other two camel drivers, we should imply that the 3 beratlu
recorded are these three camel drivers.
64
However, the register provides a wrong total. If 10 exempted plus 17 households amounts 27 hanes, I could
only count 25 all together.
65
Although it records a müezzin, it was not possible to identify such an entry neither in this quarter nor in
anyone else for this matter.
66
Although it records an ehl-i berat, there is no indication of this. Could it be perhaps Hacı Mustafa?
305
  Hacı Ahmed İbrahim Occupational breakdown:
muaf nalbant
kasap
Çiftlik Mahmud Subaşi dar kilavuz
yed-i Haydar Çaus ve Ahmed hayyat
güreyi 2
sarapdar
11) {Hane-yi muslim}:20 {Among which}: Hane : 20
Mahalle-yi Cami’i {Among which}:  Exempted: 18(90%)67
atik merhum ve  Mehmed Halife imam imam: 1
mağfurun dar mahalle-yi Cercer müezzin:368
Yıldırım Bayezid  İbrahim al-müezzin ‘an Seyyid: 469
han ‘aleyhi al- mahalle-yi Tatarlar ehl-i berat: 9
rahmetu ve al-  Bayram al-müezzin ‘an dar vakf: 1
mağfiret mahalle-yi Hocaca
 Sinan Dede kayyum-i
cami’i şerif  Mücerredan: 3(14%)
 Mustafa Mehmed dar
vakf
 Osman Halife na’ib-i atik
ba berat
 Hacı Mustafa Sinan Dede
kilları- yı ‘imaret ba
berat
 Mehmed veladaş-ı
müezzin mescid-i Doğan
Bey ba berat
 Mehmed Eliyas sarapdar
 Seyyid Mehmed al-Din
Şeyh-i ‘imaret
 Seyyid Hüseyn Seyid al-
Din mütevelli
 Yusuf ‘Ali merd-i kal’e
 Hacı al-Din al-müezzin
 ‘Abdi Çelebi na’ib-i şehir
ba berat
 Yusuf ‘Abdi
12) {Hane-yi muslim}: {Among which}: Hane : 3
Mahalle-yi {Among which}:  Exempted: 2 (66%)
mescid-i Doğan  Mustafa Sinan Dede
Bey dar kurb-i imam
‘imaret  Mehmed Mustafa al-
müezzin

67
At this point, there is an obvious mix up. There can be counted 20 hanes, when the breakdown presents as
exempted 18 individuals, 2 celibates and 1 taxable household. Moreover, from our listing it shows that only 15
individuals can be identified as exempted. This implies that the 3 “missing” exempted were recorded as
exempted in their quarter of origin, although they were residing in a different quarter.
68
There are actually 4 celibates not 3: Mustafa veled-i Mehmed al-Din, Mustafa veled-i Şeyh al-Din, Seyyid
Mehmed veled-i Seyyid Hüsseyin and ‘Ali veled-i ‘Abdi Halife
69
I could only identify 2 instead of 4.
306
13) {Hane-yi muslim}:1970 {Among which}: Hane : 19
Mahalle-yi Habib {Among which}:  Exempted: 4(21%)
Fakih nam-ı diğer Muaf 2
macarlar 1. Mustafa velad-ı o aba’iye Fakir’ül-hal 2
muaf  Converts: 5 (26%)
2. Isma’il ‘Abdin fakir’ül-
hal çiftlu 3
3. Hüsrev Kara Hamza nim çiftlu 3
muaf

 Mehmed berader-i o
 Ramazan berader-i o
 Mehmed Halil
 (?)‘Abdin
 Hüsrev ‘Abdin
 Sefer ibn ‘Abdin
 Çiftlik velad-ı Davud
Tüccar
 ‘Osman ibn-i Hacı
Mustafa nim çiftlu
 Çiftlik Mahmud ibn
Abdullah
 Mehmed Süleyman çiftlu
 Çiftlik ‘Umur dar yed-i
Alide (?) ve Fatma Hatun
haliya mezbur nim çiftlu
 Halil Nasuh nim çiftlu
‘an karye-yi Sekyan
 Sefer ibn Yakub ‘an
Karye-yi Karalu Soflu
 Yakub Hüseyn ‘an karye-
yi asilik Bergamları

14) {Hane-yi muslim}:11 {Among which}: Hane : 11

Mahalle-yi Hacı {Among which}:  Excempted: 3(27%)
Burak  Hamid Hoca imam imam1
 Derviş Şahkulu veled-i veled-i Seyyid 1
Seyid muhassıl 1
 Zeyn al-‘Abdin berader-i
o muhassıl
15) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi muslim}:3 {Among which}: Hane : 3
Oruç Paşa {Among which}:  Exempted: 2(66%)
 ‘Ali Fakih imam dar
mahalle-yi Bazarlu
 Mehmed ‘Ali al-müezzin

70
In the final breakdown, this neighbourhood is presented as if it has 21 entries among which 13 taxable
households, 2 ciftlu, 3 nim çiftlu and 4 exempted. When counting the entries, they add up to only 19; these 2
“ghost” households were included in the final breakdown of their quarter of origin (their permanent address) ,
but they were residing and were fiscally accounted for as exempted in a different quarter (something like their
term address). The same can be also attested for the quarter of the Mosque too.
307
Christian
Quarters
16) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}:39 {Among which}: Hane :39
Kostas Papas  Celibates: 1

22) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}:19 Hane :19

Manastir
23) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}:19 Hane :19
Arnavutlu
24) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran}:29 Hane :29
Yahudiyan
20)Mahalle-yi Ayo {Hane-yi Gebran}:31 Hane :31
Todora
25) Mahalle-yi {Hane-yi Gebran: 24 {Among which}: Hane :24
Ayo Nikola  Celibates: 1

Table 9

Muhafazayı Kal’e-yi Dimetoka {BOA. TT 494 978 (1570), pp. 235- 246}

1)Timar-ı Karye-yi Ferac Gör nam-ı diğer Divane Hasıl: 4,672

Nev Puşta
Dizdar-ı kal’e-yi
mezbur
2)Timar-ı Ali ibn-i Karyeyi Bunaklu nam-ı diğer Viranı Hasıl: 1,001
Mustafa Mezra’a Duşan Kudus Hasıl: 400
Karyeyi Hüseyn Uyesi Hasıl: 450
3)Timar-ı Mahmud Karyeyi Gökcu Bekar Yekun: 1,454
Yeniceri
4)Timar-ı Mustafa Karyeyi veled-i Dağ Ari Yekun: 3,626
ibn-i ‘Ali ve gayri
5)Timar-ı ‘Ali ibn-i Karyeyi Cema’at-ı Bağı Nasuh Yekun: 1,348
Mustafa dar hidmet-
i emin-i hassa-yı
harc dar Edirne
6)Timar-ı Mehmed Karyeyi Cema’at-ı Küşti Çaus Yekun: 644
Sıpahi Zade ‘an ze’amet-i mezbur Mehmed : karyeyi Okça Viranı Hasıl: 1,000
Karyeyi Uluhak Hasıl: 1,750
‘an ze’amet-i mezbur Mustafa: karyeyi Normuklu Hasıl: 550
Karyeyi Cema’at-ı Kurludat Hasıl: 558
‘an hass-ı Hüseyn Bey mir-i liva’ı Veynuğat : Karyeyi Yekun: 2,942
Ata Ari
‘an timar-i Hosu: Karyeyi Tekye köy Hasıl: 3,000
‘an timar-i Bali Mustafa: Karyeyi Oğurlu Dağı Viranı Hasıl: 1,970
Çiftliği Kurucu Gemici Hasıl: 622
{Total:
13,036}

7)Timar-ı Yazvaran Karyeyi Doğanci Murad Hasıl: 8,000

308
(?) ‘an çiftliği Yazvar dar kurb-i karye-yi Kara Hamza Yekun: 3,500
{Total:
11,500}

Cross-referencing tables and charts

Table 10: Cross-referencing table of Dimetoka neighbourhoods

Name TT 20 890 TT 77 925 TT 370 926 TT 1090 976 TT 494 978

of the (1485) (1519) (1520) (1568) (1570)
Quarter
1) p. 141 p. 142 p. 19 p. 71 p. 158
Mahalle-yi
Debbağlar households: 38 households: households: households: 26 households:
nam-ı From which: 44 19 From which: 27
diğer From which: From
Abdal Exempted: Exempted: which:
Cüneyid 3(7%) Exempted: 5(19%)
2(4%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates: 7(25%)
7(18%) Celibates: Celibates: 2(7%)
15(34%) 4 Celibates:
Slaves: Converts: 3(11%)
5(13%) Converts: 5(19%)
14(31%) Converts:
4(14%)
Dervishes:
6(13%)

2) p. 141-142 p. 141-142 P. 19 p. 73 p. 161

Mahalle-yi
Karagöz households: 35 households: households: households: 18 households:
Bey From which: 18 12 From which: 21
From which: From
Exempted: Exempted: which:
3(8%) Exempted: 1(5%)
2(11%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates: 7(33%)
7(20%) Celibates : Celibates 4(22%)
6 (33%) 5 Celibates:
Converts: Converts: 3(14%)
5(14%) Converts: 1(5%)
4(22%) Converts:
Slaves: 3(14%)
3(8%)

309
 3) p. 142 p. 141 p. 19 p. 74 p. 162
Mahalle-yi
Burak households: 12 households: households: households: 11 households:
From which: 6 4 From which: 11
From which: From
Exempted: Celibate: Exempted: which:
2(16% ) Exempted: 1 1(9%)
1(16%) Exempted:
Slaves: 3(27%)
2(16%) Celibate:
1(16%)
Converts:
Converts: 5(45%)
1(16%)

4) pp. 142 pp. 139 p. 19 p. 72 p. 158

Mahalle-yi
Medrese households: 13 households: households: households: 11 households:
From which: 11 6 From which: 15
From which: From
Exempted: Exempted: which:
3(23%) Exempted: Celibates : 2(18%)
2(18%) 3 Exempted:
Celibates: Converts): 9(60%)
1(7%) 5 (45%)
Celibate:
1
Converts:
3(27%) Converts:
4(26%)
5) p. 142 p. 143 p. 19 p. 72 p. 160
Mahalle-yi
Haraçcı households: 22 households: households: households: 25 households:
From which: 18 8 From which: 24
From which: From
Exempted: Celibates: Exempted: which:
5(22%) Exempted: 3 4(16%)
3(16%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates 12(50%)
2(9%) Celibates: 3(12 %)
6(33%) Celibates:
Slaves: Converts 5(20%)
3(13%) Converts: 4(16%)
4(22%) Converts:
4 (16%)

6) p. 143 p. 139 p. 19 p. 74 p. 163

Mahalle-yi

310
 Oruç Bey/ households: 28 households: households: households: households:
Paşa From which: 14 3 2 3
From which: From
Exempted: Convert: which:
471(10%) Exempted: 1
2(14%) Exempted:
Celibates: 2(66%)
4 (14%) Celibates:
4(28%)
Slaves:
7(25%) Converts:
1(7%)
7) p. 143 p. 139 p. 19 p. 72 p. 159
Mahalle-yi
Cercer households: 12 households: households: households: 22 households:
From which: 20 10 From which: 22
From which: From
Exempted Exempted which:
3(25%) Exempted: 3(13%)
5 (25%) Exempted
Slaves 3(25%) Celibates: 13(59%)
Celibates: Celibates: 4 (18%)
5 (25%) 3
Converts:
Converts: 2(9%)
5(25%)

8) p. 144 p. 140 p. 19 p. 73 p. 162

Mahalle-yi households: 25 households: households: households: 17 households:
Cami’ From which: 16 4 From which: 20
From which: From
Exempted: Exempted: which:
6 (24%) Exempted: 7(41%)
6(37%) Exempted:
Slaves Converts: 18 (90%)
2(8%) Celibates: Celibates: 2(11%)
2(12%) 1
Celibates:
Converts: 3(17%)
4(25%) Celibates:
3(14%)

71
In these 4, I am including: Zeyn Hoca Imam, ‘Umur veled-ı Halil Müezzin, Pabuççi Hizir Kethuda and Eliyas
müsellem nev, who has a double status as a new exempted and a celibate.

311
 9) p. 144 p. 140 p. 19 p. 73 p. 161
Mahalle-yi households: households: 27 households: households: households:
Kuyumcu 37 From which: 18 3272 25
From which: From which: From
Exempted: which:
Exempted: 4(14%) Exempted:
3(81%) 6(19%) Exempted:
Celibates: 8(32%)
Celibates: 2(7%) Celibates: Celibates:
5(13%) 2 3(9%) Celibates:
2 (8%)
Slaves: 2(5%)

Converts: Converts:
3(8%) 16 (59%) Converts:
8(25%) Converts:
3(12%)
10) p. 145 p. 140 p. 19 p. 73 p. 162
Mahalle-yi households: 28 households: 29 households: households: households:
Habib From which: From which: 10 17 19
Fakih From which: From
nam-ı Exempted: Exempted: which:
diğer 3(10%) 7(24%) Exempted:
Macarlar 2(11%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates: 4 (21%)
3(10%) 15(51%) Celibates: Celibates:
3 2(11%)
Slaves:
3(10%)

Converts: Converts:
3(10%) 9(31%) Converts:
7(41%) Converts:
5(26%)
11) p. 145 p. 142 p. 19 p. 72 p. 158
Mahalle-yi households: 34 households: households: households: 26 households:
Kum ki From which: 29 15 From which: 29
Bazarlu From which: From
mahallesi Exempted: Exempted: which:
dahi derler 2(5%) Exempted: 6(23%)
6(20%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates: 18(62%)
4(11%) Celibates: Celibates: 7 3(11%)
3(10%) Celibate:
Converts: Converts: 1
1 Converts: 4(16%)
7(24%)
Slaves:
10(29%)
12) p. 146 p. 143 p. 19 p. 72-73 p. 160

72
31 households and 1 çiftlik.
312
Mahalle-yi households: 53 households: 34 households: households: households:
Kum ki From which: From which: 15 78 60
Hocaca From which: From
dahi derler Exempted: Exempted: which:
3(5%) 3(8%) Exempted:
3(3%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates: 24(40%)
18(33%) 8(33%) Celibates: 7 Celibates:
13(16%) Celibates:
Converts: Converts: 2 (3%)
9(16%) 6(17%) Converts:
16(20%) Converts:
Slaves: 4(6%)
6(11%) Slave:
1
13) p. 147 p. 141 p. 19 p. 74 p. 162
Mahalle-yi households: households: household: households: households:
Doğan Bey 5 5 1 3 3
dar kurb-i From which: From which: From which: From
imaret which:
Exempted: Exempted: Exempted:
3(60%)\ 3(60%) 2(66%) Exempted:
2(66%)
Converts: Celibate:
1(20%) 1(20%)

14) p. 147 p. 141 p.19 p. 73 p. 161

Mahalle-yi households: 20 households: 15 households: households: households:
Köprübaşı From which: From which: 17 26 23
From which: From
Exempted: Exempted: which:
3(15%) 3(20%) Exempted:
1(3%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates: 3(13%)
1(5%) 3(20%) Celibate:
3(11%)

Converts: Converts:
2(10%) 3(20%) Converts: Converts:
4 6(23%) Converts:
Slaves: 3(13%)
3(15%)
15) p. 147 p. 141 p. 19 p. 72 p. 159
Mahalle-yi households: 29 households: 23 households: households: households:
Tatarlar From which: From which: 12 41 38
From which: From
Exempted: Exempted: which:
2(6%) 6(26%) Exempted:

313
 4(9%) Exempted:
Celibates: Celibates: 22(58%)
0 5(21%) Celibates: Celibates:
4 10(24%) Celibates: 1
Converts: Converts:
1(3%) 8(34%) Converts:
4(9%) Converts:
Slaves: 8(21%)
4(13%)

16) p. 148
Mahalle-yi households:
Kal’e: 5

Slaves:
2 (40%)
17) p. 148-149 p.144-16 p. 19 p. 74 Total of
Mahalle-yi Total of Total of Total of Total of Christian
Gebran-ı Christian Christian Christian Christian households:
kal’a households: households: households: 163 households: 161
113 181 198
Mahalle-yi Mahalle-yi
Mahalle-yi Kostas Papas: Mahalle-yi Kostas
Kostas Papas households: Kosta Papas: Papas:
households: households: 61 48
106 From which: From which: 37 39
From which: From
Celibates: Celibates: which:
10(16%) 1 Celibates:
Widows: 6 Celibate:
7 Bive: Bive: 1
8(13%) 2 Widows: 3

Mahalle-yi Mahalle-yi
Yahudiyan: Dimitri nam-ı Mahalle-yi
diğer Manastir: Mahalle-yi
Yahudiyan: Manastir:
Households: households:
20 17
From which: From which: 49
From which: 19
Celibates: Celibates:
1 2 Celibates:
16
Bive:
2 Widows
4
Mahalle-yi Mahalle-yi
Aya Todora: Ayio Todor: Mahalle-yi
households: 48 households: Arnavutlu: Mahalle-yi
From which: 45 Arnavutlu:
From which: 25 19

314
Celibates: From which:
10(20%) Celibates:
2 Celibates: 1
Widows:
4(8%) Widows:
6

Mahalle-yi
Manastir: Mahalle-yi
households: 52 Manastir: Mahalle-yi
households: Yahudiyan: Mahalle-yi
53 Yahudiyan
Celibates: From which: 29 nam-i diğer
13(25%) From which: Dimitri: 29

Celibates:
Widows: 7
5(9%)
Widows:
5 Widows:
1
Mahalle-yi
Ayo Todora: Mahalle-yi
32 Ayo
Todora: 31
Celibate:
8

Widow:
2

Mahalle-yi
Ayo Nikola: Mahalle-yi
26 Ayo Nikola:
24
Celibates: 6

315
Table 11: Table showing the demographic breakdown of Dimetoka in 15th and 16th centuries
utilizing the coefficient.

Demographic
Breakdown with 1485 1519 1520 1568 1570
co-efficient
Muslims 177273 130874 85975 157176 160877
(%)age change
of Muslim -26.7 -34.3 82.9 2.4
population
Christians 55478 74579 78880 80481 79782
(%)age change
of Christian 34.5 5.8 2.0 -0.9
population
Overall total 2326 2053 1647 2375 2405
Overall total
-12.2 -19.8 44.2 1.3
change (%)

73
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 396 total adult male-headed households - 52 bachelors
of tax-paying age= 344 x 5= 1720 + 52 {the bachelors} = 1772 {Total of Muslims at Dimetoka in 1485}.
74
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 320 total male-headed households - 73 bachelors of tax-paying
age = 247 x 5 = 1235 + 73 {the bachelors} = 1308 {Total of Muslims at Dimetoka in 1519}.
75
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 417 total adult male-headed households
- 44 bachelors of tax-paying age = 373 x 5= 1865 + 44 {the bachelors} = 1909 {Total of Muslims at Dimetoka in
1520}.
76
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 355 total adult male - headed households - 51 bachelors of tax-
paying age = 304 x 5 = 1520 + 51 {the bachelors} =1571 {Total of Muslims at Dimetoka in 1568}.
77
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 340 total adult male-headed households - 23 bachelors of tax-
paying age = 317 x 5 = 1585 + 23 = 1608 {Total of Muslims at Dimetoka in 1570}.
78
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is 113 total adult male-headed households -1 bachelor of tax-
paying age = 112 x 5 = 560 -7 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 553 + 1 {bachelor} =
554 { Total of Christians at Dimetoka in 1485}.
79
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 180 total adult male-headed households - 34 bachelors of tax-
paying age = 146 x 5 = 730 - 19{ missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 711 + 34 {the
bachelors}= 745 { Total of Christians at Dimetoka in 1519}.
80
The formula utilized in deriving this fugure is: 163 - 3 bachelors of tax-paying age = 160 x 5= 800 - 15
{missing adult figure in widow-headed households} = 785 + 3 {bachelors} = 788 {Total of Christians at Dimetoka
in 1520}.
81
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 198 total adult male-headed households - 44 bachelors of tax-
paying age = 154 x 5 = 770- 10 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 760 + 44 {the
bachelors} = 804 {Total of Christians at Dimetoka in 1568}.
82
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 161 total adult male-headed households – 2 bachelors of tax-
paying age= 159 x 5= 795 + 2 {the bachelors}= 797 {Total of Christians at Dimetoka in 1570}.
316
Chart 1: Bar chart showing the demographic breakdown of Dimetoka in 15th and 16th
centuries utilizing the coefficient.

Demographic fluctuations of Muslim and Chirstian

population at Dimetoka in 15th and 16th c.
2000
1772
1800
1571 1608
1600

1400 1308

1200

1000
859
788 804 797 Muslims
800 745

554 Christians
600

400

200

0
1485 1519 1520 1568 1570

317
Table 12: Table showing the breakdown of the households’ totals in row data
(actual figures deriving from the archival material).

Breakdown of the
household totals in 1485 1519 1520 1568 1570
row data

Muslim households 396 320 207 355 340

(%)age change of
-19.2 -35.3 71.5 -4.2
Muslim households
Christian
113 181 145 198 161
households
(%)age change of
Christian 60.2 -19.9 36.6 -18.7
households
Overall total 509 501 352 553 501
(%)age change of
-1.6 -29.7 57.1 -9.4
the overall total

318
Table 13: Table showing the breakdown of Muslim tax male-headed households, exempted
households, celibates of tax-paying age households and converts at Dimetoka in 15th and 16th
centuries.

1485 1519 152083 1568 1570

Total of
Muslim 396 320 207 355 340
Households
Exempted
48 55 0 47 152
Households
(%)age
share of the
12.1 17.2 0.0 13.2 44.7
exempted
households
Celibates 52 73 44 51 23
(%)age
share of the 13.0 22.8 21.3 14.4 6.8
celibates
Converts 25 85 0 69 42
(%)age
share of the 6.3 26.6 0.0 19.4 12.4
converts

83
The 1520 survey is of the summary (icmal) variety; for this reason it does not provide the range of detailed
information that the other four surveys do. It only records the number of the quarters, the number of the
households and the celibates. Consult Table 6 of the appendix.

319
Chart 2: Bar chart showing fluctuation of the Muslim population at Dimetoka in 15th and 16th
centuries.

320
Table 14: Table showing the demographic fluctuations of the Muslim quarters of Dimetoka
throughout 15th and 16th centuries along with their percentage change.

Muslim
1485 1519 1520 1568 1570
Quarters

1.Debbağlar 38 44 19 26 27

(%)age
15.78 -56.81 36.84 3.84
change
2.Karagöz
35 18 12 18 21
Bey
(%)age
-48.6 -33.3 50.0 16.6
change
3.Burak 12 6 4 11 11
(%)age
-50.0 -33.3 175.0 0.0
change

4.Medrese 13 11 6 11 15

(%)age
-15.4 -45.5 83.3 36.3
change
5.Haraççı 22 18 8 25 24
(%)age
-18.2 -55.5 212.5 -4.0
change

6.Oruç Bey 28 14 3 2 3
(%)age
-50.0 -78.5 -33.3 50.0
change
7.Cercer 12 20 10 22 22
(%)age
66.6 -50.0 120.0 0.0
change
8.Cami' 25 16 4 17 20
(%)age
-36.0 -75.0 325.0 17.6
change

9.Kuyumcu 37 27 18 32 25

(%)age
-27.0 -33.3 77.7 -21.8
change

10.Macarlar 28 29 10 17 19

(%)age
3.5 -65.5 70.0 11.7
change
11.Bazarlu
34 29 15 26 29
Bey
321
 (%)age
-14.7 -48.2 73.3 11.5
change

12.Hocaca 53 34 15 78 60

(%)age
-35.8 -55.8 420.0 -23.0
change
13.Doğan
5 5 1 3 3
Bey
(%)age
0.0 -80.0 200.0 0.0
change

14.Köprübaşı 20 15 17 26 23

(%)age
-25.0 13.3 52.9 11.5
change

15.Tatarlar 29 23 12 41 38

(%)age
-20.6 -47.8 241.6 7.3
change
16. Kal'a 5

Table 15: Table showing the fluctuation of the exempted percentage share of total Muslim
households at Dimetoka from 1485 to 1570.

%age of
year84 Exempted %age change
total

1485. 48 12.1
1519. 55 17.2 5.1
1568. 47 13.2 -3.9
1570. 152 44.7 31.5

84
The 1520 data could not be included in this occasion; this is due to the summary (icmal) variety of the survey
which does not allow such information.
322
Chart 3: Bar chart showing the exempted percentage share of total households
from 1485 to 1570.

323
Table 16: Table showing the demographic fluctuations of the Christian quarters in row data
(actual figures deriving from the archival material) and their percentage change.

Christian
1485 1519 1520 1568 1570
Quarters
Mahalle-i
Kosta 113 61 48 37 39
Papas
(%)age
0.0 -46.0 -21.3 -22.9 5.4
change

Mahalle-i
0 20 17 29 29
Yahudiyan

(%)age
0.0 0.0 -15.0 70.5 0.0
change
Mahalle-i
Aya 0 48 45 32 31
Todora
(%)age
-6.25 -28.8 -3.1
change

Mahalle-i
0 52 53 49 19
Manastir

(%)age
1.0 -4.0 -30.0
change

Mahalle-i
0 0 0 25 19
Arnavutlu

(%)age
-24.0
change
Mahalle-i
Ayo 0 0 0 26 24
Nikola
(%)age
-7.6
change

324
Table 17: Table showing the breakdown of Christian tax male-headed households, celibates of
tax-paying age and widow-headed households at Dimetoka in 15th and 16th centuries.

1485 1519 152085 1568 1570

Total of
Christian 113 181 154 198 161
households
(%)age
change of
60.2 -19.9 36.6 18.7
Christian
households

Christian
celibates of 1 34 3 44 2
tax-paying age

(%)age
change of
Christian 3300.0 -91.2 1366.7 -95.5
celibate
households
Christian
widow-headed 7 19 15 10 0
households
(%)age
change of
Christian 171.4 -21.1 -33.3 -100.0
widow-headed
households

85
The 1520 survey is of the summary (icmal) variety; for this reason it does not provide the range of detailed
information that the other four surveys do. It only records the number of the quarters, the number of the
households and the celibates. Consult Table 6 of the appendix.

325
Chart 4: Chart showing the demographic fluctuation of Christian quarters at Dimetoka in 15th
and 16th centuries.

326
Translations

Evliya Çelebi on Dimetoka86

Evsaf-ı kal’a-yı Bala Dimoduka

Description of the grandiose Dimoduka castle

İki nefer Urum kralları karındaşlar idi. Birinin ismi Dimo ve birinin Duka. Bu iki keferler bu

kala’yı iştirak-i sevi üzere bina etdiklerinden Dimo Duka’dan galat-ı meşhur Dimetoka derler. Sene

762 tarihinde Yıldırım Bayezid Han fethidir. Be-dest–i Gazi Ferhad Bey.

There were two Greek kings who were brothers. One was named Dimo and the other Duka.

Because these two unbelievers built the castle in partnership, from (their names) Dimo and Duka, it

was created the mumpsimus Dimetoka. It was conquered by Yıldırım Bayezid Han in the year 762 by

the hand of Gâ zî Ferhâd Bey.

Ve yedi kerre mukaddema muhasara olup fethi müyesser olmayup ahıru’l -emr kralın birin

Ferhad Bey avda avlayup esir eder. Öbür karındaşı Rum kafereleriyle kal’aya kapanup kal’a içinden

taşra çikmayup re’aya olmak şartıyla Duka nam kral kal’anın miftahların Ferhad Bey’e teslim edüp

ba’dehu asker-i İslam ala mehil kal’ayı kabza-i tasarrufa alırlar. Yohsa bu kal’a sademat-ı top-ı kub

ile feth olur hisar-ı üstüvar değildir. Ama hin-i fethde küffar kal’a içinde olmak üzre ‘akd-i sulh

olunduğiyçün hala kal’ada dizdardan gayri müslim yoktur.

Although, it had been besieged before for seven times, the conquest was not divinely

facilitated; at the end, one of the kings of that place was taken captive by Ferhad Bey, while he was

hunting. The king’s other brother named Duka remained confined in the castle with the Greek

unbelievers and refused to come out. He later agreed however to surrender the castle and accept

86
I relied on the 2003 edition of Seyahatnamesi [Çelebi (2003), pp. 31-33]. For consistency purposes with the
rest of the transliterated material presented in this thesis, I rendered the 2003 transliterated text into modern
Turkish orthography. Therefore, the Ottoman text is presented without the diacriticals of the 2003 edition.
327
Ottoman suzerainty on condition that would remain Christian. Otherwise this was such a strong and

impregnable fortress that it was not of the type that would surrender by bombardment. Since there

were Christians in the castle at the time of the conquest, by effect of the war agreement, there are, still

to this day no Muslims in the castle apart from the garrison warden.

Derun-ı hisarda cümlesi yuz aded kargir bina kiremit ile mestur menhushane-i ma’mur –ı

keferelerdir, amma dizdar narin-i kullede sakindir. Ve bir keniseleri var.

Within the castle there are a hundred stone houses roofed with tiles, which are the well

maintained houses inhabited by the ill-omened ones [i.e, the Christians] but the warden also maintains

his residence in the inner precincts of the castle keep. There is also a church within the citadel.

Rumeli eyaletinde niçe sa’b hisar-ı metineler vardır, amma bu dahi sedd-i Mekü-misal kal’a-i

üstüvardır. Hala Rumeli eyaletinde Edirne bostancibaşısı hukmünde Sultan Bayezid Han vakfı

voyvadası zabitadır. Ve yüz elli akçe payesiyle şerif-i kazadır. Ve nahiyesi (....) kuradır.

In the Rumeli County, there are many strong and inaccessible castles, but this too is as strong

as the Mekü castle. Nowadays it is the voivode of the vakf of Sultan Bayezid Han, who serves under

the jurisdiction of the bostancibaşı of Edirne, who controls it. It is an important city, whose kadi

enjoys the rank and dairy salary of 150 akçes. Within its surrounding districts (nahiye) are contained

(...) villages.

Taht –ı kadimdir kim Sultan Bayezid-i Veli bunda niçe zaman sakin olmuşdur. Hatta Selim

Han-ı evvel Bayezid Han pederinden hilafeti cebren aldıkta Bayezid Han’ı bu Dimetoka tahtgah-ı

kadimdir deyü bu nefy edüp Havsa nam mahalde Bayezid Han merhum olup na’şın İslambol’a

götürüp cami’inin mihrabı önünde defn ederler. Yani bu kal’a tahtgah-ı kadim olup Musa Çelebi

Sultan ibn Yıldırım Han dahi bunda sakin olurdu, zira sayd u şikarı da gayet çokdur. Ve hala yukaru

kal’ada cihhanüma bir padişah sarayi var. Safi kurşum örtülü maksurelerı ve müteaddid ve hücreleri

ve kal’aları vardır.

328
 It is an old capital city of the state where Sultan Bayezid Han settled for many years. In fact,

when Selim Han I took the caliphate by force from his father Bayezid Han, the latter took residence in

this city; that is to say, he got exiled [there] and when he died at Havsa neighbourhood, his shroud was

brought to Istanbul and he was buried in front of the mihrab of the mosque. Since this castle was the

old seat of the state, Musa Çelebi son of Sultan Yıldırım resided there too, because there were many

hunting attractions; and until our days the domed royal quarters are to be found in the upper citadel.

[Where] there are canopied chambers roofed with pure lead and numerous chambers and turrets.

Ve kal’ası evc-i semaya beraber bir kırmızı yalçın kaya üzre maşrıkdan canib-i garba şekl-i

bademi vaki’ olmuş bir tulanice Şeddadi iki kat taş bina kal’a-i ra’na beş bölük bir kal’a-i serameddir.

Cirm-i da’iren madar iki bin beş yüz adımdır. Ve püşte-i alisinin enderun u birununda safi

mağaralardır.

The palace is a double -storied, stone structure of a truncated shape which spreads over the

steep, red rock and extending from east to the south-west of the castle; it is the beauty of the castle and

the most overbearing compartment of the quintipartite castle. Its perimeter measures 2.500 paces. The

exterior and the interior of the big hill [on top of which lies the castle] are full of cavities.

Ve cümle iki kat duvarinda birer aded metin kullelerdir. Lakin handakı yokdur ve olacak

handak yeri de yokdur ve handak lazım da değildir, zira bu kal’anın ba’zi yerleri evc-i asımana kad

keşan olmuş iki minare kaddi uçurum ve yalçin kayalardır. Ba-husus garb tarafı ki nehr-i Kızıldeli

nam divane akar suyun tarafı bir şahin ve Zağanos aşiyanlı kayalardır. O ecilden bu kal’anın asla

handakı yokdur. Ve cenub tarafına Kızıldeli nehri akup duran abdır. Ol canibinde dahi handakları

olmayup gayet metindir.

Furthermore, the double wall [of the castle] was fortified with a number of reinforced turrets.

Still, there is not a trench and there is not even a place for a future trench, since there is not such a

need; because at some places of the castle the land retreats and there is a cliff of the height of two

minarets and a steep cliff. Especially, the western side which is the side of the river Kızıl Deli -the

329
crazy river- is the cliff of the falcon and of the eagle owl bird nests. For this reason, there is no trench.

On the south side runs the Kızıl Deli River, and although there is no further trench at the south side,

the river is a strong frontier.

Ve bu Kızıldeli nehri kenarında aşağı varoş-ı azimi var. Lakin etrafinda kal’a duvarları

yokdur, amma bu varoşa Kızıldeli suyu aşırı cenub tarafı dağları aşaği varoşa havaledir, amma iç

kal’a da ana havaledir.

The extensive lower suburb of the town spreads over the banks of the Kızıl Deli River.

However, there are no castle walls around it, since the steep slopes on the south side of the citadel

climbing up from the north bank of the Kızıl Deli overlook and envelop it and since the inner castle

itself also overlooks the varoş district [it is well protected by both natural and man-made obstacles].

Ve yukaru kal’anın iç kala’sı iki katdır ve iki bölükdür. Birine Kiz kullesi derler. Birine

Cebehane kullesi derler. Ve bu iki bölük hisarın birbirlerine geçmeğe iki kapusu ve canib-i şimale

nazır bir bölme hisar dahi var, gayet metin duvarlıdır.

The inner, upper castle has two walls and two divisions: the one is called the Maiden tower

and the other Arsenal tower. These two towers are connected through two gates and an additional,

reinforced curtain wall which looks to the north.

Ve hûnkar sarayı dahi iç kal’a-misal bir bölme hisar dahidir. Lakin bu saray ve bölme duvarı

İslam padişahlarının binasıdır. Bu zikr olunan kat-ender-kat (layer upon layer) bölme hisar-piçe

duvarlardan aşağısının her taraflarında birer kat hisar-piçe nam sa’b ve metin duvar vardır.

The imperial palace is included in a section of the castle, which reminds of a Dungeon 87. Still,

this palace and the curtain wall belonged to the residence of the Islamic emperor. This means that

there was a buttressing wall layer upon layer all along the lower curtain wall.

87
Dungeon or donjon: a heavily fortified central tower or keep of a medieval castle.
330
 Ve cümle üç aded kapulardır. Biri ta iç kal’a kapusu canib-i cenuba nazırdır. Bir kapu dahi

taraf-ı şimale meftuh kapudur. Bu dahi iç kal’a kapusudur. Bir kapu dahi aşaği kat kapudur kim

çomlekciler tarafına açılır, amma bu mezkur kapular hünkarlara mahsus kapulardır kim yukaruda

padişah sarayı vardır. Bir kapu dahi canib-i garba nazır Köprü kapusu derler. Bir kapu dahi semt-i

kibleye nazır Çarşu kapusu derler, iki kat metın ve kavi kapulardır, cümle halk bundan girüp çıkarlar,

amma bu iki kat kapu mabeyni dahi bir bölme küçük hisarcık gibi vaki’ olmuşdur.

There are also three gates. One allows to the south side up to the gate of the inner castle.

Another one opens to the north side. Another one is the gate of the inner castle. Another one is the gate

of the lower level, which opens to the side of the potters; but the aforementioned gates, which were

found in the upper imperial palace, were designated for the imperial family. Another gate allows to the

west side and it is called the gate of the bridge. Another one allows to the south side and it is called the

gate of the market. These are strong gates with a double wall, from where people mainly commute but

in the inter-space between these two walls it was further created a chamber, like a small castlette.

Bu hesab üzre bu kal’a-i Dimetoka cümle altı katdır. Ve cümle bölme duvarlarında olun

kapularla cümle (...) kat metin hadid bab-ı kavilerdir.

According to this calculation, the castle of Dimetoka comprises of six walls in total. A

monumental gate with a double wall is connected with the gate of the curtain wall.

Der vasf-ı aşaği varoş ma’mure

Description of the lower, prosperous suburb

Cümle on iki mahallatdır. Ve cümle altı yüz adet kiremet ile mestur tahtani ve fevkani kargir

binali seng-i mutarraş divarli ma’mur ve müzeyyen saraylar ve hanedan-ı ra’nalarında elbetde bağ u

bağçe ve gül-i gülistanlari mukarrerdir.

331
 It contains twelve neighbourhoods. It also contains 600 double-storied, prosperous and

embellished mansions with walls of hewn-cut stone; beautiful houses adorned with gardens and rose

orchards.

Ve cümle on iki mihrab cevami’ ve mesacid-i selatin-i mu’minandır. Cümleden Yıldırım

Bayezid Han cami’i çar-kuşe divar üzre ve içinde dört adet kargir bina direk üzre bir acib ü garib

tahtadan mebni bir musanna’ kubbeli cami’i pür-envardır kim bir müzeyyen ve seramed minare-i

bang-ı Muhammedisi var. Cümle asar-ı binaları ve harpüşte tahta bina kubbesi rusas-ı has-ı nilgun ile

eyle musanna’ kurşum örtülüdür kim sihr-i bukalemundur. Şeb u ruz cema’at-i kesireye malik

ma’bedgah-ı kadimdir, amma haremi yoktur. Ve bundan gayri dahi cami’ yoktur.

Additionally, there are twelve exalted, religious communal mosques. Firstly, the mosque of

Yıldırım Bayezid Han is a lustrous mosque with a bewilderingly artistic wooden dome, which lies

over a square-shaped basis and four robust pillars. It has an embellished and prominent minaret of the

Mohammedan voice. The features of the building and the wooden, herringbone dome are lead roofed

(...) in such an artistic manner, which is a spell of a chameleon. It is the most ancient place of worship

[in the city], which day and night has the most numerous congregation, but it lacks a harem. Apart

from this, there is no other mosque.

Der beyan-ı mesacid-i abidan-ı zahidan

Description of the devout mescids

Cümle 12 mesacidlerdir, amma cami’ olmağa müsta’id zaviyeler vardır. Cümleden Nasuh Bey

mescidi bir cami’i selatin-misal kurşum kubbeli ma’mur mescid-i şerifdir. Ve Kurd Bey mescidi ve

Bazarlı Bey mescidi, ya’ni Alaca mescid demekle ma’rufdur. Ve Anka’ül-vasi’ mescidi ve Oruç Paşa

mescidi ve Kapucu mescidi ve Tatarlar mescidi ve Haraccı mescidi ve Zencirli mescidi ve Cercer

332
mescidi ve ‘Abdal Cindi mescidi ve Köprü Başinda Gazi Ferhad Bey mescidi. Bunlar cümle kiremit ile

mestur buk’a-i mubarekelerdir.

There are twelve mescids, and apart from these, there are brisk zaviyes which do not function

as mosques. Firstly, the mescid of Nasuh Bey is a glorious mescid which bears a lead dome and

resembles to an exalted [sultanic] mosque. Then, there is the Kurd Bey mescid and the Bazarlu Bey

mescid which is known as Alaca mescid. Then, the mescids of Anka’ül-vasi’, Oruç Paşa, Kapucu,

Tatarlar, Haraçcı, Zencirli, Cercer, Abdal Cüneyid and at Köprübaşı there is the mescid of Gazi

Ferhad Bey. All these are blessed prayer halls roofed with tiles.

Ve cümle dört aded medrese-i ‘alimandır. Cümleden Bayezid Han medresesi ve medrese-i

Oruç Paşa. Ve cümle beş adet tekye-i dervişan-ı ehl-i tarik vardır. Ve cümle beş adet mekteb-i sibyan-ı

ebcedhandır.

There are also four medreses of the learned. The medrese of Bayezid Han and the medrese of

Oruç Paşa; there are also five tekyes of the orders of the dervishes. There are also five mektebs.

Ve cümle iki adet daru’z-ziyafe-i ‘imaret-i it’amdır. Yıldırım Bayezid Han imareti, Nasuh Bey

imareti kurşumlu me’kelhanedir kim bay u gedaya ni’metleri mebzuldur

There are also two soup kitchens for food distribution. The imaret of Yıldırım Bayezid Han;

the imaret of Nasuh Bey is a lead roofed eatery, where the foods are cheap for rich and poor.

Ve cümle (...) aded han tüccaran-ı sevdagerandır. Cümleden kurşum örtülü Nasuh Bey hani

ma’murdur. Ve cümle iki aded karbansaray-ı ayende vü revendeganı vardır.

There are also (...) charming commercial hans. Mainly, the lead roofed han of Nasuh Bey is

famous. Additionally, there are two caravansarays for the travellers.

Ve cümle üç adet hammam-ı ruşenaları var. Köpru başindaki hamam kah işler ve kah harab

durur. Amma Fısıldı hammamının ab u hevası ve binası latif ve musanna’ hammam-ı rahat-ı candir.

Ve bir musanna’ kemer altında bir delik vardır, ol kemer altındaki kurna başında bir adem otursa ve

öte başında bir adem oturup ol deliğe bir adem ağzın koyup söyleşirler, delikden kelamları

birbirlerine be-dürüsti işidilüp söyleşirler. Anıniçün Fısıldı hammamı derler. El-hasıl aşık ve

333
ma’şukların kelimat edüp murad alup her muradı verecek delikdir kim Fısıldı deliği ve Fısıldı

hammamı derler.

There are also three illustrious hammams. The hammam at the neighbourhood of Köprübaşı is

in a ruinous state. On the other hand, the water, the ambience and the building of the hammam of the

whispers is exquisite and it is the artful hammam of the relaxation of life. There is a hole under an

elaborate vault and if a man is seated under this vault at the top of a marble basin and another is seated

at the top of the (opposite) basin and speaks to the hole, they could properly hear each other’s words.

For this reason it has been named the hammam of the whispers. In short, it is a hole which is called the

hole or the hammam of the whispers because it realises the wishes of those in love.

Ve Ulu cami’in önündeki hammamın tarihidir:

Yapdi bu hamami Sultan ‘Osman

Cüy-ı kevser ola cennetde bu su

Hatira ilac olup tarih dedim,

Hasılı hammam-ı rüşendir bu Sene (....)

Ve cümle yetmiş adet hanedan hamamları vardır. Cümleden Koca Solakbaşı anesinin

hammamını müferrihdir, derler amma hakir girmedim ve alimallah görmedim.

The inscription of the hammam opposite the exalted mosque is as follows:

Sultan Osman made this hammam

May this water be as the river Kevser in Paradise

I gave the date which became remedy to memory

In brief, this is an illustrious hammam Year (...)

There were also seventy domestic hammams. They say that the hammam of the mother of

Koca Solakbaşı is spacious but I did not go and could not know.

334
 Ve cümle yüz adet dekakinlerdır kim her şey bulunur. Lakin kargir bina bezzazistanı yokdur,

amma çömlekçi ve bardakçi dükkanları iki yüzden çokdur. Ve çarşu içi cabeca kudretden beyaz kaya

kaldırımdır.

There are also hundred commercial shops where everything can be found. Still, there is no

bezzazistan made of stone; on the contrary, there are two times more earthenware and glass-making

shops. At certain places of the market, it can be discerned the pattern of a white stone pathway

Bu nehrin ibtida menba’ı Tanriverdi dağından gelüp bu kal’anın altındaki cenub tarafında on

iki göz taş yapıda temelli direkler üzre meşe direkleri döşeli çisr-i azimin altından geçüp dahi aşaği

kal’adan bir top menzili alarka canib-i kibleye cereyan ederek gidüp nehr-i Arda ve nehr-i Tunca ve

nehr-i Meriç bir yerden cereyan ederken bu Kızıldeli nehri anlara mahlut olup cümlesi bir yerden

Enez kal’ası kurbunda bahr-i Rum’a munsab olur.

This river springs from the mountain of Tanriverdi and runs under a lofty stone bridge with

twelve arches [positioned] at the south side of the lower fridges of the castle. The bridge is laid with

oak beams [and is supported] on permanent pillars. Further up from the castle, the river crosses afar

from a gunshot range positioned at the south and [further down] it meets with Arda, Tunça and Meriç

rivers and pours in the Aegean from a place in the vicinity of Enez castle.

Dar beyan-ı memduhat-ı Dimetoka

Description of the praises of Dimetoka

Bağ u bağcesinde şireli abdar hoş-hor üzümü ve tekeşin ayvasi memduhdur, amma kırmızı

la’l-gun Dimetoka bardağı ve kaseleri ve çanakları ve ibrikleri meşhur-ı afakdır.

At the gardens the glossy, tasty grapes and the tekkeş variety of queen’s apples are praised, but

the scarlet red Dimetoka wares of cups, basins, bowls and pitchers are world’s famous.

335
The sources on the conquest

İnalcık based on the testimony of the Florentine Matteo Villani suggested that Dimetoka was

first conquered in 135988. Zachariadou argued against it based on the source of Theodore

Spandounes89; according to this testimony some rebels at Dimetoka surrendered the city to Sultan

Orhan, when the governor of the city Georgio Glava went to Istanbul in order to declare his obeisance

to John V Palaiologos, who was threatened at the time with reconquest of the Albanian territories by

Stephan Dusan. In light of the above, the surrendering of the city should be set after November 1354,

when John V Palaiologos was reinstated on the Byzantine throne and December 1355 date of Dusan’s

death.

A date around 1355 or at least before 1357 seems to be also corroborated from the Vita of

Şeyh Bedreddin. “Süleyman collected around him the Gazi leaders with the aim of crossing over to

Rumeli, conquering these lands and expelling the unbelievers. He had a dream that his army radiated

light and that in this light appeared the far Rumeli. The call for prayer was addressed in a laud voice.

Some days after, the prince thought of the dream being an omen towards the success of the incoming

conquest. He headed off to Rumeli with seven men, amongst which was Gazı Eğe, Gazı Israil, Gazı

‘Abd al-Mu’min and Hacı İlbeyi.

In short time Süleyman counted numerous successes, but he fell off his horse and died. He

was buried in Bolayir; Murad I came from Anatolia to his tomb and distributed his land to the Gazis.

Süleyman , had his tomb erected, after he was buried. And some time after Murad left from Bolayir.

Then Gazi Murad reached Malkara, gathered his army and enjoyed himself. Afterwards, the army was

divided under five commanders. Every one of them would kiss the knee of the sultan and set off

towards its predestined direction. Hacı İlbeyi was directed towards Burgas (Lule-Burgas) in order to

annihilate all the pagans. He was riding on a spotted horse. Close to Burgas he got off his horse and he

fired an arrow. The arrow got stuck on a dotted snake, which he [then] used in order to kill it. Hacı

88
İnalcık (1971), pp. 194-195.
89
Zachariadou (2007), p. 358; Spandugnino (1890), pp. 133-261.
336
İlbeyi interpreted this as a sign of the forthcoming victory. [Saying that] the rider of the dotted horse

had killed the doted snake.

With invocations to Allah they conquered the city (Burgas) and pillaged the unbelievers. ‘Abd

al-Mu’min and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz marched against Dimetoka and after striving for days conquered the

environs [extending] lower from the village of Dflsvjh, which was named after Ja’qub Bey. Everyone

who was coming riding was meeting his luck. One day, the Gazis attacked Dimetoka but they were

repelled. Then, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz rided towards a place named –Gazi Felsen or Gazis Qajasy- but he fell

into an ambush of the unbelievers at the foothills of Felsen. He got attacked in front of his father’s

eyes and was thrown in the water. Next day they found his body in the water and was burried in the

ground.

The Christian Lord, who because of this success got swollen-headed, marched against Burgas

immediately. Gazi İsmail was determined to exterminate the unbelievers from the castle. He show

their army rushing back and forth and believed that they were relocated. The Gazis observed their

movements and they caught them alive. Gazi Mu’min wanted to kill some of them in order to satisfy

Ismail’s wish for revenge. When he realised that amongst the captives was the brother of the Christian

Lord, he negotiated the freedom of the captive with the voluntary surrendering of Dimetoka and the

generous endowment of the Gazis. Hacı İlbey arrived at Dimetoka and the castle had been handed to

him with no resistance. But Gazi Israil with 300 men proceeded with seizing the castle, whose

community had not fled, fought with their commander, killed him and snatched his property and his

children, amongst which stood his daughter. He then set an eighty man garrison in the castle under the

supervision of a steward. He then headed to Burgas with abundant booty, where was the paradise of

the Gazis. Gazi Ismail was a scholar and a judge of the Koranic Law for the Gazis. He distributed his

entire booty to his people, and he only kept for himself the daughter of the commander, to whom gave

the name Melek. She gave birth to Mahmud (Şeyh Bedreddin) in the year 760 H./ 3.12.1358, when

Edirne was still in Byzantine hands90.

90
Babinger (1943), pp. 7-13; Kissling (1950), pp. 134-140.
337
 Another source that provides us with a second reading of the same story is to be found in the

chronicle of Yahşı Fakih, a literary work from the second half of 14th c., which survived incorporated

in the chronicle of the Ottoman chronographer Asikpaşazade from 15th c.91.

“They send to Hacı İlbey, to whom they had already bestowed Konur Hisar, Gazi Evrenos, as

he was such a brave comrade, and they ascribed to him the systematic pillaging and ravaging of the

vilayet of Dimetoka and of the other adjacent counties. After their expeditions they always returned

back to Konur Hisar. Süleyman Paşa was annihilating the vilayet of Charioupoli and he was then

returning back to Gelibolu. At one of their hunting journeys, they shot an animal, which managed

finally to escape from them. Süleyman Paşa run after it and while pursuing the animal, he had the foot

of his horse stuck in a hole. The horse collapsed and God took Süleyman Paşa. This incident occured

in 758 H. (1356-1357). Rumour has it that in the same year died Orhan Paşa too. But according to the

true tradition, his son died two months before him92”.

In a following chapter it is explained that: “Hacı İlbey conquered a small tower at the bank of

Evros river. During the day, he was locking himself up in the castle and throughout the night, he was

harassing the Christians from the nearby areas. Until one day, the lord of Dimetoka came out of the

castle to catch Hacı İlbeyi; but he realised his intentions, threw him a curve and captured him instead.

They were, then, approaching back to the castle, while clasping the lord. They reached right in front of

the castle and they then agreed not to kill him, but to set him free along with his daughter and his son.

The Byzantines delivered the castle and they kept the agreement as promised. This is how the

impregnable castle of Dimetoka was conquered”.

Valuable is the testimony of Hibri Abdurrahman, who intervenes in his narration on the

conquest of Edirne information on the conquest of Dimetoka93. After the death of Süleyman Paşa the

conquest of Rumeli was continued by Hacı İlbey and Hacı Evrenos, who captured Malkara and

91
Asikpaşazade got seriously ill in 1413, when Mehmet I marched against his brother Musa in order to end the
civil war. He then got hosted at the house of Yahşı Fakih, grandson of Ishak Fakih, who was the imam of Sultan
Orhan (1326-1362). During his stay at this house, he read the story of the House of Osman from its birth until
the era of Bayezid I (1389-1403) Menage (1963), pp. 50-54; Babinger (1927), pp. 10-11.
92
Zachariadou (1999), p. 190.
93
Enisü’l- müsamirin (1996), p. 13
338
Ipsala. Orhan Gazi’s death followed soon after his sons. Since, his successor Murad I prioritised the

formation of the Ottoman state on the Anatolian side, which means that the European side was

technically headless, it was these two akıncıs who protected the Islamic lands from the enmities and

pursued the holy war in Rumeli.

In 1360 Hacı İlbey crossed over to the Meriç river and conquered the castle of Burgaz. From

that position, he organised the akıncıs, directed their attacks at both sides of the river and collected the

loots. While Murad I was occupied with the conquest of Çorlu, the governor of Dimetoka left the

safety of the castle in his attempt to prevent the capture of the castle by the Ottomans. That night, Hacı

İlbey was out raiding. They happened to each other and engaged in a fight which resulted in the Tekfur

being taken hostage. When they broke the news to the prince, he asked for mercy and surrendered the

castle with its possessions. The beauty of the castle was so great, that its conquest was the sultan’s

desire. Hacı İlbey after receiving the necessary cautions for the protection of the castle, he returned in

support of the sultan.

Hacı Ilbey and Hacı Evrenos came together and after they conferred over the issue, they

decided to go forward with the conquest of Edirne (....) The Tekfur of Edirne who foresaw the

surrendering of the castle, took advantage of the impetuousness of the river and over a night loaded his

belongings and his family on a boat and escaped to Enez. After the conquest of Edirne, they left there

Lala Sahin and moved back to Dimetoka. Because its weather, its waters and its fertile plains were

appropriate for its development, they turned Dimetoka into their capital. On the grounds that Edirne at

that time was not as prosperous as nowadays, they prefered Dimetoka [over Edirne]. Edirne appeared

[afterwards] as more suitable to become a capital due to its rapid development and the increase of its

imarets. In 1366 they built the old palace outside the castle, which became the centre of the city.

During the period of the conquest the majority of the buildings in the interior of the castle was

destroyed. In the same time the philanthropists and merit seekers who were building mosques,

medreses and fountains were increasing day by day.

339
 Still, the most revealing version of the Dimetoka conquest is provided in Oruç Bey’s history:

“Hacı İlbeyi and Evrenos came from Burgoz. There was a castlette on an island by Meriç bank, which

they took. Hacı İlbeyi in the days was hıdding in the castle and when night fall was harassing the

unbelievers of the environs. One night, the lord of Dimetoka came to catch Hacı İlbeyı, but Hacı İlbeyi

perceived him and caught him instead. [When] the news reached Dimetoka, he went against the people

of the city, he made a treaty [with them] and they surrendered the city. The Ottomans gave to the

Christian lord a village. He left the castle with his daughter, his son and his fortune and went to Enez.

Hacı İlbey conquered Dimetoka in the year 1359 (760)” 94.

94
Oruç (2008), p.23.
340
 Maps

Map 1: Reconstructive map of Dimetoka.

341
Key to Reconstructive map of Dimetoka.

342
 CHAPTER 2: Gümülcine

Transcriptions

 Mualim Cevdet Yazmalari 0.89 860-878(1455-1473), pp. 18, 30-31.

Table 18

Nahiye-i
95
Gümülcin
e

Nefs-i
Gümülcine
Musulman Mahalle Haslu Benak imam müezzin Bive Fütüwwet Piri
14 4 372 8 2 43 4 1
Kethuda Arabacı Yürük çift Şapçi Hizmetgar- Asl-ı Tekye-yi Ahi
ı Za’im Divani halke
1 1 2 1 1 6 4 1
Sahib-i ‘İmaret Gayri az Değirme Sahib-i Solak: Avarızdan Hicaza
mezkur müezzin re’ayat nci tekye Muaf ve gitmiş
-i Müsellem
1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1
Gebran Haslu Benak Cingene Bive Keçi Deyrh
anlu
25 61 3 42 2 2

Table 19

A) Hasayı nefs-i
Gümülcine
Musulman ma’a
Gebran ve
sinurinden ekilen
Zemin-i imam-ı cami’i Mukata’a: 155
Zemin-i Babaci Mukata’a: 45
Zemin-i Ahi Ahmet Mukata’a: 115
Zemin-i velad-i Kalçi Mukata’a: 45
Zemin-i Zekerya Mukata’a: 45
Mukata’a Sah Gülsah:
655
95
0.89, p. 18.
343
 Zemin-i Bostan Mukata’a: 2,555
Mukata’a Meyhane:
12000
Daliyan ma’a iskele Mukata’a: 1,345
Başhane Mukata’a: 1,455
Bozahane Mukata’a: 1,200
Niyabet-i şimal ma’a Mukata’a: 12,555
kovan ma’a baş
Kıst Bozaci kethuda 155
Ispençe: 2,266
Nefs-i Hinri ve Mukata’a: 2,060
Çekirdenlu ve Küste
ve Kizilci ve burgos
bevacından gayri
satılmış
All these estimates
amount to 35.996
akçes
Ve Hinri ma’a : 21,626 Bu cumleden resm-i
Yamanı kile: 3.255 x 3(?)=
10,000
Al baki: 56,900
Cumletan: 85,217

Table 20

Evkaf-ı vilayet-i Gümülcine 96 Source of Income Total

I. 1) V 8005
Vakf-ı zaviye-yi Hammam-ı hasıl: senet’ il-kamile
merhum Evrenos Bey
2) Kıst: 1400
Dekakin 45
3) Kıst: elf
Karuban sarayı (1000)
4) Kıst: 1400
Salgın’dan: hasıl olan meblağ:
5) Kıst:600
Bostan
6) Kıst: 1400
Bağ: pare 40, Dönüm 45
7)
Asiyab: otak 3, göz 8, buğday müd 23
8) Meblağ
Zemin-i Küstemir ki galle ekilup öşür gayri az

96
0.89, p. 30.
344
 alınur ve çiftlik nalbant Ahmed galle
10.00097
9) Hane 18
imam-ı tekye
10) Ciftlu: 24
Karye-yi Halvaci çiftliğı nam-ı diğer Benak: 2
Evrenos Bey vakf-ı azadsuz kolları Kethuda: 1
oğullarıdır. Hassların üçe bülüp, ikisin Asiyab:
tekye-yi içün alınurrmuş, birisi onları dolap 1, göz
konulurmuş 2

Hasil:
meblağ
gayri az
galle:
14000
Cümleden
ve galle:
Buğday:
müdd 189
kile 8
Arpa: müdd
102 kile 7
Daru:
müdd 12
kile 9

11) Hane 16
Ta’allukat-ı Evrenosluyan
II. Dukkan: 1 V Hasıl:
Vakf-ı Debbağlar ehlisi Bağ: dönüm 1 senet’ il-
harici az defter 98 kamile 100

III. Bağ: dönüm- 14 V

Vakf-ı tekye-yi Ahmed Asiyab: (bab) 3, göz 8
velad-ı Bali Yunus asil Dukkan 7: kıst 355
defterde yazılmış99
Çiftliği Müdlü 4 mukata’a virur.
Bu yer değirmen ve bağ içun subaşıya yüz ön
akçe virur. Bakısı tekyede sarf olunurmuş.

Hasıl: buğday müd 15

Ahi Mehmed mülki bildur satun alup Ahi

Ahmed vakfımış:
Değirmen: 1

97
In the yearly account books there are occasions where the yied of the villages is cited as öşür ; after selling
the share of the yield, they did not register either the collected (gained) amount in cash or the amount of the
stock of grains in akçes: Barkan (1962-1963), p. 254.
98
0.89, p. 31.
99
Ibid., p. 31.
345
 Bağ: dönüm 4
Zemin-i müdlü: 4

IV. V
Vakf-ı Kasab-ı Süpüren
asil defterde yazılmış 100
Dekakin : pare 8, şimdi harab
Bağ: pare 3, biri makbere olup ve biri harap Hasıl:
olmuş senet’ il-
Ellerinde dönüm: 1 kamile 360
Zemin-i : pare 3, Kiraz 15, Armud 4
V. Dekakin: 2 V Hasil:
Vakf-ı zaviye-yi Hammam-ı Yenicede: 1 senet’ il-
Konukçu şimdi Zemin-i Konukçu yeri: mukata’a virur kamile 74
Köykusu imam Bey subaşıya 155
elindedir
VI. Bağ: pare 2 V Çift: 3
Vakf-ı Zaviye-yi Puş-i Bir paresi kendu elinde ve bir paresi gayri kişi
Puşan ‘an zemin-i elinde
Dehurcu Apri

Table 21: Revenues of the Vakf of the Zaviye of Hacı Evrenos as appeared in 1456, 1519.

I) 1456101: Vakf of the Sources of Revenues

zaviye of the deceased
Evrenos Bey :
1) Rents from the 8005
Urban and Agricultural
Hammam ( per entry
Revenues: 40.787
year)
2) Rents from Shops 1.400 * 3= 4.200
(quarterly)
3) Caravansary (quarterly) 1.000*3=3.000
4) Lump sum taxation 1.400*3= 4.200
(quarterly)
5) Orchards 600*3= 1.800
6) Vineyards 1.400 * 3= 4.200
7) Mile Wheat: 23 müdd = 460
kile102 * 11.7103= 5.382

100
Ibid., p. 31.
101
Ibid., p. 30.
346
 8) The yield from the The lump sum without
allotment of Küstemir the yield amounts to
was sown and the öşür 10.000
taxation was collected
9) The imam of the tekye 18 Households

2)Provincial Revenues : 10) The land of the village

65.077 of Halvaci, known as the Total of revenues without
village of the sons of the the yield: 14.000
unfree slaves of the vakf
of Hacı Evrenos. The Income in kind:
2/3 of the private
holding was taken for If 3.788 kile (müdd 189 +
the tekye and 1/3 was kile 8) of wheat were sold
left to the village. at the price of 11.7 akçe
per kile, then the amount
of 44.319 akçes would
have been obtained as
income.

If 2047 kile (müdd 102 +

kile 7) of barley were sold
at the price of
3104 per kile, then the
amount of 6.141 akçes
would have been obtained
as income.

If 247 kile (müdd 12 +

kile 7) of millet were sold
at the price of 2,5105 per
kile, then the amount of
617 akçes would have
been obtained as income.

Total revenues: 111.664 akçe

II) 1519106: Vakf of the 1) In the city of Gümülcine Total: 43.354
deceased Evrenos Bey hammam and
kervansaray and other[
sources]

102
The kitchen-storeroom from the year 1474 of Mehmed II confirms that one müdd amounted officially to 20
kile; while one kile of wheat was calculated at 25, 656 kg. Thus, the contribution of the mile amounted to
11,801 kg. Marcinkowski (2003), p. 68-69.
103
The annual account book of the years 1489-1490 instructs that the price of wheat per kile for the vakf of
Bayezid II in Edirne was 11.7. Barkan (1962-1963), Tables 2, 6.
104
The annual account book of the years 1489-1490 instructs that the buying price of barley per kile for the
vakf of Bayezid II at Edirne was 3 akçes. Barkan (1962-1963), Table 6.
105
The annual account book of the years 1489-1490 instructs that the buying price of millet per kile for the vakf
of Bayezid II at Edirne was 2.5 akçes. Barkan (1962-1963), Table 6.
106
BOA, TT70 925 (1519), p. 32.
347
 2) Village of Halvaci Total: 10.473
alternatively named
Asarköy within
Gümülcine:
Muslim households 28
celibates 21
Christian households 14
celibates 5
3) Land of Ahmed Nalbant Total: 1.847
alternatively named
Küçük Köy within
Gümülcine
Households 6(?)
4) Allotment of Küstemir Total 228
Total revenues: 55. 902 akçe

 BOA. 167 937(1530)107, pp. 11-19

Table 22

Kazayı Gümülcine

Name of the Number of Number of Number of In total

Quarter Households celibates/excempted Widows
1) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 25
Eski muslim}:13108 10(40%)
mescidi  imam: 3
 müezzin : 2
As related to the:  yağcı:2
Vakf-ı mescid-i  akıncı: 1
Eski Hacı  kethuda: 1
Hayreddin (300  fakir: 1
akçes)
celibates: 2109

2) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 2 10

Debbağlar muslim}:7  imam: 1

110
müezzin : 1

107
BOA, TT 167 937(1530) as published in: 167 Numaralı Mahasebe-i Vilayet-i Rum-ili Defteri 937.1530, Defter-i
Hakanı Dizisi: IX, Vol. 1, tıpkıbasım parçası (fascimile), pp. 7, 11-19.
108
Biçakcı (2003), p. 129 mistakinly mentions 7.
109
Ibid., p. 129 mistakinly mentions 1.
110
This reading has been reconstructed bazed on the entry of TTD. 187 (1568), pp. 110-111.

348
 As related to: celibates: 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i
Debbağhane
(1343 akçes)
3) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i muslim}: Exempted: 23
Hacı 13 6(26%)
Yavaş  imam: 1
 müezzin : 1
As related to:  çeltükci: 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i  yağcı: 1
Hacı Yavaş  ma’ruk merd-i
(Yekun: 1,500 hisar111: 1
bi cihet-i imam:  mütevveli: 1
750 akçes
bi cihet-i
müezzin: 650) celibates: 4
4) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 4 14
Karagöz muslim}:10 (28%)
 imam: 1
As related to:  müezzin : 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i  yağcı: 1
Hacı Karagöz  fakir:1
dar nefs-i
Gümülcine celibates: -
(2,800 akçes)
5) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i muslim}: Exempted: 2 12
Kadi Mescidi 8  yağcı: 1
 çeltükci: 1
As related to:
Vakf-ı mescid-i
Kadi (1,385 celibates: 2112
akçes)
6) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 3 6
Hacı Hizir muslim}:3 (50%)
 imam: 1
As related to:  müezzin : 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i  çeltukci: 1
Hacı Hizir
(1,100 akçes) celibates:-
7) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 5
Hayrredin muslim}:3 2(40%)
 imam: 1
As related to:  müezzin : 1
vakf-ı mescid-i
Hacı Hayreddin
(145 akçes) celibates: -

111
Ibid., p. 129 does not transcribe this.
112
Ibid., p. 129 mistakinly mentions 1.

349
 8) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 5(22%) 22
Koca Nasuh muslim}:17
 imam: 1
As related to:  müezzin : 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i  yamak: 2
Hoca Nesuh  yağcı: 1
(460 akçes)
celibates: -
9) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 24
Velioğlar muslim}:15 4(16%)
 imam: 1
As related to:  hatip: 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i  yağcı: 1
Veli Oğlar (455  delak: 1
akçes)

celibates: 5
10) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 15
imam-ı muslim}:9 6(40%)
Sarayi  imam: 1
 müezzin : 1
 yamak: 3
 yağcı: 1

celibates:-
11) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 22
Cebehanlu muslim}:17 3(13%)

113
imam: 1
(Cephanlu)  müezzin : 1
 yağcı: 1

celibates: 2

12) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i

Şehre küsti muslim}:20114 Exempted: 37
13(35%)
As related to:  imam: 1
Vakf-ı şehre  çeltukci: 1
küşti (160 akçes)  yağcı Küreci: 7
 eşkinci ve
yamak: 4

celibates: 4
13) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 38
Yenice muslim}:26 115 6(15%)

113
Ibid., p. 130 and Ayverdi (1982), p. 219: Here Biçakcı reads Nahçalu or Bohçalu, but considering the
Cebehane mescidi mentioned both by Evliya and Ayverdi I would suggest Cebehanlu, as the neighborhood of
the arsenal.
114
Ibid., p. 130 mistakingly cites 2 households.
115
Ibid., p. 130 mistakingly cites 20 households and a non-existent müezzin.
350
 As related to:  imam: 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i  yağcı: 2
Yenice (550  eşkinci ma’a
akçes) yamak: 2
fakir: 1

celibates: 6
14) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 11
Aşci (cooks’) muslim}:6 3(27%)
mescidi  imam: 1
As related to:  müezzin : 1
Vakf-ı mescid-i  yağcı: 1
Imam Aşci
(468 akçes) celibates: 2
15) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted116: 23
Bergamlu muslim}:10 13(56%)
 imam: 2
As related to:  müezzin : 1
Vakf-ı Bergamlu  hizmet-i yürük:
(1,735 akçes) 1
 çeltükci küreci:
8
 Tuzcu:1

celibates: -
16) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 25
Cami’i şerif muslim}:15 6(24%)
 imam: 1
As related to:  na’ib: 1
Vakf-ı cami’i  mütevveli: 1
şerif (4,148  çeltükci: 2
akçes)  yağcı: 1

celibates: 4
17) Mahalle-yi {Hâne-i Exempted: 13
Sabuncu muslim}:8 5(38%)
‘Ali  imam: 1
 müezzin : 1
 fakir:1
 küreci: 1
 tuzcu:1

celibates: -

116
Ibid., p. 130 omitted Görkçu.
351
Gebran:
Housholds 23
celibates 13

352
 Maps

Map 2: Reconstructive map of Gümülcine.

353
Key to map 2.

354
 CHAPTER 3: Siroz
Table 23 showing the demographic breakdown of Siroz in 15th and 16th centuries
utilizing the coefficient.1

Demographic
Breakdown with co- 1454-14552 1456-14783 14784
efficient
Muslim 2,7905 2,2546 3,0037
(%) age change of
-19% 33%
Muslim population

Christians 2,2328 1,7649 1,66910

(%) age change of

-20% -5%
Christian population
Overall total 5,022 4,018 4,672
-19% 16%

1
On the use of the coefficient towards the computation of the totals I consulted: Ö. Barkan, “Essais sur les données
statistiques des registres de recensement dans l’empire Ottoman aux Xve et XVIe siècles,” Journal of the Economic and
Social history of the Orient, 1, 1957, p. 21 and H. Lowry, “From lesser wars to the mightiest war: the Ottoman conquest and
transformation of Byzantine urban centres in fifteenth century,” in Studies in Defterology Ottoman society in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries, p. 52.
2
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşıvı (BOA), TT3 858(1454-1455), 156-173; A. Stojanovski, Turski Dokumenti za Istorijata na
Makedonskiot Narod. Opsiren Popisen Defter od XV Vek (Skopje, 1978); the dating of the survey in 1454 as against the
previously accepted date of 1464-1465 was argued by Michael Ursinus, “An Ottoman census register for the area of Serres
of 859 H.(1454-1455)? A reconsideration of the date of composition of Tahrir Defteri TT3”, Südost Forshungen 45, 1986, pp.
25-36; T. Karanastasis, “Enas neomartyras stis Serres tou b’ misou tou 15. Aiōna. O Agios Iōannēs o Serraios kai ē akolouthia
tou, ergo tou megalou rētoros Manouēl Korinthiou,” Byzantina 16, 1991, pp. 216-217.
3
Narodna Biblioteka “Kiril i Metodji” (Sofia), Orientalski Otdel: Fonds 122 A, a.e. 425 A. published by Evangelia Balta, Les
Vakifs de Serres et de sa Région XV-XVIe Siècles (Athens, 1995), 251-256.
4
BOA. TT7 883 (1478-1479), 220-237. An abridged, first publication of its transcription is provided by Balta, Les Vakifs de
Serres, 258-260; a detailed transcription is provided by Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 180-184.
5
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 573 total adult male-headed households = 573 x 5= 2,865 – 75 {missing adult
male figure in widow-headed households} = 2,790 {Total of Christians at Siroz in 1464}.
6
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 488 total adult male-headed households - 46 celibates of taxpaying age = 442
x 5 = 2210 + 46 {the celibates} = 2256 – 2 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 2,254 {Total of Muslims
at Siroz between 1456-1478}.
7
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 638 total adult male-headed households - 28 celibates of taxpaying age = 610
x 5 = 3050 + 28 {the celibates} = 3078 – 75 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 3,003 {Total of
Muslims at Siroz in 1478}.
8
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 494 total adult male-headed households - 1 celibates of taxpaying age = 493
x 5 = 2,465 + 1 {celibate} = 2,466 – 234 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 2,232 {Total of Christians
at Siroz in 1464}. Karanastasis provides the total of 3,450 Christians based on the readings of Stojanovski, Turski dokumenti
za istorijata na makedonskiot narod, 164-165, 270. In this occasion I have not chosen to include in the urban population of
Siroz 25 households and 8 widows (some 157 individuals) from the village Kaladendra and 121 households with 22 widows
(some 693 individuals) from the village Katakuzinozi, on the grounds that these villages were not spatially related to the
urban epicentre of Siroz.
9
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 372 total adult male-headed households - 8 celibates of taxpaying age = 364
x 5 = 1820 + 8 {the celibates} = 1828 – 64 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 1,764 {Total of
Christians at Siroz between 1456-1478}.
10
The formula utilized in deriving this figure is: 349 total adult male-headed households - 3 celibates of taxpaying age = 346
x 5= 1730+ 3 {the celibates} = 1733 – 64 {missing adult male figure in widow-headed households} = 1,669 {Total of
Christians at Siroz in 1478}.
355
Table 24 showing the breakdown of Siroz quarters in Mehmed II’s reign (1456-1478)
(Narodna Biblioteka Kiril i Metodji Fonds 122A and 525A)1

Number
Number Number
Number of of Number
1456- of of
Muslim Christian of
1478 Muslim Christian
Households Househol Widows
Celibates Celibates
ds
Name of Name of
the the
Quarter Quarter
1. Tatar 1. Şem'i
38 3 1
Hatun Gebran
2.Hacı 2.
21 4
'Ali Bakkalan
3. 3.
Hasan 12 Metaksopu 11 2
Siyah l
4.
4.Kuyumcu
Koyun 38 6 1
yan
Yusuf
5.
5.
Tanrive 20 6
Balıkçıyan
rmiş
6. Hacı 6.
25 2 4 2
Kurd Ahengeran
7. Hoca
29 7.Kasaban 11 2
Hatib
8.
Evrenos 12 8. Hayatan 8 2
Bey
9.Çasni 9.
16 58 15
ğir Boyaciyan
10. 10.
21 1
Salih Sarrafan
11.Burh 11.
14 1 1
an Tüccaran
12.
Baçdar 12.
16 8 2
Hayred Semerciyan
din
14. 13.
14 3
Davud Bennayan

1
Balta (1995), pp. 251-256.
356
 15.
Süleima 37 14. Kervan 1 2
n Bey
15.
16.
14 Bostanciya 5 1
Isma'il
n
17. Ayşe 16.
12 9 2
Hatun Papazan
17.
18.
14 Papazan 5 1
Cami'
diğer
18.
Bedred 22 18. Burnos 5 1
din Bey
19.
19. Ayo
Eslime 29 3 1
Dimitri
Hatun
20.
20. Ayo
Kameni 23 2 1
Nikola
ça
21.
21. Ayo
Murad 17 7 1
Vasil
Debbağ
22.
22.
Darbha 14 4
Urganciyan
ne
Cema'at
Darbha 16 23. Ilakalı 5 1
ne
23.
24. Kir
Doğan 14 11 4
Dimitri
Bey
25. Şahim
8 2
Efendi
26.
Selanikliya 30 8
n
27.
3
Çulahan
28.
10
Kürkcüyan
29.
8 3
Papuşçıyan
30.
Çömlekciy 6 1
an

357
 31.
3 2
Sabunciyan
32.
3
Nalband
33. Diğer
5 2
Mıhçılar
34. (?) 12 3
35.
Boyaciyan( 31 8
?) diğer
Total of
Total of
Muslim 3 4
536 2+ 44 Christian 3725 8 64
Househ
Households
olds2

Table 25 showing the breakdown of the households totals in row data (actual figures
deriving from the archival material) from 1454 at Siroz [BOA. TT3 858(1454-1455), pp.
156-173].

Musulman-ı Gebran-ı
1454
şehr-i Siroz Siroz
573 494
Among these
5
exempted
Among these
75 234
widows

Among these
217(37%)
professionals

2
It needs to be specified that I have not examined the registers myself; all data for this register were taken
from Balta (1995). In order to provide the totals in a consistent system with the rest of my chapters, I am
assuming that the final breakdown she provides at the end of its survey does not include in the categories of
hanes, the celibates and the widows totals. Thus, in order to calculate the final total and apply the co-efficient
formula, I am adding them all together and deducting the relevant shares at a later stage.
3
The breakdown of this total is computed as follows: 488 adult married male-headed Muslim households
(hanes)+ 46 celibate of taxpaying age + 2 Muslim widows= 536 Muslim households
4
Balta counted only 2 celibates in the preserved section, but this should be obviously provided by surveyor at
the final totals. Balta (1995), p. 256
5
Balta in her final breakdown provides the total of 259 Christian households, although she mentions that she
counted 288. However, my excel computation provided the total of 300 households. Thus, the total is being
computed as follows: 300 adult married male-headed Christian households + 64 celibates of taxpaying age+ 8
widows= 372 Christian households
358
 Maps

Chapter 3: Siroz

Map 3: Reconstructive map of Ottoman Siroz using the topographical survey of 1914.

359
Key to the reconstructive map of Ottoman Siroz.

360
 Map 4: Post-1923 assessor plates of exchanged properties demarcating the Ottoman mosques
i) Plate 6: Esleme Hatun mosque (C12) , ii) Plate 8: Eski mosque (B2), iii)Plate 8: unidentified mosque D4
(D4)
(The alphanumeric values in the parentheses correspond to the key to the reconstructive map 3).

361
 Map 5: Post-1923 assessor plates of exchanged properties demarcating the Ottoman mosques
i) Plate 9: Tanrivermiş cami’ (C2) , ii)Plate 14: Unidentified mosque D3 (D3), iii) Plate 15: Selçuk Hatun
cami’ (C8)
(The alphanumeric values in the parentheses correspond to the key of map 3).

362
Map 6: The 1914 topographical survey of Siroz georefered using the 1994 street plan as a reference.
The evolution of the modern city over the Ottoman substratum.
Key: Numbers of building blocks=green circles
Boundaries of building blocks=green line
Contours of diverse datum surfaces=blue, purple and green lines

363
 CHAPTER 4: Yenice-i Vardar

Cross- referencing table and chart of Yenice-i Vardar quarters

Table 26 Cross-referencing table of Yenice-i Vardar quarters.

Quarters TT.424 (1529) TT.433 (1540) TT. 723

(1555)

1)Mahalle-yi merhum p.4 p.925 p.530

‘Îsâ Bey
 Households: 39  Households: 63  Households: 68
From which From which: From which:

 Exempted: 6(15%)  Exempted:  Exempted:

 Celibates: 5(12%) 11(17%) 16(23%)
 Manumitted  Celibates:  Celibates:
Slaves: 3 (8%) 10(15%) 8(11%)
 Converts: 8(20%)6  Manumitted  Manumitted
Slaves: 2(3%) Slaves: 0
 Converts: 1(1%)  Converts:
9(13%)

2)Mahalle-yi Yakub p.4 p. 925-926 p.531

Bey
 Households: 47  Households: 51  Households: 72
From which From which From which:

 Exempted: 6(12%)  Exempted: 6(11%)  Exempted:

 Celibates: 6(12%)  Celibates: 4(7%) 16(22%)
 Manumitted  Manumitted  Celibates:
Slaves: - Slaves: - 25(34%)
 Converts: 13(27%)  Converts: 4(7%)  Manumitted
Slaves: 0
 Converts:
17(23%)

3)Mahalle-yi Hacı p.5 p. 926 p. 531

Mustafa
 Households: 23  Households: 26  Households: 26
From which From which From which:

 Exempted:  Exempted: 7(26%)  Exempted:

6 (26%)  Celibates: 1(3%) 3(11%)
 Manumitted  Celibates:

6
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 111 record 5 celibates.
364
  Celibates: 4(17%) Slaves: - 7(26%)
 Manumitted  Converts: 1(3%)  Manumitted
Slaves: - Slaves: 0
 Converts: 67(26%)  Converts:
4(15%)

4) Mahalle-yi mescid-i p.5-6 pp. 926-927 pp. 531-532

Hacı Lala
 Households: 52  Households: 53  Households: 53
From which From which From which:

 Exempted:  Exempted: 2(3%)  Exempted:

11(21%)  Celibates: 7(13%) 3(5%)
 Celibates:  Manumitted  Celibates:
11(21%) Slaves: - 18(33%)
 Manumitted  Converts: 10(18%)  Manumitted
Slaves: 4(7%) Slaves: 0
 Converts:  Converts:
16(30%)8 9(16%)

5)Mahalle-yi Hacı p.6 p.927 p.532

Resul
 Households: 25  Households: 31  Households:
From which From which 36(309
Muslims+ 6
 Exempted: 6(24%)  Exempted: 5(16%) Christians)
 Celibates: 5(20%)  Celibates: 4(12%) From which:
 Manumitted  Manumitted
Slaves: - Slaves: -  Exempted:
 Converts: 3(12%)  Converts: 4(%) 7(19%)
 Celibates: 7
 (5 Muslims +2
Christians)
19%
 Manumitted
Slaves: 1
 Converts:
9(30%)10
 Christians:
6(16%)

7
Lowry – Erünsal (2010), p. 111 record 4 converts.
8
Lowry - Erünsal (2010), p. 111 record 22 converts (16+6).
9
Lowry - Erünsal (2010), p. 116 record 20 households and 5 celibates.
10
Lowry - Erünsal (2010), p. 115 record 8 converts in the Hacı Resul quarter. They probably do not include
Hasan ‘Abdullah atik-i Hizir Bey.
365
6)Mahalle-yi zaviye-yi p. 6-7 p.927 p.532-533
Isa Bey

 Households: 31  Households: 47  Households: 54

From which From which From which

 Exempted: 5(16%)  Exempted: 2(4%)  Exempted:

 Celibates: 2(6%)11  Celibates: 3(6%) 8(14%)
 Manumitted  Manumitted  Celibates:
Slaves: - Slaves: 1 8(14%)
 Converts: 10(32%)  Converts: 6(12%)  Manumitted
Slaves: -
Converts:
14(25%)

7)Mahalle-yi cami’i-yi p.7 p. 927-8 p.533

merhum Evrenos Bey

 Households: 47  Households: 33  Households:

From which From which 4813
From which
 Exempted: 7(14%)  Exempted: 6(18%)
 Celibates:  Celibates: 1(3%)  Exempted:
6(12%)12  Manumitted 17(35%)
 Manumitted Slaves: -  Celibates:
Slaves: -  Converts: 2(6%) 7(14%)
 Converts: 10(21%)  Manumitted
Slaves: -
 Converts:
8(16%)

8) Mahalle-yi Hizir p.7-8 p.928 p.533

Bey
 Households: 41  Households: 55  Households: 88
From which From which From which

 Exempted: 3(7%)  Exempted: 2(3%)  Exempted:

 Celibates: 6(14%)  Celibates: 12(13%)
 Manumitted 10(18%)  Celibates:
Slaves: -  Manumitted 31(35%)
 Converts: 11(26%) Slaves: 1  Manumitted
 Converts: 10(18%) Slaves: -
 Converts:
20(22%)

11
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 111 do not record celibates in this quarter.
12
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 111 record 4 celibates. They exclude ‘Ali velad-i o and Hamza berader-i o which are
listed as celibates in the main section of the entry.
13
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 115 record 37 households and 7 celibates.
366
9) Mahalle-yi p.8 p.928 p.534
Debbağlar
 Households: 23  Households: 35  Households: 36
From which From which From which

 Exempted: 2(8%)  Exempted: 3(8%)  Exempted:

 Celibates: 8(34%)  Celibates: 4(11%) 8(22%)
 Manumitted  Manumitted  Celibates:
Slaves: - Slaves: - 10(27%)
 Converts: 2(8%)  Converts: 3(8%)  Manumitted
Slaves: -
 Converts:
8(22%)
10) Mahalle-yi ‘Ali p.8 p.929 p.535
Bey
 Households: 36  Households: 28  Households: 39
From which: From which ( 31 Muslims+
8 Christians)
 Exempted: 5(13%)  Exempted: 6(21%)
 Celibates:  Celibates: 6(21%) From which:
11(30%)  Converts: 8(28%)
 Converts: 11(30%)  Manumitted  Exempted:
 Manumitted Slaves: - 5(12%)
Slaves: -  Celibates: 15
(11 Muslims
+4 Christians)
 Converts:
4(10%)
 Manumitted
Slaves: -
 Christians:
8(20%)

11) Mahalle-yi p.9 p.929 p.536

Ahmed Bey
 Households: 60  Households:  Households: 92
From which: 61(48+6=54 ( 8714 Muslim
Muslim and 7 and 5
 Exempted: 4(6%) Christians) Christians)
 Celibates: - From which:
 Converts: 24(40%) From which
 Manumitted  Exempted: 3(5%)
Slaves: 18(30%) or 5(8%)  Exempted:
 Christians: -  Celibates: 12(13%)
9(Muslim) +1  Celibates:
(Christian) 30(32%)15
10(14%)  Converts:
 Converts: 14(23%) 21(22%)

14
Lowry-Erünsal (2010), p. 116 record 79: 48 households and 31 celibates.
15
Ibid., they record 30 celibates.
367
  Manumitted  Manumitted
Slaves: 8(13%) Slaves: -
 Christians: 6(10%)  Christians:
5(5%)

12) Mahalle-yi Hacı pp.9-10 pp.929-930 p.536

Uğurlu

 Households: 18  Households: 18  Households: 32

From which: From which: From which:

 Exempted: 1(5%)  Exempted: 3(18%)  Exempted:

 Celibates: 5(27%)  Celibates: - 8(25%)
 Converts: 9(50%)  Converts: 1(5%)  Celibates:
 Manumitted  Manumitted 8(25%)
Slaves: - Slaves: -  Converts:
8(25%)
Manumitted
Slaves: -

12) Mahalle-yi p.10 - -

Mehmed Bey ibn-
i Hizir Bey  Households: 21
From which:

 Exempted: 2(9%)
 Celibates: 2(9%)16
 Converts: 4(19%)
 Manumitted
Slaves: 3(14%)

14) Mahalle-yi p.10 p.930 p.536

Hüseyn Bey
 Households: 14  Households: 12  Households: 15
From which: From which: From which:

 Exempted: 4(28%)  Exempted: 3(25%)  Exempted:

 Celibates: -  Celibates: - 8(53%)
 Converts: 5(35%)  Converts: 1(8%)  Celibates: 1
 Manumitted  Manumitted Converts:
Slaves: - Slaves: - 3(15%)

 Manumitted
Slaves: -

16
Lowry-Erünsal(2010), p. 111 do not record celibates in this quarter
368
15) Mahalle-yi Şehri p.10 p.930 pp.536 and
küsti 538
 Households: 15  Households: 13
From which: From which:  Households:
39(1 Muslim+
 Exempted: 2(13%)  Exempted: 2(5%) 38 Christians)
 Celibates: 5(33%)  Celibates: 2(5%) From which:
 Converts: 3(2%)  Converts: 7(20%)
 Manumitted  Manumitted  Exempted: -
Slaves: - Slaves: -  Celibates:
8( Christians)
 Converts: 1
 Manumitted
Slaves: -
 Christians:
38(99%)

16) Mahalle-yi Davud p.11 p.930 p.536

Bey
 Households: 33  Households: 34  Households: 51
From which: From which: From which:

 Exempted: 2(6%)  Exempted: 2(5%)  Exempted:

 Celibates: 2(6%)17  Celibates: 2(5%) 6(11%)
 Converts:  Converts: 7(20%)  Celibates:
10(30%)18  Manumitted 21(41%)
Manumitted Slaves: -  Converts:
Slaves: 2(6%) 15(29%)
 Manumitted
Slaves:-
18) Mahalle-yi p.11 p.931 p.537
Hüseyn Bey (or of
the place with the  Households: 24  Households:  Households: 30
From which: 23+5+4=32 From which:
plane trees )
From which:
 Exempted: -  Exempted:
 Celibates: 8(33%)  Exempted: 3(10%) 4(13%)
 Converts: 4(16%)  Celibates: 1  Celibates:
 Manumitted  Converts: 2(6%) 4(13%)
Slaves: -  Manumitted  Converts:
Slaves: - 12(40%)
 Manumitted
Slaves: -
18) Mahalle-yi ‘Acem p.11 p.930 p.537
Kadi
 Households: 32  Households: 37  Households: 54
From which: From which: From which:

17
Lowry-Erünsal(2010), p. 111 do not mention celibates in this quarter.
18
Lowry-Erünsal(2010), p. 111 record 8 celibates.
369
  Exempted: 6(18%)  Exempted: 5(13%)  Exempted:
 Celibates: 7(21%)  Celibates: 17(31%)
 Converts: 2(6%) 11(29%)  Celibates:
 Manumitted  Converts: 2(5%) 10(18%)
Slaves: 2(6%)  Manumitted  Converts:
Slaves: 1(3%) 17(31%)
 Manumitted
Slaves: -
19) Mahalle-yi Yusuf - - p.532
Bey
 Households: 15
From
which:

 Exempted:
5(33%)
 Celibates: -
(%)
 Converts: 5
(33%)
Manumitted
Slaves: -
(%)

Gebran-i nefs-i
Yenice-i Vardar

1)Mahalle-yi Eski p. 12 p.931

 Households: 24  Households: 30

Households: 394 Households:

370
Table 27 showing the demographic breakdown of Yenice-i Vardar in the first half of 16th
century utilizing the coefficient.

Demographic
Breakdown with 1529 1540 1555
coefficient

Muslim 2,541 2,84519 3,20220

(%)age change of
11.96% 12.5%
Muslim population
Christians 120 14521 229
(%)age change of
90.8%
Christian population
Overall total 2,661 2,990 3,431

Overall total change (%) 12.4% 14.7%

19
The formula utilized in deriving the figure is 629 total adult male-headed households - 75 bachelors of tax
paying age = 554 x 5 = 2,770 + 75 {the bachelors} = 2,845 {Total of Muslims at Yenice-i Vardar in 1540}.The data
used for the computation of the formula are derived from TT 433, pp. 925-932 and the breakdowns are edited
in table 4.I.1.a.
20
The formula utilized in deriving the figure is 810 total adult male-headed households - 212 bachelors of tax-
paying age= 598 x 5 = 2,990 + 212 {the bachelors}= 3,202 .The data used for the computation of the formula are
derived from TT 723, pp. 530-539 and the breakdowns are edited in table 4.I.1.a.
21
The formula utilized in deriving the figure is 37 total adult male-headed households - 10 bachelors of tax-
paying age = 27 x 5 = 135 + 10 {the bachelors} = 145 {Total of Christians at Yenice-i Vardar in 1540}. The data
used for the computation of the formula are derived from TT 433, pp. 925-932.
371
 Maps

CHAPTER 4: Yenice-i Vardar

Map 7: Reconstructive map of Yenice-i Vardar.

372
Key to map 7.

373
Bibliography
Archival Sources:

Dimetoka:
Mc. Yaz. 0.89 (1455-1473)
BOA, TT20 890 (1485)
BOA, TT77 925 (1519)
BOA, TT370 926 (1520)
BOA, TT1090 976 (1568)
BOA, TT494 978 (1570)

Gümülcine:
Mc. Yaz. 0.89 (1455-1473)
BOA. TT70 925 (1519)
BOA. TT167 937 (1530), pp. 7, 11-19: 167 Numaralı Muhasebe-i Vilayet-i Rum-ili Defteri
(937/1530), Defteri Hakani Dizisi: IX (T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Mudurluğu
Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı Yayın Nu: 65), Ankara 2003
TADB. TTD187 (1568)

Yenice-i Vardar
BOA, TT424 936 (1529)
BOA, TT433 947 (1540)
BOA, TT723 962 (1555)

Primary Sources
 Angiolello Giovan Maria, Viaggio di Negroponte a cura di Cristina Bazzolo, Neri
Pozza Editore,Vicenza 1982.
 Badi Efendi (Edirne defterdarı), Riyazi Beldeyi Edirne, Bayezid Umumi Kütüphanesi
yazmalar No 1391-1393-1293, vol 3, pp. 16-19 {Hereafter: Riyazi Beldeyi Edirne}
 Cantacuzeni Ioannes, Ioannes Cantacuzeni imperatoris historiarum libri IV, cura L.
Schopeni II, Bonn 1828-1832.
 Chalcocondyles Laonicus, Historiae, vol. 2, TLG Licence Agreement 2010.
 Choisseul-Gouffier C.M.D, Voyage Pittoresque de la Grece, Paris, 1978.
 Cydonès, Démétrius, Cydonès Démétrius Correspondance. Studi e Testi 208,
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana , vol. II, edited by Raymond J. Loenertz, Rome, 1960.
 Çelebi Evliya, Seyahatnamesi, vol. 8, Istanbul, Orhaniye Matba’ası, 1928.
 Çelebi Evliya, Seyahatnamesi, S.A. Kahraman-Y.Dağlı-R.Dankoff (eds.), vol. 8,
Istanbul 2003 [Hereafter: Çelebi (2003)]
 Doukas M., Byzantinotourkikē Istoria, trans./ comm. B. Karalis, Athens 1997.
 Düstûrnâme-i Enverî, ed. N.Öztürk, Istanbul 2003.
 Gazavat-ı Sultan Murad b. Mehemmed Han, H. İnalcık and M. Oğuz (eds.), Ankara
1978.
 Hibri Abdurrahman, Enisü’l- müsamirin: Edirne tarihi 1360-1650, (ed. R. Kazancıgil),
Edirne, 1996 .[Hereafter: Enisü’l- müsamirin (1996)]
 Müneçimbaşı Ahmed Dede (1631-1702), Saha’if al-akhbar fi waqa’i’ al-a’şar , vol. II,
Istanbul 1868.
 Neşri Mehmed, Cihannuma, N. Öztürk (ed.), Istanbul 2008.

374
  Oruç Bey Tarihi, N. Öztürk (ed.), Istanbul 2008.
 Spandugnino T., De la origine deli Imperatori Ottomani, in C.N.Sathas, Documents
inédits relatifs a l’histoire de la Grece au moyen âge, vol. IX, Paris 1890, pp. 133-261.
 Spandounes T., On the origin of the Ottoman Emperors, translated and edited by
D.M.Nicol, Cambridge University Press 1997.
 Sphrantzes Georgios, Brachy Chroniko, Athens 2006.
 Sayger C., Relation d’un voyage en Romélie, Paris, Firmin Didot frères, 1834.

Cartographic works
 Pitcher D. E., An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire from earliest times to
the end of the sixteenth century, Leiden, Brill, 1972.

Secondary Literature
 Abacı, N., “The Ottoman judges and their registers.The Bursa court register B-90/295
(Ad. 1670-1671)”, Turkish Sources LXIX, Harvard University 2007, parts I-II.
 Aktepe, M., “XIV ve XV asırlarda Rumeli’nin Türkler tarafından iskanına dair”,
Türkiye Mecmuası, vol. X, 1953, pp. 299-305.
 Aktuğ-Kolay, I., Batı Anadolu 14. yüzyıl beylikler mimarisinde yapım teknikleri,
Ankara 1999.
 Anhegger, R., “Beitrage zur osmanischen Baugeschichte III, Moscheen (1) in Saloniki
und Serres: zur Frage der I –Planmoscheen”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen , vol. 17, 1967,
pp. 312-333.
 Apaydın, Y., “Humus”, İ.A., 2nd edn., vol. 18, 2009, İstanbul, pp. 365-369.
 Arabacı, E., “Bursa as a typical Ottoman city of the Ottoman classical ages (14th-16th
c.)”,https://www.academia.edu/1471362/BURSA_AS_A_TYPICAL_OTTOMAN_CIT
Y_OF_THE_OTTOMAN_CLASSICAL_AGES_14TH_16TH_CENTURIES
(accessed 10 October 2011)
 Arnakis, G., Oi prōtoi Othōmanoi symbolē eis to problēma tēs ptōseōs tou ellēnismou
tēs Mikras Asias 1282-1337 (The first Ottomans contribution to the problem of the
Minor Asian Hellenism decline 1282-1337), in Texte und Forschungen zur
Byzantinisch-Neugriechischen Philologie, Athens 1947.
 Asdracha, C., La region des Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siecles: Etude de geographie
historique, Athens 1976.
 Asdracha, C. and Bakirtzis, C., “Inscriptions Byzantines de Thrace (VIIIe-XVe siècle)
edition et commentaire historique”, Archaiologikon Deltion, vol. 35, 1980, pp. 241-
282.
 Aslanapa, O., Edirne’de Osmanli devri abideleri, Istanbul 1949.
 Aslanapa, O., Osmanlı Devri Mimarisi, Istanbul, 1986.
 Aslanapa, O., Anadolu’da ilk Türk mimarisi başlangıcı ve gelişmesi, Ankara, 1991.
 Ayverdi, E.H., “Dimetoka’da Çelebi Sultan Mehmed Cami’i”, Vakıflar Dergisi, vol. 3,
1956, pp. 13-17.
 Ayverdi, E.H., Osmanlı Mimârîsinin ilk devri : Ertuğrul, Osman, Orhan gaazîler,
Hüdavendigâr ve Yıldırm Bâyezîd 630-805(1230-1402), Istanbul, 1966.
 Ayverdi E.H., Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad devri, 806-855(1403-
1451), vol. II, Istanbul, 1972.
 Ayverdi, E.H., Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Fatih Devri 855-886(1451-1481), vol. III,
Istanbul, 1973.
375
 Ayverdi, E.H., Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Fatih Devri 855-886(1451-1481), vol. IV,
İstanbul, 1989, 2nd edn.
 Ayverdi, E.H., Osmanlı Mimârîsinde II Bayezid-Yavuz Selim Devri, vol. V, İstanbul,
1983.
 Ayverdi, E.H., İlk 250 senenin Osmanlı Mimârîsi, Istanbul, 1976.
 Ayverdi, E.H., A. Yüksel, G. Ertürk and I. Nüman, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimari
Eserleri: Romanya, Macaristan, vol. I, books 1 and 2, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih
Cemiyeti, 1980.
 Ayverdi, E.H., A. Yüksel, G. Ertürk and I. Nüman, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî
Eserleri: Yugoslavya, vol. II, book 3, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1981.
 Ayverdi, E.H., A. Yüksel, G. Ertürk and I. Nüman, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî
Eserleri: Yugoslavya, vol. III, book 3, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1981.
 Ayverdi, E.H., Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri: Bulgaristan, Yunanistan,
Arnavudluk , vol. IV, book V, İstanbul, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982. [Hereafter:
Ayverdi (1982)]
 Babinger, F., “Schejch Bedr ed-din, der Sohn des Richters von Simav”, Der Islam, vol.
11, 1921, pp. 1-100.
 Babinger, F., Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, Leipsih, 1927.
 Babinger, F., “Das Grabmal des Scejchs Bed red Din zu Serres”, Der Islam, vol. 17,
1928, pp. 100-121.
 Babinger, F., “Die Vita (menaqibname) des Sheich Bedr ed-Din Mahmud, gen. İbn
Qadi Samauna”, Publicatiunile İnstitutului de Turcologie, Universitalea Mihaileana
din İaşi, vol. II, 1st part, Leipsig-Jassy, 1943, pp. 7-13.
 Babinger, F., “Mehmed’s II, des Eroberers Geburstag”, Aufsätze und Abhadlungen zur
Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante, vol. I, Münich 1962, pp.167-171.
 Bacharach, J.L., “Administrative complexes, palaces and citadels: changes in the loci
of medieval Muslim Rule”, The Ottoman city and its parts, New York 1991, pp. 111-
129.
 Bakirtzis, N. and Oraiopoulos, F., “Readouts and towers”, Dokimio gia tēn oxyrōtikē
sto Byzantio: O boreioelladikos xōros 4os-15os ai. (Treatise on the Byzantine military
architecture: the north Greek littoral 4th to 15th c.), 9th Directorate of Byzantine
Antiquities, Greek Ministry of Culture, Athens 2004, pp. 41-43.
 Bakirtzis, C. and Xydas, P., “Imaret, Komotini, Greece”, in Stephanidou, A., (ed.),
Kosmikē Mesaiōnikē Architektonikē sta Balkania 1300-1500 kai ē diatērēsē tēs
(Medieval secular architecture in the Balkans 1300-1500 and its preservation),
Thessaloniki, 2009, pp. 294-295.
 Bakirtzis, C.and Sambanopoulou, L., “Zincirli mosque of the city of Serres and its
conservation interventions (1995-2000)”, in A. Stephanidou (ed.), Kosmikē Mesaiōnikē
Architektonikē sta Balkania 1300-1500 kai ē diatērēsē tēs (Medieval secular
architecture in the Balkans 1300-1500 and its preservation), Thessaloniki, 2009, pp.
106-117.
 Balta, E., Les vakifs de Serres et de sa région XV- XVIe siècles, Athens, 1995.
 Balta, E., “H Trakē stis Othōmanikes katastixōseis” (Thrace in the Ottoman registers),
Thrakē historikes kai geōgraphikes proseggyseis (Thace: historic and geographic
approaches), Athens, 2000, pp. 107-116.
 Baltacı, C., XV-XVI Asırlar Osmanlı Medreseleri: teşkilat, tarih, Istanbul, 1976.

376
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Les problemes fonciers dans l’empire Ottoman au temps de sa
fondation”, Annales d’histoire sociale, vol. XI, Paris, 1939, pp. 1-7 (and in Turkish),
“Osmanlı imparatorluğunda kuruluş devrinin toprak meselesi”, Actes du 2em Congres
d’Histoire, 1937, pp. 1-14.
 Barkan, Ö.L.,“Osmanlı imparatorluğunda kuruluş devrinin toprak meselesi”, Actes du
2em Congres d’Histoire, 1937, pp. 1-14.
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Türkiyede imparatorluk devirlerinin büyük nüfüs ve arazı tahrirleri ve
hakana mahsus istatistik defterleri’’, İ.Ü.İ.F.M, vol. 2, issue 1, 1940-1941, pp. 20-59.
[Hereafter : Barkan (1940-1941)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Osmanlı Imparatorloğu’nda bir iskân ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak
vakıflar ve temlikler. I İstilâ devirlerinin kolonizatör Türk dervişleri ve zâviyeler”,
II. “Vakıflar bir iskân ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak kullanılmasında diğer şekilleri”,
Vakıflar Dergisi, vol. II, 1942, pp. 279-386. [Hereafter : Barkan (1942)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., XV ve XVI‘ıncı Asırlarda Osmanlı Imparatorluğunda Ziraî Ekonominin
Hukukî ve Malî Esasları, I Kanunlar, Istanbul, 1943. [Hereafter : Barkan (1943)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Osmanlı imparatorluğun teşekkülü”, Siyasal Bilgiler Okulu Dergisi,
Ankara, vol. I, 1944, no.2, pp. 344-358. [Hereafter: Barkan (1944)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Osmanlı imparatorluğunda bir iskan ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak
sürgünler”, İ.Ü.I.F.M , vol. 10, no. 1-4, 1948-1949, pp. 524-569. [Hereafter: Barkan
(1948-1949)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Les deportations comme méthode de peuplement et de colonisation
dans l’Empire Ottoman”, Révue de la Faculte des Sciences Economiques de
l’Universite d’Istanbul, 1ér année, fasc. 1-4, Octobre 1949-Juillet 1950, pp. 54-60.
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Osmanlı imparatorluğunda bir iskan ve kolonizasyon metodu olarak
sürgünler: II. Rumelinin iskanı için yapılan sürgünler”, İ.Ü.I.F.M., vol. XII, 1950-1951,
nos. 1-2, pp. 56-78. [Hereafter: Barkan (1950-1951)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Tarihi demografi araştırmaları ve Osmanlı tarihi”, Türkiyat Mecmuası
vol. X, 1951-1953, pp. 1-27. [Hereafter : Barkan (1951-1953)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Essais sur les données statistiques des registres de recensement dans
l’empire Ottoman aux Xve et XVIe siècles”, Journal of the Economic and Social
history of the Orient, vol. 1, 1957, Issue 1-3, pp. 9-36.
 Barkan, Ö.L., “954-955( 1547-1548) Mali yılına ait bir Osmanlı bütçesi”, İ.Ü.I.F.M,
vol. IX, 1957-1958, nos 1-4, pp. 219-276. [Hereafter : Barkan (1957-1958)]
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Osmanlı Imparatorloğunda imaret sitelerinin kuruluş ve işleyiş tarzına
ait araştırmalar”, Iktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, vol. XXIII, 1962-63, pp. 239-
296. [Hereafter : Barkan (1962-1963)]
 Barka, Ö.L., “Şehirlerin teşekkül ve inkişafı tarihi bakımından Osmanlı
İmparatorluğunda İmaret ve sitelerin kuruluş ve işleyiş tarzına ait araştırmalar”,
I.Ü.I.F.M, vol. 23, 1963, no 1-2, pp. 239-296. [Hereafter : Barkan (1963)]
 Barkan, Ö.L. and Ayverdi, E.H., İstanbul vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 935 (1546) tarihli,
Istanbul, 1970.
 Barkan, Ö.L., Türkiye’de Toprak Meselesi, Toplu Eserleri, vol. I, Istanbul, 1980.
 Barkan, Ö.L., “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda kuruluş devrinin toprak meselelerini”,
Türkiye’de toprak meselesi (toplum eserler) I, Istanbul, 1980, pp. 281-290.
 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, I., Recherches sur les actes des règnes des sultans Osman,
Orkhan et Murad I, Munich, 1967.

377
 Benevolo, L., “The Perfecting of the Urban Environment”, in The European City,
Oxford 1993, pp. 74-104.
 Berke, M., “Morphogenesis, fringe-belts and urban size: an explanatory essay”, in T.R.
Slater (ed.), The built form of Western cities: Essays for M.R.G. Conzen on the
occasion of his eightieth birthday, Leicester University Press, 1990, pp. 279-299.
 Bıçakçı, İ., Yunanistan’da Türk Mimarî Eserleri, Istanbul, 2003.
 Borie, A., P. Pinon et S. Yerasimos, “Tokat: essai sur l’architecture domestique et la
forme urbaine”, Anatolia Moderna, vol.1, 1991, pp. 239-273.
 Braudel, F., La mediterranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II, vol.
I, Paris, 1966.
 Braudel, F., “Pre-modern towns”, in P. Clark (ed.), Early modern town, New York
1976, pp. 53-91.
 Braudel, F., Civilization matérielle, economie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle, vol.
III, Le possible et l’impossible, Paris, 1979.
 Brouskari, E. (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in Greece, Hellenic Ministry of Culture-
Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, Athens, Livanis Publications,
2008.
 Brunschwig, R., “Urbanisme médiéval et droit musulman”, Revue des etudes
Islamiques, vol. 15, 1947, pp. 127-155.
 Bryer, A., “Greek Historians on the Turks: the case of the first Byzantine-Ottoman
marriage”, in R.H.C. Davis and J.M. Wallach-Hadrill (ed.), The writing of history in
the Middle Ages: Essays presented to R. W. Southern, Oxford 1981, pp. 471-493.
 Busch-Zantner R., “Zur Kenntnis der osmanischen Stadt”, Geographische Zeitschrift
38, 1932, pp. 1-13.
 Cağaptay, S., “A city within a city: chorography, conversion and choreography”,
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, 2011, pp. 45-69.
 Cağaptay, S., “The road from Bithynia to Thrace: Gazi Evrenos’ imaret in Komotini
and its architectural framework”, Byz. Forschungen, vol. 30, 2011, pp. 429- 442, 822-
824.
 Cahen, Cl., “Futuwwa”, E.I., 2nd ed., vol. II, 1965, pp. 961-969.
 Cataldi, G., “Saverio Muratori architetto (1910-1973). Il pensiero e l’opera”, Studi e
Documenti di Architettura, Universita di Firenze, Instituto di composizione
architettonica I e II, vol. 12, 1984, pp. 5-14.
 Cataldi, G., “Designing in stages: theory and design in the typological concept of the
Italian school of Saverio Muratori”, in A. Petruccioli (ed.), Typological Process and
Design theory, M.I.T 1998, pp. 35-54.
 Cataldi, G., “ From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and development of the Italian
school of design typology”, Urban Morphology, vol. 7, issue 1, 2003, pp. 19-34.
 Cataldi G., Maffei and Vaccaro P., “The Italian school of process typology”, Urban
Morphology, vol. 1 (1997), pp. 49-50
 Cataldi G., G.L. Maffei and P. Vaccaro, “Saverio Muratori and the Italian School of
planning typology”, Urban Morphology, vol. 6, issue 1, 2002, pp. 3-14.
 Cezar, M., “Sarayı yapıları”, Anadolu öncesi türklerde şehir ve mimarlik, Istanbul,
1977.
 Cezar, M., Typical commercial buildings of the Ottoman classical period and the
Ottoman construction system, Istanbul, 1983.

378
 Charanis, P., “An important Short Chronicle of the Fourteenth century”, Byzantion,
vol. XIII, 1938, pp. 335-363.
 Charanis, P., “Internal strife in Byzantium in the fourteenth century”, Byzantion, vol.
15, 1940-1941, pp. 208-230.
 Charanis, P., “The strife among the Paleologi and the Ottoman Turks 1370-1402”,
Byzantion, vol. XVI, 1943, pp. 286-314.
 Charanis, P., Observation on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire, (offprint from)
13th International Congress of Byzantine Studies, 1966, pp. 10-16.
 Conzen, M.R.G., Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis. Institute
of British Geographers 27. 1st edn., London, 1960. [All subsequent citations refer to
this edition apart from footnote no. 38].
 Conzen, M.R.G., Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis. Institute
of British Geographers 27. 2nd enl. edn., London, 1969.
 Conzen, M.R.G., “The use of town plans in the study of urban history”, in H.J. Dynos
(ed.), The study of Urban History, 1968, pp. 113-131.
 Conzen, M.R.G., “Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in
the historic townscape as exemplified by Ludlow”, in. Denecke, D and Shaw, G. (eds.),
Urban historical geography: recent progress in Britain and Germany, Cambridge,
1988, pp. 258-272.
 Conzen, M.R.G., Thinking about urban form: papers on urban morphology, 1932-1998
(ed. Michael P. Conzen), Bern, Peter Lang, 2004.
 Corona, R. and Maffei, G.L. (eds.), Isuf 1999: Transformations of urban form: From
Interpretations to Methodologies in Practice, Sixth International Seminar on Urban
Form, Florence 23-26 July, 1999.
 Crane, H., “The Ottoman Sultan’s mosque: icons of imperial legitimacy”, in Bierman,
I. A., R.A. Abou-el-Haj and D. Preziosi (eds.), The Ottoman city and its parts, New
York, 1991, pp. 173-243.
 Curcic, S., Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent,
Yale University Press, 2010.
 Çalı.[Kılıç], A., “Akıncı Beyi Evrenos Bey’e Ait Mülknâme : the conveyance of Raider
Ewrenos Beg”, OTAM, vol. 20, 2006, pp. 59-79.
 Çam, N., Yunanistandaki Türk Eserleri, Ankara 2006.
 Çağatay, N., Bir Türk kurumu olan Ahilik, Ankara, Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat
Fakültesi Yayınları, 1974.
 Çantay, T., “Osmanlı devleti’nin kuruluşundan İstanbul’un fethine kadar Osmanlı
sanatı”, Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan Yaşadığı Çağ ve Eserleri, İstanbul 1988, pp. 53-68.
 Çobanoğlu, V. A., “Külliyye”, İ.A., 2nd edn., vol. 26, 2002, pp. 542-544.
 Darkot, B., “Dimetoka”, İ.A., 1st edn., vol.3, 1945, p. 589.
 Delibalta, A.M., Rumeli’nde ilk başkent Dimetoka (Dimetoka mahalleleri), Bursa,
2007.
 Denis, G., “The reign of Manuel II Paleologos (1332-1391) in Thessalonica 1382-
1387”, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, vol. 159, Rome 1960, pp. 151-159.
 De Vries, J., European Urbanisation 1500-1800, London, 1984.
 Dimitriadis, V., Ē kentrikē kai dytikē Makedonia kata ton Evliya Çelebi (The central
and western Macedonia according to Evliya Celebi), Thessalonike, 1973.
 Dimitriadis, V., “Synoikiae kai dromoi ton Giannitsōn (Quarters and streets of
Yanitsa)”, Makedonika, vol. 15, 1975, pp. 160-167.
379
 Dimitriadis, V., “The Tombe of Gazi Evrenos Bey at Yenitsa and its Inscription”,
BSOAS, vol. 39, issue 2, 1976, pp. 328-332.
 Dimitriadis, V., “Φορολογικές κατηγορίες των χωριών της Θεσσαλονίκης κατά την
Τουρκοκρατία (Fiscal classification of Thessaloniki villages during the Tourkokratia)”,
Μακεδονικά,vol. 20, 1980, pp. 375-448.
 Dimitriades, V., Topographia tēs Thessalonikēs kata tēn periodo tēs Tourkokratias,
1983.
 Doğan, A.I., Osmanlı Mimarisinde Tarıkat Yapıları, Tekkeler, Zaviyeler ve Benzer
Nitelikteki Fütuvvet Yapıları, PhD Thesis, İTÜ, İstanbul, 1977.
 Dölger, F., “Zur Ausstand Andronikos gegen seinem Vater Johannes V. Im Mai 1373”,
REB, vol. XVI, 1958, pp. 217-232.
 Doukata, S., “Imaret”, in E. Brouskari (ed.) Ottoman Architecture in Greece, Hellenic
Ministry of Culture-Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, Athens,
Livanis Publications, 2008, pp. 324-326 [Hereafter: Doukata (2008)¹]
 Doukata, S., “Yeni mosque”, in E. Brouskari (ed.) Ottoman Architecture in Greece,
Hellenic Ministry of Culture-Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities,
Athens, Livanis Publications, 2008, pp. 321-323.{Hereafter: Doukata (2008)²}
 Eldem, S.H., Türk Evi Osmanlı Dönemi, İstanbul, 1955.
 Emen, H., 494 Numaralı Tahrir Defterine Göre Rumeli Bölgesinde Nüfus ve Yerleşme,
MA Thesis, T.C. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, 2010.
 Emir, S., Erken Osmanlı mimarliğinda çok işlevli yapılar: kentsel kolonizasyon yapılar
olarak zaviyeler, vol. I-II, Izmir, 1994.
 Ercilasun, K., “Orhan Bey devrinde Osmanlı devleti’nin Trakya politikası”, Türk
Kültürü, vol. 33, no 388, 1995, pp. 485-499.
 Ergenç, Ö., XVI yüzyıl sonlarında Bursa: Yerleşımı, Yönetimi, Ekonomik ve Sosyal
Durumu, Ankara, Turk Tarihi Kurumu, 2006.
 Ergin, O., Türk şehirlerinde imaret sistemi, Istanbul, 1939.
 Euthymiou, G., “To Didymoteichon kata tous byzantinous xronous (Didymoteichon in
the Byzantine period)”, Archeion Thrakikou Laographikou kai Glossikou Thesaurou
(Archive of the Thracian ethnographic and linguistic treasure), vol. 22, 1957, pp. 249-
378.
 Eyice, S., “Bizans devrinde Edirne ve eserleri”, Edirne-Edirne’nin 600 Fetih
Yıldönümü Armağan Kitabı, Ankara, Türk Tarihi Kurumu, 1965, pp. 39-76.
 Eyice, S., “İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dinı-İçtimaı Bir Müessesi: Zaviyeler ve Zaviyeli-
Camiler”, İ.Ü. İ. F.M.,vol. 21, no. 1-4, 1962-1963, Ayri Basi (Offprint), pp. 3-80.
 Eyice, S., “Gazi Evrenosoğlu Camii ve Türbesi”, İ.A., 2nd edn., vol. 13, İstanbul 1996,
pp. 449-450.
 Faroqhi, S., “A map of Anatolian Friday Mosques (1520-1535)”, Osmanlı
Araştırmaları, vol. IV, 1984, pp. 169-171.
 Faroqhi, S., “Towns, agriculture and the state in sixteenth-century Ottoman Anatolian”,
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 33, no 2, 1990, pp. 125-
156.
 Faroghi, S., Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia, Cambridge Studies in Islamic
Civilization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984.
 Frankopan, P., “Land and power in the middle and later period”, in Haldon, J. (ed.),
The social history of Byzantium, London, Blackwell Publishing, 2009, pp. 112-142.
 Gabriel, A., Une capital Turque, Bursa. Paris, 1958.
380
 Garcin, J.C., “Le Caire et l’evolution urbane des pays musulmans”, Annales
islamologiques, vol. 25, 1991, pp. 289-304.
 Gavra, E., Syntērēsē kai epanachrēsē tou temenous Zincirli stis Serres (Preservation
and Reuse of the Zincirli mosque at Serres), PhD Thesis, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 1986.
 Gavra, E., “The Zincirli mosque in Serres”, in Kolovos, E., P. Kotzageorgis, S .Laiou
and M. Sariyannis (ed.), The Ottoman empire, the Balkans, the Greek lands:toward a
social and economic history, Studies in honor of J.C. Alexander, Istanbul 2007, pp.
135-155.
 Gerber, H., “The waqf institution in early Ottoman Edirne”, Asian and African Studies,
vol. 17, 1983, pp. 29-45.
 Giannopoulos, F., Didymoteicho ē historia enos Byzantinou Oxyrou (Didymoteicho-
the history of a Byzantine fortress), Athens, Peloponnēsiako Morphōtiko Idryma, 1992.
 Gibb, H.A.R – Bowen, H., Islamic Society and the West, vol. I/1, Oxford, 1951.
 Gibbons, H., The foundation of the Ottoman empire: a history of the Osmanlis up to the
death of Bayezid I (1300-1403), London, 1968.
 Gioles, N., Byzantine Naodomia (Byzantine Relegious Architecture), Athens, 1992.
 GIS Glossary, Kansas Association of Mappers, Kansas 1977.
 Golombek, L., “Urban patterns in pre-Safavid Isfahan”, Iranian Studies, vol. 7, 1974,
pp. 21-31.
 Goodwin, G., A history of Ottoman Architecture, London, 2003.
 Goshgarian, R., Beyond the Social and the Spiritual: Redifining the Urban
Confraternities of Late Medieval Anatolian, PhD Thesis, University of Harvard, 2007.
 Gouridis, A., Didymoteichon mia agnostē prōteuousa (Didymoteicho an unknown
capital), Komotēnē, 2006.
 Gökbilgin, M.T., XV-XVI asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa livasi, mukataalar, vakıflar,
mülkler, Istanbul, 1952. [Hereafter: Gökbilgin (1952)]
 Gökbilgin, M.T., Rumeli’de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlad-ı Fatihan, Istanbul, 1957.
[Hereafter: Gökbilgin (1957)]
 Gökbilgin, M.T., “Edirne hakkında yazılımış tarihler ve Enis-ül Müsamirin”, Edirne -
Edirne’nin 600 Fetih Yıldönümü Armağan Kitabı, Ankara, Türk Tarihi Kurumu, 1965,
pp. 78-117.
 Gölpinarlı, A., “İslam ve Türk illerinde fütüvvet teşkilatı”, I.Ü.I.F.M, vol. 10-11, 1948-
1950, pp. 3-354. [Hereafter: Gölpinarlı (1948-1950)]
 Gölpınarlı, A. and Sungurbey, I., Simavna kadısıoğlu Şeyh Bedreddin menakıbı,
Istanbul, 1959.
 Gregory, D., “Morphogenesis”, in Johnston R.J., D. Gregory, G. Pratt and M. Watts
(eds.), The dictionary of human geography, Blackwell Oxford, 5th edn., pp. 480-481.
 Gronke, M., “The Persian Court Between Palace and Tent: from Timur to ‘Abbas I”, in
L. Golombek and M. Subtenly (ed.), Timurid Art and Culture: Iran and Central Asia in
the Fifteenth Century, Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture, Supplements to
Muqarnas, vol. 6, pp. 18-22, Leiden, Brill, 1992.
 Gündoğdu, H., Dulkadırlı beyliği mimarisi, Ankara, 1986.
 Hakim, B., “Law and the City,” in Holod, R., A. Petruccioli, and A. Raymond (eds.),
The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden,
Brill, 2008, pp. 71-92.

381
 Halacoğlu, Y., XIV-XVII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlılarda devlet teşkilatı ve sosyal yapı,
Ankara 1991.
 Hammer-Purgstall, J.V.F., Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, vol. 1, Graz, 1963.
 Hagopian, V.H., Ottoman-Turkish Conversation-Grammar: a practical method of
learning the Ottoman Turkish language, London, 1907.
 Harmuth, M., “Negotiating tradition and ambition: Comparative perspective on the
‘De-Ottomanization’ of the Balkan cityscapes”, Ethnologia Balkanica, vol. 10, 2006,
pp. 15-34.
 Harvey, D., “Models of the evolution of spatial patterns in human geography”, in R.J.
Chorley and P. Haggett (eds.), Models in Geography, London, 1967, pp. 549-608.
 Imber, C., “The legend of Osman Gazi”, in The Ottoman Emirate (1300-1389), Crete
1993, Institute of Mediterranean Studies, pp. 67-75.
 İnalcık, H., “Ottoman methods of conquest”, Studia Islamica, no. 2, 1954, pp. 103-129.
[Hereafter: İnalcık (1954)]
 İnalcık, H., “Bursa and the Levant”, Journal of Economic and Social History of the
Orient, vol. III, part 2, 1960, pp. 131-147 [Hereafter: İnalcık (1960)¹]
 İnalcık H., “Mehmet the Conqueror (1432-1481) and his Time”, Speculum 35, No. 3,
1960, pp. 408-427.[Hereafter: İnalcık (1960)²]
 İnalcık, H., “The Conquest of Edirne”, Archivicum Ottomanicarum III, The Hague,
1971, pp. 185-210 (194-195), reprinted from Edirne’nin 600.Fethi Yıldönümü
Armağan Kitabı, Ankara 1965.
 İnalcık, H., “Capital formation in the Ottoman Empire”, The Journal of Economic
History, vol. 29, vol. 1969, no 1, pp. 97-140.
 İnalcık, H., “Centralization and Decentralization in Ottoman Administration”, in
Thomas Naff and Roger Owen (eds.), Studies in Eighteenth century Islamic History,
Carbondale, 1977, pp. 27-52.
 İnalcık, H. and Murphey R., The history of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Bey,
Bibliotheca Islamica, Chicago and Minneapolis, 1978.
 İnalcık, H., Fatih devri üzerinde tetkikler ve vesikalar, 2nd edn., Ankara.
1987.[Hereafter: İnalcık (1987)]
 İnalcık, H., “The emergence of the big farms, çiftliks: state, landloards and tenants”,
Landholding and commercial agriculture in the middle East, New York, Albany, 1991,
pp. 17-35.
 İnalcık, H., “Ahmad Paşa Gedik”, E.I., 2nd ed.,
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/ahmad-pasha-
gedik-SIM_0418, (accessed 10 October 2012).
 İnalcık, H., “Mehmed II”, İ.A., 2nd edn., vol. 28, 2003, pp. 395-407.
 İnalcık, H., “Murad I”, İ.A., 2nd edn., vol. 31, 2008, pp. 156-164.
 İnalcık, H. , “Čift-Resmi”, E.I., 2nd edn.,
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/cift-resmi-
SIM_1612, (accessed 10 October 2012).
 İnalcık, H., “Bennāk”, E.I., 2nd edn.,
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/bennak-
SIM_1369, (accessed 10 October 2012).
 Isfahani, M.Z., Roads and Rivals: The political uses of access in the Border-lands of
Asia, London, 1989.

382
 Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G.,“Social Constructivism”, Introduction to International
Relations: theories and approaches, Boston, 2010, pp. 162-175.
 Johansen, B.,“Eigentum, Familie”, Die Welt des Islams 19, 1979, pp.19-24.
 Kadiroğlu, E., “Şehreküstü
Cami’i”,http://www.ogretmeninsesi.org/dergi/128/eminkadir.asp, (accessed 15 August
2011).
 Kafadar, K., Between two worlds: the construction of the Ottoman State, University of
California Press, 1995.
 Kaftantzes, G., Oi Serres allote kai tōra. Afierōma (Serres now and then), Thessaloniki,
1985.
 Kaftantzes, G., Orfeas Serrōn 1905-1995: Istorikē Anandromē (Orfeas of Serres 1905-
1995: an historical review), Thessaloniki, 1991.
 Kaftantzes, G., Ē historia tēs poleos tōn Serrōn (The history of the city of Serres), vol.
III, Thessaloniki, 1996.
 Karanastasis, T., “Enas neomartyras stis Serres tou b’ misou tou 15. Aiōna. O Agios
Iōannes o Serraios kai ē akolouthia tou, ergo tou megalou rētoros Manouēl
Korinthiou”(A neo-martyr at Serres from the 2nd half of the 15th c. Agios Ioannes the
Serrean and his sermon: opus of the great preacher Manouēl Korinthios), Byzantina,
vol. 16, 1991, pp. 197-262.
 Kayapınar, L., “Osmanlı Uç Beyi Evrenos Bey Ailesinin Menşei Yunanistan
Coğrafyasındaki Faaliyetleri ve Eserleri”, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal
Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 1, issue 8, pp. 133-142.
 Keyder, Ç., “Introduction: large-scale commercial agriculture in the Ottoman Empire”,
in Ç. Keyder and F. Tabak (eds.), Landholding and commercial agriculture in the
middle East, New York, Albany, 1991, pp. 1-13.
 Kiel, M., “Observations on the history of Northern Greece during the Turkish Rule:
historical and architectural description of the Turkish Monuments of Komotini and
Serres, their place in the development of Ottoman Turkish architecture, and their
present condition”, (reprinted in) Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans,
Norfolk, Variorum, 1990, (from) Balkan Studies, vol. 12, 1971, Thessaloniki, pp. 415-
444a. [Hereafter: Kiel (1971)¹]
 Kiel, M., “Yenice-i Vardar (Vardar Yenicesi-Giannitsa): A forgotten Turkish cultural
centre in Macedonia of the 15th and 16th c.”, (reprinted in) Studies on the Ottoman
Architecture of the Balkans, Norfolk, Variorum, 1990, (from) Studia Byzantina et
Neohellenica, vol. 3, 1971, Leiden, pp. 300-329. [Hereafter: Kiel (1971)²]
 Kiel, M., “Some early Ottoman Monuments in Bulgarian Thrace: Stara Zagora (Eski
Zağra), Jambol and Nova Zagora (Zağra Yenicesi)”, (reprinted in) Studies on the
Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans, Norfolk, Variorum, 1990, (from) Belletten vol.
38, 1974, Ankara, pp. 635- 654b. [Hereafter: Kiel (1974)]
 Kiel, M., “Two little-known monuments of early and classical Ottoman architecture in
Greek Thrace: historical and art-historical notes on the hammams of Timurtaş Paşazade
Oruç Pasha (1398) and Feridun Ahmed Bey (1571) in Didymoteichon”, (reprinted in)
Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans, Norfolk, Variorum, 1990, (from)
Balkan Studies, vol. 22, 1981, Thessaloniki, pp. 127-146. [Hereafter: Kiel (1981)]
 Kiel, M., “The oldest monuments of Ottoman-Turkish architecture in the Balkans: the
imaret and the mosque of Ghazi Hacı Hacı Evrenos in Gümülcine (Komotini) and the
Hacı Evrenos Khan in the village of Ilıca/Loutra in Greek Thrace (1370-1390)”,

383
 (reprinted in) Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans, Norfolk, Variorum,
1990, (from) Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı, Kunsthistorische Forschungen, vol. 12, 1983, pp.
117-138. [Hereafter: Kiel (1983)]
 Kiel, M., “Four Provincial Imarets in the Balkans and the Sources About them”, in
Ergin N., Neumann, C.K. and Singer, A., (eds), Feeding People, Feeding Power
Imarets in the Ottoman Empire, Istanbul, Eren publications, 2007, pp. 97-120.
 Kiprovska, M., The military Organization of the Akıncıin Ottoman Rumelia, MA
Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), 2008.
 Kissling, H.J., “Das Menaqybname Scheich Bedr ed-Din’s, des Sohnes des Richters
von Samavna”, Zeitschrift der Deutchen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vol. 100,
issue 1, Wiesbaden, 1950, pp.134-140.
 Kılıç [Çalı], A., “Evrenos Bey’in Kökeni Hakkında Tartışmalar ve Yeni Bir
Değerlendirme”, Belleten, vol. 75, 2011, pp. 745-768.
 Kılıç [Çalı], A., “Guzât vakıflarına bir örnek : Gümülcine’de Gazi Evrenos Bey vakfı”,
Balkanlarda Osmanlı Vakıfları ve Eserleri Uluslararası Semposyumu, 9-11
Mayıs 2012 Istanbul, Başbakanlık Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları No.107,
Ankara 2012, pp. 259-276.
 Kılıç [Çalı], A., Bir Osmanlı Akıncı Beyi Gazi Evrenos Bey, Istanbul, İthaki yayınları
No. 902, 2014.
 Kline, G.R., The Voyage d’ Outremer by Betrandon de la Broquiere, American
University Studies Series II, No. 83, New York, 1988.
 Kolovos, E., “Beyond ‘Classical’ Ottoman defterology: a preliminary assessment of the
Tahrir registers of 1670/71 concerning crete and the Aegean Islands”, in Kolovos, E.,
P. Kotzageorgis, S. Laiou and M. Sariyannis (eds.), The Ottoman empire, the Balkans,
the Greek lands:toward a social and economic history, Studies in honor of J.C.
Alexander, Istanbul, Eren publications, 2007, pp. 201-235.
 Konuk, N., Midilli, Rodos, Sakız ve İstanköy’de Osmanlı Mimarisi, Ankara, Stratejik
Araştırmalar Merkezi, 2008.
 Konuk, N., Yunanistan’da Osmanlı Mimarisi, Ankara, Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi,
2010.
 Kores, M., “The architecture of the Pythion castle”, Byzantinische Forschungen, vol.
XIV, issue 1, 1989, pp. 275-278, Pl. LXIX-LXXI.
 Kotzageorgis, P., “Haric ez defter and hali ane’l-reaya villages in the kaza of
Dimetoka/Didymoteichon (fifteenth-seventeenth centuries): a methodological
approach”, in Kolovos, E., P. Kotzageorgis, S. Laiou and M. Sariyannis (eds.), The
Ottoman empire, the Balkans, the Greek lands:toward a social and economic history,
Studies in honor of J.C. Alexander, Istanbul, Eren Press, 2007, pp. 237-254.
 Köprülü, F., “Vakıf müessesenin hukuki mahiyeti ve tarihi tekamülü”, Vakıflar Dergisi
2, 1942, pp. 1-35.
 Köprülü, M.F., Osmanlı devleti’nin kuruluşu, Ankara, Türk Tarihi Kurumu, 1959.
 Krautheimer, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, Baltimore 1965.
 Kropf, K., “Aspects of urban form”, Urban Morphology, vol. 13, 2009, pp. 105-120.
 Kuban, D., Ottoman architecture, Istanbul, Yem Yayınları, 1988.
 Kuban, D., Ottoman Architecture, Suffolk, 2010.
 Kubat, S.A., “Morphological characteristics of Anatolian fortified towns”,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 24, 1997, pp. 95-123.

384
 Kubat, S.A., and Topçu M., “Morphological comparison of two historical Anatolian
towns”, in Kubat, S.A., Güney, Y., Ertekin, Ö. And Eyüboğlu, E. (eds.), Proceedings
of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium (İTÜ), vol. 1, 2007, pp. 1-12.
 Kubat, S. A., “The study of urban form in Turkey”, Urban morphology, vol. 14, issue
1, 2010, pp. 31–48.
 Kuran, A., The mosque in early Ottoman architecture, University of Chicago Press
1968.
 Kuran, A., Sinan the grand old master of Ottoman architecture, Washington 1987.
 Kuran, A., “A spatial study of three Ottoman capitals: Bursa, Edirne and Istanbul”,
Muqarnas, vol. 13, 1996, pp. 114-131.
 Kuniholm, P.I. and Striker, C.L., “Dendrochronological investigations in the Aegean
and neighboring regions”, Journal of Field Archaeology, vol. 14, issue 4, 1987, pp.
385-398.
 Laiou-Thomadakis, A., Peasant society in the late Byzantine Empire: a social and
demographic study, Princeton University Press, 1977.
 Lavedan, P.and Hugueney, J., L’urbanisme au Moyen Age. Bibliothèque de la Société
Française d’Archaéologie 5. Genève (Droz), 1974.
 Lavedan, P. and Hugueney, J., L’urbanisme a l’Épogue Modern. Bibliothèque de la
Société Française d’Archaéologie 13. Genève (Droz), 1982.
 Lapidus, I.M., Muslim cities in the later middle ages, Cambridge-Massachusetts,
Harvard University Press, 1967.
 Lapidus, I.M., “Muslim Cities and Islamic Society”, in Lapidus, I. M. (ed.), Middle
Eastern Cities: A symposium on Ancient, Islamic and Contemporary Middle Eastern
Urbanism, Berkley, University of California Press, 1969, pp. 47-79.
 Lapidus, I.M., “Muslim Urban Society in Mamluk Syria”, in Hourani, A.H. and
S.M.Stern (eds), The Islamic City, Papers on Islamic History I, Oxford, University of
Pensylvania Press 1970, pp. 195-207.
 Lathouri, M., “The city as a project: types, typical objects and typologies”,
Architectural Design, vol. 8, issue 1, 2011, pp. 24-31.
 Lemerle, P., L’emirat d’Aydin, Byzance et l’Occident. Recherches sur “La geste
d’Umur Pasha”, Bibliothèque Byzantine, Etudes 2, Paris 1957.
 Lindner, R.P., Nomads and Ottomans in medieval Anatolia, Bloomington, Indiana
University, 1983.
 Lory, B., Le sort de l’héritage Ottoman en Bulgarie: l’example des villes Bulgares
1878-1900, İstanbul 1985.
 Loukma, M., The Shrine of İskender Bey at Yanitsa-Accreditation and Restoration
Survey, MA Thesis, Aristoteleian University of Thessalonikē, 2012.
 Lowry, H.W., “The Ottoman Tahrir Defterleri as a source for social and economic
history: pitfalls and limitations”, in Studies in Defterology, Ottoman society in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Istanbul, Isis Press, 1992, pp. 3-19. [Hereafter: Lowry
(1992)¹]
 Lowry, H.W., “From lesser wars to the mightiest war: the Ottoman conquest and
transformation of Byzantine urban centres in fifteenth century”, (reprinted in) Studies
in Defterology Ottoman society in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Istanbul, Isis
Press, 1992, pp. 47-63, (from) Bryer, A. and H. Lowry (eds.), Continuity and change in
late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society, University of Birmingham and Dumbarton
Oaks, 1986, pp. 323-338. [Hereafter: Lowry (1992)²]
385
 Lowry, H.W., “Privilege and property in Ottoman Maçuka in the opening decades of
the Tourkokratia: 1461-1553”, (reprinted in) Studies in Defterology Ottoman society in
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Istanbul, Isis Press, 1992, pp.131-163, (from)
Bryer, A. and H. Lowry (eds.), Continuity and change in late Byzantine and Early
Ottoman Society, University of Birmingham and Dumbarton Oaks, 1986, 97-128.
[Hereafter: Lowry (1992)³]
 Lowry, H.W., “The role of Byzantine provincial official Officials following the
Ottoman conquest of their lands”, (reprinted in) Studies in Defterology Ottoman society
in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Istanbul, Isis Press, 1992, pp. 123-130, (from)
Lowry, H. and R. Hattox (eds.), 3rd Congress on the social and economic history of
Turkey, Istanbul, Isis Press, 1990, pp. 261-267. [Hereafter: Lowry (1992) 4]
 Lowry, H.W., “The portrait of a city: the population and topography of Ottoman
Selanik in the year 1478”, (reprinted in) Studies in Defterology Ottoman society in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Istanbul, Isis Press, 1992, pp. 65-99, (from) Diptycha,
vol.II, 1981, Athens, pp. 254-293. [Hereafter: Lowry (1992)5]
 Lowry, H.W., The nature of the early Ottoman state, NY, Albany, 2003.
 Lowry, H.W., The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans 1350-1550: the conquest,
settlement and intrastructural development of Northern Greece, İstanbul, Bahçeşehir
University Publications, 2008. [Hereafter: Lowry (2008)]
 Lowry, H.W. and Erünsal, İ.E., “The Hacı Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar: Notes
and documents on Hacı Hacı Evrenos and the Evrenosoğulları: a newly discovered late
17th century seçere, seven inscriptions on stone and family photographs”, Journal of
Ottoman Studies, vol. 32, 2008, pp. 9-192.
 Lowry, H.W., In the footsteps of the Ottomans: a search for sacred spaces and
architectural monuments in Northern Greece, İstanbul, Bahçeşehir University
Publications, 2009. [Hereafter: Lowry (2009)]
 Lowry, H.W. and Erünsal, İ.E., The Hacı Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: notes
and documents, İstanbul, Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2010. [Hereafter: Lowry-
Erünsal (2010)]
 Lowry, H.W., Fourteenth century Ottoman realities: in search of Gazi Evrenos,
Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2012.
 Lowry, H.W., “The early Ottoman Period”, in Heper, M. and S. Sayari (eds.), The
Routledge handbook of Modern Turkey, London, 2012, pp. 5-12.
 Macrides, R., “Dynastic marriages and political kingship”, in Shepard, J. and S.
Franklin (ed.), Byzantine Diplomacy, Papers from the twenty-fourth spring symposium
of Byzantine studies, Cambridge March 1990, Aldershot, Variorum, 1992, pp. 261-280.
 Malboury, E., “Istanbul: Un nouvel element pour la topographie de l’antique Byzance”,
Archäologischer Anzeiger: Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Arcäologischen Instituts, vol.
49, 1934, pp. 50-61.
 Marçais, G., “La conception des villes dans l’Islam”, Revue d’Alger, vol. 2, 1945, pp.
517-533.
 Marcinkowski, M.I., Measures and weights in the Islamic World, Kuala Lumpur, 2003.
 Matschke, K., “The Late Byzantine Urban Economy, fourteenth-fifteenth centuries”, in
Laiou, A.E. (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium, vol. 2, Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
Washington, 2002, pp. 463-495.
 Menage, V.L., “The Menakib of Yakhshi Fakih”, BSOAS, vol. 26, 1963, pp. 50-54.

386
 Melikoff, I., “Un ordre de derviches colonisateurs”, Mémorial Ömer Lutfi Barkan,
Paris 1980, pp. 149-157.
 Melikoff-Sayar, I., Le destan d’Umur Pasha, Paris 1954.
 Menage, V.L., “The Annals of Murad II”, BSOAS, vol. 39, issue III, 1976, pp. 570-584.
 Millet, G., L’école grecque dans l’architecture byzantine, Paris 1916.
 Mintov, A., Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kisve Bahasi Petitions and Ottoman
Social Life 1670-1730, Leiden-Boston, Leiden, 2004.
 Moschopoulos, N., “Ē Hellas kata ton Evliya Çelebi (Greece according to Evliya
Çelebi)”, Epetēris Etaireias Byzantinōn Spoudōn, vol. 15, 1939, pp. 10-181.
 Muratori, S., R. Bolatti and G. Marinucci, Studi per una operante storia urbana di
Roma, Rome, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1963.
 Murphey, R., “The Conceptual and Pragmatic Uses of the ‘Summary’ (idjmal) Register
in Sixteenth Century Ottoman Administrative Practice”, Archivum Ottomanicum, vol.
14, 1996, pp. 111-131.
 Murphey, R., Exploring Ottoman sovereignty: tradition, image and practice in the
Ottoman imperial household 1400-1800, London, Continuum Books, 2008.
 Mumford, L., The city in the history, London, Pelican Press, 1966.
 Necipoğlu, G., Architecture, Ceremonial and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, New York, MIT Press, 1991.
 Neglia G.A., “Some historiographical notes on the Islamic city with particular
reference to the visual representation of the built city”, in Holod R., A. Petruccioli and
A. Raymond (eds.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental
Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, pp. 3-47.
 Nasturel, P.Ş. and Beldiceanu, N., “Les églises byzantines et la situation économique
de Drama, Serrès et Zichna aux XIVe et XVe siècles”, JÖB, vol. 27, 1987, pp. 269-
285.
 Nicol, D.M., The last centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453, Cambridge University Press,
1993.
 Nicol, D.M., The reluctant emperor: biography of John Cantacuzene, emperor and
monk. 1295-1383, Cambridge University press, 1996.
 Nikolaou, N., “Ereunes sta Tourkika mnēmeia tōn Serrōn.To bazastani” (Research on
the Turkish monuments of Serres: the Bedesten), Pneumatikē Stegē, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 1-
4.
 Nikolaou, N., “Ē megalē pyrkagia tou 1849” (The great fire of 1849), Serraika
Analekta, vol. 1, 1994, pp. 136-151.
 Ocak, A.Y., “Zaviyeler”, Vakıflar Dergisi, vol. XII, 1978, Ankara, pp. 247-269.
 Ocak, A.Y., XIII yüzyılda Anadolu’da Baba Resul (Babaıler) isyanı ve Anadolu’nun
İslamlaşmas tarihindeki yeri, Istanbul 1980.
 Orhonlu, G. and Göyünç, N., “Has”, İ.A., 2nd ed., vol. 27, 2003, pp. 268-270.
 Orhonlu, C., Osmanli imparatorluğunda şehircilik ve ulaşım, Izmir, Ege Üniversitesi
Edebiyat Facultesi Yayınları No 3, 1984.
 Orbay, K., “Structure and context of the Waqf account books as sources for Ottoman
economic and institutional history”, Turcica, vol. 39, 2007, pp. 3-47.
 Orlandos, A.K., “Ergasiae anastēlōseōs mesaiōnikōn mnēmeiōn” (Restoration works of
medieval monuments), Archeion tōn byzantinōn mnēmeiōn tēs Ellados, vol. 5,
1939/1940, pp. 141-142.
 Osman, R., Edirne Sarayı, Ankara, 1957.
387
 Özcan, A., “Gulam”, İ.A., 2nd edn., vol. 14, 1996, pp. 178-184.
 Özcan, A., “Kapıkulu”, İ.A., 2nd edn., vol. 24, 2001, pp. 347-349.
 Özer, M., Edirne Sarayı (Saray-ı Cedid-i Amire): Kısa bir Değerlendirme, İstanbul,
Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2014.
 Pancaroğlu, O., “Architecture, Landscape and patronage in Bursa: the making of an
Ottoman capital city”, The Turkish Association Bulletin, vol. 21, 1995, pp. 40-55.
 Papageorgiou P.N., “Ae Serrae kai ta proasteia, ta peri tas Serras kai ē monē tou
Prodromou” (Serres and its suburbs and the monastery of Prodromos), Byzantinische
Zeitschrift, vol. III, 1894, pp. 225-329.
 Papazoglou, V., “To nomismatokopeio Serrōn” (The imperial mint of Serres), Serraika
Analekta, vol. 4, 2006, pp. 119-125.
 Paradeisis, A., Frouria kai Kastra tes Ellados (Fortifications and Castles of Greece)-
Ionian and Aegean islands, Dodekanesa and Crete), vol. 3, Athens, Eustathiadis Press,
1999, pp. 170-193.
 Pasadaios, A., O keramoplastikos diakosmos tōn Byzantinōn ktēriōn tēs
Kōnstantinoupoleōs (The ceramoplastic decoration of the Byzantine monuments of
Constantinople), Athens, 1973.
 Peker, U.A., “Seljuk architecture and urbanism in Anatolia,” European Architectural
History Newslette, vol. 1, 2008, pp. 28-38.
 Petruccioli, A., “Exoteric-Polytheistic-Fundamentalist Typology. Gleanings in the form
of an introduction”, Typological Process and Design Theory, M.I.T 1998, pp. 9-19.
 Petruccioli, A., “New methods of reading the urban fabric of the Islamicized
Mediterranean”, Built Environment, vol. 28, 2002, pp. 202-216.
 Pinon, P., “Les tissus urbains ottomans entre Orient et Occident”, in Proceedings of the
2nd International Meeting on Modern Ottoman Studies and the Turkish Republic,
Leiden, 1989, pp. 15-45.
 Pinon, P., “Essai de definition morphologique de la ville ottoman des XVIIIe-XIXe
siècles”, in La culture urbaine des Balkans, vol. 3, La ville des Balkans depuis la fin du
Moyen Age jusqu’au debut du XXe siècle, Paris-Belgrade (1989) 1991, pp. 147-155.
 Pinon, P., “Essai de typologie des tissus urbains des villes ottomans d’Anatolie et des
Balkans”, in Seven Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: “A supra-national Heritage”,
Istanbul, 2000, pp. 174-198.
 Pinon, P., “The Ottoman Cities of the Balkans”, in Holod R., A. Petruccioli and A.
Raymond (eds.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of Oriental
Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, pp. 143-158.
 Pirenne, H., Medieval Cities, Princeton 1925.
 Pirenne, H., Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe, London, 1936.
 Preziosi, D., “The mechanism of Urban meaning”, The Ottoman City and its parts,
New York, 1991, pp. 3-12.
 Rantou, E., “Paradosiakos istos kai nees xaraxeis. To sxedio tou 1914 gia tis Serres”
(Traditional fabric and new delineation. The 1914 city plan of Serres), in Yerolympou-
Karadēma, A. and L. Theodōridou-Sōtēriou (eds.), Serres 1900-1940 xōros kai istoria,
Serres, 2008, pp. 61-114.
 Redford, S., “Thirteenth-century Rum Seljuq palaces and palace imagery”, Ars
Orientalis, vol. 23, 1993, pp. 219-236.

388
 Redhouse, J.W., "Ottoman Turkish", in Rost, R. (ed.), Trübner's Collection of
Simplified Grammars of the principal Asiatic and European Languages, vol. IX,
London, 1883.
 Redhouse, J.W., A Turkish and English Lexicon, ed. A.H. Boyajian, Constantinople,
1890.
 Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P., Archaeology: Theory methods and Practice, London, 1991.
 Reymond, A., The great Arab cities in th 16th-18th centuries: an introduction,
Kavorkian, H. series on Near Eastern Art and Civilization, New York University Press,
1984.
 Reymond, A., Cairo, Harvard University Press, 2000.
 Reymond, A., “The spatial organization of the city,” in Holod, R., Attilio Petruccioli,
and A. Raymond (eds.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The Handbook of
Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, pp. 47-70.
 Reyhanlı, T., “Osmanlı mimarisinde imaret külliye üzerine notlar”, Kultur Kültürü
Araştırmaları, vol. XVII, issue 2, 1975-76, pp. 121-141.
 Rozman, G., “Urban networks and historical stages”, Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, vol. 9, 1978, pp. 65-91.
 Rykwert, J., “On Typology”, Architectural Design, vol. 33, 1963, pp. 544-565.
 Sahılıoğlu, H., “Bursa Kadı sicillerinde iç ve diş ödemeler aracı olarak “Kitab’ül Kadi
ve Süfteceler”, in Okyar, O. (ed.), Türkiye İktisat Tarihi Semineri, Ankara, Hacettepe
Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1975.
 Sahılıoğlu, H., “Slaves in the social and economic life of Bursa in the late 15th and
early 16th centuries”, Turcica, vol. 27, 1985, pp. 44-112.
 Sambanopoulou, L., “Bedesten”, in Brouskari, E. (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in
Greece, Hellenic Ministry of Culture-Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine
Antiquities, Athens, Livanis Publications, 2008, pp. 246-247. [Hereafter:
Sambanopoulou (2008)¹]
 Sambanopoulou, L., “Zincirli Mosque”, in Brouskari, E. (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in
Greece, Hellenic Ministry of Culture-Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine
Antiquities, Athens, Livanis Publications, 2008, pp. 284-286. [Hereafter:
Sambanopoulou (2008)²]
 Sauvaget, J., “Esquisse d’une histoire de la ville de Damas”, Revue des Etudes
Islamiques, vol. 8, 1934, pp. 421-480.
 Sauvaget, J., Alep. Essai sur le developpement d’une grande ville syrienne, Paris, 1941.
 Sauvaget, J., “Le plan antique de Damas”, Syria, vol. 26, 1949, pp. 314-358.
 Schlüter, O., “Über den Grundriss der Städte”, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für
Erdkunde zu Berlin, vol. 34, 1899, pp. 446-462.
 Schlüter, O., “Bemerkungen zur Siedlungsgeographie”, Geographische Zeitschrift, vol.
5, no. 2, 1899, pp. 65-84.
 Sentürk, M.H., “Osmanlı devleti’nin kuruluş devrinde Rumeli’de uyguladığı iskan
siyaseti ve neticeleri”, Belleten, vol. 57, 1993, pp. 89-112.
 Schreiner, P., “Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken”, Corpus fontium historiae.
Byzantinae. 12/1-3, vol. I, Wien, 1975-1979.
 Skiadaresis, G. and Karagianni, M., “The tomb of Haci Evrenos at Yanitsa”, in
Brouskari, E. (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in Greece, Hellenic Ministry of Culture-
Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, Athens, Livanis Publications,
2008, pp. 291-293.
389
 Skinner, G.W., “Cities and the hierarchy of local systems”, in Skinner, G.W. (ed.) The
city in late Imperial China, Stanford California 1977, pp. 275-351.
 Slater, T.R. (ed.), The built form of Western cities: Essays for M.R.G. Conzen on the
occasion of his eightieth birthday, Leicester University Press, 1990.
 Slater, T.R., “English medieval new towns with composite plans”, in Slater, T.R. (ed.), The
built form of Western cities: Essays for M.R.G. Conzen on the occasion of his eightieth
birthday, Leicester University Press, 1990. pp. 60-83.
 Sokoloski, M., “Serskiot vilaet vo XV vek”, Glasnik, vol. 18, no. 3, 1974, pp. 107-125.
 Staab, R.L., The Timar System in the Eyalet of Rumeli and the Nahiye of Dimetoka in
the Late Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, PhD Thesis, University of Utah, 1980.
 Stefanidou, A., “Bedesten”, in Brouskari, E. (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in Greece,
Hellenic Ministry of Culture-Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities,
Athens, Livanis Publications, 2008, pp. 287-288.
 Stoianovich, T., “A route type: the Via Egnatia under Ottoman rule”, in The Via
Egnatia under Ottoman Rule 1380-1699, Crete, Institute for Mediterranean Studies,
1996, pp. 203-216.
 Stoyanovski, A., “XVII yüzyılın sonuna kadar Makedonya’nın Osmanlı hakimiyeti
devrinde idari taksimatı”, Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi , sayı 4-5, 1973-1974, pp. 213-230.
 Stoyanovski, A., Turski Dokumenti za Istorijata na Makedonskiot Narod. Opsiren
Popisen Defter od XV Vek, Skopje, 1978.
 Stoyanovski, A., Gradovite na Mekedonija od krajot na XIVdo XVII vek, Skopje 1981
 Süreyya, M, Sicill-i Osmanı: Eski yazıdan yeni yazıya 1, haz. S.A.Kahraman, 2nd edn.,
Istanbul 1996, 1st edn., Istanbul 1918.
 Tabbaa, Y., Construction of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo, Penn State Press,
2010.
 Taeschner, F., “Akhi”, E.I., 2nd edn., vol. I, 1956, p. 321.
 Tahsiz, Ö., “Edirne Yeni sarayında kazı ve araştırmalar”, Edirne’nin 600 Fetih
yildönümü armağan kitabı, Ankara 1965, pp. 217-222.
 Tamari, S., “Aspetti principali dell’ urbanesimo musulmano”, Palladio,nos. 1-4, 1966,
pp. 45-82.
 Tanman, M.B., “Edirne’de erken dönem Osmanlı camileri ve özellikle Uç Şerefeli
cami hakkında”, Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht, İstanbul, 1998.
 Taş, M., “Osmanlı’dan günümüze yapı üretiminde mimarlık meslek örgütlenmesinin
gelişimi”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 8, 2003,
no. 1, pp. 203-214.
 Tekeli, I., “Evolution of spatial organisation in the Ottoman Empire and Turkish
Republic”, in Brown L. C. (ed.) From medina to a metropolis: heritage and change in
the Near Eastern city, Princeton University, 1973, pp. 244-273.
 Tekeli, I., “Urban patterns in Anatolia: organization and evolution”, in Holod, R. (ed.),
Proceedings of the conference on conservation as cultural survival, Aga Khan Program
for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1980, pp. 15-27.
 The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.Kazhdan, Oxford University Press, 1991.
 Theodorides, K.L., “To bazastani tōn Serrōn”, Panserraiko Ēmerologio, vol. 12, 1986,
pp. 112-125.
 Theodorides, K.L., “To loutro tēs Kamenikias”, Serraika Analekta, vol. 4, 2006, pp.
211-217.
390
 Theodoridou, L., “H anoikodomēsē tēs polēs kata ton mesopolemo (Rebuilding the city
in the interbellum)”, in Yerolympou-Karadēma, A. and L.Theodōridou-Sōtēriou (eds.),
Serres 1900-1940 xōros kai istoria istoria (Serres 1900-1940 space and history),
Serres, 2008, pp. 199-255.
 Tisdale, H.E., “The process of urbanization”, Social Forces, vol. 10, 1942, pp. 311-
316.
 Todorov, N., The Balkan City 1400-1900, University of Washington Press, Seattle and
London, 1983.
 Todorov, N., Situation démographique de la Péninsule balkanique (fin du XVes. début
du XVIes.), Sofia, Editions de l’Académie bulgares des sciences, 1988.
 Todorov, N., Society, the City and Industry in the Balkans, 15th-19th Centuries,
Aldershot, Ashgate Variorum,1998.
 Tsatsopoulou-Kaloudi, P., Egnatia Odos Istoria kai diadromē sto xōro tēs Thrakēs,
Athens, 2005.
 Tsouris, K., “Arxaiologika Euremata apo to Didimoteixo (Archaeological findings
from Didimoteixo)”, Arxaiologika Analgekta ex Athenon,vol. XXII, 1989, 2nd edn.,
1995, pp. 89-109.
 Tzanakares, V., Eikonographēmenē istoria tōn Serrōn (An illustrated history of
Serres), Serres,1995.
 Uluçay, M.Ç., “Bayezid II.in Ailesi”, Tarih Dergisi, vol. X, 1959, no. 14, pp.105-124.
 Uluçay, M.Ç., Padişahların kadınların ve kızları, 2nd edn., Istanbul 2011.
 Ursinus, M., “An Ottoman census register for the area of Serres of 859 H.(1454-1455)?
A reconsideration of the date of composition of Tahrir Defteri TT3”, Südost
Forshungen, vol. 45, 1986, pp. 25-36.
 Uzunçarşılı, İ.H, Çandarlı Vezir Ailesi, Ankara, 1974.
 Uzunçarşılı, İ.H., Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 1, Ankara, 1982.
 Uzunçarşılı, İ.H., Osmanlı Devleti’nin Saray Teşkılatı, Ankara, 1984.
 Ülken, H.Z., “Vakıf sistemi ve Türk şehirliği”, Vakiflar Dergisi, vol. IX (ayri basim),
1971, pp. 13-37.
 Vassiliadis, G., “To kastro tēs Komotēnēs: architektonikē analysē kai tekmēriōsē” (The
castle of Komotini: architectural analysis and accreditation), Byz. Forschungen, vol.
30, 2011, pp. 139-154, 769-783.
 Veinstein, G., “La ville Ottomane: les facteurs d’unité”, La ciudad islamica. Ponencias
y communicaciones, Saragosa 1991, pp. 65-92.
 Veinstein, G., “La ville Ottomane”, in Naciri, N. and A. Raymond (ed.), Sciences
socials et phénomènes urbains dans le monde arabe, Casablanca, 1997, pp. 105-114.
 Veinstein, G., “The Ottoman town (fifteenth-eighteenth century)”, in Holod, R., Attilio
Petruccioli, and A. Raymond (eds.), The city in the Islamic World, vol.1 of The
Handbook of Oriental Studies 94, Leiden, Brill, 2008, pp. 205-217.
 Vogiatzēs, G., Ē prōimē othōmanokratia stē Thrakē: ameses dēmographikes synepeies
(The early Ottomanization of Thrace: directly related demographic consequences),
Thessalonikē, Hrodotos publications, 1998.
 Weber, M., The city, New York, Free Press, 1958.
 Wittek, P., The rise of the Ottoman empire, London, Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, 2nd edn., 1971.
 Whitehand, J.W.R., “The basis for an Historico-Geographical Theory of Urban form”,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 2, 1977, pp. 400-416.
391
 Whitehand, J.W.R., “Conzenian ideas: extensions and developments”, in Whitehand,
J.W.R. (ed.), The urban landscape: historical development and management: papers
by M.R.G. Conzen, 1981, pp. 127-152.
 Whitehand, J.W.R., “Recent Developments in Urban Morphology”, in Deneke, D.and
G.Shaw (ed.), Urban historical geography: recent progress in Britain and Germany
1988, pp. 285-296.
 Whitehand, J.W.R. “The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and
practice”, Urban Morphology, vol., issue 13, issue 1, 2009, pp. 5-27.
 Whitehand, J.W.R., “Issues in urban morphology”, Urban Morphology, vol.16, issue1,
2012, pp. 55-65.
 Wolper, E.S., “The politics of patronage: political change and the construction of
dervish lodges in Sivas”, Muqarnas, vol. 12, 1995, pp. 39-47.
 Wolper, E.S., “Understanding the public face of piety: philanthropy and architecture in
late Seljuk Anatolia”, Mésogeios, vol. 25-26, 2005, pp. 311-336.
 Wolper, E.S., Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in
Medieval Anatolia, University Park- Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2003.
 Xrysostomou, P., “Neoelithikes ereunes sta Gianitsa kai stin perioxē tous”
(Excavational research of Neolithic Gianitsa and its area), AEMΘ (Archaeological
Activity in Macedonia and Thrace), 1990, pp. 167-189.
 Yenen, Z., “Social and religious influences on the form of early Turkish cities of the
Ottoman period”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 9, 2006, pp.
301-314.
 Yenişehiroğlu, F., Türkiye dışındaki Osmanlı Mimari Yapıtları, Ankara, 1989.
 Yerolympou, A., Urban transformations in the Balkans (1820-1920), Thessaloniki
1996.
 Yerolympou, A., “Mia prototypē poleodomikē epembasē” (An original urban-planning
intervention), in Yerolympou-Karadēma, A. and L. Theodōridou-Sōtēriou (eds.),
Serres 1900-1940 xōros kai istoria, Serres, 2008, pp. 25-60.
 Yıldırım, R, Seyyid Ali Sultan(Kızıldeli) ve Vilayetnamesi: Rumeli’nin Fethinde ve
Türkleşmesinde Öncülük Etmiş bir Gazi Derviş, Ankara 2007.
 Zachariadou, E.A., “Efēmeres apopeires gia autodioikēsē stis ellēnikēs poleis kata ton
14o and 15o aiōn.” (Temporal attempts of self administration in the Greek cities of
14th and 15th c.)”, Ariadnē, vol. 5, 1989, pp. 345-451.
 Zachariadou, E.A., Istoria kai oi thryloi ton palaiōn Soultanōn (1300-1400) (The
history and the legends of the first Sultans), Athens, 1999.
 Zachariadou, E.A., “The Sultanic residence and the capital Didimoteichon and
Adrianople”, in Kolovos, E., P. Kotzageorgis, S. Laiou and M. Sariyannis (eds.), The
Ottoman empire, the Balkans, the Greek lands:toward a social and economic history,
Studies in honor of J.C. Alexander, Istanbul, Eren publications, 2007, pp. 357-361.
 Zarinebaf, F., J. Bennet and J. Davis, A historical and economic geography of Ottoman
Greece: the South-western Morea in the 18th Century, Hesperia supplement 34, The
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2005. [Hereafter: Morea (2005)]
 Zengin, Z.S., “İlk Dönem Osmanlı Vakfiyelerinden Serez’de Evrenuz Gazi’ye Ait
Zaviye Vakfiyesi”, Vakıflar Dergisi, vol. XXVIII, 2004, Ankara, pp. 93-111.

392
 Zengines, E., O Bektasismos stē Dytikē Thrakē: symbolē stēn historia tēs diadoseōs tōn
Othomanōn ston Elladiko xōro (Bektasism in Western Thrace: contribution to the
history of the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans), Thessaloniki, 1996.

393