300

 BETWEEN TWO CAPITALS: INFRASTRUCTURE, ARCHITECTURE, AND

URBANISM ON THE OTTOMAN ORTA KOL

BETWEEN TWO CAPITALS: INFRASTRUCTURE, ARCHITECTURE, AND

URBANISM ON THE OTTOMAN ORTA KOL

This thesis studies the architectural and urban history between Edirne and Istanbul on

the Orta Kol until the 18th century. Since academic studies on Istanbul and Edirne

relatively neglect the significance of the towns between them, it is hoped that this study

will shed light on the history of the region. In this work, effects of being located

between the two capitals of the Ottoman Empire and on the main artery to the West on

urbanization of settlements are emphasized along with construction motives and

patronage. After presenting the history of the region before the arrival of the Ottomans

briefly, the use of the road during the Ottoman period, the change of routes, stopover

points, infrastructural works, and safety measures to ensure the functionality of the

road are examined. The roles these towns had on the provision of travelers, the

provisioning of city of Istanbul, the Ottoman court, and the army are explored

alongside the urban networks they formed. In remaining chapters, architectural and

urban histories of the settlements, each of which formed a stopover point, are studied

from following the route from Istanbul to Edirne respectively. In the light of the

information presented, it is possible to divide the construction of infrastructure and

public buildings periods into three main periods, which roughly correspond to the reign

of Mehmed II, the reigns of Süleyman I and Selim II, and the 17th century.

Consequently, it is seen that the road and the towns were of essential importance for

the Empire, grew tremendously and retained their importance until 1703, when the

palace made a definitive return to Istanbul from Edirne after a 50 year period when it

was mainly located in the Thracian capital.

v

ÖZET

İki Başkent Arasında: Osmanlı Orta Kolunda Altyapı, Mimari ve Şehirleşme

Bu tez, 18. yüzyıla kadar Orta Kol üzerinde Edirne ve İstanbul arasındaki mimarlık ve

şehir tarihini incelemektedir. İstanbul ve Edirne üzerine yapılan akademik

çalışmaların, bu iki şehrin arasındaki kasabaların önemini kısmen göz ardı etmesi

nedeniyle bu çalışmanın bölgenin tarihine ışık tutması umulmaktadır. Bu çalışmada,

Osmanlı Devleti’nin iki başkenti arasında ve Batı’ya giden ana arter üzerinde

konumlanmanın, yerleşim yerlerinin kentleşmesi üzerine etkileri imar saikleri ve

hamilik ile birlikte durulmaktadır. Bölgenin Osmanlı kontrolüne geçmeden önceki

tarihi kısaca sunulduktan sonra, Osmanlı döneminde yolun kullanımı, güzergâh

değişikliği, menzil noktaları ve yolun işlekliğini sağlamaya yönelik yapılan altyapı

çalışmaları ile alınan güvenlik önlemleri irdelenmektedir. Seyyahların, İstanbul’un,

Osmanlı sarayının ve ordusunun iaşesi için kasabaların sahip olduğu roller ile bu

yerleşim yerlerinin oluşturduğu ağlar belirtilmiştir. Geri kalan bölümlerde sırasıyla

İstanbul’dan Edirne’ye kadar her biri birer menzil noktası oluşturan yerleşimlerin

mimarî ve şehirleşme tarihleri incelenmiştir. Sunulan bilgiler ışığında inşaat

dönemlerini II. Mehmed dönemi, I. Süleyman ile II. Selim dönemleri ve 17. yüzyıl

olarak üç ana bölüme ayırmak mümkündür. Sonuç olarak, imparatorluk için hayatî bir

öneme sahip olan yol ve üzerindeki kasabaların hızlı bir şekilde büyüdüğü ve bunların

sarayın ağırlıklı olarak Edirne’de bulunduğu 50 senelik bir sürenin ardından İstanbul’a

1703’te kesin dönüşüne kadar önemini koruduğu görülmektedir.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my thesis advisor Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, who made

the making of this work possible and provided her invaluable comments and

suggestions throughout the thesis process, and the invaluable members of the thesis

committee Paolo Girardelli and Namık Günay Erkal for their participation and

contributions to the thesis. In addition, I would like to thank Çiğdem Kafescioğlu,

Ahmet Ersoy, Paolo Girardelli, Oya Pancaroğlu, and Ayşe Selçuk Esenbel, the

professors whom I had courses in my first year, for their contributions and efforts on

me. Also, I would like to thank Lale Babaoğlu, Anestis Vasilakeris, Aslı Özyar, and

Paolo Girardelli, who made me interested in history academically when I was a

philosophy student during my undergraduate years. I am grateful to Boğaziçi

University Department of History and Boğaziçi Foundation for honoring me with the

very special Yavuz Sezer Scholarship in Architectural and Urban History, which

boosted my motivation and helped me conducting my research.

In addition, I would like to thank my dear father who accompanied me in most

of my field trips during the thesis period, the archive staff of the Archive of General

Directorate of Foundations who helped me during my research in Ankara, and my

kethüda, who helped me a lot in preparing the maps in this work and informed me

about the hidden features of the Word.

vii

To fertile lands, sweet waters, and beautiful skies of Thrace

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2: THE ROAD AND THE TOWNS PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF

OTTOMANS ............................................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 3: THE ROAD AND THE ROUTE WITH STOPOVER POINTS ....... 30

3.1 Bridges ..................................................................................................... 40

3.2 Road constructions and taking care of it .................................................. 61

3.3 Ensuring the safety ................................................................................... 65

3.4 Provisioning the traveling palace, marching army, and the city of Istanbul

......................................................................................................................... 67

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENTS WITH STOPOVER COMPLEXES ...................... 73

4.1 Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece ......................................................... 73

4.2 Silivri ...................................................................................................... 101

4.3 Çorlu ....................................................................................................... 119

4.4 Karıştıran ................................................................................................ 143

4.5 Bergos .................................................................................................... 148

4.6 Babaeski ................................................................................................. 184

4.7 Havsa ...................................................................................................... 202

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................ 220

APPENDIX A: Table Showing The Buildings According To The Construction

Periods ...................................................................................................................... 235

APPENDIX B: Map And List of Extant and Non-Extant Buildings Numbered On

The Map ................................................................................................................... 236

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 239

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Remains of the Kırkgöz Bridge on the Regina River. ............................... 26

Figure 2. Map of Thrace and the road between Adrianople and Constantinople from

Tabula Peutingeriana .................................................................................................. 26

Figure 3. Via Militaris between Adrianople and Byzantion during the Roman period

.................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 4. Via Militaris between Adrianople and Constantinople during the Byzantine

period.......................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 5. Remains of the walls of Arkadiopolis. ...................................................... 28

Figure 6. Hypothetical map of the walls of Arkadiopolis. ........................................ 28

Figure 7. Remains of the fortress in Çorlu ................................................................ 29

Figure 8. Map of Orta Kol and Süleyman I’s campaign route between Edirne and

Istanbul. ...................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 9. Miniature painting from 1660s of the interior of a caravanserai ............... 38

Figure 10. Woodcut of a caravanserai....................................................................... 38

Figure 11. Colored lithograph of the caravanserai in Bergos ................................... 39

Figure 12. Miniature painting from 1660s of the exterior of a caravanserai ............ 39

Figure 13. Map of the road between Edirne and Istanbul showing monumental stone

bridges ........................................................................................................................ 53

Figure 14. Photo of Küçükçekmece Bridge .............................................................. 53

Figure 15. Colored lithograph of the Küçükçekmece Bridge ................................... 54

Figure 16. Kapıağası Bridge in Haramidere ............................................................. 54

Figure 17. Büyükçekmece Bridge. ............................................................................ 55

Figure 18. Colored lithograph of Büyükçekmece Bridge ......................................... 55

x

Figure 19. Inscription on the bridge reads as: Amal-i Yusuf bin Abdullah .............. 56

Figure 20. Miniature painting from 1581 showing the Büyükçekmece Bridge and the

town. ........................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 21. Four-arched bridge in Silivri ................................................................... 57

Figure 22. Long bridge in Silivri............................................................................... 57

Figure 23. Araplı Bridge ........................................................................................... 58

Figure 24. Çorlu Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge. .................................................... 58

Figure 25. Kara Mustafa Pasha Bridge over Ergene ................................................. 59

Figure 26. Rüstem Pasha Bridge in Karıştıran. ......................................................... 59

Figure 27. Bergos Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge. .................................................. 60

Figure 28. Alpullu Bridge over the flooding Ergene ................................................ 60

Figure 29. Babaeski Çoban Kasım Ağa Bridge. ....................................................... 61

Figure 30. Fatih Mosque in Büyükçekmece ............................................................. 89

Figure 31. Süleyman Ağa Fountain in Büyükçekmece. ............................................ 90

Figure 32. Dizdarzade Mehmed’s İmaret Mosque in Büyükçekmece ...................... 91

Figure 33. Interior of Dizdarzade Mehmed’s İmaret Mosque .................................. 92

Figure 34. The bath in Büyükçekmece ..................................................................... 92

Figure 35. Süleyman I’s fountain in Büyükçekmece. ............................................... 93

Figure 36. Süleyman I’s caravanserai in Büyükçekmece. ........................................ 93

Figure 37. Hearths and niches of the caravanserai in Büyükçekmece ...................... 94

Figure 38. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s masjid in Büyükçekmece ............................... 94

Figure 39. Minaret of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s masjid in Büyükçekmece ............. 95

Figure 40. Drawing of the view of Büyükçekmece from the second half of the 16th

century ........................................................................................................................ 96

Figure 41. Hypothethical map of Ottoman buildings in Büyükçekmece .................. 96

xi

Figure 42. Fatih Mosque in Küçükçekmece ............................................................. 97

Figure 43. Abdüsselam Çelebi’s mosque in Küçükçekmece .................................... 97

Figure 44. Abdüsselam Çelebi’s tomb in Küçükçekmece. ....................................... 98

Figure 45. 19th c. baroque fountain on the surrounding wall of Abdüsselam Çelebi’s

complex in Küçükçekmece ........................................................................................ 98

Figure 46. View of Küçükçekmece from the second half of the 16th century ......... 99

Figure 47. Colored lithograph of the square and Vezir Mehmed Pasha’s fountain .. 99

Figure 48. Vezir Mehmed Pasha’s fountain in the square of Küçükçekmece ........ 100

Figure 49. Hypothethical map of Ottoman buildings in Küçükçekmece ................ 100

Figure 50. Ottoman map from 1876 showing the walls, gates and worship places of

the citadel along with its neighborhoods .................................................................. 114

Figure 51. Plan of the Fatih Mosque and the cistern............................................... 115

Figure 52. Hypothetical plan of the Piri Pasha Complex in Silivri ......................... 116

Figure 53. Portico of Piri Pasa Mosque in Silivri ................................................... 117

Figure 54. Interior of Piri Pasha Mosque in Silivri ................................................. 117

Figure 55. The garden within the surrounding wall of Piri Pasha Complex in Silivri

.................................................................................................................................. 118

Figure 56. View of Silivri from the second half of the 16th century ...................... 118

Figure 57. Hypothetical map of Ottoman buildings in Silivri before the 18th c. ... 119

Figure 58. Fatih Mosque in Çorlu ........................................................................... 137

Figure 59. Fatih Mosque fountain. .......................................................................... 138

Figure 60. So-called Süleymaniye Mosque in Çorlu .............................................. 138

Figure 61. Interior of so-called Süleymaniye Mosque in Çorlu ............................. 139

Figure 62. Photo from 1922 of so-called Süleymaniye Mosque with the caravanserai

seen in the background ............................................................................................. 139

xii

Figure 63. 19th c. photo of so-called Süleymaniye Mosque ................................... 140

Figure 64. Colored lithograph of Çorlu and so-called Süleymaniye Complex ....... 140

Figure 65. Photo from 1922 of the ruins of the imaret in Çorlu ............................. 141

Figure 66. Fountain with inscription of kethüda Süleyman Ağa in Çorlu. ............. 141

Figure 67. Çukur Çeşme, possibly the fountain of Çorlulu Ali Paşa on Kumyolu . 142

Figure 68. View of Çorlu from the second half of the 16th century ....................... 142

Figure 69. Hypothethical map of Çorlu .................................................................. 143

Figure 70. Rüstem Pasha Mosque in Karıştıran ...................................................... 147

Figure 71. Three su terazisi in Karıştıran indicating the route of waterways ......... 147

Figure 72. Hypothetical map of Karıştıran ............................................................. 148

Figure 73. Gazi Ali Bey Mosque in Bergos lacking three-bay portico ................... 172

Figure 74. View of Bergos towards the bridge from the minaret of Sokollu Mehmed

Pasha Mosque .......................................................................................................... 173

Figure 75. Plan of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex in Bergos ....................... 173

Figure 76. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Bergos ........................................... 174

Figure 77. Interior of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Bergos from upper

galleries. ................................................................................................................... 174

Figure 78. View of the double-portico of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque ........... 175

Figure 79. Fountain of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Bergos ....................... 175

Figure 80. Madrasa cells surrounding the arcaded courtyard ................................. 176

Figure 81. Classroom of the madrasa with three windows on both storeys. ........... 176

Figure 82. Elementary school of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex................. 177

Figure 83. Double-bath in Bergos surrounded by shops ......................................... 177

Figure 84. Arasta bazaar with prayer dome ............................................................ 178

Figure 85. Colored lithograph of arasta bazaar with prayer dome .......................... 178

xiii

Figure 86. Reconstruction of the Arch of Galerius and Rotunda in Thessaloniki .. 179

Figure 87. Reconstruction of the Arch of Galerius and Rotunda ............................ 179

Figure 88. Axonometric perspective of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex ............ 180

Figure 89. Remaining wall of the caravanserai with hearths and niches ................ 180

Figure 90. Colored lithograph of the caravanserai in Bergos from the late 17th c. 181

Figure 91. Courtyard of the caravanserai with fountain at the center and Zindan

Baba Tomb in the background. ............................................................................... 181

Figure 92. The aerial view of the caravanserai in Bergos ....................................... 182

Figure 93. Zindan Baba Tomb in Bergos ................................................................ 182

Figure 94. Fountain of Mehmed IV in Bergos. ....................................................... 183

Figure 95. View of Bergos from the second half of the 16th century ...................... 183

Figure 96. Map of the Ottoman buildings in Bergos before the 18th c. ................. 184

Figure 97. Townscape of Babaeski from the second half of the 16th century ........ 197

Figure 98. Covel’s drawing of the plan of Sarı Saltuk Lodge and the construction

technique .................................................................................................................. 197

Figure 99. Fatih Mosque in Babaeski showing traces of the original wall ............. 198

Figure 100. The bath in Babaeski. .......................................................................... 198

Figure 101. Semiz Ali Paasha Mosque seen from qibla wall ................................. 199

Figure 102. Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque seen from the courtyard .............................. 199

Figure 103. Interior of Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque seen from upper galleries .......... 200

Figure 104. Remains of the madrasa in the courtyard of Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque200

Figure 105. Mid-17th c. square fountain. ................................................................ 201

Figure 106. Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque and Çoban Kasım Ağa Bridge. ................... 201

Figure 107. Hypothetical map of the early modern Ottoman buildings in Babaeski.

.................................................................................................................................. 202

xiv

Figure 108. Tomb of Kurt Bey or Kurt Baba .......................................................... 215

Figure 109. Abdüsselam Çelebi’s recently restored masjid .................................... 215

Figure 110. Panorama of Havsa from the second half of the 16th century ............ 216

Figure 111. Plan of the Kurd Kasım Pasha Complex in Havsa .............................. 216

Figure 112. Mosque of Kurd Kasım Pasha ............................................................. 217

Figure 113. Simple interior of the Kurd Kasım Pasha’s mosque with marble minbar

and mihrab ................................................................................................................ 217

Figure 114. Fountain of Abdülhamid I at the end of the arasta with the double bath

in a dilapidated state. ................................................................................................ 218

Figure 115. Prayer dome seen from the arasta on the former Istanbul – Edirne road

.................................................................................................................................. 218

Figure 116. Hypothetical map of the early modern Ottoman buildings in Havsa .. 219

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Via Militaris which connected Belgrade and Constantinople, was an important road of

the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire and of secondary importance after Via

Egnatia, the road that connected Constantinople to Roma via Thrace, Macedonia, and

southern Illyria. The existence of towns on this road in the part between Edirne and

Istanbul can be dated back to the Late Antiquity according to primary sources.

However, information on the conditions of these towns in the Late Antiquity and the

early medieval times is quite limited. More concrete information about the history of

the towns on the Via Militaris can only be reached in the late medieval period. The

occupation of Thrace by the Goths, Huns and Avars during the Late Antiquity, the

Bulgarians and Pechenegs during the Middle Ages, the Latin occupation in 1204, and

the recapture of the region by the Byzantines after 1261 probably stifled the economy,

urbanization and development of the towns there. Undoubtedly, the fact that the

Eastern Thracian region was open to raids throughout history and that it changed hands

many times would have negatively affected the functionality of this road, thus

hindering both economic and urban development.

With the Ottoman takeover of Thrace, the region changed hands once again.

Advancing rapidly in Thrace, the Ottomans captured many towns in the 1350s and

1360s one after the other. The reason for this rapid advance can be explained by the

low density of population in the region and the fact that the cities were largely ruined.

The Ottomans, who captured Edirne, Havsa, Babaeski, Lüleburgaz, and Çorlu in the

1360s continued to advance rapidly in the Balkans by declaring Edirne the as the new

seat of the throne. However, they had to wait until 1453 for establishing complete

2

control over the course of the Via Militaris between Edirne and Istanbul. The

Ottomans, who did not yet hold Silivri and Constantinople until 1453, did not make

large investments and architectural ventures in the towns from Edirne to Çorlu, since

this road was not very functional yet. After 1453, when the connection of the road was

established without interruption and the capital was moved to Istanbul, the fate of these

towns located between the two capitals started to change. Via Militaris, known as the

Orta Kol (lit. Middle Arm) by the Ottomans, became the main artery of the empire to

the west of Istanbul in a short time, and both this road and the towns on the road began

to live their heydays in parallel with the Ottoman military power and continuing

expansion towards European territories. The road was of great importance for

provisioning the heart of the empire, namely Istanbul, and also for the passage and the

provisioning of army during campaigns towards the west. For provisioning the capital

or provisioning the traveling court, these towns were often seen as part of a network

of towns which implies the roles given them by the center. In the 16th and especially

in the 17th centuries, the Ottoman dynastic family and court frequently visited Edirne,

the second palatial city of the state, where they organized long sojourns. These visits

were often seasonal, therefore it is even possible to claim that Edirne served as the defacto

capital from time to time. For this reason, the dynastic family was traveling with

a large and crowded entourage and these travels required a good organization at the

stopover points.

During the reign of Mehmed II (r. 1444 – 1446 and 1451 – 1481), there were

some important architectural initiatives that took place in towns such as Babaeski,

Çorlu, Silivri, and Büyükçekmece. The period between Mehmed II and Süleyman I’s

(r. 1520 – 1561) reigns can be interpreted as quiet period in terms of urbanism in this

region. We can see this in parallel with slowing down of Ottoman expansion into the

3

Balkans. During the reign of Süleyman I, there was a great revival both in the

infrastructure of the road and in the towns. In the 16th century, large-scale social

complexes built in the towns and villages of Küçükçekmece, Büyükçekmece, Silivri,

Çorlu, Lüleburgaz, Babaeski and Havsa, each of which formed a point of menzil

(stopover place), and the large stone bridges on the road ensured the golden age of this

road. These stopover points were not merely resting points during the march of the

army, envoys, and the court, but also formed a network with each other and with the

neighboring villages, as well as with the surrounding towns and villages that were not

on the main road. Some of these towns, which generally developed around the waqfs

of sultans and grand viziers, almost turned into a waqf-town. Not only mosques and

caravanserais, these towns had fountains, soup kitchens, madrasas, elementary

schools, baths, shops, important waterways, and even imperial palaces which made

them attractive centers both for passersby and for neighboring settlements. Although

the pace of constructions in this road and urbanization at these menzil points decresead,

the road and the towns still maintained their importance in the 17th century.

Monumental square-fountains were built in towns such as Lüleburgaz and Babaeski or

some monumental stone bridges were built on the road indicate both the continuing

development of cities and the functionality of the road. After 1703, the sultan and his

retinue, who returned to Istanbul from Edirne, spent most their resources and energy

on Istanbul, and after 1703, no significant architectural project was carried in the towns

and on the road between Edirne and Istanbul.

This thesis will study the architectural and urban history of the towns and

infrastructural works on the road between Edirne and Istanbul from their takeover by

Ottomans to the beginning of the 18th century. The Orta Kol, which became the main

artery and of primary importance under the Ottoman rule, experienced its most

4

frequented period in the 16th century, and kept its importance in the 17th century. The

busiest and most important part of this throughfare was the part between Edirne and

Istanbul. 1703 and return of the Saray-ı Âmire to Istanbul from Edirne marks a

breaking point in the history of this road and towns. The rapid Ottoman conquest of

the Balkans in the 15th century and the first half of the 16th century initiated Pax

Ottomana period in the Balkans that would last until the end of the 18th century. The

more dominant nomadic ghazi/warrior culture in the 15th century was transformed by

the centralization of the state from the 16th century onwards and the empire became

more sedentarized and centralized. The sedentarization of the society was necessary

for taxation and monetization of the economy. Within the centralization and increasing

bureucracy of the 16th century, the menzil complexes became essential institutions for

communication, transportation, and provisioning. At the same time, these complexes

encouraged urbanization in the settlements where they were located.

The study will question why and how the Byzantine Empire’s secondary road,

Via Militaris, became the road of the primary importance for the Ottoman Empire. It

will explore why this road and the towns along the road did not develop well during

the Byzantine period and what changed during the Ottoman period. What changed in

the Ottoman Empire compared to the Byzantine Empire, so that the Ottomans gave the

utmost importance to this road? While searching for answers to these questions, this

thesis will also study what kind of works the Ottomans carried out to preserve the

functionality and importance of the road and how they improved the condition of the

road. The overlap between the Byzantine road and the Ottoman road and the alterations

made in the route will be investigated.

This thesis will also study how the urbanization of the towns on the road took

place during this period, and it will explore the direct effects of being located on the

5

road on architecture, infrastructure, urban layout, and the town economy. Whether

there was a similar pattern followed for the urbanization of these towns will be

questioned. The importance and roles of these towns for the Ottoman center and their

relations with neighboring villages and towns will be explored. In addition, as it will

be seen in the thesis, the urbanization and construction projects in the towns on the

road did not continue at the same pace in the period covering the subject of the study.

Construction works will also be considered in the context of patronage, motives,

construction projects, scales, and building types. The change of the patronage and

commissioned building types in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries and the reasons behind

these changes will be emphasized.

While the two capitals of the Ottoman Empire, namely Edirne and Istanbul, are

studied more in detail in the academia, the history of the settlements between the two

capitals of the empire, which were not too far from each other, are still understudied.

Since the region and the road connecting two of the most important cities of the empire

were also forming the hinterland of Istanbul, the area and the settlements were on the

major artery connecting the most vital organs of the empire. I hope that this study will

shed light on the formation of the main artery connecting two vital organs and smaller

organs between them that came to life thanks to this artery.

In the first part of the study, the primary sources of the Byzantine period are

court historians such as Prokopius (c. 500 – c. 565 AD) , as well as historiographers,

such as Doukas (c. 1400 – after 1462) and Chalkokondyles (c. 1430 – c. 1470) who

wrote the late Byzantine/early Ottoman history. In addition, Christian pilgrimage

itineraries, such as Bordeaux Itinerary and Brugge Itinerary are used. During the late

Byzantine period, travelogues of Bertrandon de la Brocquière and Pero Tafur are also

used.

6

A significant portion of the primary sources on the Ottoman history of this

study are waqfiyyas, evkaf registers, travelogues, and archival documents. The

descriptions, specifications, and stipulations in waqfiyyas provide information about

how the complexes commissioned in towns were organized and how some towns had

evolved into the waqf-town. Waqfiyyas often give important clues about the

motivations of the founders of the waqfs and the selection of the appropriate space. In

addition, the services and duties of the people employed in the waqfs show us how the

waqf employees contributed to the urbanization and the organization of the menzil

complexes in settlements that are subject of this present study. Evkaf registers provide

information about some buildings that were not explicitly mentioned in the waqfiyyas

while presenting the incomes and expenses of the waqf buildings. These accounting

registers also provide the opportunity to compare the fincancial situation of waqfs in

certain time periods.

Archival documents in various styles and various registers also play a vital role

in this study. We learn the existence of many structures that could not survive to the

present day from the archival documents. These archival documents can be about the

appointments made to the waqf institutions, the complaints or petitions of the local

people, accounting registers, and the repair registers. The decrees in mühimme registers

recorded in the Supreme Council (divan) provide us information about the

organization of the palace journeys, as well as the provision and the organization of

the workers and construction materials for the large-scale construction projects. The

decrees in the archives, the repair registers and the effort on the preservation of the

architectural works show the importance that the state attaches to the functionality of

this road. This part, where the menzil complexes were in the most comprehensive form

and in the best condition on the road to Belgrade, also the where density of stone

7

bridges across the whole empire was the most frequent, was indeed an Ottoman early

modern highway. All these archival documents and construction projects prove the

importance given by the Ottoman state to this part of the road specifically.

The autobiographies of the great architect Sinan (c. 1490 – 1588), who left

numerous works between Edirne and Istanbul, provide inventories of the buildings he

had designed. These inventories guide us about which works can be attributed to the

great architect and the corps of court architects (hassa mimarlar ocağı) albeit they are

subject to source criticism. These autobiographies, which are exceptional in the early

modern Ottoman history, also offer important information in terms of the construction

process and construction technique of the Büyükçekmece Bridge, one of the largest

bridge projects in the Ottoman territory. Other important Ottoman sources apart from

the archival documents, are histories written by court historiographers and intellectuals

such as Kritovoulos (c. 1410 – c. 1470), Âşıkpaşazade (1400 – 1485), Neşrî (d. ca.

1520), Peçevî (1574 – 1650), or İzzî (d. 1755). The narratives of these historiographers

also provided important information about the towns, which are the subject of the

study.

There are many travelogues about this road frequented by sultans and their

retinues, the army, palatial officers, diplomats, ambassadors and their entourage,

merchants, adventurers, pilgrims, even botanists, and pharmacists. The eye-witness

travelers convey important information about the general view of the cities, urban

layouts, and architectural descriptions. During the Middle Ages, Western world’s

narratives on the East were consisted of majorly pilgrimages and a minor part of them

were diplomatic accounts. Increasing trade on both sides of the Mediterranean since

the Middle Ages, with the expansion of mercantilism in Renaissance Europe,

8

strengthened the relations between the Eastern and Western worlds.1 The mercantilist

expansion of Europe was concurrent with the enormous territorial expansion of the

Ottoman Empire at the eastern side of the Mediterranean. The expansion of the

Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, began to be a matter of curiosity for the Europe

as a result of the increase in commercial and diplomatic relations. As a result of this

curiosity, a considerable travelogue culture began to emerge in Europe thanks to the

spread of printing press. The number of those who wrote relation in the embassy

delegations also increased, and translations of these books were also printed and

circulated in various centers of Europe. From the 15th century until the 18th century,

there was a huge boom in the writing of travel books for Istanbul and the Lands of

Rum in the Western world. In Les Voyageurs Dans L'empire Ottoman (XIVe-XVIe

Siecles) Stephané Yerasimos published a detailed inventory of these accounts and in

his book, it is seen that there was a great increase especially in the 16th century.2 Many

people from various backgrounds such as adventurous travelers, ambassadors,

clergymen, scribes, botanists, and pharmacists in embassy retinues have kept valuable

records about their travels. Urban topographies, architectural descriptions, aesthetic

perceptions, and urban impressions they portrayed were also an important part of these

records. Many embassies brought with them painters and draughtsmen to supplement

their literary depictions and to visually record their observations. At the same time, the

growing interest in geography and urban knowledge in the early modern period had a

response in the Ottoman world. Authors such as Âşık Mehmed (1556-7 – after 1598),

Abdurrahman Hıbrî (1604 – 1659), İnciciyan (1758 – 1833), and prominently Evliya

1 Renda, “The Panorama of Constantinople”, 62-71.

2 Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs Dans L'empire Ottoman (XIVe - XVIe Siècles) Bibliographie, Itinèraires

Et Inventaire Des Lieux Habitès.

9

Çelebi (1611 – c. 1685), wrote valuable works on travel, urban knowledge, and

geography.

In addition to these, visual material among the primary sources have also

significantly supported the study. Townscapes from Leiden Sketchbook, drawn by an

anonymous Netherlandish artist, dated to the second half of the 16th century, after the

1570s, a miniature from Şehname-i Selim Han, engravings by Luigi Mayer from the

late 18th century, photographs in Abdülhamid II’s archives from the late 19th century

give us important clues about the architectural features of the buildings and urban

textures of the settlements.

Secondary sources about the topic of the study and the history of the region are

relatively less compared to the primary sources. In the secondary sources of the

Byzantine period, the Tabula Imperii Byzantini series, which presents the overview of

the history of the region, prepared by the Austrian Academy of Sciences, should be

mentioned. Among the prominent secondary sources of the Byzantine architectural

history in Eastern Thrace, the work of Eyice on Küçükçekmece, and Eyice’s,

Magdalino’s, and Ousterhout’s works on Silivri and Babaeski can be mentioned.

Jireček’s study in the 19th century, in which he examines the history of the Belgrade –

Istanbul road from Roman to Ottoman periods, still keeps its value on this subject.

In the early periods of the Ottoman architectural history of the region,

Ayverdi’s works come to the forth, but there is no sufficient and comprehensive work

about the first decades under the Ottoman rule. Instead, there are some articles and

theses studying histories of towns or studying solely complexes in towns such as

Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece, Silivri, Çorlu, and Havsa in a monographic way.

Also, we should not overlook the fact that the lack of sources for the period between

10

1361 and 1453 makes it difficult to study the early years of the Ottoman rule in the

region.

The work of Tayyip Gökbilgin, in which he examined the history of Ottoman

properties and waqfs in Thrace and the Balkans until the end of the 16th century in

Edirne and Pasha livas (administrative unit between kaza and eyalet, province), is

essential for the history of the region. Many studies have been conducted on the Sinan

period, which constitutes the largest part of the corpus of the Ottoman architectural

history. A considerable part of the secondary sources are on the period when Sinan

held the post of chief court architect, the works he designed, and the biography of the

architect. The comprehensive works of scholars such as Necipoğlu, Kuban, Kuran, and

Mülayim give detailed and rich information about the spatial organization,

construction techniques, patronage, and aesthetics of Sinan’s and the corps of court

architects’ buildings. However, the number of the academic studies on the architectural

and urban history of the towns just before and after the age of Sinan is quite few. For

example, the structures built in the first decades of the 16th century when Sinan’s

predecessor Acem Ali (d. 1538) was the chief architect, were not studied in detail.

Moreover, the 17th century-buildings in the region have not been well-studied. Some

fountains built in the towns and some bridges on the road that are the subject of the

study during this period are not well-researched. For example, while compiling and

studying the bridges built in Anatolia and the Balkans in the Middle Ages and Early

Modern Period, Çulpan did not include the bridges built in the 17th century between

Edirne and Istanbul in his book.

Orhonlu’s articles on road building, repair, and security of roads in the Ottoman

Empire show the importance that the state attached to the roads. The studies on the

stopover complexes that developed along with the roads have also formed a seperate

11

area of study. Müderrisoğlu’s and Wimmel’s PhD theses, the articles of Küçükkaya

and Altunan can be given among the studies on the stopover complexes. The studies

of Busch-Zantner, Boykov, and Hartmuth on the Ottoman mode urbanization in

Thracian and the Balkan towns are also particularly valuable in terms of the

applicability of their findings to the towns that are the subject of the present work. The

newspaper articles written by Sedat Çetintaş in the early republican period and some

current news from local newspapers also provide us the information about the

afterlives of the architetural works in these towns.

The first part of the thesis will present a general overview of the condition of

the road and the towns along the road under Roman and Byzantine rule in the Late

Antiquity and the early medieval times. Although the sources we have mostly contain

information about military history, the first chapter will attempt to briefly touch upon

the infrastructural works on the road and the socio-economic situation of the towns. In

the second part, the works carried out by the Ottomans to improve the condition of the

road and to maintain its functionality after the establishment of the Edirne – Istanbul

connection in 1453 to 1703 will be studied. Construction and repair of bridges and

pavements, ensuring the safety of the road, locations of menzils with caravanserais and

inns, plans and works on the use of the road by the palace, the army and ambassadors,

and routes they followed will be studied. Also, other topics such as the possible roles

of the towns along the road and the neighboring other towns and villages given to them

by the Ottoman central administration, and the networks they formed within

themselves will be evaluated.

The following parts of the thesis will examine the architectural and urban

histories of Küçükçekmece, Büyükçekmece, Silivri, Çorlu, Karıştıran, Lüleburgaz,

Babaeski, and Havsa respectively, which were the main stopover points on the Edirne

12

- Istanbul road. In what ways and how did these towns were developed and

transformed thanks to being located on the main artery of the Empire will be

researched. The last part of the thesis will be the conclusion which will present a

general evaluation in the light of the information presented throughout the thesis with

author’s comments.

Note on place names and their transliteration: The settlements, that are the

subject of the study, had different names in different periods. Sometimes, the same

names were written in different derivations in Byzantine and Ottoman periods. For

example, the modern Büyükkarıştıran was referred to as Druzipara or Drusipara.

Çorlu, on the other hand, was referred to by names such as Tzurullum, Tzirallum, or

Tzoroulos in Byzantine studies. Küçükçekmece was known by names such as Regio

or Rhegion. In the Ottoman period, the names of the towns were mentioned with

different names in the primary sources. For example, Büyükçekmece was also referred

to as Çekmece-i Kebir, and Küçükçekmece as Çekmece-i Sagir. Lüleburgaz was

referred to as Bergos, Burgos, or Birgoz. Babaeski was written with names such as

Baba, Eskibaba, Danişmendeskisi, or Babaeskisi. In order not to confuse the reader

with such a variety of naming, the names were fixed for each period in this study. The

reader may consult the table below. In addition, all settlements whether they are

included or not in the list are indicated with their modern names in parentheses when

they are mentioned for the first time in the text. Modern Turkish orthography was used

for the names of these settlements in the Ottoman period. For example, Arablı is

written as Araplı, and Karışdıran is written as Karıştıran.

13

Table 1. Names of the Settlements According to the Periods

Modern name Roman name Byzantine name Ottoman name

Küçükçekmece - Regio, Rhegion Küçükçekmece

Büyükçekmece - Athyra Büyükçekmece

Silivri - Selymbria Silivri

Çorlu Tzurullum Tzurullum Çorlu

Büyükkarıştıran Druzipara Druzipara Karıştıran

Lüleburgaz Bergule Arkadiopolis Bergos

Babaeski Burtizo Bulgarophygon Babaeski

Havsa Hostizo Nike Havsa

14

CHAPTER 2

THE ROAD AND THE TOWNS PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF OTTOMANS

This chapter of the study aims to provide an overview of the condition of Via Militaris

and the settlements on Via Militaris in Roman and Byzantine periods. After presenting

the Via Militaris route with a brief touch on the geography of the region, the history

of the settlements on the road is presented in a chronological framework and touching

upon social, cultural and economic aspects as much as possible. The issue of being

hinterland and provisioning of Constantinople are underlined. The arrival of the

Ottomans and the change of hands of Thrace are studied by making use of Late

Byzantine and Early Ottoman sources. The turbulent history of the region during the

Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages is intended to convey the negative impact it had

on both the functionality of the road and the development of the towns.

Thrace has served as a bridge connecting East and West throughout the history.

This linking role also dates back prior to the Roman and Byzantine periods. While the

Iron Age culture of the region showed a migration and cultural flow in the northwestsoutheast

direction, the Persians also passed to European lands through Thrace in the

ancient period.3 The role of the region as a link between East and West (southwest

Asia and Europe) and the Black Sea and the Mediterranean increased its importance

during the Roman and Byzantine periods.

The roads of the Roman Empire were of essential importance in maintaining

the long life of the empire. These roads, which had military and commercial

importance, connected important centers and provinces. Most of these roads were built

3 Bozhinova. “Thrace Between East and West: The Early Iron Age Cultures in Thrace”, 51 – 71.

15

between 100 BC and 100 CE.4 In the newly conquered areas, the Romans had the army

build these roads and integrate these regions into the empire as its new provinces.5 One

of the main arteries of this road system was Via Militaris, also known as Via

Diagonalis, connecting the Balkans to Byzantion (Istanbul). This road, which

connected Singidunum (Belgrade) to Byzantion via centers such as Naissus (Niš),

Philippopolis (Plovdiv), and Adrianople (Edirne), was also known as Trajan’s Roads.

This major road, around 6 meters wide, was built by paving polygonal stones. Like for

the other major Roman roads, on Via Militaris, there were stopover points called

mansio between one-day distances for the accommodation of passengers and there

were also horse-changing stations called mutatio for changing horses during the day.6

Via Militaris, together with Via Egnatia, was the most important land route connecting

the east and west of the Roman Empire.

The southeast section of the road between Adrianople and Byzantion was

located on the Regina River (Ergene) basin. Irrigating the southeastern Thrace, which

is a flat and a heavily deforested region with an altitude of 100 to 200 meters, Regina

spreads across the Thracian plain like the branches of a tree. A Roman passenger had

to cross about 85 streams between Adrianople and Byzantion, where this part of the

road passed over the Regina basin, and for the comfort of the passengers there were

good and well-built bridges even in Roman times.7 The bridges were mostly built of

stone, and there were also wooden bridges. For example, the Roman bridge named

Kırkgöz, which was located between Tzurullum (Çorlu) and Druzipara

(Büyükkarıştıran) and whose ruins are still visible today, crossed the Regina. (Fig. 1)

4 Haldon. The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History, 13.

5 Jireček. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad Nach Constantinopel und Die Balkanpässe, 5.

6 Ibid, 7.

7 Ibid, 48.

16

There is also the remains of an ancient bridge in today’s Türkmenli village, which was

probably named Beodizum in the Late Antiquity, between Tzurullum and Perinthos

(Marmara Ereğlisi).8 Probably Selymbria (Silivri) also had Roman stone bridges.9 Via

Egnatia from Dyrrachium (Durres) and Via Militaris from Singidunum conjoined in

Perinthos and reached Byzantion.10 At the points where the towns of Athyra

(Büyükçekmece) and Region (Küçükçekmece) were located, two lagoons widens after

penetrating into the land, thus making the passage difficult. A Roman traveler should

have traveled north of these two lagoons in order to avoid swampy territories in the

south which could often be flooded with southwesterly winds. According to itineraries

and cartographers from the Late Antiquity such as Ptolemy, Tabula Peutingeriana,

and Ravenna Cosmography, a passenger traveling from Adrianople stopped at Hostizo

(Havsa), Burtizo (Babaeski), Bergule (Lüleburgaz), Druzipara, Tzurullum, Perinthos,

Cenopurio (Sinekli), Ad Statuas (Çatalca), and Melentiana (Yarım Burgaz)

respectively to reach Byzantion.11 (Fig. 2, 3)

The road, which passed around the north of Büyükçekmece and

Küçükçekmece lagoons in order not to pass through the swamps and marshes in the

south, was altered in the 330s during the reign of Emperor Constantine I (r. 306 –

337). From 330s onwards, the road that converged in Perinthos with Via Egnatia and

then followed the coastline and reached Constantinople via Selymbria, Athyra, and

Region.12 (Fig. 4) In the Bordeaux Itinerary, the oldest extant Christian pilgrimage

itinerary, which was written around 333 AD, the Bordeaux Pilgrim reached

Constantinople after passing Heraclea (Marmaraereğlisi) by following the coastline

8 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 682-683.

9 Ibid, 642.

10 Jireček. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad Nach Constantinopel und Die Balkanpässe, 51.

11 Miller. Itinerara Romana, 538 – 540.

12 “Via Egnatia” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 679.

17

via Selymbria, Athyra, and Region. The stopover points from Adrianople to

Constantinople were Nike (Havsa), Bergule, Druzipara, Tzurullum, Selymbria, Atyra,

and Region.13 Since the part of the road from Region to Constantinople was muddy

and swampy and passengers were facing difficulties. In the sixth century, construction

of pavements with large stone blocks was ordered by Justinian I (r. 527 – 565), wide

enough to pass two wagons.14 According to Prokopius, the wooden bridge over the

lagoon in Region was badly damaged when the south winds blew, and it was collapsing

in places. Besides paving the road leading to Constantinople, Justinian I had a stone

bridge built here.15 The road and the bridge that Justinian had built were of great

importance for the provision of the city. As the city became larger after it was

inaugurated as the new capital of the empire, its needs and dependencies were also

rapidly increased. Thracian plains were supplying the largely consumer city of

Constantinople even in the sixth century. Moreover, the only extant Byzantine bridge

between Adrianople and Constantinople might be the bridge known as Çobançeşme

Bridge today, crossing Hagios Mamas stream near Hebdomon (mod. Bakırköy). The

bridge, whose patron and construction date is unknown, might belong to the early

Byzantine period with its material bearing cross motifs and round arches.16

Information on the towns on the road between Adrianople and Constantinople

in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages is quite limited. Nike and Burtizo are in

the list of fortresses built by Justinian I, as written by Prokopius.17 The town,

previously known as Bergule or Virgoli, was rebuilt and renamed by Theodosius I (r.

347 – 395), according to 11th century Byzantine historian George Kedrenos. His son’s

13 The Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.). Itinerary From Bordeaux to Jerusalem, 10.

14 Procopius. VII, Buildings. General Index to Procopius, 285 – 287.

15 Ibid, 289.

16 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 513.

17 Procopius. VII, Buildings. General Index to Procopius, 312.

18

name Arkadios was given to this newly built town and it became Arkadiopolis.18 The

town was an important military base. The remains of the walls of Arkadiopolis can

still be seen in the town of Lüleburgaz today. (Fig. 5) It is also possible to make a

hypothetical map of the walls in accordance with the finds discovered during the

foundation excavations of some apartments.19 (Fig. 6)

The flatness of the land allowed enemies of Byzantines to advance easily and

made the region vulnerable to attacks coming from the north. The region has been

attacked many times, both because it provided easy access to Constantinople quickly

and because it contained fertile agricultural areas. In the second half of the 4th century,

Thrace was plundered by the Goths and then by the Huns. Since Constantinople was

open to attack from the northwest, some precautions were taken to prevent these

attacks. Anastasian Wall, which stretched from Selymbria to Black Sea coast, from the

5th century, was one of these measures. However, the wall was not very effective and

it was penetrated numerous times by the invaders.20 The area was the target of the

Slavs in the 6th century and the Avar raids in the 7th century.21 Tzurullum was

plundered and damaged along with Arkadiopolis during the Slavic raids.22 However,

the greatest destruction was yet to come. It was the Bulgarians led by Krum (r. 803 –

814) who defeated the Byzantines at Adrianople in 813. The Bulgarians, who stood as

far as the Theodosian Walls in Constantinople, plundered the towns on the way and

caused great destruction.23 The people of Nike fled and left the town. The town of

Burtizo, known as Bulgarophygon from a document dated 787, was also captured by

18 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 264.

19 Orhan Konyalı, "Temelden ‘tarih fışkırdı’!," Görünüm Gazetesi, April 23,

2018, http://gorunumgazetesi.com.tr/haber/51437/temelden-tarih-fiskirdi.html.

20 “Long Wall” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1250.

21 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 81, 96.

22 “Tzoroullos” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 2137.

23 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 108 – 109.

19

the Bulgarians in 813.24 The walls of Selymbria were completely destroyed.25 When

Bulgarians reached Athyra, they destroyed the bridge along with the fortress. The wars

of the Bulgarians and Byzantines and their struggle for Thrace continued in the 10th

century. The region was sacked once again by the Bulgarians in 913, this time King

Symeon (r. 893 – 927) reached as far as the walls of Constantinople. 26

The history of the region was also turbulent during the High Middle Ages. The

Pechenegs, who penetrated into Thrace during the reign of Alexios I (r. 1081 – 1118),

captured Bulgarophygon for a while in 1090 and attacked Tzurullum.27 During the

Third Crusade, under the leadership of Frederick Barbarossa (r. 1155 – 1190), the

crusader army passing through Thrace, plundered Arkadiopolis in 1189. In the same

year, Tzurullum fell victim to Bulgar and Cuman attacks.28 The crusaders, who

captured Constantinople as the outcome of the Fourth Crusade in 1204, extended their

dominance to Thrace as well. Despite being described as well-fortified by the traveler

Al-Idrisi (1100 – 1166) in the 12th century, Selymbria also fell into the hands of the

crusaders along with Regio, Athyra, Tzurullum, Arkadiopolis, Bulgarophygon, and

Nike.29 In Nike, which Geoffroi de Villehardouin (c. 1150 – c. 1213) describes as a

very beautiful and solid place, with a referral to the fortress probably, the townspeople

fled to Adrianople before the crusaders had arrived. Likewise, the people of

Bulgarophygon and Arkadiopolis left their towns. Against the Latins who settled in

Arkadiopolis, the Byzantine people from the surrounding area rebelled and sieged the

town. The Latins, who suppressed the rebellion by sallying forth, retreated to

24 Soustal. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos), 374, 223.

25 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 635 – 642.

26 Ibid, 116 – 122, 615.

27 Soustal. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos), 223.

28 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 264-266, 685.

29 Ibid, 635 – 642.

20

Tzurullum, which belonged to Latin Emperor Baldwin I (r. 1204 – 1205).30 In 1206,

Bulgarians and Cumans led by Kaloyan (r. 1196 – 1207), who fought against the

Latins, plundered Thrace, and reached as far as Athyra and Region, destroyed and

looted all the towns in Thrace except Byzas (Vize), Rodosto (Tekirdağ), and

Selymbria. The people of the region fled to Bulgaria.31 John III Vatatzes (r. 1221 –

1254) recaptured Tzurullum from the Latins in 1235. In 1237, the Bulgarian Tsar John

II Asen (r. 1218 – 1241), together with the Cumans, besieged Tzurullum but could not

take it. The Latins recaptured Tzurullum in 1240, but the town was recaptured for the

last time in the Byzantine history by John III.32

Information on the social and economic history of these towns, which were

constantly damaged by wars and population loss, is also quite limited. In the towns on

this road, mostly military fortified structures come to the fore since the region was

open to plunders. The existence of these military garrisons is also to prevent the

aqueducts which enabled the water supply of Constantinople from being damaged by

invasions. The markets established on the feast days of some saints contributed to the

maintenance of commercial activities in the region. For example, patron saints of

Druzipara, Tzurullum, and Selymbria were St. Alexandros, St. George, and St.

Agathonikos respectively. Markets were held on the feast days of each town’s patron

saint.33 In Thrace, wine, grain, and cheese were produced, which were of great

importance for the Byzantine Empire.34 Thrace, which formed the hinterland of

Constantinople, was one of the most grain-producing region across the empire and was

30 De Villehardouin,, IV. Haçlı Seferi Kronikleri, 101 – 102.

31 Ibid, 115; Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 270 – 272; Jireček. Die

Heerstrasse von Belgrad Nach Constantinopel und Die Balkanpässe, 105.

32 “Tzoroullos” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 2137.

33 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 228.

34 Haldon. The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History, 82.

21

essential for provisioning Constantinople. Both independent landholders and peasants

from Propontis (Marmara Sea) coasts to Adrianople were producing grain in the 12th

century.35 Along with the Bithynia, Thrace was also supplying cattles to

Constantinople.36 It was important that the roads to Constantinople were also in good

condition, as short-lived products such as meat would be supplied from the immediate

hinterland of Constantinople.

As a result of the privileges given to the Venetians with the Venetian-Byzantine

agreement reached in 1082, Selymbria enjoyed an economic revival. In 1198, Alexios

III Angelos (r. 1195 – 1203) renewed the commercial privileges given to the

Venetians, and the towns of Bulgarophygon, Arkadiopolis and Tzurullum were in the

free trade zone. There is a strong probability of Venetian presence in these towns. Al-

Idrisi defines these towns where the trade was quite lively. Al-Idrisi also writes that

in the 12th century, Region was a trade emporium.37 Despite all the wars and pillages,

we can think that the Via Militaris was still functioning. In the 11th and 12th centuries,

merchants and people of various backgrounds who were knowledgable about

Byzantium were coming to Constantinople by using this road. These people were

coming from regions such as Bohemia and centers such as Regensburg.38

When we look at the church administration, we see that Nike was a bishopric

between the 2nd and 7th centuries, and it was promoted to archbishopry in the 860s.39

However, around the year 1000, the towns along the road, Arkadiopolis, Druzipara,

Tzurullum, and Selymbria were autocephalous archbishopry.40 In the 12th century,

35 Magdalino. “The grain supply of Constantinople, ninth-fifteenth centuries”, 35 – 47.

36 Durliat. “L’approvisionnement de Constantinople”, 19 – 33.

37 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 129, 229, 615.

38 Jireček. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad Nach Constantinopel und Die Balkanpässe, 103.

39 Soustal. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos), 374.

40 Haldon. The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History, 91.

22

Arkadiopolis is mentioned as a metropolis.41 Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to

know the present locations of most of the churches in the Middle Byzantine period in

the towns that are the subject of the present study. Inscriptions with the names of

Nikephoros II Phokas (r. 963 – 969), Basil II (r. 976 – 1025), and Constantine VIII (r.

962 – 1028) were recorded in the St. Geroge Church in Tzurullum, this church is also

mentioned in the autobiography of Michael VIII Palaiologos.42 St. George Church in

Tzurullum was still active when Stephen Gerlach (1546 – 1612) visited the town in

1578.43 The Church of Hagia Spyridion in Selymbria belonged to the Middle

Byzantine period was probably dated between the 10th and 12th centuries. 44 Manuel I

Komnenos (r. 1143 – 1180), who spent the Easter in Selymbria on his way to Hungary

had a church built between 1166 – 1169 and dedicated it to the patron saint of the town,

Saint Agathonikos.45

In the late Byzantine period, Selymbria’s politic and cultural meaning gained

more importance. This was probably because of the town’s proximity to the capital

and its location on Via Egnatia, the road connecting most important centers in the late

Byzantine period, namely Thessaloniki and Constantinople. Michael VIII Palaiologos

(r. 1261 – 1282), who died in the village of Pachomion near Tzurullum, was buried in

Selymbria in 1282.46 Byzantine statesman, megas doux, Alexios Apokaukos (d. 1345),

built a fortified tower in Epivatai (around Selimpaşa) near Selymbria as a refuge and

founded a monastery in Selymbria. He escaped from Constantinople in 1341 and

sought refuge here.47 There was a cistern under the Hagia Ioannes Prodromos Church,

41 “Arkadiopolis in Thrace” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 173.

42 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 686.

43 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 818.

44 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē) , 641.

45 Magdalino. “Byzantine Churches of Selymbria”, 309 – 318.

46 Bizans Kısa Kronikleri (Chronica Byzantina Breviora), 67.

47 Bizans Kısa Kronikleri (Chronica Byzantina Breviora), 71.

23

built by Alexios Apokaukos.48 The wedding of John V’s daughter Theodora (c. 1330

– c. 1396) and the Ottoman sultan Orhan (r. 1323 – 1362) was celebrated in Selymbria.

The Despot of the Peloponnese, Theodore II Palaiologos (r. 1407 – 1443, d. 1448),

was also buried in the Pantokrator Church in Selymbria.49 During that period, there

was little threat from the north for the Thracian towns for nearly 100 years, from the

recapture of Constantinople from the Latins in 1261, until the arrival of the Ottomans.

However, the Byzantine Empire continued to be shaken due to civil wars. For this

reason, not all the ruined towns could be rebuilt and prospered again. For example,

according to Kantakouzenos (d. 1383), Arkadiopolis was in ruins and in 1340,

Andronikos III (r. 1328 – 1341) wanted to rebuild the town.50 However, Selymbria had

a priority because of its cultural and political importance. Indeed, in the mid-14th

century, its fortifications were rebuilt by John VI Kantakouzenos (r. 1347 – 1354).51

In the middle of the 14th century, the Ottomans crossed the Hellespont via

Gallipoli and advanced very quickly into Thrace. At the end of the 1360s, Çorlu,

Bergos (Lüleburgaz), Babaeski, Havsa, and Edirne were already under Ottoman

control. However, although the narratives of Ottoman historiographers on how these

towns were captured are almost the same, there is no consensus among the dates they

give. Çorlu was captured by Murad I (r. 1362 – 1389) after a hard siege and then its

fortress was demolished. (Fig. 7) The Ottomans, advancing to Bergos after Çorlu, did

not encounter any resistance when capturing the town, they found the settlement empty

and in ruins, and they demolished the walls here as well. The town must be in a

dilapidated condition as it can be verified by Byzantine sources as well. While

48 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 651.

49 Bizans Kısa Kronikleri (Chronica Byzantina Breviora), 121.

50 “Arkadiopolis in Thrace” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 173.

51 “Selymbria” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1867.

24

Âşıkpaşazâde and anonymous Tevarih-i Ali Osman author give the date of 761 AH

(1359-60) for this set of events, Neşrî give the date of 762 AH (1360-1), and

Abdurrahman Hıbrî and Hoca Sâdeddin give the date of 763 AH (1361-2).52 Halil

İnalcık carefully examined many sources and gave the date of 1361 for the capture of

Edirne by the Ottomans along with aforementioned towns.53 The Ottoman-Byzantine

border was passing between Çorlu and Silivri in the second half of the 14th century. In

the Bruges Itinerary dated to the 1380s, Babaeski and Çorlu are written under Ottoman

control, while Selymbria and Athyra are written in the list of Byzantine settlements.54

Doukas writes that before the Battle of Ankara, in 1401, Byzantines ceded Silivri to

the Ottomans, but this must be a temporary handover.55 Laonikos Chalkokondyles also

writes that Bayezid II controlled Selymbria during this period.56 Although the road

was functioning until the Ottomans captured Constantinople, the condition of towns

were not quite good. Pero Tafur (c. 1410 – c. 1484) traveled between Edirne and

Constantinople using this road in 1437.57 In 1433, French traveler Bertrandon de La

Brocquière (d. 1459) writes that the walls of Küçükçekmece, Büyükçekmece, Çorlu,

Bergos, and Babaeski were destroyed by the Ottomans and towns were in ruins. He

states that only Silivri had strong fortifications.58 The bridge at Büyükçekmece was

demolished before Constantinople was taken.59 There are different narratives about

when exactly and how Silivri fell into the hands of the Ottomans. According to Neşrî

and Hoca Sadeddin (15378 – 1599), Silivri was captured by Ottomans after the fall of

52 Âşıkpaşazâde. Tevârihi Âl-i Osman, 109 – 110; Mehmed Neşrî. Kitâb-ı Cihan-nümâ, 193 – 195;

Anonim Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, 54; Abdurrahman Hibrî. Enîsü’l-Müsâmirîn, 12; Hoca Sadeddin

Efendi. Tacü’t-Tevarih, Vol. 1, 113.

53 İnalcık. “Edirne’nin Fethi (1361)”, 137-159.

54 Itinéraire Brugeois Composé Vers 1380, 26.

55 Doukas. Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, 87.

56 Chalkokondyles. The Histories, 113.

57 Tafur. Travels and Adventures, 126 – 129.

58 De La Brocquière. The Travels of Bertrandon De La Broquière, 234 – 236.

59 Külzer. Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 272

25

Constantinople in 1453.60 On the other hand, according to Kritovoulos and Doukas,

Silivri was controlled by beylerbeyi of Rumelia, Karaca Bey, before Constantinople

was taken.61

The mansiones and mutationes on the Via Militaris connecting Byzantion to

the Balkans in the Roman period became the foundation of the towns on the Edirne –

Istanbul road today. After the Romans, who attached great importance to road

construction and the functionality of the roads in the antiquity, the fact that Thrace was

open to invasions throughout the Byzantine history from the Late Antiquity,

undoubtedly had a heavy impact on the economy and urbanization in the region.

Although Thrace was the immediate hinterland of Constantinople, due to the lack of a

good organization for the transportation of the products from there to the city, and the

fact that the region was plundered almost in a yearly basis, the importance and

functionality of the road decreased and towns declined together with road. The area

had to wait until 1453 and especially the middle of the 16th century for the revival of

the towns and the road.

60 Mehmed Neşrî. Kitâb-ı Cihan-nümâ, Vol. 2, 707; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi. Tacü’t-Tevarih, Vol. 2,

286.

61 Doukas. Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, 121; Kritovoulos. Kritovoulos Tarihi

(1451 – 1467), 39 – 40.

26

Figure 1. Remains of the Kırkgöz Bridge on the Regina River. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 2. Map of Thrace and the road between Adrianople and Constantinople from Tabula

Peutingeriana. Encircled in red are Adrianople and Constantinople

27

Figure 3. Via Militaris between Adrianople and Byzantion during the Roman period

Figure 4. Via Militaris between Adrianople and Constantinople during the Byzantine period

28

Figure 5. Remains of the walls of Arkadiopolis. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 6. Hypothetical map of the walls of Arkadiopolis. Retrieved from:

https://www.kirklarelienvanteri.gov.tr/sitler.php?id=289

29

Figure 7. Remains of the fortress in Çorlu. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

30

CHAPTER 3

THE ROAD AND THE ROUTE WITH STOPOVER POINTS

This chapter will study the transformation of Via Militaris into Orta Kol and the

alterations made on the road subsequent to the complete take over of Thrace by the

Ottomans. The users of the road will be underlined alongside the positions of the towns

on the road to each other. The formation of an alternative route to the Orta Kol and the

reasons for using this alternative route will be investigated. Infrastructural works of

the Ottomans such as caravanserais will be explored. The condition of the

caravanserais between Edirne and Istanbul, the facilities they had for the passengers,

and the institutions they housed will be examined in the light of the notes of the

travelers. In the following sub-title, the bridges on the Edirne - Istanbul road will be

investigated together along with the patronage. The repair works and safety measures

to keep the roads and bridges working will be studied under separate sub-headings.

Finally, the roles of the settlements on the road for provisioning Istanbul, the

provisioning of the traveling army, the people of the palace, and the embassies en route

to Istanbul will be discussed. The relations of these settlements with each other and

with neighboring settlements, and the possible roles assigned to these settlements by

the Ottoman center will be questioned.

The road, which was known as Orta Kol, ulu yol (the great road), tarik-i cadde

(the main road), Istanbul Caddesi (Istanbul Road), şahrah (the main road), reh-i rast

(the straight road), şari‘-i ‘azam (the great bristle, bristle in the metaphoric use of the

straight road), or tarikü‘l-şari‘ (the bristle road) during the Ottoman period, was the

most important military, trade, and diplomatic road. On this road, there were many

menzil points between Edirne and Istanbul, and there was no fixed time for travelers

31

to take this road. The distance covered within one day was called as menzil or merhale

by the Ottomans. After 1453, when the entire road was under the Ottoman rule, the

Roman and Byzantine route was slightly changed. The most obvious change made on

the route is Ereğli being off the route and the passengers were reaching Silivri via the

village of Araplı after Çorlu. This made the distance of the road shorter with a shortcut

by bypassing Ereğli. Another change, though not as obvious as the previous one, was

that Kara Mustafa Pasha (1634 – 1683) had a bridge built on the Ergene River in the

second half of the 17th century, in place of the ancient Kırkgöz Bridge which was

located about two kilometers to the east. However, Kırkgöz Bridge should still have

been in use even in the 18th century.62

Travelers, ambassadors, caravans and armies generally covered this distance

in from 6 to 10 days. Travelers would sometimes travel more than one menzil distance

in a day, only staying in stopover points within larger towns. Among these stopover

points, the most mentioned were Havsa, Babaeski, Bergos, Karıştıran, Çorlu, Silivri,

Büyükçekmece, and Küçükçekmece respectively en route to Istanbul, which have

evolved into towns around large complexes containing caravanserais. The distance

between Edirne and Istanbul is about 230 kilometers and 26 between Edirne and

Havsa, 26 between Havsa and Babaeski, 23 between Babaeski and Bergos, 21 between

Bergos and Karıştıran, 29 between Karıştıran and Çorlu, 40 between Çorlu and Silivri,

32 between Silivri and Büyükçekmece, 18 between Büyükçekmece and

Küçükçekmece, and about 15 kilometers between Küçükçekmece and Edirnekapı of

Istanbul. However, apart from these towns, there were smaller towns or villages where

62 BOA.C.NF.35.1748. According to this archival document from 1768, the condition of the Kırkgöz

Bridge was ordered to be investigated for repairment.

32

both the travelers and the army stayed, where inns and caravanserais were found. For

example, Sazlıdere between Havsa and Edirne, Kuleli between Babaeski and Havsa,

Elvanbeyli (modern Ulaş) between Karıştıran and Çorlu, Araplı between Çorlu and

Silivri, Bigados (modern Selimpaşa) between Silivri and Büyükçekmece were among

the frequented stops of this busy road. Yerasimos writes that the Orta Kol was perhaps

one of the best organizations in the Ottoman Empire for its menzil network and the

provision of it.63 However, the great condition of the road of and the menzil network

was not seen throughout the entire route until Belgrade. For example, while

caravanserais were less frequent on the Belgrade - Niš - Sofia route, the best part of

the road and the highest frequency of caravanserais were between Edirne and Istanbul.

Stopover points were used by the army, merchants, ambassadors, palatial officers or

by the sultan, and people from different backgrounds such as adventurers, botanists,

and pilgrims were also staying in menzil points. However, this organization of menzils

was most important for communication and for the transportation of the palatial

officials, embassies, and the army.

The Ottomans should have been aware of the importance of this road even

before they captured Istanbul. This road connecting the current and the former capitals

was also used by the sultan during the reign of Mehmed II. Kritovoulos writes that

after Mehmed II captured Istanbul, he had the road paved leading to Istanbul with

stones and had the Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece bridges rebuilt.64 With the

caravanserais built on the way to Istanbul, the Orta Kol became totally functioning.

Mehmed II, who had the Küçükçekmece Bridge built, had also an inn built here.65

Apart from the inn in Küçükçekmece, which we know to have been built during the

63 Yerasimos. Les Voyageurs Dans L'empire Ottoman (XIVe - XVIe Siècles), 53.

64 Kritovoulos. Kritovoulos Tarihi (1451 – 1467), 121.

65 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi‘marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), Vol. 4, 808.

33

reign of Mehmed II, there was also Çakır Ağa’s inn in Silivri. Also, there must have

been inns in other stopover points that points on the road. For example, the Sarı Saltuk

Lodge in Babaeski, which will be studied in more detail in Babaeski chapter, should

have been an important accommodation point for the passengers.

With the capture of Silivri and Istanbul by the Ottomans in 1453, the Ottoman

control of the Edirne - Istanbul road was totally completed and a great revival began

on this road. However, the biggest revival and the busiest period of constructions

would be in the second half of the 16th century. Before the large-scale menzil

complexes were built from the 1520s onwards, the stopover places on this route could

differ. For example, Selim I (r. 1512 – 1520) and his army, who went on a campaign

to Iran starting from Edirne in 1514, arrived in Istanbul in 10 days, by overnighting in

Sazlıdere, Söğütlüdere, Babaeski, Bergos, Karışdıran, Çorlu, Araplı, Bigados, and

Küçükçekmece respectively.66 During the period when some of the spacious

caravanserais were not yet built and the monumental bridges commissioned by Sinan

were not yet built, the route the army followed during the campaign could also change

from time to time. For example, during Süleyman I’s campaign in 1521, in which he

captured Belgrade, he reached Edirne by following the Halkalı, Haramidere, Silivri,

Çorlu, Karışdıran, Bergos, Babaeski, Havsa route.67 However, Süleyman I was

drawing an alternative route in most of his other European campaigns of his long reign.

While leaving Istanbul for the Mohács campaign in 1526, the Vienna campaign in

1529, the Great German campaign in 1532, and the Moldavia campaign in 1538, he

reached Edine by following Halkalı, Çatalca, Karlıköy, Ahmetbey, Ulufeciler (modern

Değirmencik), Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa (modern Hasköy) route.68 (Fig. 8) We can

66 Haydar Çelebi Ruznâmesi, 59-60.

67 Von Hammer. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, 621-622.

68 Von Hammer. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, 639, 647, 665, 698-699.

34

attribute two major reasons to the army’s drawing a parallel path to the Orta Kol by

avoiding towns during the reign of Süleyman I. The former could be avoiding of the

swampy terrains around the lagoons of Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece, in order

not to decelarate the army while marching and the latter could be preventing the

possible damage that can be caused by the army on these towns while crossing.

Caravanserais, as the hostels built for the accommodation of passengers,

provided free accommodation and free meals for up to three days, as was traditional

in Islamicate domains. For this reason, they also had a woodsheds, storage rooms,

refectories, fountains, and kitchens. (Fig. 9) Those working for the caravanserais

which were almost always belonging to a foundation can be seen in the waqfiyyas

(endowment deeds) and foundation registers. Employees such as the kilerci (butler),

aşçı (cook), gendüm-kûb (wheat brayer), ferraş (cleaner also those who take care of

passenger’s beds and mattresses), bekçi (guard) were in charge of meeting the needs

of the passengers. The food menu in caravanserais was generally standardized. Mutton,

bread, and rice were served. In fact, Hans van den Branden states that the amount of

food served at one meal is as much as three families can afford in one day.69 For the

German author Salomon Schweigger (1551 – 1622), these foundations were much

more valuable than the antiquities of Rome and Egypt since they were functioning for

the public service.70 These structures, which were also mentioned as imaret (soup

kitchen), ahur (stable), han (inn), tabhane (hospice), or kervansaray (caravanserai) in

16th century-waqfiyyas, evkaf registers, and travelogues, were mostly rectangular in

plan, but could display some typological diversity. These multifunctional structures of

the complexes built for multifunctional purposes have caused these terms to be used

69 Van den Branden. “Put od Bruselja iz Brabanta u Carigrad u Traciji, glavni grad turskoga cara”, 157

– 199.

70 Schweigger. Sultanlar Kentine Yolculuk (1578 – 1581), 139.

35

interchangeably. For example, while in some caravanserais, passengers were

accommodated with horses in the same hall, in some large double-winged

caravanserais, passengers and animals were accommodated in separate courtyards.

(Fig. 10, 11) For example, while the caravanserai built by Süleyman I in

Büyükçekmece had a rectangular plan without a courtyard (today the porch at the

entrance does not belong to its original plan), the caravanserais commissioned by

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (1505 – 1579) in Bergos and Havsa were double-winged with

courtyards and fountains at the center of the courtyards. The double-winged

caravanserais with courtyards were more comfortable and praised by the passengers.

The caravanserais built in the 16th century could house many horses at the same time

with their large stables. Flemish diplomat of Habsburgs, Corneille de Schepper (c.

1503 – 1555) writes that in the caravanserai of Abdüsselam Çelebi (d. 1525) in

Küçükçekmece, 300 horses could be accomodated at the same time.71 Some of these

structures, which were built of stone and brick, wooden ceilings, often covered with

lead, and had hearths for heating and cooking for each passenger, and had wells or

fountains in the courtyards to meet the water needs of travelers and animals. For

example, Stephen Gerlach, the clergyman in the retinue of the Habsburg ambassador

David Ungnad von Sonnegg (1535 – 1600), who was passing through Çorlu in 1576,

writes that the there was a fountain and a long stable for horses in the caravanserai of

the town.72 Apart from these facilities, there were some shops adjacent to some of the

caravanserais, and in these shops, travel equipments and food were sold according to

the needs of the passengers. (Fig. 12) German theologian and priest Salomon

Schweigger, in the retinue of Habsburg ambassador Joachim von Sintzendorff (1544

71 De Schepper. Missions Diplomatiques de Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, dit Scepperus, 111.

72 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 818.

36

– 1594), writes that horse fodder and barley could be found at reasonable prices in

these caravanserais.73 For the safety of life and property of the passengers, the doors

of the caravanserais were locked at night and entrances and exits were prohibited.

However, passengers did not always prefer to stay in caravanserais or they could not

always have accommodation in caravanserais. For instance, some ambassadors and

their retinues traveling in the summer may have preferred to stay outdoors. Also,

European ambassadors could be hosted by the non-Muslim people in towns they were

staying. However, the weather conditions sometimes did not allow accommodation in

the caravanserais. Swedish ambassador Claes Rålamb (1622 – 1698) could not find a

place to stay since there was no room in the caravanserai in Babaeski in January, 1658

due to heavy snowfall and storm.74 Sometimes, European ambassadors were not

allowed to stay in the caravanserais near to the mosques. In a decree sent to the qadi

of Çorlu in 1576, upon the denunciation of the müderris (professor) of Çorlu, it was

ordered that non-Muslims should be banned from accommodating in the hospice next

to the mosque, and they should be directed to caravanserais far from the mosque, since

they enter the mosque and spoil the holy place along with its portico and the

courtyard.75 As a matter of fact, Wolf Andreas von Steinach, who was in the Habsburg

embassy retinue, passing through Çorlu in 1583, writes in his travel diary that they

were not allowed to stay in the good caravanserai of Çorlu and they stayed in the bad

one elsewhere.76 According to Venetian bailo Contarini (1529 – 1585), the

caravanserai in Çorlu was near the mosque.77 For this reason, the good caravanserai

that Wolf Andreas von Steinach was not allowed to get in, must be the caravanserai

73 Schweigger. Sultanlar Kentine Yolculuk (1578 – 1581), 144.

74 Rålamb. İstanbul’a Bir Yolculuk: 1657 – 1658, 102-103.

75 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.23.135

76 Von Steinach. “Wolf Andreas’ von Steinach Edelknabenfahrt nach Constantinopel (1583)”, 193 –

234.

77 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli, 38.

37

near the mosque which is attributed to Süleyman I in Çorlu. This caravanserai was a

mosque and caravanserai, known today as Süleymaniye, built by Hain Ahmed Pasha

(Ahmed Pasha the Traitor) (d. 1524) in 1521.78 Although it was seen rarely, it has also

happened that foreigners were not provided with free accommodation against the terms

of the waqf. While Erasm Otwinowski (1529 – 1624), the Polish noble among the

retinue of ambassador Andrzej Bzicki (d. 1567), writes about free accommodation for

up to three days in the Abdüsselam Çelebi’s caravanserai in Küçükçekmece, Paolo

Contarini writes that waqf employees wanted money from them for accommodation

in the same caravanserai.79

Figure 8. Map of Orta Kol and Süleyman I’s campaign route between Edirne and Istanbul.

78 The complex in Çorlu will be studied in more detail in the chapter about the town.

79 Otwinowski. “Wypisanie drogi tureckiej, gdym tam z posłem wielkim wielmożnym panem

Andrzejem Bzickim, kasztelanem chełmskim, od króla Zygmunta Augusta posłanym roku pańskiego

1557 jeździł”, 7 – 40.; Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini

che andavo bailo per la Repubblica Veneta alla Porta Ottona nel 1580, 38.

38

Figure 9. Miniature painting from 1660s of the interior of a caravanserai. Museo Civico Correr,

Venice, Codex Cicogna 1971, fol. 29r

Figure 10. Woodcut of a caravanserai by Salomon Schweigger

39

Figure 11. Colored lithograph of the caravanserai in Bergos by Luigi Mayer

Figure 12. Miniature painting from 1660s of the exterior of a caravanserai. Museo Civico Correr,

Venice, Codex Cicogna 1971, fol. 19r

40

3.1 Bridges

It was already mentioned in this work that after the establishment of the total control

on the Edirne – Istanbul road, Mehmed II immediately started the construction of

infrastructural works with Küçükçekmece and Büyükçekmece bridges and pavements.

Giovanni Maria Angiolello (c. 1451 – c. 1525), Venetian author who served in the

court of Mehmed II, writes that both of these bridges were made of stone.80 Pierre

Belon (1517 – 1564), the French botanist, who crossed these bridges in 1547, states

that both bridges were wooden and one of them was very long.81 The stone bridge must

have been demolished and a wooden bridge must have been built instead after Mehmed

II’s reign and before Süleyman I’s reign. The great earthquake of 1509, which occurred

between the dates of these two travel accounts, may be among the possible causes that

destroyed the bridge.82 The pavement of the road and the construction of bridges on

the road were most important for the armies crossing marshy valleys and rivers and

were important for the comfort of the palace traveling between Edirne and Istanbul.

However, the greatest revival and the busiest period in terms of constructions would

be in the second half of the 16th century. Many monumental stone bridges were built

during this period, though it should not be overlooked that there were not only

monumental stone bridges on this road, but also numerous wooden bridges over many

small streams and creeks, which were always repaired before the travel of the army or

the palace. There were also small stone bridges that were not built by waqf sources

and were probably built by kaldırımcıs, müsellems, or city architects. German traveler

Hans Dernschwam (1494 – 1568) writes about the several stone bridges they crossed

80 Reinhard. Edition de J. –M. Angiolello (1452 -1525), 40.

81 Belon. Les observations de plusieurs singularités et choses mémorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie,

Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays, rédigées par P. Belon, du Mans, 120.

82 For brief information about the damage caused by the great earthquake of 1509 see Ambraseys, and

Finkel. Türkiye’de ve Komşu Bölgelerde Sismik Etkinlikler, 30-35.

41

around Havsa in 1553.83 Venetian bailo Contarini also writes that they passed over

two stone bridges between Edirne and Havsa.84 Another Venetian diplomat Catharin

Zen writes that around Bigados and Kumburgaz there were many wooden and stone

bridges and the road is well paved to facilitate the travels.85 Zen also writes that they

passed five stone bridges between Babaeski and Bergos.86 Benedict Curipeschitz

(1491 – 1531) mentions two bridges made of bricks between Bergos and Karıştıran.87

Although there is not a large and wide river between Istanbul and Edirne, the reason

for the construction of numerous stone bridges was to protect the travelers from the

swamps in stream beds due to the flatness of the land and to enable crossing during

the flooding seasons, especially in the winter and spring. Today, all of the extant

monumental bridges on the Edirne – Istanbul axis were built during the age of Sinan

or in the following century. Considering all the bridges Sinan built, this region is the

most condensed area of Sinan’s bridges with five stone bridges built by the great

architect and two stone bridges on the offshoot roads, namely Halkalı and Alpullu

bridges which were somehow connected to Edirne – Istanbul road. The number of

monumental bridges on the Edirne – Istanbul road is one of the most concrete examples

of the importance given by the center in the 16th and 17th centuries. (Fig. 13)

Monumental stone bridges on the Edirne – Istanbul road will be presented one

by one from Istanbul to Edirne in the following sub-titles. Six of twelve monumental

stone bridges were built by Sinan. Of the bridges, only the ones in Büyükçekmece and

Babaeski have inscriptions. While most of the caravanserais on the road were

83 Dernscwham. İstanbul ve Anadolu’ya Seyahat Günlüğü, 46.

84 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli, 35.

85 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

86 Ibid, 203 – 256.

87 Von Obenburg. Itinerarium Wegrayss Kü. May. potschafft gen Constantinopel zu dem Türkischen

Kayser Soleyman Anno xxx.

42

commissioned by high-ranking state officials, such as grand viziers, this

preponderance is not seen in the patronage of the bridges. Five of the bridges, including

the longest and the costliest ones such as those in Büyükçekmece and Silivri, were

commissioned directly by the palace. In parallel with the period when the

caravanserais were built, nine of the twelve bridges were built in the 16th century.

Three stone bridges, one of which is a rebuilding project from the 17th century, have

survived. In addition, it should be remembered that bridges were often not mentioned

in waqfiyyas. Therefore, we can learn about the patrons of bridges from other primary

sourches such as repair registers, travelogues, or autobiographies. However, although

it is not written in his waqfiyya, the bridges commissioned by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

along with the complexes he endowed on this route should be underlined.

3.1.1 Küçükçekmece Bridge

The bridge in Küçükçekmece is not listed among the bridges Sinan had built in the

autobiographies of the architect. Therefore, there is a high probability that the bridge

predates Sinan’s appointment as the Chief Architect. (Fig. 14) It is possible that it was

built by the predecessor of Sinan, Acem Ali. The bridge has 13 arches and bends

slightly by making an elevation in the direction of Küçükçekmece on the east side.

Erasm Otwinowski writes that this bridge was commissioned by Selim.88 The sultan

that Otwinowski mentions must be Selim I. Küçükçekmece Bridge was built of stone,

but today it is a bit far from its original apperance. The anonymous writer in the retinue

of the Jacopo Soranzo, Venetian ambassador to Istanbul writes in 1575 that the bridge

is less beautiful architecturally compared to the bridge in Büyükçekmece. Also the

88 Otwinowski. “Wypisanie drogi tureckiej, gdym tam z posłem wielkim wielmożnym panem

Andrzejem Bzickim, kasztelanem chełmskim, od króla Zygmunta Augusta posłanym roku pańskiego

1557 jeździł”, 7 – 40.

43

bridge is shorter, and the bridge was surrounded by wooden posts on both sides.89

Gerlach similarly states that the bridge was made of stone but rested on high wooden

posts.90 In an engraving from the late 18th century, we see that the bridge has not lost

much of its 16th century appearance. (Fig. 15)

3.1.2 Haramidere Bridge

Haramidere Bridge is also known as Kapıağası Bridge. The bridge was listed among

the bridges built by Sinan in Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye as Kapıağası

Bridge.91 However, we do not know exactly which kapıağası (chief white eunuch of

the harem) this is since the name of the patron was not dictated by Sinan. This must

have been Yakub Ağa (d. 1566), babü‘s-sâade ağası in the court of Süleyman I, who

died during the Szigetvar Campaign, like the sultan himself. He had shops in

Küçükçekmece, a masjid and mills in Trakatya (modern Yakuplu near Haramidere)

village, and a farm in Haramidere.92 Since the bridge does not have an inscription, the

exact date of its construction cannot be determined but it must have been built before

1566. The slope of the Haramidere Bridge, which has three large arches and four small

arches to reduce water pressure, must have decreased over time, it seems that it was a

bridge with a much higher slope in its original form. This suggests that the valley was

prone to flooding. (Fig. 16)

89 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 59.

90 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 813.

91 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 84, 109.

92 BOA.TS.MA.D.5104

44

3.1.3 Büyükçekmece Bridge

The bridge in Büyükçekmece is among the masterpieces of Ottoman architecture. It is

a standout building in Ottoman architecture with both its length and construction

technique. So much so that both European travelers and Ottoman intellectuals spoke

highly of the bridge. The bridge was among the buildings Sinan was most proud of

and was the only bridge in which he described the construction process in his

autobiography.

In both Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Bünyan, it is written that the bridge

in Büyükçekmece was built by Sinan. In Tezkiretü‘l-Bünyan, Sinan dictated that the

pre-existing bridge was in a dilapidated condition due to the waves of the sea during

the reign of Süleyman I and that the sultan wanted a bridge to be built here, seeing that

people were taking boats instead of using the bridge since it poses risks. Venetian

diplomat Lorenzo Bernardo (1534 – 1592), on the other hand, writes that marauders

with boats robbed the passengers here and that Süleyman I wanted to build a bridge

for the safety of the travelers.93 Both narratives share the common grievances of the

travelers. After saying that the old bridge here was misplaced and its foundations were

damaged because of wrong placement, Sinan planned to replace the bridge closer to

the sea.94 The bridge construction was started in 1565 but could not be completed

during the reign of Süleyman I since the sultan died during the Szigetvar Campaign,

and the inscription on the bridge in the westernmost part towards Edirne direction

states that the bridge was completed in 1567 during the reign of Selim II (r. 1566 –

1574). Sinan narrates the construction of the Büyükçekmece Bridge in Tezkiretü‘l-

Bünyan:

93 Bernardo. Viaggio A Costantinopoli di Sier Lorenzo Bernardo, 38-39.

94 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 153-154.

45

I set to work. A cofferdam like a galleon was constructed for each of the piers,

and the demons of Solomon drew out the seawater with pumps and large skin sacks

and emptied them. And piles made from fine, strong columns the length of two or three

men were driven into the foundations with a pile driver, large stones were clamped

over them with strong iron clamps, lead was poured between them, and they were

joined together as a single piece.95

The construction of the Büyükçekmece Bridge was a costly and large-scale

project. Limemakers were requested from Sokucak (modern Soğucak) village of

Pınarhisar for the construction. Timbers were requested from Samakov (modern

Demirköy) and timbers were brought by camels provided from Plovdiv. The masters

who will work in the construction of the bridge were requested even from distant

places such as Lesbos, Kastamonu, Konya, Larende (modern Karaman), Taşköprü,

Thessaloniki, Siroz (modern Serres), Amasya, İskilip, Merzifon, Skopje, Ferecik

(modern Feres), Kayseri, and Gallipoli.96 The construction of the bridge should have

been completed as soon as possible. In another decree, yörüks (nomads), Tatars and

canbazs (horse breeders) who worked in shipbuilding in Misivri (modern Mesembria),

Ahtabolu (modern Ahtopol), and Süzebolu (modern Sozopol) were asked to help with

the construction of the Büyükçekmece Bridge as soon as they finish their work there

and 890 müsellems from Bolu to work in the construction was requested with their

food for six months.97 In addition, oaks for making posts were requested from the

qadis of Silivri and Haslar, and it was underlined that this issue was very important.98

Materials like spolia may have been obtained from the surrounding area, as Lubenau

(1556 – 1631) writes that he saw fragments of ancient marble columns on the bridge.99

In 1568, when the bridge was just completed, Habsburg diplomat Marc’Antonio

95 Ibid, 128.

96 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973 / 1565 – 1566), 45, 84-85, 109.

97 Ibid, 176, 202.

98 Erdoğan. “Osmanlı Devrinde Trakya Âbidelerinde Yapılan İmar Çalışmaları”, 121 – 188.

99 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 163-164.

46

Pigafetta, who crossed here, writes that it costed 30,000 ducats of gold.100 Polish

diplomat Andrej Taranowski writes that while crossing here in 1569, 20,000 people

worked for the construction of this bridge for 5 years.101 The construction did not last

for 5 years as Taranowski writes and 20,000 is a quite exaggerated number, but as can

be seen from the decrees in the archival documents, there is no doubt how large a

construction project it was. Contarini writes that 4000 people worked at the same time

to complete the construction in six years.102 The number of employees given by

Contarini would be more reasonable. European travelers should have beeen aware of

the military importance of the bridge, which was ordered during a military campaign.

Georgii Dousae (Joris van der Does) (1574 – 1599) states that the bridge was

commissioned by Süleyman I, so he finally would conquer Vienna.103

The 637-meter bridge was actually an innovative structure consisting of four

bridges connected by three artificial islets. The bridge consists of a total of 28 arches

by adding four separate bridges end to end. (Fig. 17, 18) The three low points on the

three hexagonal islets were intended to minimize damage to the bridge during

flooding.104 Each bridge has a different number of arches and is of different length.This

bridge must be among the structures that Sinan was most proud of. It is the only bridge

among Sinan’s bridges where the name of the architect was inscribed. (Fig. 19) At the

same time, in the inscription in his tomb, Sâi wrote:

Çekmece cisrine bir tâk-ı muallâ çekdi kim

Aynıdır âyine-i devrânda şekli kehkeşan 105

100 Pigafetta. “Itinerario di Marc’Antonio Pigafetta gentil’huomo vicentino”, 70 – 194.

101 Taranowski. Beschreybunge einer Reyse oder eins zuges/ eins fürnemlichen Polnischen Herrn/ von

Königklicher Polnischen wirden/ Botschafftweiß gen Constantinopel.

102 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 40.

103 Dousae. Georgii Dousae de itinere suo Constantinopolitano, Epistola, 75.

104 Ćurčić. Architecture in the Balkans, 784-785.

105 He built such a sublime arch for Çekmece Bridge / In the same shape of the Milky Way in this

world

47

Evliya Çelebi also likens bridge to the Milky Way which presents a glimpse

about the aesthetic perception of the bridge for the Ottoman intellectual.106 The

completion of the bridge is also described with a poem in Şehnâme-i Selim Han, which

was written by Seyyid Lokman (d. after 1601) and presented to Sultan Selim II, and

was supported by a miniature painting attributed to Nakkaş Osman. (Fig. 20)

3.1.4 Silivri Bridges

There are two bridges in Silivri and neither of them has an inscription. One of them is

the four-arched stone bridge on the Boğluca Stream close to the citadel in Silivri. (Fig.

21) The other is the thirty two-arched long bridge built by Sinan on the Tuzla Stream,

which is located westwards. (Fig. 22) In Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin, they are listed as Silivri

Bridges. However, in Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye only one bridge in Silivri is listed, indicating

the long bridge.107 For this reason, it is not possible to make an inference about when

and by whom the four-arched bridge in Silivri was first built. Lorenzo Bernardo

crossed both bridges in 1591.108 The four-arched bridge was rebuilt by Sinan’s

sucessor, Dalgıç Ahmed Ağa (d. 1607).109 In some studies, it is written that the bridge

repaired by Dalgıç Ahmed Ağa is Sinan’s long bridge, but this is not true.110 In a

construction register from 1605, we see that the four-arched bridge in Silivri was

demolished and rebuilt for the soul of Queen Mother Handan Sultan (d. 1605), mother

of Ahmed I (r. 1603 – 1617), and the repair expenses were covered by the palace.111

106 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 165-166.

107 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 84, 109.

108 Bernardo. Viaggio A Costantinopoli di Sier Lorenzo Bernardo, 38.

109 BOA.TS.MA.3916

110 Çeçen. “Sinan’ın Yaptığı Köprüler”, 429 – 438; Akkaya. “Trakya’da Marmara Kıyısında

İstanbul’a Bağlı Bir Kasaba: Silivri ( = Selymbria) Tarih İçindeki Gelişimi ve Eski Eserleri”, 279.

111 BOA.TS.MA.D.5112, BOA.TS.MA.4926

48

It is understood from a decree that the long bridge in Silivri was built before

1571. The qadi of Silivri was asked not to allow fishermen to set up cages near the

Silivri Bridge, as the fishermen who set up cages might cause damage to the bridge.112

In 1568, we understand that some yörüks from the township of Vize were working in

the bridge construction and also haymakers from Çatalca were employed even though

their main duty to was taking care of state pastures in Çatalca.113 Acemioğlans were

requested for the construction of the bridge from the janissary aghas, and Vizier Piyale

Pasha (c. 1515 – 1578) was asked to provide a galley to carry these acemioğlans, along

with required construction materials such as timber.114 The long bridge of Silivri was

a large construction project, though not as much as in Büyükçekmece. The bridge was

not actually crossing a very broad river, therefore almost half of the building spans

over the land. The reason for the construction of the bridge is that, as chaplain of the

British ambassador to Istanbul, John Covel (1638 – 1722), who crossed the bridge in

1675, wrote, the comfort of the travelers crossing the the swampy valley formed by

the stream flowing under the bridge and the winter floods which could cause

troubles.115 In a waqf register dated 1595, we see that the Silivri Bridge was repaired

with the income of the waqf of Süleyman I.116

3.1.5 Araplı / Kınıklıdere Bridge

Between Çorlu and Silivri, there is a stone bridge with three arches and no inscription

on the Kınıklı Creek which draws the Istanbul-Tekirdağ provincial border today. (Fig.

23) Since the Araplı village was located on the main road, it was among the points

112 12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (978 - 979 / 1570 – 1572), Vol. 1. 148.

113 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 – 1569), Vol. 2, 115, 273.

114 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 – 1569), Vol. 1, 577, 578.

115 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 181.

116 BOA.MAD.D.7150

49

where many travelers, armies, and sultans stopped. It was already mentioned in this

present work before that Araplı was a derbend village. In the travel books of the 15th

and 16th centuries, there is no traveler account that informs us that there was a bridge

here. In a document dated to the last days of 1614, we see that Sefer Ağa, who was in

charge of building fountains and bridges on behalf of Ahmed I, bought a mill by the

stream here.117 Evliya Çelebi’s mention of the Sultan Ahmed I fountain while passing

here strengthens the possibility that the bridge and the fountain were built by Sefer

Ağa at the same time.118 Corneille van den Dreisch (1688 – 1758) writes that they

crossed a beautiful stone bridge in Araplı in 1719.119

3.1.6 Çorlu Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge

In the northwest of Çorlu, between Marmaracık and Çorlu, there is a stone bridge over

the Çorlu Stream with five major arches, two minor flooding arches, and no

inscription. (Fig. 24) In Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye, the bridge built in

Marmara in the name of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is listed.120 Today’s town of

Marmaracık must have been referred to as Marmara in the text because there are no

stone bridges in settlements with Marmara in their names, such as Marmara Island or

the town of Gölmarmara in Manisa. However, this bridge is not mentioned in the

waqfiyya of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha though his bridge in Bergos was not mentioned

either. If we take Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye for granted, the bridge

must have been built before 1579 and probably after the 1560s. In an investigation and

repair document dated 1768, the bridge over the Çorlu Stream is described as cisr-i

117 BOA.TS.MA.E.1243.56

118 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 6, 86.

119 Von den Dreisch. Historische Nachricht von der Röm. Kayserl. Groß-Botschafft nach

Constantinopel, 141.

120 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 89, 104.

50

kebir (the great bridge), but the name of the patron is not mentioned.121 In some studies,

this bridge is incorrectly called the Kara Mustafa Pasha Bridge.122

3.1.7 Kara Mustafa Pasha Bridge

It is located on the Ergene River between Karıştıran and Çorlu and has seven arches.

(Fig. 25) In an investigation and repair document from 1768 which was already

mentioned for the Sokollu Bridge over Çorlu Stream, it is written cisr-i kebir-i atik

(the great old bridge) for the bridge over Ergene, but this was not Kırkgöz Bridge

because in the same document Kırkgöz Bridge was defined as the bridge with forty

arches which was located in a quarter of an hour distance.123 It becomes clear in a

document from the following year that this bridge was built by Kara Mustafa Pasha.

The bridge over Ergene, which is defined as cisr-i tavil (the long bridge) in the

documents regarding the repairs and expenses written the following year, is referred

to as the Kara Mustafa Pasha Bridge.124 If we assume that the bridge was built during

the grand viziership of Kara Mustafa Pasha, then the bridge dated between 1676 and

1683.

3.1.8 Karıştıran Rüstem Pasha Bridge

The great seven-arched stone bridge in Karıştıran is not mentioned in the records of

16th and early 17th century travelers or in Sinan’s autobiographies, nor is it written in

Rüstem Pasha’s (d. 1561) waqfiyya. (Fig. 26) In a document dated 1781, it is

121 BOA.C.NF.35.1748

122 Çulpan. Türk Taş Köprüleri, 179-181.

123 BOA.C.NF.35.1748

124 BOA.AE.SMST.III.236.18626; BOA.C.NF.13.616

51

mentioned that two wooden bridges from the Cağalzade Waqf were repaired by the

waqf within the borders of the township of Bergos.125 If they were in Bergos, then it

should have been repaired by the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqf. For this reason, the

bridges mentioned in the document should have been in Karıştıran. The stone bridge

might have been built at a later period with the income of the waqf in the later 17th

century. The bridge, whose seven arches are visible today, has changed a little from its

original appearance with the addition of another modern bridge to one end and the

stream rehabilitation works. Covel, who crossed the bridge in 1675, reports that this

bridge has eight arches and this explains that the bridge was built before 1675.126

3.1.9 Bergos Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge

The four-arched Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge in Bergos must have been built by

Sinan between 1566 and 1570, during the construction of the complex in the town.

(Fig. 27) It has five flooding arches besides main arches. The bridge is located in the

west of the town over the Köprüaltı Stream. The bridge is not mentioned in Sinan’s

autobiographies, but since Sinan built the Sokollu Complex in Bergos, we can assume

that he built the bridge as well. In a document dated 1566, it is written that the army

arrived to the konak of Bergos and had hardships while crossing the bridges and they

were adversely affected by the rain.127 There was absolutely no chance that Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha, who attended divan meetings at that time, was not aware of this

situation, therefore, he may have wanted a bridge to be built in addition to his complex

in Bergos.

125 BOA.C.NF.14.672

126 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant,183.

127 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973 / 1565 – 1566), 246.

52

3.1.10 Alpullu Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge

Even though the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge in Alpullu was on an offshoot road

connecting Orta Kol to the port city of Rodoscuk, thus Sol Kol via Hayrabolu, I believe

that it is worth mentioning in this work due to its proximity to the main artery. (Fig.

28) The Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge, located between the villages of Sinanlı and

Alpullu, is remarkable among Sinan’s bridges with its extraordinary architecture. The

monumental bridge is among the bridges listed in Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye.128 The bridge

has five main and four flooding arches with the central arch span which is the widest

in Sinan’s bridges and it has a very steep slope. The reason for this may be the floods

caused by Ergene River flowing under it. Sinanlı village near the bridge was among

the villages of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqf.

3.1.11 Babaeski Çoban (Shepherd) Kasım Ağa Bridge

According to its inscription, Çoban Kasım Ağa Bridge in Babaeski was built in 1043

AH / 1633-4 AD during the reign of Murad IV (r. 1623 – 1640). According to the

narratives of Abdurrahman Hıbrî (1604 – 1659) and Evliya Çelebi, the bridge was built

by sekbanbaşı Kasım Ağa, one of the aghas of janissaries in the court of Murad IV.129

According to John Covel’s travel account, the bridge is wide enough for three carts to

pass at the same time.130 It is located east end of town and is a six-arched bridge with

double flooding gaps between its each of six arches flanking the prismatic buttresses.

The bridge has a balcony like kiosk just across the inscription.

128 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 109.

129 İlgürel. “Abdurrahman Hibrî’nin Menasîk-i Mesâlik’i”, 111 – 128; Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi

Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 264.

130 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 186.

53

Figure 13. Map of the road between Edirne and Istanbul showing monumental stone bridges

Figure 14. Photo of Küçükçekmece Bridge. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

54

Figure 15. Colored lithograph of the Küçükçekmece Bridge with wooden posts on the stone

substructure by Luigi Mayer

Figure 16. Kapıağası Bridge in Haramidere. Retrieved from:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haramidere_Bridge_Istanbul.png

55

Figure 17. Büyükçekmece Bridge. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 18. Colored lithograph of Büyükçekmece Bridge by Luigi Mayer

56

Figure 19. Inscription on the bridge reads as: Amal-i Yusuf bin Abdullah (the work of Yusuf bin

Abdullah). Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 20. Miniature painting from 1581 showing the Büyükçekmece Bridge and the town. Topkapı

Palace Museum Library, A. 3595, fol. 56b

57

Figure 21. Four-arched bridge in Silivri which was rebuilt by Dalgıç Ahmed Ağa. Photo by Can

Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 22. Long bridge in Silivri which was built by Sinan. Photo by Can Bozkır, December 2021

58

Figure 23. Araplı Bridge. Photo by Can Bozkır, December, 2022

Figure 24. Çorlu Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

59

Figure 25. Kara Mustafa Pasha Bridge over Ergene. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 26. Rüstem Pasha Bridge in Karıştıran. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

60

Figure 27. Bergos Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 28. Alpullu Bridge over the flooding Ergene. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

61

Figure 29. Babaeski Çoban Kasım Ağa Bridge. Photo by Can Bozkır, April, 2022

3.2 Road constructions and taking care of it

Paving and repairing the roads was surely essential for the comfort of the palace who

went on the journey to Edirne, or for merchants and ambassadors, but the greatest

importance was to ensure the rapid advance of the army marching on the campaign.

However, the roads were not always in the desired condition. Especially during the

winter season, it could cause problems for the travelers. French traveler Fresne-Canaye

(1551 – 1610), who traveled to Istanbul via Edirne in February 1573, writes that the

roads around Babaeski and Bergos were in a terrible condition and covered with

mud.131 In a decree sent to the qadis of the townships between Edirne and Istanbul, it

was ordered that the pavements should be repaired along the road and wooden bridges

should be repaired where necessary in order not to cause hardships and troubles to the

131 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 47.

62

court traveling to Edirne in 1571.132 According to a document dated 1558, the Istanbul

– Halkalı – Çatalca line was often well paved during the reign of Süleyman I.133 Earlier

in this study, it was shown that the army used this road frequently during the reign of

Süleyman I. Halkalı and Çatalca were also preferred hunting grounds of the sultan.

The major profession that kept the roads functioning was kaldırımcılık

(paving). They were employed by the state and their duties were basically building

roads by laying stones and repairing them. The roads from Silivri to Silivrikapı were

repaired by the masters appointed by the bostancıbaşı for the sultan, who returned to

Istanbul from Edirne in 1695.134 Catharin Zen writes that between Babaeski and

Bergos the road was in excellent condition and well paved for travelers. He writes that

people were paving these roads for the sake of God.135 Adam Wenner, who arrived in

Istanbul in 1616 by using this road with the entourage of the Austrian ambassador,

writes that the pavement around Bergos was very smooth and that most of the Edirne

– Istanbul road was well paved.136 However, pavement of roads was not always in

good condition which requires regular maintenance. For this reason, keeping the road

from Istanbul to Rumelia well-maintained was of essential importance for the state.

There were also roads built and repaired by waqf resources. These were mostly

for the construction of roads leading to waqf buildings or streets within towns where

waqfs were located. Therefore, we can think that only a certain part of a road was built

with waqf resources. Other parts of the major roads were built by the state or by the

locals. For example, in 1692, it was ordered that the bridges belonging to waqfs on the

132 12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (978 - 979 / 1570 – 1572), Vol. 2. 9.

133 Orhonlu. “Meslekî Bir Teşekkül Olarak Kaldırımcılık ve Osmanlı Şehir Yolları Hakkında Bazı

Düşünceler”, 93 – 138.

134 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.103.785

135 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

136 Wenner. Padişahın Huzurunda Elçilik Günlüğü, 1616 – 1618, 52.

63

road between Havsa and Küçükçekmece were to be repaired by the land owners and

waqf employees.137 Again in 1697, the trustee of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Waqf,

İbrahim Hanzade Ali, came to Istanbul from Edirne and requested the repair of waqf’s

bridges, fountains, and roads on the road between Edirne and Istanbul. Thereupon,

decrees were sent to the qadis of Çorlu, Bergos, and Babaeski for the repair of the

aforementioned waqf buildings.138 In a document dated 1788, it was stated that the

repair expenses of the pavements between Küçükçekmece and Edirne would be

covered by the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqf in Bergos.139 Mehmed Pasha may also

have wanted this because the well-functioning road would keep his waqf’s incomes

high. This document is very important because these expenditures may have been

made as an investment on behalf of the waqf of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, who endowed

many buildings between Edirne and Istanbul, in order for his waqf to function in the

best way and to keep the incomes of the waqf high. In a decree dated 1738, it was

ordered to the qadis of Küçükçekmece, Büyükçekmece, Silivri, Çorlu, Karıştıran,

Bergos, Babaeski, and Havsa that the roads and bridges within the boundaries of each

township should be repaired by locals for the army which would go on a campaign.140

In addition to this, there were tax-exempt müsellems who were in charge of road repair,

bridge repair, and building infrastructure prior to the arrival of the army during a

military campaign. For example, in a decree sent to the qadi of Çorlu in 1566, it was

ordered that müsellems in Vize to be sent to Karıştıran.141

The derbend organization was one of the other important organizations for the

functioning of Ottoman main roads. The people in the villages formed as derbend were

137 BOA.İE.NF.1.61

138 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.109.30

139 BOA.AE.SABH.I.28.2161

140 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.145.351

141 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973 / 1565 – 1566), 242.

64

exempt from some taxes like köprücüs. Roles of the derbendci (lit. mountain pass

guard) were to repair and ensure the safety of the road as an outpost, as well as to

şenlendirme (populate and make prosperous) the desolate areas. Located between

Çorlu and Silivri, Araplı was founded as a derbend village in the valley of Kınıklı

Creek. This village was founded during the reign of Süleyman I with settling of

seventy households who were deported from elsewhere. These deportees were exempt

from the taxes of tekalif-i örfiyye. Probably those deported to Araplı village were non-

Muslims. Gerlach writes that this was a non-Muslim village with a church dedicated

to the Virgin Mary and that there was an inn here.142 In a decree dated 1691 addressed

to the qadi of Ereğli, it was requested that their churches should not be prevented from

being repaired since Araplı was a non-Muslim village.143 As a result of the repair of

the bridge and roads in the area during the reign of Ahmed I, it was requested that the

farms and pastures should be returned to their formers, to people who left the village

during the course of time from the reign of Süleyman I to the reign of Ahmed I.144 In

a decree sent to the qadi of Havsa, it was written that the people of the town of Havsa,

were derbendci and they should be exempt from taxes. where Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

had a large menzil complex built on the Edirne - Istanbul road.145 In addition, we see

that the inhabitants of Bergos was also exempt from taxes, where Sokollu Mehmed

Pasha’s largest social complex was located.146 Exemption from taxes was encouraging

the development and population increase of towns with menzil complexes and derbend

settlements.

142 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 817.

143 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.100.495

144 Orhonlu. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Derbend Teşkilatı, 73.

145 BOA.AE.SMHD.I.46.2732

146 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.22.199; BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.22.200

65

On the roads of primary importance, apart from kaldırımcılar and

derbendciler, there were köprücüler who were employed for reparining and keeping

the bridges functioning. The establishment of köprücülük ensured that the bridges in

the Ottoman Empire remained standing for centuries. Köprücüler were employed by

the state and they were exempt from taxes like kaldırımcılar and derbendciler and their

duty was to supervise bridges, along with the maintenance and repair of bridges.147 We

see that the bridge in Babaeski which was built during the reign of Murad IV had a

ferraş.148 Even though ferraş literally means either a cleaner in waqf buildings or a

person who lays mattresses and carpets, we can think that ferraş in this context is the

keeper of the bridge responsible for its maintenance by laying stones on the floor.

3.3 Ensuring the safety

The road between Edirne and Istanbul was in the best condition compared to the rest

of the roads in the empire, but it was not always safe. Envoys and state officials could

travel safely with janissaries escorting them, but there were some dangers posing for

merchants, caravans, or individual travelers. Since it was the busiest road, the Orta

Kol was an attractive target for bandit groups usually lurking in valleys, stream beds,

or woods. As already mentioned in this work that derbend organization was also

responsible with the safety of the road functioning as outposts. Moreover, we see that

decrees were issued in specific cases regarding the actions of bandit gangs and coping

with them especially in 17th and 18th centuries. In a decree dated 1631, qadis were

ordered to take precautions against bandit groups hijacking in Küçükçekmece and

147 Orhonlu. “Köprücülük”, 701 – 708.

148 BOA.İE.EV.22.2663

66

other places on Orta Kol and to cooperate with the silahdar appointed by the center.149

In a decree from 1609 addressed to qadis of the Orta Kol in Rumelia, it was ordered

that action should be taken about some levends disguised as acemioğlans or janissaries

engaging in banditry.150 Some travelers had foreknowledge of the banditry on this

road. They were told by locals or janissaries about the banditry along the road. Catharin

Zen writes that the part of the road between Çorlu and Silivri was dangerous, there

were many bandits in this region, and the reputation of the bandits was well-known

here.151 İnciciyan also describes the area known as Semizkum between Çorlu and

Silivri as the hotbed of bandits.152 Englishman Covel reports that the name of the

Haramidere region between Küçükçekmece and Büyükçekmece comes from the

Turkish word of harami (robber, bandit) because there were many robbery and murder

incidents happening in this valley.153 French traveler Jean Palerne (1557 – 1592) writes

that they had to be very careful because of the robbers while they were on their way

between Çorlu and Karıştıran. Lubenau, on the other hand, writes that they were told

that the area between Havsa and Babaeski was an unsafe area. Their entourage was

attacked by bandits during the night journey between Bergos and Çorlu, but the attack

failed since they were well-equipped. 154 It can be seen from the notes of all these

travelers that there was a security risk along almost the entire Istanbul - Edirne road.

A peasant, a farmer, or an unequipped merchant traveling between two towns could

easily have been a victim of these gangs.

149 85 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (1040 – 1041 (1042)/ 1630 – 1631 (1632)), 360-362.

150 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.78.2074.

151 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 218.

152 İnciciyan. “Osmanlı Rumelisi’nin Tarih ve Coğrafyası”, 101 – 152.

153 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 177.

154 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 156-157.

67

3.4 Provisioning the traveling palace, marching army, and the city of Istanbul

The expenses of the horses and camels at the menzil points were met from the nearby

villages known as the menzilkeş (lit. menzil-bearer). These villages were exempt from

various taxes and their main role in the state was to cover the expenses of the stopover

points.155 Therefore, the town centers with the menzil points formed a network with

the nearby villages. Besides, these stopover towns formed a network among

themselves and had roles assigned to them by the center. For example, when Selim II,

who went hunting frequently around Karıştıran, Çorlu, and Halkalı, he was demanding

barley, grass, straw, wood, and other grains from the qadis of Çorlu and Silivri.156

From the reign of Selim II onwards, the sultans and the court began to spend more

time in Edirne. In the 10 decrees written in succession in a mühimme register from

1565, the qadis of the pre-determined stopover points defined as konak between

Istanbul and Edirne and the qadis of the neighboring towns were ordered to prepare

grain for the needs of the army, since the army will go on a campaign in.157 Again, in

1567, while it was ordered to prepare grain for the sultan and the Sarây-ı Âmire who

were to move to Edirne in 1567, the qadi of Silivri was asked to cooperate with the

qadi of Çorlu in case of necessity.158 Selim II, who was going to spend the winter of

1571-1572 in Edirne, ordered the qadis in the pre-determined konaks to prepare plenty

of grain for Dârüssaâde as well as the Ordu-yı Hümâyun (Imperial Army).159 The route

followed by Vizier Mehmed Pasha (d. 1606), who set out for the Hungary campaign

in 1604, and the locations of the grain to be sent to the pre-determined stopover places

were recorded in the mühimme registers. For example, the grain for Araplı was

155 For menzilkeş villages of the region in the late 17th century see: Altunan. “XVII. Yüzyıl Sonlarında

İstanbul-Edirne Arasındaki Menziller ve Bazı Menzilkeş Köyler”, 75 – 99.

156 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.23.237; 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973 / 1565 – 1566), 246.

157 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973 / 1565 – 1566), 184-185.

158 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 – 1569), 153-154.

159 12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (978 - 979 / 1570 – 1572), Vol. 2., 10.

68

requested from Ereğli, the grain for Çorlu was requested by Çorlu and Rodoscuk

(Tekirdağ), the grain for Babaeski was requested from Malkara, and the grain for

Havsa was requested from Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa.160 Lists of grain and other stuff

ordered to be prepared were often sent to pre-determined konaks.

The long reign of Mehmed IV (r. 1648 – 1687) can be considered as the age of

şikâr-ı hümayun (imperial hunting) for the region. Mehmed IV, who was frequently

hunting around Yapağıcı (modern Alipaşa) near Silivri, and Çorlu, apart from Edirne,

had a hunting palace built in Karıştıran. This palace should probably have been located

on the site of the former hunting palace of Selim II. The registers in which the materials

such as broadcloths, frames, curtains, oilcloths and woolen cloths purchased for this

hunting palace are recorded are available in archives.161 In addition, the expenses of

ox carts and horses to be used along with grain, wood, log, coal, and grass to be

consumed in Büyükçekmece, Silivri, Çorlu, Bergos, Babaeski, Havsa during the

journey to Edirne for hunting are recorded down.162 The number of registers showing

how much materials such as barley, grass, and wood supplied to the menzils between

Edirne and Istanbul from nearby towns and villages conspiciously increased during

the reign of Mehmed IV.163 After the reign of Mehmed IV, the road was continued to

be frequently used by the palace until 1703. During the reign of Mustafa II (r. 1695 –

1703), the Havsa, Babaeski, Bergos, and Karıştıran konaks were renovated and the

expenses were met from the menzilciyan villages of Edirne.164 Also, Mustafa II

renovated the baths of the hunting palace in Karıştıran.165

160 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.77.109; BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.77.118.

161 BOA.D.BŞM.D.387

162 BOA.MAD.D.4033

163 BOA.MAD.D.4269; BOA.D.MKF.D.31799; BOA.İE.SM.5.392

164 BOA.AE.SMST.II.117.12816

165 BOA.AE.SMST.II.136.15044

69

As presented above, in the second half of the 17th century, the amount of time

that the palace spent in Edirne had increased sharply starting from the reign of Mehmed

IV onwards. By looking at the archival documents, it is possible to see the increase in

the number of the Istanbul-Edirne journeys of the palace between the periods of

Mehmed IV and Ahmed III (r. 1703 – 1730). Moreover, the Vâlide Sultan (Queen

Mother) and the harem were participating in these journeys independently of the

sultan.166 There are even receipts showing the expenses of the grain consumed at the

stopover points between Edirne and Istanbul during the travels of the palace singers

and musicians.167 The menzil points were of great importance in the journeys of the

palace between Istanbul and Edirne, because the courtiers had to have no hardships

and troubles (‘usret ve muzâyaka) during the journey, especially in terms of food and

heating. These stopover points were not merely resting points during the march of the

army, envoys, and the court, but also formed a network with each other and with the

neighboring villages, as well as with the surrounding towns and villages that were not

on the main road. This point is also important in order to understand the duties that the

Ottoman state imposed on the menzil points and surrounding settlements in their

vicinity. For example, for the stop in Kuleli village between Havsa and Babaeski,

60,000 aspers from İnecik and horses from Rusköy (modern Keşan) and Mekri were

sent.168 The payment of the money allocated for Kuleli village in 1690 was requested

from the qadis of the neighboring towns such as Keşan, Bergos, and Babaeski.169 Grain

was sent from Uzunköprü to Havsa menzil in 1699 for the palace traveling from Edirne

to Istanbul.

166 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.103.785; BOA.İE.SM.8.769; More about Valide Sultan’s travels between

Edirne and Istanbul in that period can be seen mühimme registers numbered 92, 93, 112, and 113.

167 BOA.İE.SM.11.1085

168 BOA.AE.SMMD.IV.66.7794

169 BOA.AE.SSÜL.II.21.2174

70

In addition to creating a menzil network, these towns also formed the

provisioning network of Istanbul. Therefore, the road was vital for the needs of

Istanbul, which was rapidly popularized by the forced migration policies of Mehmed

II. Thrace, which was an important grain production center for the Byzantine Empire,

maintained its important for the provision of Istanbul during the Ottoman period. Due

to its arable lands, stockbreeding activities, and its location in the hinterland of

Istanbul, this road was one of the main arteries feeding the city. The Orta Kol,

therefore, was the most important provisioning channel of the city coming from the

land. The population of the city began to swell even in the 16th century, and the need

for grain and meat began to increase. Grain, dairy products, and meat supply are among

the subjects regarding Eastern Thracian towns in archival documents especially from

this period onwards. For example, during the 16th century, many villages of the kazâ

(township) of Çorlu were obliged to supply grass and hay to Istabl-ı Âmire (The Palace

Stables).170 One of the duties of some other villages in the township of Çorlu was sheep

breeding for the Matbah-ı Âmire (The Palace Kitchens), for the janissaries, and for the

provision of Istanbul. Celeb ta‘ifesi (the group of herdsmen) in these villages was

responsible for bringing sheep to Istanbul.171 For example, in a decree dated 1570, the

qadis of Çorlu and Silivri were asked to send sheep because there was a shortage of

meat in Istanbul.172 In addition, this road is the most important caravan route

connecting the Balkans to Istanbul, so it has a high commercial importance. Not only

the grain and animals within the empire, but also the Central European and Eastern

European merchants coming from outside the empire were also using this route. For

example, during his journey from Havsa to Babaeski, Paolo Contarini came across a

170 BOA. A.DVNSMHM.D.6.500; BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.43.80; 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973

/ 1565 – 1566), 210.

171 BOA. A.DVNSMHM.D.78.1906

172 12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (978 - 979 / 1570 – 1572), Vol. 1. 51.

71

caravan carrying goods being brought by Polish merchants from Germany to

Istanbul.173

In conclusion, after the completion of the Edirne – Istanbul connection during

the reign of Mehmed II, ventures for reviving the road was initiated by the Ottomans,

who were well-aware of the the importance of this road, but there was no welldeveloped

organization yet. With the construction of the caravanserais, which were

built as part of large complexes, and the establishment of the organization and

communication network in the second half of the 16th century, travel routes and the

stopover points gradually started to become standardized. The fact that the best

conditions of the caravanserais across the Balkans were on the Edirne - Istanbul axis

proves the special importance that the center attached to this section of the road. The

fact that this is the part of the road where the frequency of not only the caravanserais

but also the Ottoman monumental stone bridges that have survived to the present day

is the highest, makes this route a prestigious early modern Ottoman highway. Thus,

thanks to caravanserais and solid stone bridges, the safe accommodation of travelers

such as ambassadors and merchants was provided and the trade in the towns

significantly increased. However, it should not be forgotten that the main reason why

this road was well-maintained is the palace’s frequent travels to Edirne and the army’s

expeditions to the Balkans. The fact that the maintenance and repairs of the road and

bridges were mostly done before the departure of the palace or the army from Istanbul

proves this. This busy road had also become a target for bandits. The presence of

murderer and robber banditis in various places between Edirne and Istanbul pushed

the state and travelers to take precautions. With the standardization of the route and

menzil points, the development of the towns also accelerated and they formed a

173 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 36.

72

network to meet their needs. This network not only enabled the settlements to meet

each other’s needs, but also met the meat and grain supply of Istanbul since the region

extending towards Çorlu from Istanbul formed the immediate hinterland of the capital.

73

CHAPTER 4

SETTLEMENTS WITH STOPOVER COMPLEXES

In this part of the study, the urban and architectural histories of the settlements

containing stopover complex on the Orta Kol from Istanbul to Edirne will be examined

respectively. Each settlement will be studied in a separate sub-title and each subheading

shows how these settlements were urbanized and flourished thanks to their

location on a major public road. The towns of Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece,

which are similar to each other in terms of geographical conditions, will be studied

under a single sub-title. Most towns are studied within a similar structure. Following

the geographical features of the settlements, the economic situation in the settlements

and the demographic features, the prominent urbanization activities in these places will

be presented chronologically and the architectural features of these building that have

survived to the present day will be explained. This chapter thus aims to present the

urban history of the towns in a connected and holistic manner, through an attention to

geography, demography, economy, and material environment.

4.1 Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece

In this chapter, Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece will be prensented together. The

reason for this is that both settlements had similar geographical characteristics which

shaped the economic activities and urbanization. Both towns were located on the Sol

Kol (Via Egnatia) as well as being on the Orta Kol (Via Militaris). First,

Büyükçekmece and then Küçükçekmece will be discussed. After briefly presenting the

geographical situation of Büyükçekmece and presenting the information about the

social, demographic, and economic situation of the town, the urbanization activities in

74

the town from the 15th to the 18th century will be evaluated chronologically. Mehmed

II’s small complex, Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi’s, and Süleyman I’s joint complex

with Sokollu Mehmed Pasha will be studied. Then, Küçükçekmece will be presented

in the same structure. After briefly presenting the geographical and economic situation

of the town, the small complex that Mehmed II and the large complex that Abdüsselam

Çelebi commissioned will be studied.

Büyükçekmece was a small fishing town located on the east side of the point

where the Büyükçekmece Lagoon meets the sea. The location of the castle, built in

late antiquity, was far from the present town. Some remnants of the castle can be seen

today around the Ahmediye village in the northeastern part of Büyükçekmece Lake.

Fresne-Canaye and Benedetto Ramberti (1503 – c. 1547) saw the ruins a little way out

of town.174 However, it is not possible to associate the castle with the town.

According to Jean Palerne, Büyükçekmece was more populated than

Küçükçekmece and had all the necessary stuff with its good port.175 Contarini says that

there were many shops in the town and there were about 200 households in the mid-

16th century.176 The population of the town consisted of Greeks and Turks.177

Büyükçekmece was a town the economy was mostly depended on fishing. The

townspeople were earning a good income from fishing.178 Covel states that the

commerce in the town was lively thanks to the road and the sea and he adds that it was

possible to find both freshwater fish and marine fish here.179 Nakkaş Osman’s

174 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 48; Ramberti. Delle cose de Turchi, 10.

175 Palerne. Peregrinations Dv S. Iean Palerne Foresien, 490.

176 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 40.

177 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 58.

178 Belon. Les observations de plusieurs singularités et choses mémorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie,

Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays, rédigées par P. Belon, du Mans, 120; Zen. “Descrizione del

viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a Sultan Soliman e suo

ritorno”, 203 – 256.

179 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 177.

75

miniature in Şehnâme-i Selim Han depicts fishermen fishing with nets, as well as the

panorama of the town. (Fig. 20) In addition, there were many windmills like Silivri

around the town.180 Covel writes that there were many inns and several beautiful streets

in the town.181 Evliya Çelebi notes that there were 11 inns in the town, large or small,

lead-covered or not, confirming Covel.182 However, Evliya Çelebi mentions the

existence of a madrasa in the town but there was no madrasa in Büyükçekmece and it

is not mentioned in the list of madrasas in Rumelia. Evliya must have been confused

with Küçükçekmece. Covel writes that there were Armenians, Greeks, and Jews in the

town as well as Turks. The Christian people in the town had a church. Wenner records

that in 1616 they stayed in a house near the church.183

Fatih Mosque is the oldest known structure belonging to the Ottoman period in

Büyükçekmece. This mosque, which was built in the name of Mehmed II, does not

have an inscription. It is a plain and simple mosque like the other mosques of Mehmed

II located between Istanbul and Edirne. The mosque with a single minaret was built of

rubble stone. (Fig. 30) It has a rectangular plan close to a square and its dimensions

are approximately 11 meters by 8.5 meters.184 According to a repair register dated 1182

AH / 1768-1789 AD, we are informed that there was also a primary school next to the

mosque which could be a later addition.185 The primary school and the mosque are not

mentioned in the waqfiyya of Mehmed II like the other mosques he commissioned in

provincial areas of the Empire. The fountain made of cut stone in front of the mosque

is a later addition. According to its inscription, the patron of the fountain, which was

180 Belon. Les observations de plusieurs singularités et choses mémorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie,

Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays, rédigées par P. Belon, du Mans, 120

181 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 178.

182 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 164.

183 Wenner. Padişahın Huzurunda Elçilik Günlüğü, 1616 – 1618, 106.

184 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi‘marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), Vol. 4, 168.

185 BOA.TS.MA.D.4842

76

built in 1856, was the family of Süleyman Ağa, who was wounded in the war in

Yergöğü (Giurgiu in Romania) and was martyred in the Crimea. (Fig. 31) In addition,

there is a document dated 1612 regarding the repair of the Çekmece Bath, which

belongs to the waqf of Sultan Mehmed Han. However, it is not stated in the document

whether the bath was in Küçükçekmece or Büyükçekmece.186

The other building in Büyükçekmece, which can be dated back to the first half

of the 16th century, is the hipped roofed and tile-covered small mosque known as the

Imaret Mosque today. (Fig. 32) It is understood from its plan that it once belonged to

a group of inverted T-shaped mosques with zawiya/hospice. This mosque plan

displayed its last examples in the first decades of the 16th century. Today, the mosque,

which is far from its original form, does not have sections flanking the central space

and only the square-planned mihrab section is standing. The iwan arch at the entrance

to the mihrab area is welcoming the visitors at the entrance of the mosque. (Fig. 33)

Before the square space of 7 meters by 7 meters dimensions, traces of the portico in

the original plan can be observed today.187 The minaret of the imaret, which was built

of masonry stone, must have been built later. Actually, the Imaret Mosque must have

been part of a larger complex indicated by its name. There must have been a complex

in the Dizdâriye neighborhood, which gave its name to the central neighborhood of

Büyükçekmece today. In a petition dated 1086 AH / 1675-1676 AD, it was requested

that the mosque, soup kitchen, and inn built by Dizdarzâde Mehmed in Büyükçekmece

should be investigated for repairs, since the buildings of the complex were in need of

repair.188 There are many documents regarding the repair of this mosque, especially

from the 19th century onwards. The soup kitchen, mosque, and inn of Dizdarzâde

186 BOA.YB.04.1.34

187 Yücel. “Büyükçekmece’deki Türk Eserleri”, 95 – 106.

188 BOA.C.BLD.121.6049

77

Mehmed might have been located in the heart of Büyükçekmece, which is known as

Imaret Mosque today. Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi’s waqfiyya is dated 1519, so the

inverted T-shaped mosque should have contained the soup kitchen as well. The date

of the waqfiyya and the plan of the building support this argument. It was stipulated

that the surplus of the waqf budget should be allocated to the imaret.189 Details of the

complex in Büyükçekmece are not given in both the evkaf tahriri (cadastral survey of

waqfs) of 1546 and 1600. This soup kitchen may have been endowed as a separate

waqf, but in the evkaf registers, no other such waqf in Büyükçekmece nor any other

waqf of the same patron is listed. In an accounting register of the year 1176 AH / 1762-

1763, it can be seen that there were bath and inns among the income of the waqf.190 In

a petition from 1711, the repair of the bath, fountains, and as well as the waterways of

the foundation was requested.191 In a document dated 1839, we see that this small

complex had waterways and a su yolcu was appointed for its repair.192 From all these

petitions, accounting registers and repair documents, it is possible to infer that

Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi's complex, dated to the first half of the 16th century,

consisted of a mosque, soup kitchen, inn, bath, fountains, and waterways.

Unfortunately, no travelogue presents a description of Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi’s

complex however it is possible to see Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi’s T-shaped Imaret

Mosque in a miniature painting of Büyükçekmece dated 1581. (Fig. 20) Also, it is

possible to see the building in Leiden Sketchbook dated after 1570s, drawn by an

anonymous Netherlandish artist. (Fig. 40) In Büyükçekmece, the attention of travelers

focused more on the caravanserai and the long bridge that Süleyman I would have

189 BOA.TS.MA.5824; Ayverdi, and Barkan. İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli, 79-

80.

190 BOA.TS.MA.D.5673

191 BOA.TS.MA.E.1289.15

192 BOA.TS.MA.E.830.40

78

commissioned in the next decades, rather than the center of the town. Thus, we can

assume that Büyükçekmece was a multifocal town and that the Istanbul – Edirne road

did not pass through Dizdarzâde Mehmed’s complex. The complex, which was outside

the main road route, was not recorded by the travelers, but the petitions written in the

18th and 19th centuries and the repairs made indicate that this area was important for

the local townspeople.

Yücel attributes the bath known as Yusuf Pasha Bath in Büyükçekmece to the

17th century, but the double-bath does not have an inscription.193 The patron of this

bath, which is located awkwardly under an office block on Hamam Sokak in the center

of the town today, is unknown. (Fig. 34) However, it was already stated that there was

also a bath in the complex of Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi and with its proximity to the

Imaret Mosque and its pre-Sinan era architectural features, the bath may well belong

to Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi’s complex.

In the following period, the urbanization activity in Büyükçekmece, like other

menzil towns, intensified in the second half of the 16th century. Süleyman I had a

caravanserai and a fountain built at the eastern end of the bridge, the construction of

which was started by Süleyman I and completed during the reign of Selim II. The

three-sided fountain, which has a spout on each side, resembles an open gothic triptych

with its marble façade with three pointed arches. (Fig. 35) The name of Süleyman I

and the date of construction of the fountain, 974 AH / 1566 AD, are written on the

thuluth inscription in the central side. The caravanserai known as Kurşunlu Han,

commissioned by Süleyman I, is located next to the fountain. Although the

caravanserai is covered with tiles today, it was originally covered with lead.194 Both in

193 Yücel. “Büyükçekmece’deki Türk Eserleri”, 95 – 106.

194 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 813; Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi

1573, 48

79

Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye the building is listed among Sinan’s

works.195 The rectangular-planned structure was built by employing the alternating

layers of stone and brick technique. (Fig. 36) The covered porch at the entrance of the

caravanserai does not seem to belong to the original plan. Twelve hearths and twentyfour

niches inside the caravanserai has been preserved in good condition and can be

observed today. (Fig. 37)

Behind the fountain and near the caravanserai is Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s

masjid. The masjid is also listed both in Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye and Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin

among the works of the great architect along with the caravanserai.196 The masjid with

a hipped roof is covered with lead today, but in its original form it was covered with

tiles. Like the caravanserai just standing across Istanbul – Edirne road which once

passed between them, the masjid was built with alternating layers of stone and brick.

It has a rectangular plan close to a square. (Fig. 38) The wooden porch covering the

entrace entirely was added during the most recent restoration. One of the remarkable

features of the masjid is its minaret, which is located independently of the building.

The minaret in the courtyard in front of the mosque is a rare example of independent

minarets in the Ottoman architecture with its lead-covered onion-shaped dome and

ogee topped horseshoe-archs. (Fig. 39) A similar minaret can be seen in the masjid

that Sinan had built in his name. In addition to the masjid, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha also

endowed other properties and shops in Büyükçekmece. There were four shops and two

houses for married people next to the masjid. Moreover, there were a shop and a bakery

adjacent to these two houses, and seven two-storey shops (tahtani ve fevkani), as well

as two shops adjacent to the caravanserai. He also endowed a house with a garden, a

195 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 85, 110.

196 Ibid, 82, 107.

80

water well, and its own oven in Büyükçekmece.197 With Mehmed Pasha’s endowments

of a masjid, shops, houses and a bakery near the bridge, fountain, and caravanserai of

Süleyman I, a small menzil complex was formed at the eastern end of the bridge,

welcoming those coming from Edirne direction to the town.

In some studies, it is mentioned that there was a bath in the joint complex of

Süleyman I and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, referring to the pasha’s waqfiyya, but there

is no mention of the bath in the waqfiyya. Küçükkaya, and Müderrisoğlu quoting from

her work, mention the houses endowed by Mehmed Pasha for bathers (hamamcı) in

Büyükçekmece, probably due to a misreading in the waqfiyya, since that part in the

document describes pasha’s endowments in Üsküdar.198 Therefore, the bath in Kültür

Park today did not belong to the pasha’s waqf.

Just like Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece is located on the eastern side of the

narrow strait where the lagoon meets the sea. However, Küçükçekmece shows some

topographic differences from Büyükçekmece. On the eastern side of the lagoon, there

is a ridge with a high slope. The town was located between this ridge and the lake

shore, and the part rising towards the ridge formed the eastern border of the town.

Thanks to both the lake and the sea, Küçükçekmece was a town like

Büyükçekmece where fishing was prevailed. It was one of the favorite spots of

travelers during their travels because it was possible to find all kinds of fish. Also,

together with Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece were the resort areas of Istanbul. Evliya

Çelebi describes these places as promenade (mesire) areas at that time and writes that

the people of Istanbul were coming here in boats and hunting flounder fish and eating

197 VGMA, nr. 572, fol. 34.

198 Küçükkaya. “Mimar Sinan Dönemi İstanbul-Belgrad Arası Menzil Yapıları Hakkında Bir

Deneme”, 183-254; Müderrisoğlu. “16. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İnşa Edilen Menzil

Külliyeleri”, 508.

81

after frying them in butter.199 In addition, there was a hasbağçe (imperial garden) in

the Haramidere area between Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece for the use of the

harem. Sultans used to come here to have a good time and hunt. Another source of

livelihood of the townspeople was agriculture. Gerlach notes that the area between

Istanbul and Küçükçekmece was full of vineyards and pastures, and barley and oats

were also produced.200 It is not surprising to see ships loaded with straw from Çekmece

in the list of the ships provisioning Istanbul by looking at Gerlach’s notes.201

Kritovoulos writes that after Mehmed II captured Istanbul he commissioned an

inn along with the bridge in Küçükçekmece.202 Also the sultan built a mosque in the

town. This mosque has a rectangular plan very close to the square.203 The mosque with

a hipped roof and a single minaret is far from reflecting its original condition as it has

been repaired many times. (Fig. 42) The inn has not survived to the present day. There

are no signs as to the location of the inn, but it should be on the Edirne – Istanbul road.

Both mosques of Mehmed II in Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece may have been

built during the construction of the roads and the bridges leading to Istanbul.

The most comprehensive construction project in Küçükçekmece after the reign

of Mehmed II was commissioned by defterdar (treasurer) Abdüsselam Çelebi.

Abdüsselam Çelebi first came to Istanbul from Egypt during the reign of Selim I in

1517 and served as the chief treasurer in the first years of the reign of Süleyman I, died

in 1526, shortly after he left office.204 As seen from his waqfiyya dated 1525, his

199 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 1, 236.

200 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 812.

201 İnalcık, An Economic and Social History of The Ottoman Empire: Volume I: 1300 – 1600, 180-

181.

202 Kritovoulos. Kritovoulos Tarihi (1451 – 1467), 121.

203 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi‘marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), 808.

204 Eyice. “Tarihde Küçükçekmece”, 57 – 120.

82

complex consisted of a mosque, madrasa, zawiya, and soup kitchen.205 His tomb is

also located in this complex. The components of such complexes, which contained

multifunctional buildings, may confuse the reader as they are not clearly stated in the

waqfiyya sometimes Although no building with the name of the caravanserai is

mentioned in the waqfiyya, we can reach more detailed descriptions of the

caravanserai from the notes of the travelers. The evkaf tahriri of Istanbul waqfs dated

1546 lists 16 shops, a bezirhane and two cellars belonging to the waqf in

Küçükçekmece.206 Those working and paid in the zawiya and madrasa were students,

sheikh, imam, muezzin, eczahanan (who reads juz), ferraş (cleaner also those who

take care of passenger’s beds and mattresses), tabbah (cook), kilari (cellarer), and

gendum-kûb (wheat beater).

The complex was located on a steep slope, approximately 150-200 meters east

of Fatih Mosque. This complex was at the eastern end of the town welcoming travelers

coming from Istanbul at the town entrance and was also the first stopover point of the

travelers. The road from Istanbul should have passed by the Fatih Mosque and inn after

Abdüsselam Çelebi’s complex and reached the Küçükçekmece Bridge from the

square. Sinan’s autobiographies Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye list the

madrasa of the complex among the works of Sinan, but this issue seems a little

problematic.207 The date of the waqfiyya is about 13 years before Sinan was appointed

as the chief imperial architect and Sinan was a janissary in the army when Abdüsselam

Çelebi endowed his complex. One plausible explanation is that the other components

of the complex might have been built before the madrasa. Although only the mosque,

tomb, and a fountain, which are far from their original forms, have survived to the

205 VGMA, nr. 747, fols. 409 – 410.

206 Ayverdi, and Barkan. İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli, 181-182.

207 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 85, 110.

83

present day, the detailed description in the waqfiyya and the notes of the travelers shed

a light on the spatial arrangement of the complex. (Fig. 43)

According to the description in the waqfiyya, there were hospice rooms on both

sides of the mosque. Near the hospices of the mosque, there was a room with a

courtyard and latrines for married couples and women to stay. This description

indicates the plan of so-called inverted T-shaped mosque or mosque with

zawiya/hospice the last examples of which were seen in the second half of the 16th

century. Except for the madrasa, the architect of the complex may have been Acem

Ali, who was the chief imperial architect at that time. Both the proximity of the

complex to Istanbul and the fact that the typology described by the waqfiyya coincides

with the other works of Acem Ali of that period strengthens this possibility. Evliya

Çelebi states that this place is called Tekke Mosque.208

The tomb is located behind the qibla wall of the mosque. The octagonal

building is made of cut stone and there is an enclosed porch at the entrance that does

not belong to the original plan. (Fig. 44) The tomb, which is still standing today, was

built in the garden next to the madrasa by the defterdar, who settled here after returning

from the Hungarian expedition in 1526, and willed that fruit trees be planted around

the mausoleum. Catharin Zen, reports that says that the complex was adorned with

beautiful gardens and trees.209 The defterdar, who joined the military campaign to

Hungary, must have been aware of the importance of this road to Rumelia very well.

As a matter of fact, the fact that he commissioned complexes in Küçükçekmece and

Havsa, which could be identified as villages rather than towns during his lifetime,

shows the importance he attached to this road. He was also among the rare state

208 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 163.

209 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

84

officials, except for the sultans and viziers, who endowed a complex on the Edirne –

Istanbul road. This large-scale venture, which can be understood from the waqfiyya

and travel books, might not seem very suitable for the decorum (‘adab) of the Ottoman

architecture. However, very large amount of money that the defterdar endowed, seen

in the evkaf registers, was a wealth that most of the viziers did not have, and we see

that the construction of this large-scale complex was made possible with the personal

wealth of the defterdar who must have been good with money.

As stated in the waqfiyya, the madrasa had ten cells and one classroom. The

madrasa must have been located between the mosque and the caravanserai. Since it

had ten cells, it might have been facing the mosque courtyard parallel to the wall of

the caravanserai. When Covel passed by, he wrote that three professors and twenty

students were staying in the madrasa.210 Therefore, two students should have stayed in

each room. The madrasa was in the group of fifties (ellili medrese) from the second

half of the 16th century.211 In the mid-17th century, it was in the group of forties (kırklı

medrese) and was in the upper-middle rank among Rumelian madrasas.212

The caravanserai was probably a structure with a level difference as the land

was sloping. The description of the French Monsieur des Hayes (1600 – 1632), who

stayed in the Abdüsselam Çelebi complex in Küçükçekmece in 1621, confirms the

situation regarding the topography. The caravanserai had a beautiful view that offered

travelers a good sight of the sea and the ships in the Marmara Sea.213 Fresne-Canaye

also writes that the caravanserai was in a position like a castle overlooking from the

hill and was very beautiful.214 Dernschwam writes that the caravanserai was located

210 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 178.

211 Baltacı. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri , 361-362.

212 Özergin, “Eski Bir Ruznameye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri”, 263 – 290.

213 Des Hayes. Voiage de Levant fait par le commandement du Roy en l'année 1621 par le Sr. D.C, 96.

214 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 48.

85

among the vineyards at the eastern end of the town. He states that the building was

rectangular in shape, that there were stables on the lower storey and rooms on the upper

storey. It had a good courtyard, paved with white and glittering marble, and in the

middle of the courtyard was a tall fountain, as tall as a human, with copper spouts.

There were big and beautiful linden trees around it.215 Covel writes that the

caravanserai had an arcade and each room had a chimney.216 The caravanserai, which

is referred to as imaret-i şerif in the waqfiyya, is depicted as having two courtyards,

and Lorenzo Bernardo’s description also coincides with this. Two courtyards separated

the places where animals and people stayed. At the entrance, the first courtyard where

the horses stayed was surrounded by latrines, kitchen, woodshed, cellars, shops, as

well as a fountain and trough for animals to drink water. The second courtyard where

people stayed was paved with white marble, and there was a fountain in the middle as

Dernschwam reports. Dernschwam’s and Covel’s description of the second courtyard

points to the same architectural design as Elçi Han in Istanbul. According to Lorenzo

Bernardo’s description in 1591, there were stairs separating the two courtyards. Such

a solution was probably developed due to the elevation difference of the sloping land.

He depicts the building as double-arcaded, implying that the building surrounding the

courtyard at the back is two-storied. He writes that the caravanserai where the horses

were staying was downstairs. While facing towards the gate of the caravanserai, he

says that the mosque and the madrasa falls to the right, and this gives us an idea about

the layout of the complex. There were many trees in the courtyard of the mosque and

the madrasa, and there was a beautiful fountain.217 Des Hayes writes that the

caravanserai in Küçükçekmece was more comfortable than the others he saw because

215 Dernscwham. İstanbul ve Anadolu’ya Seyahat Günlüğü, 49-50.

216 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 178.

217 Bernardo. Viaggio A Costantinopoli di Sier Lorenzo Bernardo, 38-39.

86

horses and people were accomodated in separate places. Also courtyard of the

caravanserai must have been very spacious. Covel writes that it was as big as the

courtyard of Emmanuel College in Cambridge. Cornelius de Schepper also states that

300 horses can be housed at the same in the stables of the spacious caravanserai here.218

The caravanserai in Küçükçekmece was indeed among the caravanserais that travelers

praised the most thanks to its position and seperation of animals and humans during

their accomodation. Reinhold Lubenau mentions that the rooms of the caravanserai

here are very elaborate and writes that this is the most perfect caravanserai they stayed

in on their journey from Vienna to Istanbul.219 The caravanserai was also covered with

lead like all the other structures of the complex.220 Today, there is a dilapidated

fountain that has survived from the complex. The fountain located at the lower level

from the mosque, may point to the side where the caravanserai was located. Moreover,

there is another baroque fountain on the remains of a wall that may have formed the

surrounding wall of the complex, again at the lower level. (Fig. 45) This fountain was

built in the 19th century by Seyyid Aziz Bey, who was the trustee of the complex.

According to Bernardo’s definition, which can be confusing at first glance, the

complex must have been arranged at different levels with stairs due to topographical

conditions, and it probably had a good harmony with the topography. It is understood

that the stables of the caravanserai were at the lower level, while the madrasa and the

mosque were at the upper level. This playful arrangement must have inspired Sinan in

the future to build complexes compatible with topographical conditions such as

Süleymaniye or Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s complex in Kadırga.

218 De Schepper. Missions Diplomatiques de Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, dit Scepperus, 111.

219 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 159.

220 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 40.

87

In addition to main components of the complex, two cellars and a bezirhane

(linseed oil extracting factory) in Küçükçekmece belonged to Abdüsselam Çelebi’s

waqf. A shop with a baldachin at the bridge head, which he endowed, was located

adjacent on the road. Apart from this, shops and mills were also donated. This largescale

architectural venture by Abdüsselam Çelebi was the biggest step taken for the

urbanization of the town in the early modern period. This place was obviously not just

a stopover point for travelers and passers-by. It must have made an important

contribution to the development of the town by creating a higher education center for

the town and the people of the region with its madrasa. The shops of the menzil

complex and the bezirhane, winery, and cellars belonging to the foundation should

also have had a positive impact on the economic development of the town. In

particular, the shop at the bridgehead and adjacent to the road was in the best possible

position to increase the income of the waqf in terms of location selection. This

information in the waqfiyya shows that the town benefited from the its position on the

road.

Between the bridge and the complex of Abdüsselam Çelebi on the hillside, was

the square that formed the center of the town, not far from the Fatih Mosque. A

lithograph from the late 18th century describes this square as a caravanserai. (Fig. 45)

In the middle of this square is the small square fountain with a single spout built by

Vizier Mehmed Pasha. (Fig. 47) The inscription of the fountain made of cut stone gives

the date 1052 AH / 1642-1643 AD. It also has a repair inscription dated 1157 AH /

1744-1745 AD above it. There should have been inns and shops around this square,

which once welcomed the people who crossed the bridge and arrived the town. This

area was probably formed the bazaar of the town and it should have been the center of

the town’s economic activities.

88

As a result, both towns benefited from their geographic location and

positioning on both the Orta Kol and Sol Kol. Both towns are located east of the

lagoons and are settlements where fishing was the primary source of livelihood. For

this reason, they were among the rare stopover points where travelers coming from

Europe, passing through the Balkans, could find seafood. The second source of

livelihood of both towns was agriculture. The larger town, Büyükçekmece, was a

multifocal town with the smaller complex of Mehmed II, the larger complex of

Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi and the joint complex of Süleyman I and Sokollu Mehmed

Pasha. The fact that the travelers did not write down any records about Dizdarzâde

Mehmed Çelebi's complex suggests that this complex mostly served the local people

of the town, while the Süleyman I and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s complex may have

addressed the travelers at a very welcoming place at the east end of the bridge.

Küçükçekmece, on the other hand, was a small town formed around a square at the

eastern end of the bridge, not far from Mehmed II’s small complex. Abdüsselam

Çelebi’s complex, located on the hillside east of the town, was surprisingly large and

comprehensive considering the rank of the defterdar. In addition, although

Küçükçekmece was a smaller town than Büyükçekmece, it had a madrasa within the

complex of Abdüsselam Çelebi.

89

Figure 30. Fatih Mosque in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

90

Figure 31. Süleyman Ağa Fountain in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

91

Figure 32. Dizdarzade Mehmed’s İmaret Mosque in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır,

December, 2022

92

Figure 33. Interior of Dizdarzade Mehmed’s İmaret Mosque with iwan arch. Photo by Can Bozkır,

December, 2022

Figure 34. The bath in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, December, 2022

93

Figure 35. Süleyman I’s fountain in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 36. Süleyman I’s caravanserai in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

94

Figure 37. Hearths and niches of the caravanserai in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, February,

2022

Figure 38. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s masjid in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

95

Figure 39. Minaret of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s masjid in Büyükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır,

February, 2022

96

Figure 40. Drawing of the view of Büyükçekmece from the second half of the 16th century from

Leiden Sketchbook. Source: Klusáková, The Road to Constantinople, 78.

Figure 41. Hypothethical map of Ottoman buildings in Büyükçekmece before the 18th c.

97

Figure 42. Fatih Mosque in Küçükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 43. Abdüsselam Çelebi’s mosque in Küçükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

98

Figure 44. Abdüsselam Çelebi’s tomb in Küçükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 45. 19th c. baroque fountain on the surrounding wall of Abdüsselam Çelebi’s complex in

Küçükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

99

Figure 46. View of Küçükçekmece from the second half of the 16th century from Leiden Sketchbook.

Source: Klusáková, The Road to Constantinople, 79.

Figure 47. Colored lithograph of the square and Vezir Mehmed Pasha’s fountain by Luigi Mayer

100

Figure 48. Vezir Mehmed Pasha’s fountain in the square of Küçükçekmece. Photo by Can Bozkır,

November, 2022

Figure 49. Hypothethical map of Ottoman buildings in Küçükçekmece before 18th c.

101

4.2 Silivri

This chapter will evaluate the town of Silivri by presenting the geographical situation

of the town and the economic activities carried out within it first, then studying the

citadel, demography, and the buildings within the walled area, which survived until

the end of the 19th century. Following the citadel, this chapter will study, Mehmed II’s

waqf buildings, Çakır Ağa’s and Piri Mehmed Pasha’s complexes in the town, which

directed the expansion of the settlement to extramuros under the Ottoman rule and will

explore probable reasons behind this expansion.

Silivri, located between Büyükçekmece and Çorlu on the Orta Kol, was also a

conjunction point where the Sol Kol intersected with the Orta Kol. The town was

bounded in the west by the Boğluca and Tuzla streams and Marmara Sea in the south.

Silivri, as a port town on both the Orta Kol and the Sol Kol, was an important center

and had a special place among the towns on the Edirne – Istanbul road, thanks to its

seaside location. Thanks to the port, it was possible to trade from Anatolia to Rumelia

or vice versa. Benedetto Ramberti reports that there were many merchants in the town

and the town was abound with many products such as wool, silk, and textiles. In fact,

even though they were close to each other, transportation or trade was carried out

between Istanbul and Silivri by sea. Bonsignore Bonsignori and Bernardo Michelozzi,

Florentine travelers sent by Medicis to Istanbul, arrived Silivri via Edirne in 1497, but

preferred to continue their travel to Istanbul by sea from Silivri.221 The transportation

of grain to Istanbul and, in the next centuries, yoghurt was also carried by sea. The

grain produced around Çorlu and Silivri was transported from Silivri to Istanbul with

ships.222 In addition, Pierre Belon, Lubenau and Catharin Zen mention seeing ships

221 Borsook. “The Travels of Bernardo Michelozzi and Bonsignore Bonsignori in the Levant (1497-

98)”, 145 – 197.

222 3 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (966 - 968 / 1558 – 1560), 189.

102

with Venetian and other European coats of arms in the port.223 Belon writes that the

products sent from Thrace and Bulgaria to Anatolia and products such as wool, cotton,

and leather were transported from Anatolia to Rumelia via the port of Silivri. It was

also a town where fishing was developed due to its location. Many travelers speak of

the wide variety and delicious seafood sold here. Defterî Mustafa Çelebi, endowed ten

depositories (mahzen) between the tarik-i ‘am (the main street) and the coast of Silivri

in 1532.224 Since the port was busy, it is possible to assume that there were many

cellars around the port. Also, we see that Abdüsselam Çelebi’s waqf had six shops and

a bakery which shared the half of its income with the waqf in Silivri.225 Belon reports

that he saw traces of coal mining around the town.226 Silivri was one of the important

centers meeting the coal needs of Istanbul, especially in the 19th century, and the

records of Belon show that coal production in Silivri dates back to the 16th century.

The extracted coal should have been sent to Istanbul via the port of Silivri. Evliya

Çelebi speaks highly of the newly built Kassam Çelebi inn and shops in the town in

the mid-17th century, when he visited the town. This inn was also outside the walls,

and among the shops in the town, as the town was on the road, there were many

blacksmiths.227

Travelers often reported that there were many windmills around Silivri. We

can assume that there were many windmills especially in the hilly terrain to the north

of the town. These could be flour mills. Silivri is a windy place due to its location, and

223 Belon. Les observations de plusieurs singularités et choses mémorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie,

Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays, rédigées par P. Belon, du Mans, 120, Lubenau. Reinhold

Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 159, Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del

Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 –

256.

224 Ayverdi and Barkan. İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli, 399, 357.

225 Ibid, 181.

226 Belon. Les observations de plusieurs singularités et choses mémorables trouvées en Grèce, Asie,

Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays, rédigées par P. Belon, du Mans, 119-120.

227 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 166

103

travelers such as Evliya Çelebi and Lubenau report about many windmills around the

town.228 For example, Canbaz Mustafa Ağa, who was an officer in the court of

Mehmed II, endowed a mill in Silivri according to his waqfiyya from 1511. Babü‘ssâade

ağası Yakub Ağa, who commissioned a bridge to Sinan in Haramidere, also had

mills in Silivri.229

The walls of the citadel, located on a very steep cliff, were not demolished after

the town was taken by the Ottomans. Since Silivri was an important center during the

Byzantine period, there were many antiquities on the walls and within the citadel, and

the antiquities in the town attracted the attention of many European travelers.

Benedetto Ramberti reports that the city walls were three miles long and all the

antiquities of Thrace are gathered in Silivri.230 Hans van den Branden also writes that

Silivri harbored more antiquity than any other city they see along his way to

Istanbul.231 Evliya Çelebi writes that the citadel had a square plan, with a perimeter of

2500 steps and 47 bastions, and had a gate in the north.232 Since the square planned

citadel in Silivri was on a high and steep cliff by the Sea of Marmara, it was surrounded

by walls on only three sides, with the southern side looking towards the sea left open.

The eastern wall was approximately 310 meters, the northern wall parallel to Orta

Kol/Sol Kol was 350 meters, and the western wall was approximately 370 meters long,

covering an area of approximately 9000 square meters. Adam Wenner writes that

although some parts of the walls of the citadel were destroyed, it was still intact.233

Fortifications of the citadel was damaged in the great earthquake of 1509.234 The city

228 Ibid, 166; Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 159

229 BOA.TS.MA.D.6993

230 Ramberti. Delle cose de Turchi, 10.

231 Van den Branden. “Put od Bruselja iz Brabanta u Carigrad u Traciji, glavni grad turskoga cara”,

157 – 199.

232 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 165.

233 Wenner. Padişahın Huzurunda Elçilik Günlüğü, 1616 – 1618, 52.

234 Ambraseys, and Finkel. Türkiye’de ve Komşu Bölgelerde Sismik Etkinlikler, 33.

104

walls were largely preserved until the 19th century. The demolition of the dilapidated

walls in 1876 and the sale of the place came to the fore.235 However, the complete

destruction of the castle corresponds to later periods. In 1890, it was planned to repair

the places that were demolished, but due to the lack of municipal sources, it was

requested that the citadel stones there be used for other purposes.236 The great

earthquake of 1894 demolished many parts of the remaining walls and was the last nail

in the coffin. Permission was requested to use the stones on the demolished walls of

the citadel in the construction of pavements.237 Almost no traces of the walls remain

today, but an Ottoman map from 1876 presents a much better and precise plan of the

citadel than Covel’s sketchy plan and its 19th-century panorama with its gates, places

of worship, Greek, Armenian, and Jewish quarters intramuros, Muslim quarter, and

vegetable garden (bostan) extramuros. (Fig. 50) The very steep slope descending from

the eastern walls of the citadel towards the port is shown as a bostan in the map. The

use of this area as an bostan might had a long history due to the unsuitability of the

topography for construction in this area.

Apart from antiquities, the thing that caught the attention of almost all

European travelers was that the town was mostly made up of Greeks. The town had

three Muslim and twelve non-Muslim neighborhoods with 108 Muslim and 252 non-

Muslim households (hane), 48 Muslim and 77 non-Muslim bachelors (mücerred), and

49 widows (bive) which makes the population of the town about around 2000-2200 in

1530.238 The Greeks mostly lived in the intramuros of Silivri and the churches of the

town were also here. Marc’ Antonio Pigafetta, who visited the town in 1567, wrote

235 MSBATA.ATASE.110-9-1-2.13.0.184

236 BOA.DH.MKT.1791.13

237 BOA.DH.MKT.361.53

238 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 70.

105

that there were two monasteries, one for women and one for men, within the walls.239

Gerlach mentions that while he was visiting, masses were held in four churches in the

town. He names three of them, Panagia, dedicated to the Virgin Mary, the other with

the same name, and a church dedicated to the Peace as he wrote, which must have been

a church dedicated to Hagia Eirene, in which a woman’s relics were kept.240 One of

the churches in the town, which belonged to the Middle Byzantine period and reached

until the 20th century, was the church of Hagia Spyridion. It was located east of the

citadel and was restored in the 19th century. Ousterhout, together with previously

unpublished images, likens this church to Nea Moni in Chios in plan and states that it

reflects the taste of the 11th century Constantinopolitan architecture.241 The population

within the citadel was predominantly Greek, but a small number of Muslims also

resided within the walls. For example, Evliya Çelebi writes about a Haydar Ağazade’s

palace with a beautiful sight in the citadel.242

The citadel, together with its inhabitants and all the properties, completely

belogned to the foundation of Mehmed II.243 It is written in an evkaf defteri (register

of waqfs) dated 894 AH / 1488-1489 AD that a total of 89,640 aspers were collected

from 472 households in Silivri.244 In another part of the waqfiyya, it is written that the

church in the citadel was converted into a mosque together with some other churches

mentioned in Istanbul and entrusted to the Mehmed II waqf. This church was the

church built by the Byzantine statesman Alexios Apokaukos.245 The cross-in-square

planned church with three apses was located next to the the cistern. (Fig. 51) Mehmed

239 Pigafetta. “Itinerario di Marc’Antonio Pigafetta gentil’huomo vicentino”, 70 – 194.

240 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 814-815.

241 Ousterhout. “Two Byzantine Churches of Selymbria”, 239 – 257; Ousterhout. “The Byzantine

Architecture In Thrace: The View From Constantinople”, 489 – 502.

242 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 165.

243 Fatih Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri, 208.

244 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 303.

245 Magdalino. “Byzantine Churches of Selymbria”, 309 – 318.

106

II’s conversion of a church inside the walls into a mosque instead of having a new

mosque built may be the reason why Silivri did not surrender until Istanbul fell, and

Silivri’s cultural and political importance in the late Byzantine period. Also, it was a

common Ottoman urban practice to convert the largest church or the cathedral of the

newly captured settlement into a mosque. In addition, in a repair register dated 1038

AH / 1629 AD, we see that there were one big and one small baths, and a bozahane

(boza house) belonged to Mehmed II’s foundations.246 In the article of Barkan, who

published the accounting register of the waqf from 1490, we see that there were un

kapanı (flour customs), bezirhane (linseed oil extracting facility), a bath, and a repairer

employed for waterways and the bath in Silivri. The building that Barkan publishes as

a bezirhane may be the bozahane in the repair register from 1629 or vice versa.247 In

waqfiyyas of Mehmed II, the buildings he endowed or commissioned outside of

Istanbul are rarely mentioned, but we can see the structures that are not mentioned in

the endowments in both the 1490 and 1629 registers. These baths and

bozahane/bezirhane must have been located outside the walls, because when Evliya

Çelebi visited the town, he wrote that there were no baths nor bazaars within the

citadel.248

Another important venture made in Silivri during the reign of Mehmed II was

the small complex that Çakır Ağa commissioned outside the city walls. Çakır Ağa,

who was the subaşı (commander of a city or a castle equivalent to the modern chief of

police) of Bursa during the reign of Murad II, participated in the siege of Istanbul with

Mehmed II and then became the çakırcıbaşı (head of goshawk keepers accompanying

246 BOA.MAD.D.5320

247 Barkan. “Fatih Cami ve İmareti Tesislerin 1489-1490 Yıllarına Ait Muhasebe Bilançoları”, 297 –

341.

248 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 165.

107

sultan’s imperial huntings) of the palace. Outside of the citadel, in the north, he had a

mosque, zawiya and an inn built. In 1479, the income of the double bath he had built

in Bursa and eight shops, one of which was a butcher, were endowed to this zawiya

and inn.249 In addition, the four shops adjacent to the zawiya and the five adjacent to

the inn belonged to the waqf.250 This complex, located extramuros of Silivri, can be

evaluated as a menzil complex as it contains an inn, and it shows that Silivri was an

important stopover point on the way to Rumelia for the Ottomans, even during the

reign of Mehmed II. We see in a register dated 1148 AH / 1735-6 AD, that this small

complex, which has not survived to present, also contained the Çakır Ağa’s tomb.251

Çakır Ağa’s small complex was located where the Piri Paşa Primary School is located

today.

The great urbanization initiative of the Ottoman period in Silivri was the

complex commissioned by the Grand Vizier Piri Mehmed Pasha (d. 1532). Piri

Mehmed Pasha was the grand vizier in the last years of the reign of Selim I and the

early years of the reign of Süleyman I. His complex was located outside the walls of

Silivri, just below in the northwestern side of the citadel. According to his waqfiyya in

Arabic from 1521, Piri Mehmed Pasha endowed a mosque, a soup kitchen with an

oven, a cellar, a woodshed, a stable, a madrasa with an unspecified number of cells,

and a primary school near the soup kitchen in Silivri.252 It was stated that no more than

ten students should stay in the madrasa. Therefore, we can evaluate that madrasa had

ten cells. Around this complex, he endowed houses for the müderris (professor), imam,

249 Yazıcı Metin. “XV. Yüzyıl Bânilerinden Çakır Ağa ve Mimari Eserleri”, 913 – 932.

250 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), Vol. 4, 458.

251 BOA.EV.HMH.D.3729

252 VGMA, nr. 747, fols. 178 – 182; Müderrisoğlu. “16. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İnşa

Edilen Menzil Külliyeleri”, 405 – 426; Akkaya. “Trakya’da Marmara Kıyısında İstanbul’a Bağlı Bir

Kasaba: Silivri ( = Selymbria) Tarih İçindeki Gelişimi ve Eski Eserleri”, 223 – 265.

108

and preacher respectively. In another part of the complex, the pasha endowed six

houses, some of which were adjacent to each other, and he allocated three of them to

the muezzins and the other three to the waqf employees found appropriate by the

trustee. In the waqfiyya, it is written that ten shops were endowed in the complex, but

eleven shops are counted. Of these, there were two shops in the entrance side of the

caravanserai, which was mentioned as a stable in the waqfiyya, five of them were

adjacent to each other on the wall of the primary school, and four of them were just

across the five shops on the wall of the primary school. (Fig. 52) In the waqfiyya, we

see that a total of 58 people were employed for all the facilities and needs of the

complex. Among them, we see a person in charge of the fountains and waterways of

the complex. Although fountains are not mentioned in the waqfiyya, we can think that

the complex had fountains and waterways that brought water to Silivri. Today, there

is a fountain on the outer surface of the southern part of the walls surrounding the

complex. The muvakkithane (building where prayer times are calculated) near to the

mosque today is not mentioned in the waqfiyya. If we look at the architectural style of

the building, we can interpret that it belongs to the later 18th century. It may have been

added in one of the repairs of the mosque in the 18th and 19th centuries, seen from the

inscription of the mosque.

The single-minaret mosque has an inverted T-type plan, also known as a

mosque with a zawiya/hospice. (Fig. 53) The monumental mosque has five-bay portico

welcoming the visitors and it is one of the last great examples of this scheme. Flanking

rooms have smaller and lower domes. The transition to the main dome is established

through oyster-shaped squinches and it is supported by buttresses on each corners.

(Fig. 54) None of the domes have a fenestrated drum and the protruding mihrab section

is covered with a half-dome. The minaret is not in its original form, due to the baroque

109

elements it contains, it belongs to a repair after the 18th century. The architect of the

complex may have been Acem Ali, who was the chief imperial architect at that time.253

The inscription on the mosque gives the date 937 AH / 1530-1 AD. The length of time

between the endowment date and the completion date of the mosque indicates that the

construction did not start or halted for a long time, but the reason for this timespan is

unknown. On the other hand, the madrasa classroom and cells were positioned to form

an axis with the mosque and the şadırvan (ablution fountain) in front of the mosque.

Piri Mehmed Pasha’s madrasa in Silivri was among the prestigious madrasas

in Rumelia. It was among the group of fifties (ellili medrese) towards the end of 16th

century.254 In the mid-17th century, the madrasa was in the category of forties madrasas

(kırklı medrese), and was at the seventh rank among nine tiers.255 Five cells on each

sides were flanking the madrasa classroom at the center. This plan recalls the axis

created by the madrasa, ablution fountain, and mosque in the Hüsreviye Complex that

Sinan built in Aleppo. The location of the madrasa and the plan of the mosque must

have inspired Sinan.

The caravanserai in Silivri had a rectangular plan and its entrance was on the

long side. We can say that it had a transverse plan and there were shops adjacent to the

long side of the caravanserai on the entrance side. While one wall was made of cut

stone, the other walls were built with quarry stone.256 The entrance of the caravanserai

was looking towards the Edirne – Istanbul road. When Catharin Zen passed through

Silivri in 1550, he mentions that there was an imaret, caravanserai, and mosque. The

253 Ertuğrul. “Acem Ali.” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi. Accessed September 3, 2022.

https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/acem-ali.

254 Baltacı. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, 598.

255 Özergin, “Eski Bir Ruznameye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri”, 263 – 290.

256 Wimmel. “Architektur osmanischer Karawanseraien: Stationen des Fernverkehrs im Osmanischen

Reich”, Teil 2, 190.

110

caravanserai here was more abundant than the rest of caravanserais he visited.257 This

must be the complex commissioned by Piri Mehmed Pasha. Henricus Porsius (1556 –

1610), who was among the Habsburg mission, also mentions that they stayed in a

caravanserai in Silivri and that food was distributed to the passersby.258 Heinrichs von

Liechtenstein (1554 – 1585) writes that there is a mosque and a beautiful cemetery

next to the beautiful caravanserai where they stayed in Silivri.259

Piri Mehmed Pasha’s tomb is located in the burial ground behind the qibla wall

of the mosque. Evliya Çelebi, on the other hand, writes that the complex consisted of

a bath, primary school, mosque, and soup kitchen.260 However, there is no record of a

bath in the waqfiyya. The bath that Evliya Çelebi mentioned may have been one of the

big and small baths belonging to the Mehmed II’s waqf. The mosque, the burial

ground, the fountain, and some walls of the caravanserai have survived from the

complex to the present day, along with the surrounding walls of the complex. There is

also some empty space within the boundaries of the surrounding wall, except for the

burial ground. There must have been gardens here. Reinhold Lubenau writes about a

wonderful garden near the mosque in 1587 where many species of trees were

cultivated.261 (Fig. 55)

In addition, Güzelce Kasım Pasha (d. 1553), Ottoman vizier and kaptan-ı derya

(chief admiral) who gave his name to the Kasımpaşa district in Istanbul today,

endowed 4 shops next to the Piri Paşa’s imaret and allocated the income of these shops

257 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

258 Porsius. Historia belli Persici, gesti inter Murathem III, 19.

259 Besolt. “Deß Wolgebornen Herrn/ Heinrichs Herrn von Liechtenstein/ von Nicolspurg/ u. Röm.

Keys. Maiest. Abgesandten/u. Reyß auff Constantinopol/ im 1584. Jar/ beschrieben durch Melchior

Besolt”, 515 – 531.

260 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 166.

261 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 159.

111

to the expenses of the imam and muezzin of the masjid he had built in Silivri.262 The

masjid was located within the citadel. Unfortunately, both Kasım Pasha’s masjid and

Fatih Mosque were in dilapidated condition due to the small number of Muslims

residing witin the citadel, and both places of worship could not reach the present day.

It is stated in the 19th century Ottoman map that both buildings were in a ruins.

We learn from the documents that Mehmed II and Piri Pasha commissioned

waterways in Silivri. It is possible that there were waterways during the Byzantine

period as well. In a repair register dated 1597, the expenses of the material purchased

for the repair of the waterways in Silivri were recorded.263 However, we do not know

where the source of this water was located and the approximate length of waterways,

but as in all the towns on the Edirne – Istanbul caxis, the water must have been

provided from the north.

In the Rumeli Muhasebe Defteri (accounting register of Rumelia) from 1530,

two baths, two masjids, a mosque, and a zawiya are recorded in Silivri.264 The complex

of Piri Mehmed Pasha must not have been completed yet at the time the register was

recorded. Accordingly, while the two baths were connected to the waqf of Mehmed II,

the mosque must be the Mehmed II’s mosque, which was located within the city walls.

The zawiya and one of the masjids were probably belonging to the small complex that

Çakır Ağa commissioned together with the inn, and the other masjid may have been

the masjid commissioned by Kasım Pasha.

The expansion of the town in Silivri must have been due to the effect of two

complexes and the stone bridges built over two streams to the west. Evliya Çelebi

262 Ayverdi, and Barkan. İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli, 431.

263 BOA.MAD.D.4517

264 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 70.

112

mentions the Sadi Baba Lodge, a Bektashi lodge, near the east end of the long bridge.

This lodge must have been dated after 1530. The Sadi Baba Lodge and his shrine

survived as far as the 20th century, and there are documents regarding the appointment

of zaviyedars to the lodge in the 18th and 19th centuries.265 Evliya Çelebi writes that

Vizier Haydar Ağazade Mehmed Pasha, who was the governor of Silistra in the 17th

century, was also buried in the Sadi Baba Lodge.266

As noted earlier, the town and especially the citadel in Silivri was

predominantly inhabited by non-Muslims. The Ottomans, who captured the town,

settled outside the walls and expanded the town according to their interests. Çakır Ağa

and Piri Pasha complexes, as well as the shops, bazaars, and baths of the town were

located below outside the city walls. In fact, this shows the general Ottoman

urbanization mode seen in Bursa, Edirne or in other Balkan cities during the early

Ottoman period and was not unique to Silivri. The early Ottomans generally did not

prefer to settle within the walls nor change the general outline of citadels of cities they

captured. They turned the city’s cathedral or the largest churches into mosques as they

did in Silivri and directed consciously the development of the city around the

complexes containing multifunctional institutions such as soup kitchens, zawiyas, and

bazaars outside the walls which would make up the future commercial centers of

settlements.267 Of course, other factors such as topographical hardships or the lack of

suitable space within the intramuros must have been decisive in this spatial

organization. Evliya Çelebi writes that there were no bazaars, markets and baths inside

265 BOA.C.EV.138.6863; BOA.AE.SMST.III.177.13955; BOA.C.EV.441.22333

266 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 166.

267 For early Ottoman urbanization practices in Bursa, Edirne and some other Balkan cities see: Kuran,

“A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul,” 114-131.; Boykov, “The

Borders of the Cities: Revisiting Early Ottoman Urban Morphology in Southeastern Europe”;

Hartmuth, “Building the Ottoman City: A Linear or Cumulative Process? Lessons from fifteenthcentury

Skopje”, Working Paper #3.

113

the city walls as mentioned earlier in this chapter and Henricus Porsius records that

the city surrounded by the walls was scattered across the region but more splendid

outside the walls.268 Monsieur Des Hayes also states that even though the area where

Turks lived in the town was farther from the port, this place was more beautiful since

the busy road was passing through the Turkish quarter.269

While Silivri was a 20-asper-town (yirmi akçelik kaza) in 1521 and 1530, it

became a 100-asper-town in the second half of the 16th century. Evliya Çelebi records

it as 150-asper-town in the mid-16th century, which implies consistent growth of the

town in the 16th and the 17th centuries.270 The daily income of the qadis in towns is a

significant indicator of the development and population of the town. However, the

increase rate of the fees of qadis on the basis of asper may not be in line with the actual

growth of those towns, since the price revolution, rising inflation and debasements

from the 16th century should also be taken into account.271

As a result, Silivri was a port town located on both the Orta Kol and the Sol

Kol, like Büyükçekmece and Küçükçekmece. In Silivri, which was larger than the

other two towns, commerce was more developed due to the trade opportunities

between the Balkans and Anatolia thanks to its busier port. Silivri, on the road between

Istanbul and Edirne, was a town whose citadel was not destroyed and continued to be

inhabited. In the town where the majority of the population was Greeks, the Greek

population lived mostly within the citadel. During the reign of Mehmed II, the town’s

largest church was converted into a mosque, and Çakır Ağa had a small menzil

268 Porsius. Historia belli Persici, gesti inter Murathem III., 19.

269 Des Hayes. Voiage de Levant fait par le commandement du Roy en l'année 1621 par le Sr. D.C, 94-

95.

270 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 70; Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi

Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 165; Kuru. “XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Rumeli Kadılıkları”, 261 – 294.

271 For debasements and inflation in the early modern Ottoman Empire see: Pamuk. A Monetary

History of the Ottoman Empire, 112-149.

114

complex built on the road outside the city walls. Piri Mehmed Pasha’s complex, which

was completed in the first years of the reign of Süleyman I, was a full-fledged menzil

complex and its construction dates more or less overlapped with Abdüsselam Çelebi’s

complex in Küçükçekmece. Çakır Ağa’s complex to the north of the citadel and Piri

Mehmed Pasha’s complex to the northeast directed the expansion of the city outside

the city walls in the 15th and 16th centuries, thus providing an example of the Ottoman

urbanization pattern seen in Bursa and some other Balkan cities.

Figure 50. Ottoman map from 1876 showing the walls, gates and worship places of the citadel along

with its neighborhoods. Source: MSBATA.ATASE.110-9-1-2.13.0.185

115

Figure 51. Plan of the Fatih Mosque and the cistern. Source: Semavi Eyice. “Encore Une Fois l’église

d’Alexis Apocauque à Sélymbria ( = Silivri)”, Byzantion, Vol. 48, No.2, (1978): 406 – 416.

116

Figure 52. Hypothetical plan of the Piri Pasha Complex in Silivri. Source: Akkaya. “Silivri’de Bir

Osmanlı Abidesi Pirî Mehmed Paşa Camii ve Külliyesi”, 43 – 48.

117

Figure 53. Portico of Piri Pasa Mosque in Silivri. Photo by Can Bozkır, December, 2021

Figure 54. Interior of Piri Pasha Mosque in Silivri. Photo by Can Bozkır, December, 2021

118

Figure 55. The garden within the surrounding wall of Piri Pasha Complex in Silivri. Photo by Can

Bozkır, December, 2021

Figure 56. View of Silivri from the second half of the 16th century from Leiden Sketchbook. Source:

Klusáková, The Road to Constantinople, 76 – 77.

119

Figure 57. Hypothetical map of Ottoman buildings in Silivri before the 18th c.

4.3 Çorlu

This chapter will present the urban and architectural history of the town of Çorlu until

the first decade of the 18th century. Firstly, after the geographical features of the town,

which is approximately the midpoint of the Edirne - Istanbul road, are presented,

information about the economic activities carried out in the town will be given. Then,

after briefly mentioning the population and demographics in the 16th century, the

construction ventures in the town will be studied. It would be appropriate to divide the

construction projects into three parts in the early modern period, as the period of

Mehmed II, the period of Süleyman I, and the 17th century.

120

Çorlu, between Silivri and Karıştıran is roughly the midpoint of the Edirne –

Istanbul road, at least that is how travelers described it.272 Actually, Elvanbeyli was

the menzil point in the middle of the Istanbul - Edirne road, but since it was a small

village and the nearest larger settlement was Çorlu, we can consider Çorlu as the

midpoint of the Istanbul – Edirne road as well. The town was bordered on the north

and east by the valley formed by the Çorlu Stream, a tributary of the Ergene River. To

the north and west, there are ridges and small valleys that rise slightly and contain

water resources which was of vital importance to Çorlu. Çorlu Fortress was a located

on a raised platform on the slope of the valley descending to Çorlu Stream, in the

northeast of the town. Since there was no citadel like in Silivri, there was no settlement

within the fortress during the Ottoman period. The fortress was destroyed after the

capture of Çorlu by Murad I, and the settlement in Çorlu began to expand on a plateau

to the east and south of the fortress. The town of Çorlu was founded on a flat terrain,

as the Ottoman traveler, geographer, cosmographer, Âşık Mehmed who was one of the

major sources of Evliya Çelebi and Kâtip Çelebi (1609 – 1657), writes.273

Çorlu was one of the most vibrant place among the towns between Istanbul and

Edirne. Agriculture and livestock raising were the main economic activities in Çorlu.

Âşık Mehmed writes that Çorlu was surrounded by lands suitable for agriculture and

farming was the prevailing economic activity.274 As stated in the second chapter of the

study, it was already an important center for Istanbul’s meat, grass, straw, and grain

supply. In the 16th century, wheat, barley, oats, and millet were the main agricultural

products produced in the town.275 The sheep breeding was an important means of

272 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 157; De

Busbecq. Türk Mektupları, 27.

273 Âşık Mehmed. Menâzırü’l-Avâlim, Vol. 3, 1102.

274 Ibid, 1103.

275 Özdeğer. “16. Yüzyılda Vize Sancağı’nın Demografik ve Ekonomik Yapısı”. 87-123.

121

subsistence. Evliya Çelebi states that thousands of sheep were grazed in the green

pastures of Çorlu and that the cheese produced from these sheep was famous in Rum,

Arab, and Ajam lands, and even sent as a gift to the sultans, and states that the string

cheese and kashkaval cheese produced in Çorlu are unique.276 Tekerlek cheese

produced in Çorlu was one of the products for the provision of Istanbul in the 17th

century.277 According to Evliya Çelebi and Gerlach, the town also had vineyards.

Viticulture was also an important source of livelihood and there were vineyards around

the town along with pastures. Even today, street names in the areas south and northwest

of the old town are named after the vineyards that once existed in these areas. Covel

defines Çorlu not only as a road town but also as a trade town where all sorts of

commodities were found and traded.278 Evliya Çelebi states that Çorlu’s bazaar was

lined up on both sides of the main road, its floor was paved with white stones and the

street was covered like a sultanic street. He underlines that bazaar had 600 shops but

did not have a bedesten, however, since most of the inhabitants of the town were

skillful craftsmen, each inn of the town was like a bedesten. He also mentions another

Bakkallar Çarşısı (bazaar of grocery shops) with where one could find all kinds of

food and beverages. One of the shops in the town was the şiruganhâne (sesame oil

shop) of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqf.279 Markets were held twice a week and the

people were swarming the town during these days. He writes that there were many

inns other than the imaret inn for the merchants and travelers coming to the town. Four

of the inns in the town were covered with lead. Ahmed Efendi, Tekkecizâde, Odabaşı,

Yumurucakzâde, Akçakoyunoğlu, Osman Dede, Davudzâde, Hidâyetullah Çelebi,

276 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 168.

277 İnalcık, An Economic and Social History of The Ottoman Empire: Volume I: 1300 – 1600, , 180-

181.

278 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 181.

279 VGMA, nr. 572, fol. 34.

122

Mustafa Beşe, Kızılbaşzâde, and Hüsam Dede were among the prominent inns of the

town. 280

During the reign of Mehmed II, the non-Muslim neighborhood of Çorlu was

entrusted to his waqf.281 In an evkaf register from 894 AH / 1488-1489 AD, 27,851

aspers were collected from 125 non-Muslim households in Çorlu.282 The accounting

register of 1530 lists Çorlu together with Ereğli and shows that they had a total

population of 225 Muslim households, 100 Muslim bachelors, 584 non-Muslim

households, 124 non-Muslim bachelors and 90 households of widows, which made up

the population around 4000-4300.283 Ereğli was a small settlement which was

considered a village at that time. This shows that the population of Çorlu was even

higher than Silivri at that time and points out that it was the largest center on the Edirne

– Istanbul road. Gerlach states that there were about 3000 Turkish and 300 Greek

households in Çorlu, where he passed in 1578.284 Gerlach seems to be giving false

information about the town’s demographics. The scribe of Soranzo writes that the

majority of the population was Greek and because of that the wine in the town was

abounding.285 An anonymous Italian itinerary dated between 1573 and 1587 mentions

the presence of Cypriot Greeks in Çorlu.286 Some of the Greek population of Cyprus

may have been forced to migrate after Ottomans captured the island in 1573. After the

town fell to the Ottomans, probably only one church remained open. The Church of

St. George, which Gerlach and Covel refer to, existed well into the 20th century.287 The

280 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167-168.

281 Fatih Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri, 208.

282 Barkan. “Fatih Cami ve İmareti Tesislerin 1489-1490 Yıllarına Ait Muhasebe Bilançoları”, 297 –

341, Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 303.

283 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 69.

284 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 818.

285 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 57.

286 Yerasimos. Les Voyageurs Dans L'empire Ottoman (XIVe - XVIe Siècles), 305.

287 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 182; Külzer. Tabula Imperii

Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē), 686.

123

Greek Orthodox Church in Çorlu was located where today’s Gazi Primary School is

located.288 Evliya Çelebi writes that in the middle of the 17th century, the town had

3000 one or two-storey (tahtani ve fevkani) houses covered with tile roofs. He writes

that there were 30 neighborhoods, 15 of which are Muslim and 15 are non-Muslim.

He gives a list of the most famous Muslim neighborhoods. These were Arabacıbaşı,

Müslihüddin Efendi, Keçecizade, Abbaszade, Karacaahmed Sultan, Burhanzade,

Hisar, El-Hacı Gani, Mustafa Efendi, and Odunbazarı neighborhoods and each of them

had a masjid. He adds that there were twenty primary schools in the town.289 Çorlu,

was a 25-asper-town in 1521 and became a 30-asper-town in 1530. In the second half

of the 16th century, it was a 80-asper-town, and by the middle of the 17th century it had

become 150-asper-town, which implies consistent growth.290

The oldest surviving Ottoman structure in Çorlu is the Fatih Mosque, built by

Mehmed II, but this is not mentioned in the waqfiyyas of the sultan like the his other

mosques in provincial areas such as Küçükçekmece, Büyükçekmece, and Babaeski.

Fatih Mosque is located approximately half a kilometer southeast of Çorlu Fortress.

Evliya Çelebi also states that the fortress was located on the north side of the town.291

Fatih Mosque with a hipped roof covered with tiles and a single minaret draws

attention with its transverse plan. (Fig. 58) The dimensions of the mosque is

approximately 14 by 20 meters. This mosque plan, which is more suitable for the

Islamic liturgy, was not very common in this period. Mehmed II’s mosques in

Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece, and Babaeski are almost square-planned. The

mosque, whose portico was open in its original form, was closed after its repair in 1240

288 Tuna. Geçmişten Bugüne Çorlu, 42.

289 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 166, 167.

290 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 69; Kuru. “XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci

Yarısında Rumeli Kadılıkları”, 261 – 294.

291 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 166.

124

AH / 1824-5 AD.292 The minaret of the mosque and the rubble stone walls preserve

their original form. There is also a fountain made of cut stone on the surrounding walls

of the courtyard of the mosque, but its inscription could not be preserved. Evliya Çelebi

talks about a three-spouted Taya Hatun (Daye Hatun) fountain in Çorlu.293 We do not

know certainly whether this was the fountain near to the mosque or a separate fountain

in the town, but considering the dimensions of the fountain next to the mosque and its

old two spout holes and its existing single spout, it is likely that it had three spouts.

(Fig. 59) In some studies, it is also mentioned that the mosque had a madrasa and a

bath, but this is not true and authors may have been confused with other buildings in

the town which were not depended to the mosque.294

In her waqfiyya dated 890 AH / 1485-6 AD, Ümmi Gülsüm Daye Hatun (d.

1486), the foster mother of Mehmed II, had a double-bath built in Çorlu. Also, among

the stipulations of the waqf, it is written that a masjid was built in Çorlu and that some

of the income of the waqf should be spent there. Unfortunately, her double-bath has

not survived to the present day like the masjid. In 1546 AD, the income of the bath

was 9993 aspers, and in a register dated 976 AH / 1568-9 AD, it was 8000 aspers.295

The bath to be built during the early years of the reign of Süleyman I may have

contributed to the decrease in the income of this place. Evliya Çelebi writes that there

was a double-bath, which he wrote as Taya Hatun, but its water was brackish.296 For

this reason, the bath may have started to be less preferred by the townspeople. In 1043

AH / 1633-1634 AD, the income of the bath continued to decrease and the annual

292 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), Vol. 4, 196.

293 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167.

294 Ülkü, and Ünalan Özdemir. “Tekirdağ/Çorlu – Fatih Camisi’nin Dünü Bugünü”, 153 – 166.

295 Ayverdi, and Barkan. İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli, 50, 51; Gökbilgin. XV.–

XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 324.

296 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167.

125

income was 7000 aspers.297 This bath may have been known as Acı Hamam (lit. Bitter

Bath) in the 19th century.298 Another 19th century document confirms this suggestion.

In the document, it was called Acı Hamam, belonging to the waqf Atik Daye Hatun’s

masjid in Çorlu.299 The name of the bath among the townspeople must be due to the

fact that its waters were brackish, as Evliya Çelebi mentioned.

During the reign of Mehmed II, the arabacıbaşı (head of the carts) of the

palace, also known as the Voynuk Beyi (horse groomer who was also responsible for

pastures), Şüca Bey endowed a mosque and a school built in Çorlu, according to his

waqfiyya dated 878 AH / 1473.300 According to Evliya Çelebi, its roof was tiled and it

was one of the three mosques in the town where Friday prayers were performed.301 It

must have been a modest mosque with a hipped roof. Here, a neighborhood was

formed around the mosque and we see that there was a zawiya in this neighborhood.

In a decree dated 1571, Arabacıbaşı zawiya is mentioned, but it is likely that the place

referred to as a zawiye was not belonging to Şüca Bey’s waqf. We see that someone

is appointed with two coins per day for preaching.302 The mosque and the school have

not survived to the present day. The last repair document for the mosque is dated

1873.303 Ahmed Badi Efendi (1839 – 1910) reports that the mosque still existed in the

19th century, but it was in ruins and only the minaret was standing.304 Ayverdi, sharing

a photograph taken in the 19th century, writes that the school was still standing at the

end of the 19th century, but was destroyed in the following years.305 However, the

297 İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri: Evkaf Muhasebesi 1 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1042 – 1044 M. 1632 – 1635), Vol.

47, 168.

298 BOA.HR.THD.22.51

299 BOA.C.BLD.114.5690

300 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 355, 526.

301 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167.

302 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.15.481

303 BOA.İ.DH.514.34994

304 Ahmed Bâdi Efendi. Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne, Vol. 3, 2087.

305 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), Vol. 4, 198.

126

photo published by Ayverdi is the photo of the girls’ school taken during the reign of

Abdülhamid II. It is very unlikely that this was the school built by Şüca Bey, since

there is no mosque to be seen around it. According to oral history records, the school

and mosque built by Şüca Bey were where the mosque known as Bormalı Mosque is

located today, and they were approximately 200 meters south of Fatih Mosque. The

mosque, which was in a dilapidated state in the 19th century, was completely

destructred in order to build Bormalı Mosque in its place in the 20th century.306

İlyas Bey (d. 1511), who was the emir-i ahur/imrahor (stable master) in the

palace during the reign of Mehmed II and Bayezid II, had a mosque and a school built

in the Hacı Resul neighborhood of Çorlu, according to his waqfiyya dated 915 AH /

1510 AD.307 The teacher of the school was earning 3 aspers per day according to the

waqfiyya. We see that the income of a başhâne (shop selling head and trotters of an

animal) in Çorlu was allocated to the expenses of the school and the mosque. İlyas Bey

was the husband of Hundi Hatun, daughter of Daye Hatun who endowed a double-bath

in the same town as well.308 However, these buildings commissioned by İlyas Bey did

not survive, like Daye Hatun’s masjid and bath, and although the Hacı Resul

neighborhood still retains its name in the 1831 census, it is not possible to estimate the

locations of the mosque and school today.309 However, since İlyas Bey Mosque is not

mentioned in archival documents or any travel book, it is a strong possibility that this

mosque could not be built for some reason or that it was destroyed after a short time.

The mosque and the school of imrahor İlyas Bey in Çorlu, who also had endowments

in Istanbul, is not found in the 1546 and 1600 registers of waqfs. Mehmed II’s mosque

306 Şenel. “Çorlu Kazası Tarihçesi”, 87.

307 BOA.EV.VKF.19.16

308 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 428.

309 Osmanlı Döneminde Çorlu: Nüfus Defterlerinde, 57.

127

and fountain, Daye Hatun’s double-bath, his son-in-law, İlyas Bey’s mosque and

school, and Mehmed II’s arabacıbaşı Şüca Bey’s mosque and school indicate that the

center attached a special importance to Çorlu in this period. Special consideration

should have been given to populate and flourish (şenlendirme) the town, which was

considered as the middle point of the road between Edirne and Istanbul.

Moreover, Evliya Çelebi mentions a Cami-i Atik (Old Mosque) in the town. I

could not find any archival record, nor another travel account regarding this mosque.

Evliya Çelebi, who referred to the Fatih Mosque as the Ebu’l-Feth Mosque, notes that

there was an imaret next to the Cami-i Atik that everyone could benefit from. This

mosque, which he describes as kurşumsuz (without lead), was probably like the Fatih

and Arabacıbaşı mosques, with a tile-covered hipped roof.310 We do not have any

information about the whereabouts of this mosque and the soup kitchen. However, in

the 1831 census, there was still a Cami-i Atik neighborhood in Çorlu.311

The information obtained by researchers doing a research on the mosque and

the complex located in Cumhuriyet Square in Çorlu today can be confusing at first.

The mosque in the main square of the town, known today as the Süleymaniye Mosque

today, is attributed to Süleyman I in most sources, but what some other sources

mention might be quite confusing at first glance. Evliya Çelebi attributes the mosque

and its dependencies to Süleyman I.312 On the other hand, Ahmed Badi Efendi writes

that the soup kitchen was commissioned by Süleyman I, and the madrasa was

commissioned by Selim II.313 In some repair documents from the second half of the

19th century, this mosque was called Sultan Süleyman Mosque and in some other

310 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167.

311 Osmanlı Döneminde Çorlu: Nüfus Defterlerinde, 81.

312 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167.

313 Ahmed Bâdi Efendi. Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne, Vol. 3, 2087.

128

documents and it was called Sultan Selim mosque, which makes it even more

confusing.314 Ahmed Badi Efendi writes there were three Friday mosques in the town,

but he counts four mosques. He mentions the Ahmed Pasha Mosque in addition to

Fatih, Arabacıbaşı, and Süleymaniye mosques as mentioned by Evliya Çelebi as

well.315 Âşık Mehmed, on the other hand, does not give the name of the patron for the

complex in Çorlu. He writes that the complex, consisting of a Friday mosque, a great

madrasa, a soup kitchen, bazaar, and bath was endowed by one of ashab-ı hayrat

(charity patrons).316 The silence of an Ottoman intellectual like Âşık Mehmed about

the patron of the complex here is eyebrow raising. Mehmed Mecdî (d. 1591) also does

not give the name of the founder of the madrasa in Çorlu. Instead, he writes it as Çorlu

Madrasa, while Atâî (1583 – 1635) mentions it as Ahmed Pasha Madrasa.317 Venetian

ambassador Contarini writes that the complex consisted of a mosque, bath, madrasa,

soup kitchen, and caravanserai was commissioned by Ahmed Pasha who rebelled in

Cairo and was later executed. He adds that his assets were confiscated and allocated

to this pious foundation.318 A foreigner’s travel note may initially push the reader to

criticize the source. However, Abdurrahman Hıbrî, a prolific author from Edirne,

confirms Contarini and provides the deciphering information about both the content of

the complex, its patron and how its name was changed. In Menâsik-i Mesâlik, in which

he describes his journey to Mecca, he states that there were a mosque, a double-bath,

a madrasa, and a double caravanserai in the complex in Çorlu commissioned by Hain

Ahmed Pasha (Ahmed Pasha the Traitor) and that the Ahmed Pasha became the victim

of damnatio memoriae after revolting during the reign of Süleyman I and then being

314 BOA.ŞD.63.3638; BOA.İ.DH.672.46786

315 Ahmed Bâdi Efendi. Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne, Vol. 3, 2087.

316 Âşık Mehmed. Menâzırü’l-Avâlim, Vol. 3, 1103.

317 Baltacı. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, 367.

318 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 38.

129

executed in Egypt, and the complex he had commissioned started to be called as

Süleymaniye.319 It is quite striking that the name of the Hain Ahmed Pasha is never

mentioned in any Ottoman official document. The name of the pasha, whose assets

were confiscated after his execution, was erased by the Ottoman central

administration. Moreover, we see that Ottoman intellectuals such as Âşık Mehmed,

Evliya Çelebi, or Mehmed Mecdî also hesitated to mention the name of the pasha.

The total list of the buildings that made up the complex can be seen in in the

accounting documents kept by the trustees of the waqf. According to these documents,

the complex consisted of a mosque, a madrasa, a bath, a caravanserai, and shops.320

However, the entire complex was not built at the same time. This again leads to

confusion at the first stage about the architect or architects of the complex. Since it is

written that the madrasa of Sultan Süleyman and his soup kitchen in Çorlu were built

by Sinan in Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye and Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin, the complex is attributed to

Sinan with all its dependencies. However, Ahmed Pasha was executed in Cairo in

1524, and the completion of the mosque is dated to 1521, according to the inscription

on it, which indicates that the construction most likely began when pasha was the

Rumeli beylerbeyi (governor of Rumelia), about 17 years before Sinan became the

chief imperial architect.321 In its first form, it seems that the complex consisted of a

mosque, a double-bath, and a caravanserai. As it is written in Tezkiretü‘l-Bünyan and

Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin, the madrasa and soup kitchen were built by Sinan for Süleyman I

and therefore they could be dated after the 1530s by looking at Sinan’s

319 İlgürel. “Abdurrahman Hibrî’nin Menasîk-i Mesâlik’i”, 111 – 128.

320 BOA.TS.MA.D.5648; BOA.TS.MA.E.48.39; BOA.TS.MA.E.88.9; BOA.TS.MA.E.35.21

321 İnalcık. “Aḥmad Pas̲ h̲ a K̲ h̲ āʾin” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition.

https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/ahmad-pasha-khain-

SIM_0419.

130

autobiographies.322 However, it is seen that appointments were made to the madrasa

since 933 AH / 1526-7 AD, which indicates that the madrasa was built long before

Sinan.323 Therefore, we need to question the credibility of Sinan’s autobiographies.

Today, only the mosque remains from the complex. The soup kitchen, caravanserai,

and madrasa were in ruins at the beginning of the 20th century, they were all

demolished in 1959 along with the bath, despite the objections of the Chamber of

Architects.324

The architect of the mosque, madrasa, bath, and caravanserai must have been

Ali bin Abdullah, known as Acem Ali or Esir Ali, who was the chief architect prior to

Sinan.325 The mosque with a single minaret has a square plan and a single dome. (Fig.

60) The transition of this cubic mosque made of cut stone to the dome is established

by squinches in oyster decorations. (Fig. 61) After entering the qibla gate, there is a

small maqsura on the right. The mosque has a simple pulpit and mihrab. In front of the

three-bay portico, there is a larger portico on wooden posts which makes its appearance

more majestic. However, it is most likely that the second portico does not belong to

the original plan. With its architecture and iconography, this mosque exhibits the

characteristics of a pasha mosque rather than a sultan’s mosque when we consider the

16th century Ottoman architectural culture (‘adab), which visually reinforces that its

founder was Ahmed Pasha.326

Baltacı mentions two different madrasas in Çorlu, namely Ahmed Pasha and

Sultan Süleyman, in which he studied the Ottoman madrasas of 15th and 16th centuries,

322 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 82, 83, 107, 109.

323 Baltacı. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, 366.

324 CA.30-1-0-0.123.791.9

325 Ertuğrul. “Acem Ali.” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi. Accessed September 3, 2022.

https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/acem-ali.

326 For the ‘adab in the Ottoman architecture see: Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan, Necipoğlu. “Sinan

çağında mimarlık kültürü ve âdâb: Günümüze yönelik yorumlar”, 19 – 66.

131

but they were the same madrasa.327 The exact location and layout of the lead covered

madrasa is somewhat difficult to understand. Contarini writes that there were six

rooms each in front and behind the mosque.328 This indicates that the madrasa had 12

cells, but instead of separating the cells into two groups, we can think that the

classroom was parallel to one of the side walls of the mosque and that it was arranged

symmetrically on the axis parallel to the wall, with six cells falling in front and six

falling behind courtyard of the mosque. However, another source writes that the

madrasa had 20 cells.329 Food and candles were provided to the students and professors

in the madrasa. The madrasa should have been one of the most prestigious madrasas

in Rumelia. According to a list of Rumelian madrasas in the mid-17th century, Ahmed

Pasha madrasa was in the group of fifties (ellili medrese) and was in the eighth of nine

ranks, with the ninth being only in Istanbul and Edirne.330 In addition to this, there was

also a mention of Sinan Bey madrasa, but there is no other document about its

existence. In a repair document dated 1762, it is seen that there was an elementary

school in the complex as well.331 Catharin Zen also mentions the existence of an

elementary school.332

The double-bath made of cut stone was located in the square in front of the

mosque today. Like other structures, the bath was also covered with lead. The

caravanserai was located near the mosque on Istanbul – Edirne road. (Fig. 62)

Lubenau, who passed through the town in 1587, wrote that there were several mosques

and caravanserais in Çorlu, but that the main caravanserai was in disrepair and

327 Baltacı. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, 366, 694.

328 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 38.

329 Tuna. Geçmişten Bugüne Çorlu, 85.

330 Özergin, “Eski Bir Ruznameye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri”, 263 – 290.

331 BOA.C.BLD.96.4789

332 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

132

neglected. For this reason, they had to stay in the courtyard of the mosque.333 Lubenau

must have passed through Çorlu at a time when the caravanserai needed repairs.

Corneille de Schepper writes that the caravanserai in Çorlu was even bigger than

Abdüsselam Çelebi’s 300-horse caravanserai in Küçükçekmece.334 Adam Wenner

writes that there was a perfectly built mosque and caravanserai in Çorlu, where he

stayed in 1616.335 It was a single-storey building covered with lead like the mosque

and the bath.336 According to Gerlach’s account the building nearby the mosque was

covered with lead it had very long stables for horses, many small rooms, fountains. He

mistakenly writes his patron as Ali Pasha, whom Selim I had executed in Cairo.337 The

context of the information Gerlach gives is correct, but this was a complex built by

Ahmed Pasha, who was executed in Cairo during the reign of Süleyman I. Gerlach

also writes that on the wall of the caravanserai in Çorlu, there was a painting of the

caravanserai, the mosque, and the fountain depicted in a very artistic perspective.

Fresne-Canaye writes that there was a painting of a Latin, Orthodox, and Muslim

places of worship on the wall.338 The painting Fresne-Canaye saw was most probably

be the one Gerlach was talking about. If these structures had survived to the present

day, a very interesting area in Ottoman historiography where art in commercial

buildings could be studied would have emerged.

There were many shops around the caravanserai for the needs of the travelers,

and this area became the economic center of the city, where the bazaar was also

located. Benedikt Curipeschitz refers to the place they stayed in Çorlu as wohl

333 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589), 158.

334 De Schepper. Missions Diplomatiques de Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, dit Scepperus, 111.

335 Wenner. Padişahın Huzurunda Elçilik Günlüğü, 1616 – 1618, 52.

336 Dernscwham. İstanbul ve Anadolu’ya Seyahat Günlüğü, 47.

337 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 818-819.

338 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 47.

133

erbauten markt (well-built market).339 This must have been written in reference to the

bazaars and shops around the caravanserai. In the accounting register of Rumelia dated

1530, there were three mosques, two baths, one of which is a double bath, and a

caravanserai in Çorlu.340 In addition, upon the completion of the first small complex,

it is seen that the economy become the most vibrant among the towns on the Edirne –

Istanbul road, with 28 shops, a bakery, a boza house, a başhâne, a customs, and a

butcher. In 1530, the only double bath, caravanserai, bakery, boza house, başhâne,

customs, and shops within the borders of all the Vize Province (Vize Livası) (incl.

Babaeski, Bergos, Karıştıran, and Silivri) were in Çorlu. These facilities should have

been concentrated around the caravanserai.

With the fountains and waterways commissioned by Süleyman I, and the soup

kitchen built by Sinan, the complex turned into a full-fledged 16th century Ottoman

complex. The date of these additions can be accepted as 966 AH / 1558-9 AD by

looking at the inscription on the imaret çeşmesi, as written by Evliya Çelebi.341 This

fountain was located in the center of the square where the so-called Süleymaniye

Mosque was located.342 Unfortunately, a photograph of the so-called Süleymaniye

Mosque from the Abdülhamid II archive does not provide us much information about

the layout of the complex. (Fig. 63) However, a lithograph drawn by Luigi Mayer in

the late 18th century proves the existence of dependent structures behind the mosque.

(Fig. 64) The soup kitchen was located behind the area where the burial ground was

located behind the qibla wall of the mosque. In the early-20th century, dependencies of

the complex were in ruins. (Fig. 65)

339 Von Obenburg. Itinerarium Wegrayss Kü. May. potschafft gen Constantinopel zu dem Türkischen

Kayser Soleyman Anno xxx.

340 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 69.

341 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167.

342 Tuna. Geçmişten Bugüne Çorlu, 77.

134

The baths and numerous fountains in Çorlu may suggest the reader to think of

the waterways in the town. The water of the town was provided from the place still

known as Başmaslak today, and there is still a water source there. The water coming

from the spring in the Başmaslak area to the northwest of the town, with pipes and

aqueducts, was 14,570 cubits long and was distributed from the courtyard of the

Süleymaniye Mosque to other fountains and baths in the town.343 The waterways were

approximately 7.5 kilometers long, suggesting that the waterway coming from

Başmaslak area, which is about 4 kilometers away from the town, drew many curves.

In these repair documents, in addition to learning the length of the waterways, we also

see that there were many fountains commissioned by Sultan Süleyman or Ahmed

Pasha.344 A document dated 1816 gives the number as eight to ten during the repair of

the waterways and fountains funded by Abdülhamid I’s (r. 1774 – 1789) waqf.345 An

exact number is given in a repair document in the following year, in 1817, during the

reign of Mahmud II.346 In order to prevent damage that could be inflicted to the

waterways, the land at a distance of four cubits on each sides was prohibited for

agricultural activities and six people were appointed as su yolcu from the müsellems

of Vize.347 Covel notes that the aqueducts were in ruins in 1675 but were still

operational, supplying water to the town. We see from Covel’s notes that not all the

fountains were built within in the town. There were also several fountains lined on the

waterway on the pastures between the water source and the town. 348

343 BOA.İ.MVL.467.21130

344 BOA.MVL.891.47

345 BOA.HAT.1537.60

346 BOA.HAT.1539.37

347 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.23.18; BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.22.117

348 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 182.

135

Evliya Çelebi, who defines the town as çeşmesâr (abundant of fountains), but

states that it was difficult to bring water to the town since it was founded on a flat

plateau. For this reason, the townspeople, who had hardships of bringing water to the

town, made great efforts and built many cisterns and brought water through

waterwheels with their horses. Abdurrahman Hıbrî also reports that the water in the

town is scarce and may not be found from time to time. Evliya Çelebi counts some of

the fountains in the town and gives names of their patrons. Apart from the Taya

Kadın’s Fountain mentioned earlier, these are the Kürd Sefer Ağa Fountain, Murad

IV’s ruznâmeci (journal writer) İbrahim Efendi Fountain, Acıçeşme in the non-Muslim

neighborhood, and kul kethüdası (mid-rank janissary agha) Süleyman Ağa fountains

in the bazaar. He writes that there were twenty private baths apart from Daye Hatun’s

and Süleyman’s baths.349 Unfortunately, none of these fountains have survived to the

present day. The name of kethüda Süleyman is written on the inscription above the

fountain, which is known as the Hospital Fountain (Hastane Çeşmesi) today, but since

Evliya Çelebi located it in the market place, it is unclear whether the inscription was

later removed and attached here. (Fig. 66) Acıçeşme was still standing and was

documented in the 1960s.350 The location of the fountain, which does not exist today,

was on Acı Çeşme Street. According to the inscription written by the poet Haşimî, the

fountain was built in 1022 AH / 1613-1614 AD by Mustafa Ağa, who was the

Babüssaade Ağa (chief white eunuch) during the reign of Ahmed I.

Evliya Çelebi counts Abdi Halife, Karacaahmet Sultan, and Davud Dede

lodges among the lodges in Çorlu, but does not state which order they belonged to and

where they were located in the town. However, today, Karacaahmet Sultan Tekkesi

349 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167.

350 Şenel. “Çorlu Kazası Tarihçesi”, 90-91.

136

Street in Çorlu gives us an idea of its location of this Bektashi lodge. The restless

traveler also gives information about the tombs, by counting the tombs of Osman

Dede, Behiştî, and Uzun Balı Efendi. The famous sufi and poet Behiştî (d. 1571) was

the preacher of Süleymaniye Mosque and Uzun Balı Efendi was the professor of the

madrasa in the town and was buried near the madrasa.351 The Ottoman historiographer

Peçevî also writes that Sheikh Ramazan Behiştî (aforementioned person), one of the

sufis, was a preacher at the Ahmed Pasha Mosque.352

We can assume that towards the end of the 17th century, a street parallel to

Edirne – Istanbul road called Kumyolu was formed in Çorlu. It is written in the

waqfiyya of Çorlulu Ali Pasha (c. 1670 – 1711) from 1710 that he endowed a fountain

in Kumyolu.353 This must be Çukur Çeşme, which has a repair inscription on it today

and is located on modern Kumyol Street, close to the center of old Çorlu. (Fig. 67)

As a result, Çorlu, which was considered by the Ottomans as the midpoint of

the Edirne – Istanbul road, was the largest center on this route. The fact that its

population was larger than the neighboring towns in the region and the diversity of

economic activities made the town an important trade center in Eastern Thrace.

Mosques, masjids, baths, fountains, and schools built by both the Mehmed II and

people of his court such as Arabacıbaşı Şüca Bey, Daye Hatun and his son-in-law İlyas

Bey are quite striking. In the early years of the reign of Süleyman I, the construction

of a menzil complex began in Çorlu, just like in Küçükçekmece and Silivri. When

Ahmed Pasha’s unfortunate career ended with his execution, the name of the complex

was changed as a result of a rare damnatio memoriae case in Ottoman history. The

351 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 167, 168.

352 Peçevi İbrahim Efendi. Peçevi Tarihi, Vol. 1, 327.

353 Abuşoğlu. “Sadr-ı A‘zâm Ali Paşa’nın Vakıfnâmesi”.

137

complex, whose name was changed, turned into a full-fledged menzil complex with

the additions of Süleyman I in the mid-16th century. Supplying water to this large town

has been one of the city’s major problems. Numerous fountains were built from the

mid-16th century onwards and long waterways were protected with special precautions.

The absence of a remarkable building in the rest of the 18th century in Çorlu, like the

other towns, shows the decreasing importance of the Edirne – Istanbul road and the

towns from the 18th century onwards.

Figure 58. Fatih Mosque in Çorlu. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

138

Figure 59. Fatih Mosque fountain. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 60. So-called Süleymaniye Mosque in Çorlu. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

139

Figure 61. Interior of so-called Süleymaniye Mosque in Çorlu. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 62. Photo from 1922 of so-called Süleymaniye Mosque with the caravanserai seen in the

background. Source: Albert Kahn Photo Archive

140

Figure 63. 19th c. photo of so-called Süleymaniye Mosque from Abdülhamid II photo archives.

Source: İÜMK, 90417

Figure 64. Colored lithograph of Çorlu and so-called Süleymaniye Complex by Luigi Mayer

141

Figure 65. Photo from 1922 of the ruins of the imaret in Çorlu. Source: Albert Kahn Photo Archive

Figure 66. Fountain with inscription of kethüda Süleyman Ağa in Çorlu. Photo by Can Bozkır,

December, 2022

142

Figure 67. Çukur Çeşme, possibly the fountain of Çorlulu Ali Paşa on Kumyolu. Photo by Can

Bozkır, December, 2022

Figure 68. View of Çorlu from the second half of the 16th century from Leiden Sketchbook. Source:

Klusáková, The Road to Constantinople, 75.

143

Figure 69. Hypothethical map of Çorlu

4.4 Karıştıran

Located between Çorlu and Bergos, Karıştıran, although not a town (kaza), was a small

settlement worth mentioning briefly in this study. Karıştıran was a small village with

88 households in the mid-17th century according to Evliya Çelebi’s report.354

According to the Ottoman historian and poet Behiştî (d. 1511-12), the name of the

settlement comes from Karışdıran Süleyman Bey, who was the subaşı of Bursa and

Istanbul and was once the governor of Vize.355 Because of the distance between Çorlu

and Bergos is long and it was difficult to take this road in one day, Karıştıran was an

appropriate menzil point. The village was located in the west of the valley formed by

Yuvalı Stream, a tributary of Ergene. There must have been inns before the mid-16th

century in Karıştıran, which was also a mansio during the Roman and Byzantine

354 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 6, 86.

355 Demir. Drusipara’dan Büyükkarıştıran’a, 28. Latîfî and Franz Babinger mentions that Behiştî

was from Karışdıran and was the son of Karışdıran Süleyman Bey but Süleyman Bey probably was

not from Karışdıran and Karışdıran was his moniker for some reason: Latîfî, Tezkiretü’ş-Şu’arâ ve

Tabsıratü’n-Nuzamâ, 153; Babinger. Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri, 49.

144

periods. From the mid-16th century onwards, with its imperial hunting palace, this

place was also frequented by the sultans. Karıştıran was not in the status of a township

(kaza) and was under the kaza of Bergos in terms of administration. Bostancıs were

employed for the security of the settlement due to the presence of the imperial palace.

The construction projects that turned Karıştıran into a well-organized Ottoman

menzil point were commissioned by the Ottoman grand vizier and Süleyman I’s sonin-

law, Rüstem Pasha. In his waqfiyya dated 951 AH / 1544, Rüstem Pasha endowed

two inns facing each other, two hospices, and a separate hospice (tabhane) for ulu

kimesneler (notables, dignitaries) in Karıştıran.356 The two inns mentioned in the

waqfiyya must have been a double-winged caravanserai. In addition, the separate

hospices mentioned for the great personage were also seen in the complexes of Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha in Bergos and Havsa. Since it was on the Edirne – Istanbul road, the

caravanserais here had special sections for the people of the palace. It was stipulated

in waqfiyya that a mosque and a bath with the surplus money to be built. For this

reason, we see that the mosque and bath were built after the caravanserai.357 In addition

to mosque, bath and the caravanserai, the pasha endowed a primary school, six shops,

two fountains, and paved the village roads.358 Evliya Çelebi counts ten shops.359

Today, it is not even possible to determine the location of the school and bath of the

complex. Based on the tile waterways, it is suggested that the bath was located on

Cihan Street today.360

Today, the mosque is far from its original appearance, and both its exterior and

interior decoration do not give much insight about the original appearance. (Fig. 70) It

356 Ayverdi, and Barkan. İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli, 432.

357 Canatar. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri: 1009 (1600) Tarihli, 276.

358 VGMA, nr. 635/2, fol. 139

359 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 6, 86.

360 Demir. Drusipara’dan Büyükkarıştıran’a, 139.

145

is a square planned mosque with a single minaret. Unlike today, the mosque, which

was originally made of cut stone, had a brick minaret.361 It is recorded in Tuhfetü‘l-

Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye that the architect of the caravanserai was Sinan.362

The caravanserai was located to the north of the mosque across the courtyard.

Evliya Çelebi gives the date of the caravanserai as 953 AH / 1547-1548 AD.363 He

states that the caravanserai was covered with lead together with the mosque and bath.

The caravanserai was not as impressive as the other caravanserais on the Edirne –

Istanbul road. The scribe in Soranzo’s entourage writes that Rüstem Pasha’s

caravanserai in Karıştıran was incomparable with the caravanserais of Mehmed Pasha

in Bergos and Havsa.364 Corneille van der Dreisch was also of the same opinion with

Soranzo’s scribe.365

One of the two fountains mentioned in the waqfiyya must be the fountain which

was adjacent to the mosque as Evliya Çelebi mentions. The other fountain was on the

road outside the village, as stated in the waqfiyya. This is the fountain known today as

the Horhor Fountain.366 Although not mentioned in the waqfiyya, the presence of baths

and fountains indicates the existence of waterways. The remains of three su terazisi

(masonry tower built onto waterways to adjust the water pressure) coming from the

valley slope across the Yuvalı Stream have survived to the present day. (Fig. 71) Covel

describes the operation of the aqueduct he saw as follows:

From a delicate clearer fountain on the same side the town beyond this river,

upon the side of the hill (to our right hand, as we descend to come hither), is an

Aquæduct brought, and in the valley are three steps or pyramids built to divide the

361 Alkan. “Arşiv Belgeleri Işığında Sadrazam Rüstem Paşa’nın Büyükkarıştıran’daki Mimari

Eserleri”, 1-34.

362 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 85, 110.

363 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 6, 86.

364 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 57.

365 Von den Dreisch. Historische Nachricht von der Röm. Kayserl. Groß-Botschafft nach

Constantinopel, 139.

366 Demir. Drusipara’dan Büyükkarıştıran’a, 113.

146

water into severall trunks, as also to let the overplus run in winter, without prejudice

to the course of the rest.367

According to Corneille van der Dreisch, these aqueducts brought water to the

sultan’s hunting palace and the double-bath.368 As seen from the later repair

documents, there were three aqueducts and at least nine maslak (small pool-like

trough) in the waterways bringing water from the source to the village.369

The imperial hunting palace in Karıştıran was probably located at the site of

Atatürk Park in the center of today’s town. A large budget was allocated for the

construction of the hunting palace with its own waterway during the reign of Mehmed

IV, and its construction was a large-scale project. A huge amount of material was

commissioned from neighboring towns such as Malkara, Gallipoli, Edirne, Bergos,

and Çorlu, and the workers sent from Misinli worked for a total of 5266 days. The

hunting palace was built with wood on stone foundations and, judging by the amount

of tiles ordered, it probably had occupied more than 3400 square meters.370

As a result, the village of Karıştıran could not develop socially and

economically, and could not reach the status of a township, as there were no soup

kitchen, madrasa, and great number of shops in the complex of Rüstem Pasha which

could have fostered the urbanization and development. The location of the village may

have also been influential in this situation. The village was slightly off the road as it

can be deducible from the waqfiyya. Also, considering the distance between the

complex and the bridge which was located on the Edirne – Istanbul road, it can be seen

that the village differed from other menzil settlements since the road did not pass

367 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 183.

368 Von den Dreisch. Historische Nachricht von der Röm. Kayserl. Groß-Botschafft nach

Constantinopel, 139.

369 Alkan. “Arşiv Belgeleri Işığında Sadrazam Rüstem Paşa’nın Büyükkarıştıran’daki Mimari

Eserleri”, 1-34; BOA.C.EV.483.24444

370 Demir. Drusipara’dan Büyükkarıştıran’a, 80-86.

147

through the village. Nevertheless, due to the distance between Çorlu and Bergos,

which was difficult to cover in one day, it was deemed necessary to build a small

menzil complex here.

Figure 70. Rüstem Pasha Mosque in Karıştıran. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 71. Three su terazisi in Karıştıran indicating the route of waterways. Photo by Can Bozkır,

November, 2022

148

Figure 72. Hypothetical map of Karıştıran

4.5 Bergos

This chapter will study with the history of the town of Bergos until the 18th century,

which is located between Karıştıran and Babaeski. After a brief reference to the

geography, economy, and demography of the town, the oldest known Ottoman

buildings of the town, namely Gazi Ali Bey Mosque and Hüseyin Bey Masjid, will be

presented. The emphasis will be on the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha complex, which

changed the fate of the town. The complex will be examined in detail in terms of its

size, layout, architecture, patronage, and construction motives. The contribution of the

complex to the economy of the town will also be mentioned. Finally, Mehmed IV’s

square fountain from the 17th century will be mentioned.

The town of Bergos, referred to as Bergos, Birgos, Birgoz, or Burgos in the

Ottoman documents, is between Karıştıran and Babaeski on the Edirne – Istanbul road

and is located on the east bank of Köprüaltı Stream, where Bağlar Stream and

149

Kaynarca Stream coming from the foothills of Strandzha Mountains meet near the

town. The stream that largely borders the town even today on its western side is one

of the tributaries of the Ergene River. The town was founded on a flat terrain at an

altitude of about 150 meters to the east of the stream.

The subsistence in the town was primarily relied on agriculture and animal

husbandry. The wheat mills that Covel saw and Âşık Mehmed’s description of this

place as agricultural lands and mention of its quality grains point to this.371 The main

agricultural products produced by the Bergos townspeople in the mid-16th century

were wheat, barley, oats, and millet. There were also some beekeeping, market

gardening (bostan), and viticulture (bağ) in the town. Nearly half of the households in

the town was occupied with agriculture. 372 Evliya Çelebi states that this place is

famous for its sheep, lamb, and butter. An annual cattle fair was held in Bergos. Evliya

Çelebi writes that the cattle fair here was famous in the lands of Rum, Arab, and Ajam

and that many people come and do good shopping.373 Catharin Zen also writes that the

fairs were held during the Easter period and the 280 to 300 carriages came to town.374

We do not know when the cattle fair in the town began to be organized, but we can

learn from the notes of the travelers that cattle fairs were held here since the from the

mid-16th century onwards. This shows us that Bergos was a rendezvous place where

the villagers and cattle traders came from its hinterland and engaged in trade on an

annual basis. Moreover, Lubenau writes that because the clergy in the complex Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha had a lot of free time so they were occupied with silkworms from

371 Âşık Mehmed. Menâzırü’l-Avâlim, Vol. 3, 1104.

372 Özdeğer. “16. Yüzyılda Vize Sancağı’nın Demografik ve Ekonomik Yapısı”. 87-123.

373 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 169.

374 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

150

thanks to mulberry trees in the garden. Therefore we can assume that there was also a

small amount of sericulture in the town.

The Ottomans, who captured the town in 1361 during the reign of Murad I,

found the town abandoned. Because of that, Bergos was a town composed mostly of

Turks. Gerlach reports that there was no church in the town and that few Christians in

the town were occupied by bakery and tailoring.375 Covel confirms Gerlach by writing

that the town was almost entirely inhabited by the Turks.376 He also saw brick kilns

operated by town’s few Greeks along with wheat mills on the western side of the

stream.377 Ottomans demolished the walls after capturing the town without seeing any

resistance.378 However, the Ottomans did not settle within the walls, as they did in

Silivri, Çorlu, Bursa, Edirne, and some other Balkan towns and cities. Âşık Mehmed

defines Bergos as bilâ-sur (without walls). He reports that the town had a ruined and

uninhabited castle.379 Benedetto Ramberti, who passed through Bergos in 1541, writes

that the town’s ruined walls were about 2 miles long.380 The walls, where Bergos

Fortress was located, falls to today’s Dere District and Yılmaz District. The last

remains of the walls are visible near the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Bridge. However, the

remains of the city walls were found during the excavations of some construction

foundations in the aforementioned neighborhoods. By looking at such signs, it was

possible to draw the plan of the walls in the town.381 (Fig. 6)

375 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 825.

376 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 184-185.

377 Ibid, 184-185.

378 Hoca Sadeddin Efendi. Tacü’t-Tevarih, Vol. 1, 114; Anonim Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, 24; Mehmed

Neşrî. Kitâb-ı Cihan-nümâ, Vol. 1, 193; Âşıkpaşazâde. Tevârihi Âl-i Osman, 109.

379 Âşık Mehmed. Menâzırü’l-Avâlim, Vol. 3, 1103.

380 Ramberti. Delle cose de Turchi, 9.

381 Öğretmenoğlu, “Kazdıkça ‘Eski Lüleburgaz’ çıkıyor!”, Görünüm, February 14,

2022, http://gorunumgazetesi.com.tr/haber/84147/kazdikca-eski-luleburgaz-cikiyor.html; Ünlüsoy,

“Lüleburgaz’ın her yerinden tarih fışkırıyor”, Hürfikir, April 23, 2018,

http://www.hurfikir.com.tr/haber/19543/luleburgazin-her-yerinden-tarih-fiskiriyor.html.

151

The oldest surviving building from the Ottoman period in Bergos is also the

oldest surviving Ottoman building among the towns on the Edirne - Istanbul road. This

is the Gâzi Ali Bey Mosque, known today as the Kadı Ali Mosque. The mosque is

located outside the walls on the southern side of Bergos. We can assume that the first

neighborhood established outside the walls in Bergos was formed around this mosque.

If we consider the land where the mosque is located and the garden with the

surrounding wall, it is possible that there were some dependant structures around it.

Although the modern inscription at the entrance gives the date 1374, the mosque does

not have a foundation inscription. Although it is speculated that the mosque was built

in the name of Gâzi Ali Bey, son of Hacı İlbey, during the reign of Murad I, we do not

have any document that proves this Gâzi Ali Bey was that person.382 Leaving this

misconception aside, another claim is that the mosque was built by Gâzi Ali Bey, one

of the warlords during the reign of Mehmed I (r. 1413 – 1421).383 The square-planned

mosque made of cut stone has a lead covered dome sitting on an octagonal drum. (Fig.

73) It has a single minaret and its three-bay portico does not exist today. The

inscription above the entrance door is the repair inscription and the date 1158 AH /

1745-6 AD is written on it. The mosque was repaired by women named Fatma Hatun

and Ayşe Hatun.

The second mosque/masjid in Bergos must be the Hüseyin Bey Mosque, whose

construction date is unknown. The fact that the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex,

which was built in the second half of 1560s, is registered in the Hüseyin Bey

Neighborhood, shows that the Hüseyin Bey Mosque, which gave its name to the

382 In fact, the source of these speculations is that the local researcher Bahri Berberoğulları confused

the town of Bergos with the place known as Kuleliburgaz (mod. Pythion), which is known as İlbegi

Bergos and is located near Dimetoka (mod. Didymoteicho) on the banks of the Meriç River.

383 Arslan. Kasabadan Kente Bir Cumhuriyet Yürüyüşü: Lüleburgaz, Vol. 2, 270.

152

neighborhood, is older than the complex.384 In a photograph from the second half of

the 19th century from the Abdülhamid II’s archive, the view of Bergos from the minaret

of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque and Gâzi Ali Bey Mosque are visible. (Fig. 74)

Between Gâzi Ali Bey Mosque and Mehmed Pasha’s complex, there is a small masjidsized

building with a short minaret and a tiled hipped roof. This could be the Hüseyin

Bey Mosque. Thus, both buildings are located outside the old walls.

In the accounting register of Rumelia from 1530, it is recorded that there were

two mosques and two baths in Bergos.385 We do not know the location of these baths,

but we can draw more definite conclusions about the two mosques. Âşık Mehmed

mentions an old bath (hamam-ı atik) in the town, but does not give a location.386 One

of the mosques is the Gâzi Ali Bey Mosque, and the other is the Hüseyin Bey Mosque,

which gave its name to the Hüseyin Bey Neighborhood, where the Sokollu Mehmed

Pasha Complex will be built later on.

The face of the town would change with the huge complex built by Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha. Until the 1560s, Bergos looked like a village with demolished walls.

In 1530, Bergos was a pretty small town with 3 neighborhoods, 62 households, and 20

bachelors which made up the population around 300.387 In 1541 Ramberti defined the

town as a village.388 In 1568, when the construction of Mehmed Pasha’s complex was

underway, the number of neighborhoods increased to four and the number of

households to 94.389 With the number of bachelors, the population of the town reached

around 430. However, we can assume that there were inns in this small town since it

384 Gökpınar. “1712 Tarihli Avârız Defterine Göre Bergos (Lüleburgaz) Kazası”, 63-98.

385 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 68.

386 Âşık Mehmed. Menâzırü’l-Avâlim, Vol. 3, 1104.

387 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 68.

388 Ramberti. Delle cose de Turchi, 9.

389 Özdeğer. “16. Yüzyılda Vize Sancağı’nın Demografik ve Ekonomik Yapısı”. 87-123.

153

was an Ottoman menzil point for more than a century. Benedikt Curipeschitz defined

the place where they overnighted in Bergos as a markt.390 This indicates that there were

some shops around the inn where they stayed. When Sokollu Mehmed Pasha decided

to have a menzil complex built in Bergos together with Havsa, Bergos was the only

town on the Edirne - Istanbul road that did not have a menzil complex. In other words,

Mehmed Pasha had no chance to choose another settlement on the Istanbul – Edirne

axis. When Mehmed Pasha’s complex was just completed, some travelers passing by

also state that the town still looked like a village.391

Mehmed Pasha, who was the grand vizier between 1565 and 1579, had built

this great complex on a flat land outside the city walls. He was one of the most

powerful figures in Ottoman history, and the pasha, who became a vizier during the

reign of Suleiman I, was almost the de-facto ruler of the empire, serving as grand vizier

during the reigns of Selim II and Murad III.392 Apart from Bergos, he had many waqfs,

especially in Kadırga and Azapkapı in Istanbul, and in places such as Payas, Havsa,

Bor, and Višegrad outside of Istanbul.393

The mosque, madrasa, elementary school, double-bath, prayer dome, some of

the shops in the arasta, and some parts of the walls of the caravanserai have survived

from the complex in Bergos. In the waqfiyya of the Grand Vizier in the archives of the

General Directorate of Foundations, dated 1574, there are details about all the

buildings that made up the complex.394 In another waqfiyya of the pasha kept in Fatih

390 Von Obenburg. Itinerarium Wegrayss Kü. May. potschafft gen Constantinopel zu dem Türkischen

Kayser Soleyman Anno xxx.

391 Van den Branden. “Put od Bruselja iz Brabanta u Carigrad u Traciji, glavni grad turskoga cara”,

157 – 199.

392 Veinstein. “Soḳollu Meḥmed Pas̲ h̲ a” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition , October 28, 2022.

https://0-referenceworks-brillonline-com.seyhan.library.boun.edu.tr/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-

2/sokollu-mehmed-pasha-SIM_7090?s.num=10; Altınay. Sokollu.

393 Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan, 331 – 368.

394 VGMA, nr. 572, fols. 31, 34 – 35; Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan, 348 – 355.

154

Millet Kütüphanesi, it is written that he favored the town of Bergos, located between

Istanbul and Edirne, and completely reconstructed and prospered the town with the

complex he had built here.395 This town-scale complex was consisting of a mosque,

madrasa, primary school, double-bath, double-caravanserai, soup kitchen, waterways,

an aqueduct, a su terazisi, fountains, sewer, lead-covered arasta (row of shops) with

53 masonry shops, hospice, a şiruganhâne (sesame oil producing facility), a serhâne

(shop selling head and trotters of an animal), a bezirhâne (linseed oil producing

facility), a şemhâne (candle producing facility), a sabunhâne (soap producing facility),

three tanneries, a haystack, a hay barn, two houses for the trustee, two houses for the

madrasa professor, two houses for the imam, two houses for the preacher, four houses

for the muezzins, and two houses for the repairers in the old neighborhood. (Fig. 75)

Total of 101 people were employed for the foundation in the town excluding

shopkeepers and madrasa students.

Great organization was required for this large-scale construction, which began

around 1565. In an imperial decree, it was ordered to the qadi of Pınarhisar to send the

timber required for the caravanserai that Mehmed Pasha intended to build in Bergos.396

In another decree dates from 1568, the qadi of Skopje was asked to record the names

of 70 carpenter masters and send them immediately before the construction season

starts for the mosque of Grand Vizier Mehmed Pasha which would be built in Bergos.

In the decree it is stated that all the food and beverage expenses of these carpenters

will be fully covered. In addition to that, 60 workers from Thessaloniki, 100 from

395 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 511.

396 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973 / 1565 – 1566), 94.

155

Edirne, 40 from Lesbos, 40 from Serres, 30 from Gallipoli and 100 from another town

(illegible in the document) were requested.397

Again from 1568, the qadis of Çorlu, Silivri and Rodoscuk were asked to send

qualified builders together with construction tools for the imaret of Mehmed Pasha in

Bergos and to provide construction materials such as timber. It was underlined that

this issue was important and should not be delayed.398 In another decree from 1568,

adequate number of carriages were ordered to be provided from qadis Sofia, Samokov,

Kyustendil, Radomir and Dupnitsa to carry to the lead in Sofia to Bergos, which was

bought for the waqf of Mehmed Pasha. It is emphasized that this matter is important

and should not be neglected.399 While the construction was underway in 1568, Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha renounced his lands in the Delvine sanjak in Albania for the imaret

which was being built in Bergos, and the lands in the townships (nâhiye) of Hatunili,

Pınarhisar, Bergos, and Babaeski of Vize sanjak were entrusted to his waqf.400 Since

Mehmed Pasha had founded a huge waqf in Bergos, he must have considered it

appropriate to entrust the villages near Bergos to his waqf in order to facilitate the

works of the foundation and the trustee.

The order of these decrees may indicate the construction sequence of the

buildings that made up the complex, it should not be overlooked that the structures in

such complexes consisting of multifunctional buildings were named interchangeably

both in waqfiyyas and in other archival documents. Terms such as soup kitchen,

caravanserai, inn, stable, hospice, and guestroom were often used interchangeably to

describe such buildings.

397 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 – 1569), Vol. 1, 319-320.

398 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 – 1569), Vol. 2, 286-287.

399 Ibid, 381.

400 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 – 1569), Vol. 3, 344.

156

Pigafetta reports that when he arrived in Bergos in 1568, 200 chained Christian

slaves were working to complete the construction. The traveler, who witnessed the

stones and marbles being transported, states that, in order not to cause trouble for

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, the pasha had built another road for the sultan to pass on his

way to Edirne so that the stones and construction materials carried on the road would

not hinder the sultan or cause him to envy. He writes that there were shops on the

Edirne - Istanbul road between the big and beautiful caravanserai and the mosque.401

When Pigafetta passed through here, the complex must have been largely completed,

as he saw the caravanserai, mosque, and shops.

In a decree from, 1568, the qadi of Pınarhisar was ordered to promulgate in the

villages and towns of the kaza of Pınarhisar that the taxes of avarız, nüzul and tekalifi

örfiyye from people living in the town of Bergos would not be levied. 402 It was

important to flourish the town of Bergos and for that both inhabitants of the town of

Bergos, and anyone who settled and contributed to the development of the town were

exempt from these taxes which would have encouraged people to come and make the

town prosperous.

The construction of the complex was started in 1565 when Sokollu Mehmed

Pasha was promoted to grand vizierate, and was completed in 977 AH / 1569-1570

AD according to inscriptions. The architect of the complex is Sinan. It is written that

the mosque, madrasa, and soup kitchen in Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin, and the mosque, soup

kitchen, and caravanserai in Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye were built by Sinan.403 While the

former omits the caravanserai, the latter omits the madrasa. On the other hand the

401 Pigafetta. “Itinerario di Marc’Antonio Pigafetta gentil’huomo vicentino”, 70 – 194.

402 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 – 1569), Vol. 3, 190.

403 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 79, 83, 106, 109, 110.

157

palace, baths, and elementary school are not mentioned in both texts. Aptullah Kuran

interprets this as Sinan’s disregard for the elementary school buildings.404 In the Edirne

evkaf tahriri register of 1569 there is a stipulation about the transfer of the leftover

materials from Mehmed Pasha’s foundations in Edirne to his foundation in Bergos.405

Covering an area of approximately 40,000 square meters, the complex is

striking with its axial and symmetrical layout. While the mosque forms an axis with

the elementary school in the direction of the qibla wall and the prayer dome connecting

the arasta and the caravanserai with the mosque courtyard, the arasta bazaar on the

other axis forms the other axis of the complex and separates the religious part in the

southeast part of the complex and the profane part in the northwest. The symmetrical

and axial arrangement of complexes, which started with the complex of Mehmed II in

Istanbul, continued in the age of Sinan as long as the topography and urban fabric were

allowing. Unsurprisignly, the complex was built outside the city walls. The tomb of

Zindan Baba in the vicinity of the complex was probably a former bastion of the city

walls. The complex in Bergos, might have given an extremely high level of freedom

to Sinan since there was no urban fabric restricting the construction area and the flat

topography of Thrace allowed the architect to organize the arrangement of the complex

with no topographical hardships. This symmetrical and axial plan of the complex may

show us the imagination of the ideal microcosm and the program of Ottoman

urbanization. Even the orderly and neat layout of the complex is praised in the

waqfiyya, and the town-scale complex is likened to the Pleiades.406

404 Kuran. “Üsküdar’da Mihrimah Sultan Külliyesi”. 43-72.

405 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 509.

406 Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan, 352.

158

The mosque, which forms the heart of the complex, is particularly impressive

with its exterior design and plasticity. (Fig. 76) The most striking exterior feature of

the square-planned mosque is the sixteen-sided weight turrets on each corner and loadbearing

stepped arches. It is also striking with the dimensions of the mosque. The

dome, which has 12.5 meters diameter and sits on an dodecagonal drum, is slightly

smaller than the dome of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Kadırgalimanı whose

diameter stretches 13 meters. It is larger than the other Sokollu Mehmed Pasha mosque

in the capital which is in Azapkapı and the other mosques in the menzil complexes of

Havsa and Payas. Such striking and tall weight turrets, reaching up almost to the height

of the dome, are not only to be found in other Sokollu complexes, but also in any Sinan

mosques. These weight turrets, together with the central dome, add dynamic effect to

the mosque’s covering system. The square-planned cubic structure with a single

minaret, and the weight turrets at its corners is a reminiscent of Mihrimah Mosque in

Edirnekapı, but such tall weight turrets are extraordinary here in Bergos. When we

look at these weight turrets from the architectonic perspective, they are for stopping

the horizontal thrust coming from the great dome with vertical forces. The pressure

from the dome to the stepped arches changes direction by 90 degrees and is directed

downwards. Both stepped arches and weight turrets are also Sinan’s innovation in

Ottoman architecture. The absence of such tall weight turrets among Sinan’s mosques

may have been a capriccio of Sinan in Bergos, or external factors such as the soft soil

while excavating for the foundation and the earthquake risk may have influenced the

construction of such high weight towers. Like all the towns on the Edirne – Istanbul

road, the ground of Bergos is soft and sandy and therefore poses a risk for earthquakes.

For example, when we look at the two mosques built by Sokollu in Istanbul, we see

that the pressure from the main dome is distributed by the exedral semi-domes. The

159

fact that there are no supporting elements such as semi-domes or exedrae for the dome

in Bergos, which is larger than the dome in Azapkapı and almost the same size as the

mosque in Kadırgalimanı, may explain the existence of these tall weight turrets.

Moreover, Aptullah Kuran wrote that Sinan always proposed simple solutions for the

buildings of which he cannot always supervise the construction processes in provincial

areas.407 Thick walls or high weight turrets can be considered among such solutions.

In the interior, galleries with arcades opening on both sides and recessed walls

emphasize the arches carrying the main dome, that is, the skeletal structure of the

mosque. (Fig. 77) There is a maqsura made of marble right at the entrance. Despite the

magnificent exterior of the mosque and double porticoes, the interior of the mosque is

not very spacious and the maqsura occupies a significant portion of it. Along with the

maqsura, minbar and mihrab are made of marble. Despite its distant structural

resemblance to the Mihrimah Mosque in Edirnekapı, the interior of the mosque in

Lüleburgaz is not as luminous as the mosque in Edirnekapı since it has fewer windows

than Mihrimah Mosque has. Also, the dome is not fenestrated like many other Sinan

mosques. The position of some of the round windows on the walls of the mosque is

flawed. Necipoğlu interprets this as the fault of the local masters.408 The interior

decoration is very plain and there are no Iznik tiles adorning the mosque. The doublearcaded

portico with nine bays are larger than the other two complexes of Mehmed

Pasha and also have more bays than the other double arcaded mosque built by Sinan

for the grand vizier Rüstem Pasha in Tahtakale. While the outer row of the portico is

carried with columns with müstevî capitals alongside the arcades surrounding the

courtyard, the capitals in the inner row are in more elaborate mücevherî style. (Fig. 78)

407 Kuran. Sinan, 78.

408 Gülru Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan, 354.

160

The ablution fountain at the center of the courtyard was renovated during the

reign of Mahmud II and it has the tughra (insignia) of Mahmud II. (Fig. 79) The

dodecagonal ablution fountain with undulating baroque eaves with flowers in vases

above arches are reflecting aesthethic tastes of that period. However, the original

fountain stands under the undulating wooden eaves. Muqarnas mücevherî column

capitals carrying alternating voussoirs are connecting pointed arches of the marble

fountain. The courtyard, in which the fountain formed the center, should have been

like a garden. Lubenau mentions mulberry and chestnut trees in the courtyard, around

the fountain.409 Evliya Çelebi also writes that there were cypress and chestnut trees in

the courtyard.410

The 22-celled madrasa surrounds the arcades of the courtyard of the mosque.

Square-planned and domed madrasa cells are located behind the courtyard arcades.

(Fig. 80) Madrasas of this kind of plans in the courtyard of the mosques were usually

planned in a U-Shape. In Kadırga complex of Mehmed Pasha, and as in many Sinan

complexes, the madrasa classroom is located at the center and cells are flanking the

madrasa symmetrically, while in Bergos it is unusually positioned at the right end of

the U. Ahunbay states that the only other example of this case is in Hüsrev Pasha

Complex in Van.411 Because of the prayer dome connecting the courtyard of the

mosque with secular part of the complex, the madrasa could not be located at the

center.412 In addition, it is the only madrasa classroom builty by Sinan with three

windows on both storeys.413 (Fig. 81) The other madrasas have less windows. Even

the madrasa of Kadırga complex in the capital is made of mixed material of stone and

409 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi: Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589, 156.

410 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 168.

411 Ahunbay. “Mimar Sinan’ın Eğitim Yapıları: Medreseler, Darülkurralar, Mektepler”, 239 – 309.

412 Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan, 353.

413 Ahunbay. “Mimar Sinan’ın Eğitim Yapıları: Medreseler, Darülkurralar, Mektepler”, 239 – 309.

161

brick, the fact that the complex in Bergos is made entirely of ashlar shows the special

importance and expenditure given to the complex here. This could be interpreted as a

sign of the great importance attributed to the madrasa in the waqfiyya document. The

significance of the madrasa can be interpreted as an indication of the initiative of the

complex, not as an average menzil complex designed just for stopovers, but as an

attempt to establish a city, which also includes a major education center. Although

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s madrasa in Bergos is not mentioned in the ruznâme of the

madrasas in Rumelia from the mid-17th century, we see from the waqfiyya that the

madrasa belonged to the group of forties. From 994 AH /1586-7 AD it was promoted

to the group of fifties.414

The elementary school, which is the southernmost building on the axis of the

mihrab behind the mosque, has a square plan. Unlike the mosque and madrasa made

of ashlar, the elementary school was built with alternating brick and stone layers which

implies the hierarchy between these buildings. There is a small, square-planned, and

domed porch reached by two 9-stop symmetrical stairs in front of the cubic school

with a square plan and a dome. (Fig. 82) Another example of similar placement of

elementary school in Sinan’s complexes is Nurbanu Sultan Complex in Üsküdar,

where the elementary school is behind the mosque on the axis of the mihrab. The

spatial organization of the Nurbanu Sultan complex in Üsküdar is similar to the

complex in Bergos in terms of its symmetry, and it can be interpreted as the first menzil

complex on the road to Anatolia.

The double-bath is located in the north of the mosque. (Fig. 83) On the way

from Istanbul to Edirne, the Istanbul-Edirne road used to pass between the courtyard

414 Baltacı. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri, 690.

162

walls of the mosque and the bath, then turn left and pass through the arasta bazaar.

There were also many shops adjacent to and around the bath. Among these, the sesame

oil workshop, serhâne, bezirhâne, haystack, grass barn are among the ones mentioned

in the waqfiyya.

Outside the wall surrounding the mosque, its courtyard and garden, in the

southwestern part, located symmetrically with the bath, there were the residences of

the mosque’s imam, muezzins, preachers, and madrasa professors. These houses had

courtyards, gardens, water wells, fountains, cellars, barns, ovens, and toilets. The

shops that make up the arasta were lined up on both sides of the Edirne - Istanbul road,

adjacent to the madrasa and the caravanserai walls. (Fig. 84, 85) The shops were made

of stone and covered with lead, as were the other structures of the complex. Six of the

53 shops mentioned in the waqfiyya were on the right side of the madrasa, six on the

left side, eighteen were adjacent to the caravanserai, twelve were adjacent to the imams

and muezzin houses, and eleven were around the hamam. Evliya Çelebi writes that the

rows of shops continued until the bridge at the Edirne side of the city.415 In the

waqfiyya, it is written that a şemhane, sabunhane and three tanneries were endowed

on the bridge side.

At the point where the arasta axis intersects with the school, mosque, fountain

and caravanserai axis, there is an architectural element called dua kubbesi (prayer

dome). This prayer dome is one of the conspicious elements of the three Sokollu

complexes in Ottoman architecture which is also found in Havsa and Payas. The prayer

dome placed above an octagonal drum is located on the Edirne – Istanbul road, which

was passing between the secular and religious parts of the complex and continuing

415 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 169.

163

towards the stone bridge built by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. The prayer dome is exactly

at the point where the two axes are crossing each other at an angle of 90 degrees. The

prayer dome connecting the religious part of the complex and the secular part of the

complex had a symbolic significance for the townspeople. Gerlach writes that people

in were playing drums under the dome every morning.416 However, Gerlach may be

referring to the drums that Evliya Çelebi mentioned, played when the doors of the

caravanserai were closed at night and opened in the morning.417 Sedat Çetintaş and

Oktay Aslanapa describe this place as a nikâh kubbesi (wedding dome).418 Oktay

Aslanapa also writes that in the local tradition of Bergos, weddings ceremonies were

held here. This shows us that these complexes were both commercial centers with

arasta shops and religious-ritualistic centers of the towns where they were located. In

the 16th century, this architectural element with high spiritual value, which emerged

within the menzil complexes built by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, may be related to a kind

of artisan or guild tradition, and in some sources it is interpreted as a continuation of

the tradition of Ahi organization and futuwwa.419 A prayer dome was added by

architect Davud Ağa to the arasta shops of Selimiye Complex in Edirne, during the

reign of Murad III. However, after the 16th century, this architectural tradition did not

continue.

This monumental dome is reminiscent of a tetrapylon with its doors opening to

four sides. In particular, the similarity between both the spatial layout of the complex

and the location of the Arch of Galerius in Thessaloniki and the Rotunda are striking.

This spatial similarity, located on the Orta Kol, the main road of the Ottoman Empire,

416 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 826.

417 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 169.

418 CA.30-10-0-0.213.446.4; Aslanapa. Mimar Sinan, 64.

419 Çobanoğlu. “Dua Kubbesi.” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi. September 3, 2022.

https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/dua-kubbesi.

164

and the main road of the Roman and Byzantine Empire, Via Militaris, raises the

possibility of establishing a relationship about the Ottoman Empire and its

predecessors in the lands of Rum. The reconstruction of this 4th-century complex from

late antique Thessaloniki and the axis resemblance between the prayer dome in Bergos

and the mosque makes it possible to make some interpretations between Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha and Thessaloniki.420 (Fig. 86, 87, 88) When Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

was alive, the Rotunda had not yet been converted into a mosque. If Mehmed Pasha

was in Thessaloniki at some point in his life, he might have seen the spatial

organization here and requested it from Sinan, because Sinan did not employ the

element of prayer dome in the complexes he had designed except for Mehmed Pasha’s

complexes. Mehmed Pasha had waqfs within the borders of the province (liva) of

Thessaloniki. In addition, the major part of the waqfs of Hüsrev Kethüda (d. 1602-3),

who was the kethüda (assistant) of Mehmed Pasha, was in Thessaloniki.421 These two

waqfs might give us a hint about the possible relationship between Thessaloniki and

Mehmed Pasha’s three complexes with prayer domes. However, it should not be

overlooked that one of the major influence of the aesthetic taste on the Ottoman art

and architecture was the Persian culture. These monumental domes rising above four

arches might have been influenced by the chahartaq of Perisan origin.422

The caravanserai and the imaret were reached either from the main road, or by

passing from the mosque courtyard to the opposite side of the prayer dome. Only a

part of the walls of the caravanserai and soup kitchen, which was demolished in 1935

to build a new square in the town, survives today. (Fig. 89) Today, hearth niches are

420 Ćurčić. Architecture in the Balkans,, 18-22; Ćurčić. “Late Antique Palaces: The Meaning of Urban

Context”, 67 – 90.

421 Kaçan Erdoğan. “Hüsrev Kethüda Vakfı ve Selanik’teki Gelir Kaynakları”, 65 – 83.

422 I would like to thank Prof. Namık Günay Erkal for pointing out chahartaq to me.

165

visible on the remaining wall. The caravanserai and the soup kitchen were adjacent to

each other. Another waqfiyya of Mehmed Pasha contains some brief details about the

caravanserai. In the other waqfiyya, it is written that the soup kitchen had seven interior

compartments (yedi bab enderuni) and six outer compartments (altı bab biruni). Apart

from this, it is written that a double caravanserai with 32 hearths was built.423 There

was a fountain in the middle of the double caravanserai, and people and animals were

staying in separate places.424 (Fig. 90, 91, 92) Covel also writes that this cloistered

caravanserai was very stately and reports that it had the capacity to take 1000

passengers with their animals.425 Evliya Çelebi states that the caravanserai had 150

hearths, with interior, exterior, and harem parts.426 Heinrichs von Liechtenstein writes

that the best caravanserai they stayed until they came to Istanbul from Vienna was in

Bergos and records that this was the zierlicher (more elegant) and an exquisite

caravanserai.427 Likening the layout to that of Havsa, Steinach notes that everything

was comfortable and clean here.428 Contarini, on the other hand, writes that this place

had a total of 48 people with 24 places in each caravanserai. Perhaps Contarini was

referring to the part of the caravanserai reserved for private passengers. According to

Contarini, the caravanserai had four gates. Two of them were used for entry and exit

from the caravanserai, one for women, and one for soup kitchen.429 The double

caravanserais were built symmetrically and both had courtyards and porticoes. (Fig.

92)

423 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 511.

424 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 47.

425 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant: I, 184.

426 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 169.

427 Besolt. “Deß Wolgebornen Herrn/ Heinrichs Herrn von Liechtenstein/ von Nicolspurg/ u. Röm.

Keys. Maiest. Abgesandten/u. Reyß auff Constantinopol/ im 1584. Jar/ beschrieben durch Melchior

Besolt” 515 – 531.

428 Von Steinach. “Wolf Andreas’ von Steinach Edelknabenfahrt nach Constantinopel (1583)”, 193 –

234.

429 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 36-37.

166

The tower at the entrance of the caravanserai is known as the Zindan Baba

Tomb today, but there is no information about the identity of the person buried in the

tomb. The square-planned tower was built with alternating layers of stone and brick.

(Fig. 93) There are remains of a wall on both sides of the tower, indicating that it was

previously attached to a building or wall. This tower might be the former bastion of

the Bergos Walls, but the hypothethic plan of the walls does not exactly match the

location of the tower. Unfortunately, we do not know how long the tower has existed

and used as a tomb. The tomb inside the tower is located in the basement floor, and it

is written in the basement floor that the structure might have been built during the reign

of Mehmed I, but there is no document to prove this. The tower may also be used by

the trustee of the waqf, as it is written in the foundation charter that a house with a

tower was built for the trustee. Another possibility is that this tower was used as a

watchtower by the didebânan (guards) of the caravanserai.

A palace was also built in the complex for the people of the palace to stay on

their journey from Istanbul to Edirne. Although this palace is not stated in the waqfiyya

in the Archives of the General Directorate of Foundations, the waqfiyya of Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha in Fatih Millet Kütüphanesi contains a part about the palace. It is

written in this waqfiyya that the pasha had a sarây-ı dilâra built for the sultan to stay

during his travels to Edirne from Istanbul.430 This palace was located in a separate

garden. The palace was a structure with a large roof and porticoes surrounding on all

sides with a fountain, and there was also a pond with fish in its garden. This special

palace had a bath made of marble in its garden.431 The palace and its porticoes were

on a raised platform with a few steps, and its roof was covered with lead like the other

430 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 511.

431 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi: Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589, 156-157.

167

structures of the complex. There were vivid hand-drawn paintings on the ceilings of

the rooms, and water was brought into the rooms with fountains. Fresne-Canaye writes

that it had more than eight rooms, but according to Soranzo's anonymous scribe, it was

a four-room palace.432

The fact that many people are working in this large complex, and the presence

of palaces, ablution fountain, other fountains, and baths suggests that an important

waterway network was built in the town, which looked like a small village before. It

is written in the waqfiyya that the pasha, by collecting the water of the Büyük Kaynarca

and Küçük Kaynarca springs, revitalized the rose gardens of the city with the beautiful

waters. The waterway consisted of pipes, a bridge, and an aqueduct. The water coming

from these springs was gathered at one place, it was brought from a distance of 520

cubits to the aqueduct, 40 cubits above the aqueduct, and from a distance of 5700

cubits from the aqueduct to the su terazisi built around the muallimhâne (elementary

school). Elementary school was also the point of distribution. In the waqfiyya, it is

written that the some part of the water was given of to the bath, some to the fountain

in the courtyard of the mosque and the madrasa, some to the pool behind the mihrab,

some to the fountain in the soup kitchen, and some to the hospices. In order for these

waters to flow away after they were used, pasha commissioned an underground sewer

at a distance of a thousand cubits passing from the old bazaar to the bridge. As can be

seen in the waqfiyya, a long waterway including aqueducts, bridges, and su terazisi,

and a sewer network system were also built. Three su yolcu were also employed to

repair and keep the waterways functioning. Mehmed Pasha attached a great importance

in the construction of waterways to bring waters to the town.

432 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 47; Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a

Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 57.

168

Kaynarca, on the foothills of the Strandzha Mountains, is an important source

of water for Eastern Thrace. The area is famous for its beautiful and fresh waters, about

which Evliya Çelebi narrates folk legends and these legends survived to the present

day oral tradition.433 Constantin Jireček writes that the water coming out of the spring

in Kaynarca was praised by the Persian king Darius and a column with an inscription

in Persian language was erected here.434 The Ottomans probably valued the water

coming out of this source. According to what Sedat Çetintaş wrote, these waterways

were wide enough for a person to fit inside. The waterways were coming from under

the ground with pipes and Sinan crossed these pipes via a bridge at the place that

coincided with the stream and brought them to the town. Çetintaş writes that in recent

years, the pipes have been dismantled because they were out of use, and the bridge has

also been removed.435 The stream during the early modern Ottoman period was

probably known as the Çeltük River. In a decree dated 1581 sent to the qadi of Bergos,

it was ordered that the agriculture around Çeltük River be prohibited between the

springs of Kaynarca to Bergos in order not to cause damage to waterways.436

In addition, as can be seen in other parts of the waqfiyya, Mehmed Pasha

owned so much of the town that Bergos became a waqf-town. The pasha’s waqf was

funding the repair of the town’s roads with the kaldırımcı he employed, and from the

surplus revenues of the waqf, he transferred a budget to the employees of the Gâzi Ali

Bey Mosque and the needs of the mosque. It was also among the stipulations of the

waqf to build a masjid from the waqf’s budget in case of a need in the town.437 It is

written in Mehmed Pasha’s waqfiyya that the pasha had this complex built with his

433 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 227.

434 Jireček. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad Nach Constantinopel und Die Balkanpässe, 49.

435 Çetintaş. “Kör Kazma”, 13-19.

436 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.42.790

437 BOA.C.EV.318.16192; AE.SSLM.III.310.18080

169

total attention and consideration for the repair and making prosperous of Bergos. It is

seen in the waqfiyya documents of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha how a small town Bergos

was built from the scratch and praised later travelers, diplomats and passerbys. French

diplomat Philippe du Fresne-Canaye, who came to Istanbul via Edirne in February

1573, briefly mentions the caravanserai in Havsa and praises the caravanserai in

Bergos with great enthusiasm. Recording the complex in Bergos as a proof of the

wealth of Mehmed Pasha, Fresne-Canaye writes that he created this deserted town

from scratch with his own financial power.438 Such a great complex built in Bergos

had changed the fate of this small town and initiated the birth of a city that developed

around this complex. The reason why such an architectural venture changed the fate

of Bergos is that the town was located between the two capitals of the Ottoman Empire

that are Edirne and Istanbul, rather than on the main route leading to Europe. Pasha

had stipulated that new inns should not be built in Bergos and Havsa so that his waqf

would not be harmed financially, and he wanted the arrivals to stay in his own

caravanserai.

Other inns must have been built in Bergos in the second half of the 18th century,

and this must have led to a decrease in the number of travelers to Mehmed Pasha’s

complex. In a document dated 1780, it was ordered that the passengers should not be

lodged in other inns in the town and should be directed to the grand inn belonging to

Mehmed Pasha's waqf.439 In 1801, in a request written by Hanzâde Halil, a descendant

of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, and the trustee of the waqf, in accordance with the

stipulations of the waqf, it was requested that the later inns be demolished. The edict

was also renewed again in two years.440 Not only the inns, but also the new shops built

438 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 47.

439 BOA.C.BLD.70.34939

440 BOA.C.BLD.122.6061; BOA.C.BLD.45.2200

170

in the town’s bazaar were ordered to be demolished in 1713, as it would harm the waqf

financially.441

Thanks to the large number and variety of shops mentioned in the waqfiyya,

the town’s economy revived very quickly. We can assume that the opening of many

shops and tax exemptions had immediate effects. Soranzo’s scribe writes that many

people come to work in the shops in town.442 While Bergos was a 10-asper-town in

1521, it was recorded as 20-asper-town together with Pınarhisar in 1530. The town

became a 50-asper-town when the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex was just built or

not long after its completion. With the completion of the complex, the town had

become both a major economic and educational center and had grown tremendously,

and in the mid-17th century it became a 200-asper-town.443 Covel, who defines Bergos

as a pretty large market town, says that very high quality tobacco-pipes are produced

in the arasta bazaar here which is also self-explanatory about the origin of the town’s

modern name that is Lüleburgaz. This field of professional expertise must have been

nascent at the time of Covel’s visit since travelers before Covel did not mention a

specialization on tobacco-pipe production in the town. Mehmed Pasha’s arasta, which

housed a large number of shops, offered the opportunity to the artisans of the town to

exhibit their crafts and sell their products to passers-by.

Mehmed IV, who spent most of his reign in Edirne, had a monumental square

fountain built in Bergos. The square-planned fountain measures approximately 4

meters by 4 meters. The fountain is built of cut stone and has a lead-covered hipped

roof. (Fig. 94) There are taps and inscriptions two sides of the fountain. According to

441 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.121.499

442 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, , 57.

443 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I >, 68; Kuru. “XVI. Yüzyılın

İkinci Yarısında Rumeli Kadılıkları”, 261 – 294.

171

its inscription, the fountain was built in 1078 AH / 1667-1668. It is possible to interpret

the free-standing monumental square fountain as a prototype of the square fountains,

many examples of which were built in Istanbul in the 18th century. Mehmed IV’s

fountain was located in the northeast of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha complex, within

the borders of Mahalle-i Cedid (the new neighborhood). Waterways were also built

for the fountain and a su yolcu was employed.444 Mahalle-i Cedid was the most

crowded neighborhood of Bergos in the 17th and 18th centuries.445 The fountain may

have been built according to the needs of the neighborhood. Considering the Ottoman

buildings in Bergos until the 18th century, the settlement grew from the south of the

fortress walls to the northeast progressively, drawing a southwest-northeast axis

parallel to the walls. Gâzi Ali Bey Mosque, Hüseyin Bey Masjid, Sokollu Mehmed

Pasha Complex, and Mehmed IV Fountain form a line.

As a result, the town of Bergos, located in the heart of Eastern Thrace, had a

history showing parallelism with Çorlu after it was captured by the Ottomans. The

town walls were destroyed and the Ottomans settled outside the city walls in Bergos

as they did in Çorlu. The economy of the town was based on agriculture and livestock

like Çorlu, but unlike Çorlu’s large bazaars in few spots, the bazaar of Bergos was

within the very neatly organized Sokollu Mehmed Pasha complex. The town also

hosted a fair, which was the meeting point of the neighboring villages and towns. This

was probably the largest fair held between Edirne and Istanbul in the early modern

period. Thus, Bergos formed the center of a rural network. The town, which had the

appearance of a village until the complex of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was built, turned

into an inviting center that attracted people from the surrounding settlements with tax

444 BOA.AE.SAMD.III.208.20073; BOA.C.BLD.21.1013; BOA.İE.EV.29.3375;

BOA.İE.TCT.11.1286; BOA.İE.EV.24.2870

445 Gökpınar. “1712 Tarihli Avârız Defterine Göre Bergos (Lüleburgaz) Kazası”, 63-98.

172

exemptions and trade opportunities. This large complex, which had both urban and

intercity features, represented an ideal Ottoman town with its regular spatial

arrangement.446 The complex housed most buildings that could meet the needs of the

town, but preventing the construction of other inns that could compete with it may

have restricted the town’s growth. The only building that was built in the 17th century

and survived to the present day was the square fountain of Mehmed IV. In this context,

considering the periods when similar types of buildings were commissioned, Bergos

and Çorlu again show another parallelism.

Figure 73. Gazi Ali Bey Mosque in Bergos lacking three-bay portico. Photo by Can Bozkır, February,

2022

446 Kuran. Sinan, 81.

173

Figure 74. View of Bergos towards the bridge from the minaret of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque.

19th c. photo from Abdulhamid II’s album. Source: İÜMK, 90418

Figure 75. Plan of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex in Bergos by Arben N. Arapi. 1) Mosque, 2)

Madrasa, 3) Elementary school, 4) Double-bath, 5) Prayer dome, 6) Caravanserai, 7) Zindan Baba

Tomb, 8) Hypothetical location of the palace, 9) Residences of i of imam, muezzins, and madrasa

professor

174

Figure 76. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Bergos. Photo by Can Bozkır, January, 2021

Figure 77. Interior of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Bergos from upper galleries. Photo by

Can Bozkır, January, 2021

175

Figure 78. View of the double-portico of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Bergos. Photo by Can

Bozkır, January, 2021

Figure 79. Fountain of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Mosque in Bergos with baroque eaves. Photo by Can

Bozkır, January, 2021

176

Figure 80. Madrasa cells surrounding the arcaded courtyard. Photo by Can Bozkır, January, 2021

Figure 81. Classroom of the madrasa with three windows on both storeys. Photo by Can Bozkır,

January, 2021

177

Figure 82. Elementary school of the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex in Bergos. Photo by Can

Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 83. Double-bath in Bergos surrounded by shops. Photo by Can Bozkır, January, 2021

178

Figure 84. Arasta bazaar with prayer dome. Photo by Can Bozkır, January, 2021

Figure 85. Colored lithograph of arasta bazaar with prayer dome from the late 18th century by Luigi

Mayer

179

Figure 86. Reconstruction of the Arch of Galerius and Rotunda in Thessaloniki. Retrieved from:

http://galeriuspalace.culture.gr/en/monuments/kamara/

Figure 87. Reconstruction of the Arch of Galerius and Rotunda. Retrieved from:

http://galeriuspalace.culture.gr/en/monuments/kamara/

180

Figure 88. Axonometric perspective of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex in Bergos by Arben N.

Arapi

Figure 89. Remaining wall of the caravanserai with hearths and niches. Photo by Can Bozkır,

January, 2021

181

Figure 90. Colored lithograph of the caravanserai in Bergos from the late 17th c. by Luigi Mayer

Figure 91. 19th c. photo from Abdulhamid II’s album showing the courtyard of the caravanserai with

fountain at the center and Zindan Baba Tomb in the background. Source: İÜMK, 90418

182

Figure 92. 19th c. photo from Abdulhamid II’s album showing the aerial view of the caravanserai in

Bergos. Source: İÜMK, 90418

Figure 93. Zindan Baba Tomb in Bergos. Photo by Can Bozkır, January, 2021

183

Figure 94. Fountain of Mehmed IV in Bergos. Photo by Can Bozkır, November, 2022

Figure 95. View of Bergos from the second half of the 16th century from Leiden Sketchbook. Source:

Klusáková, The Road to Constantinople, 72 – 73.

184

Figure 96. Map of the Ottoman buildings in Bergos before the 18th c.

4.6 Babaeski

In this chapter, the Ottoman urban history of the small town of Babaeski, located

between Bergos and Havsa, until the 18th century will be examined. After a brief

reference to the geographical features and the economic activities of the town, the main

structures of the town in the early modern period, Sarı Saltuk Lodge, Fatih Mosque,

Semiz Ali Pasha Complex, and the 17th century square fountain will be examined.

Babaeski is located between Havsa and Bergos and is on the banks of Büyük

Creek, one of the tributaries of Ergene River, originating from the heart of the

Strandzha Massif. The town is on the west side of the Büyük Creek, and the creek was

probably drawing the eastern border of the town during the Ottoman period. Since the

town was abandoned when it was taken by the Ottomans, its population consisted

predominantly of Muslim Turks who settled here during the Ottoman period. In this

185

small town in 1530, there were 130 male adults (neferan) 93 households (hane) and

32 bachelors (mücerred), which makes the population of the town about 500.447 In

1568, the population reached around 880 with 193 households and 6 bachelors in five

neighborhoods in the town.448 Ottoman documents or travelogues refer to the town as

Baba-yı Atik, Danişmendeskisi, Babaeski, Babaeskisi, Eskibaba, Baba, and even

sometimes Eski using all sorts of permutations for naming.

Like Çorlu and Bergos, the main source of livelihood in Babaeski was

agriculture. Wheat, barley, millet and some rye were among the main grains produced.

There was also beekeeping, viticulture and, market gardening in the town. While the

only customs in the Sanjak of Vize was in Çorlu in 1530, another customs was

recorded in Babaeski in 1568. Although the majority of the town was engaged in

farming, it is possible to talk about the existence of shopkeepers who performed

different professions. There were shops such as pastry shop, bakery, barber, butcher,

sesame shop, grocery store, serhane, and bozahane in the town.449

There is a tumulus known as Höyüktepe in the Edirne direction of the town.

This tumulus must have been built by the Thracians during the Roman period

considering the rest of the tumuli in the Eastern Thrace. We can assume that this

tumulus formed the border of the town on the Edirne side during the early modern

Ottoman period. It is difficult to estimate where the fortress built by Justinian I was

located today. It should probably have been located close to Höyüktepe, between

Höyüktepe and the town center during the Ottoman period.450 Evliya Çelebi writes that

447 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 68.

448 Özdeğer. “16. Yüzyılda Vize Sancağı’nın Demografik ve Ekonomik Yapısı”. 87-123.

449 Ibid.

450 Mucit Öztabak, local independent researcher and architect, who worked for Babaeski Municipality,

claims that some traces found in the foundation excavations belong to the fortress of the town. His

self-published works can be accessed at his website: http://www.mucitoztabak.com.

186

there was a dervish lodge and a shrine dedicated to Baba Sultan near a pile of earth on

the road on the Edirne side of the town. He states that the Bektashi lodge in a rose

garden had many visitors since it was located on the main road. Evliya Çelebi writes

that the person buried here fought with Murad I in the conquest of Edirne in 1361.451

Zen also saw this tomb near the tumulus and erraneously writes that the person who

gave the town its name was the person buried there.

The only structure that is documented to have been built before 1453, though

has not survived to the present day was the Çandarlı Halil Pasha Bath, dated to the

reign of Murad II. Halil Pasha had a bath built in Babaeski for his imaret waqf in Iznik.

Ayverdi thinks that the bath was very likely a double-bath.452 Unfortunately, there are

no travel notes or no other archival documents mentioning Çandarlı Halil Pasha’s (d.

1453) bath in Babaeski which makes it impossible to determine its location. Çandarlı

Halil Pasha was executed and his properties were confiscated by Mehmed II and his

bath might have been ruined over the course of time and demolished soon after.

One of the oldest buildings we know in Babaeski after it was captured by the

Ottomans was the Sarı Saltuk Lodge. The Byzantine Church of St. Nicholas was

converted into a masjid and a lodge was built adjacent to it. This lodge was a lodge

where Kalenderi dervishes lived in. In the Velâyetnâme-i Otman Baba, it is written

that Otman Baba came to Babaeski and performed some miracles in the shrine of Sarı

Saltuk.453 It is written in the Saltuknâme that Sarı Saltuk had a lodge in this town.

However, this is hardly possible. The lodge here should have been founded by the

Kalenderis who came from the Karesi region after 1361.454 Giovanni Maria

451 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 264.

452 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’marisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri: 806 – 855 (1403 – 1451), Vol.

2, 268.

453 Otman Baba Velayetnamesi (Tenkitli Metin), 23.

454 Ocak. Sarı Saltık: Popüler İslamın Balkanlar’daki Destani Öncüsü, 13. Yüzyıl, 143.

187

Angiolello, who passed through Babaeski during the reign of Mehmed II, reports that

a Christian saint was buried in this tomb, and that after the town was captured by the

Turks, they showed great respect to this person and had a lodge built in the tomb. The

eski baba (old father) who gave the town its name was buried here. He writes that the

dervishes in the lodge were so naked that only their private parts were covered, and

they were carrying horns.455 The description of Angiolello clearly identifies the

antinomian dervishes. The Venetian ambassador, Catharin Zen, who passed here in

1550, writes that the name of the town comes from the saint here.456 On his way back

to Vienna in 1578, Gerlach mentions items and symbols belonging to Kalenderi

dervishes in the Church of St. Nicholas.457 Those who founded dervish lodges here

after 1361 must have been “colonizer” dervishes with “wooden swords”, who crossed

from Anatolia to Rumelia in the early Ottoman period and perpetuated the cult of Sarı

Saltuk with their heterodox beliefs.458 Due to the fact that the town is on the main road

to Edirne and Rumelia, this lodge may have been a place where passers-by also stayed

and rested in the 14th and 15th centuries. As a matter of fact, Gerlach writes that

dervishes use this place as a kind of nursing home.

We do not have very detailed information about the architecture of the tomb

and the lodge. Although the building is clearly visible in the townscape in Leiden

Sketchbook, the drawing does not present much details. (Fig. 97) Pierre Lescalopier,

who passed through the town in 1574, describes it as a small round chapel.459 In a

decree from 1583, it is written that a new halvethâne (private quarters, khalvatkhana)

455 Reinhard. Edition de J. –M. Angiolello (1452 -1525), Vol. 1, 39.

456 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

457 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 820.

458 For “colonizer” dervishes with “wooden swords” in the early Ottoman period see: Barkan.

Kolonizatör Türk Dervişleri.

459 Lescalopier. “Le Voyage de Pierre Lescalopier Parisien de Venise a Constantinople, L’an 1574”,

21 – 55.

188

and a zawiya were built on the land belonging to the Bayezid II’s waqf, and apart from

the existing lodge, it was ordered that the new buildings be demolished.460 Evliya

Çelebi, who passed through the town in the 1650s, also gives information about the

Sarı Saltuk Tomb. He writes that Sarı Saltuk was buried in the shrine formerly known

as Yanko Monastery, an old great monastery. He adds that it was located in a rose

garden by the river, in the east of the town, in the vicinity of Semiz Ali Pasha Complex,

and writes that the lodge was used by Bektashis.461 John Covel also gives the same

information as Evliya Çelebi. He writes that the lodge was located in the east side of

town, near the bridge. He likens the building to Hagia Sophia architecturally since it

had a dome on top of the tomb, writing that both Turks and Greeks were visiting the

former St. Nicholas Church.462 The elusive plan drawn by Covel also gives us

information about the construction technique. The building had walls with alternating

layers of mortar and brick, typical of the Byzantine architecture. Ousterhout associates

the building to Nea Moni in Chios in terms of plan and interprets it as a reflection of

11th century Constantinopolitan architecture in Thrace along with the Hagia Spyridion

Church in Silivri.463 (Fig. 98) We have no information about when the lodge, which

was previously owned by the Kalenderis, passed to the Bektashis. However, if we

consider that Bektashis were emerged among the Kalenderis, it is plausible to assume

that the lodge was used by both Kalenderis and Bektashis. This may have happened

during the reign of Bayezid II, as it is stated before that the land where the lodge was

located belonged to the Bayezid II’s waqf. If so, this should have been done as part of

an effort to keep the antinomian dervish groups under control during the reign of

Bayezid II. In addition, a ruzname showing the rank of Rumelian madrasas mentions

460 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.51.226

461 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 264.

462 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 186.

463 Ousterhout, “The Byzantine Architecture In Thrace: The View From Constantinople”, 489 – 502.

189

a madrasa built by Bayezid II in Babaeski.464 Under the guise of remodeling, an

intervention to the lodge may have happened here, like the madrasa built in Seyyid

Battal Gazi Lodge in Eskişehir.465 Ahmed Badi Efendi writes that this lodge was

among the ones that were demolished after the Vaka-i Hayriye (the auspicious event)

in 1826. The lodge, which was previously made of masonry, was rebuilt in wood in

1866-7 after it was demolished. The first sheikh appointed to the newly rebuilt lodge

was from the Gülşeni order, and then it was used again by the Bektashis.466 The lodge,

which was destroyed by the Bulgarians during the Balkan Wars, was rebuilt after a

while and was demolished for the last time in 1940s. Thierry Zarcone traced the history

of the lodge with oral history and determined its approximate location.467 As Evliya

Çelebi states, the lodge, which was near the Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque in the east of the

city, was located on the north side of the mosque, within the borders of today’s Hacı

Hasan Neighborhood. Also he writes that Sheikh Şuhûdi was also buried here. Sheikh

Şuhûdi (d. 1612) was from Babaeski and was an imam at Ali Pasha Mosque. As a Sufi

and scholar, he also wrote several works. Thanks to Evliya Çelebi’s description and

the tomb of Sheikh Şuhûdi, it is possible to locate the Sarı Saltık Lodge today in

Babaeski.

Fatih Mosque, which is the oldest building survived to the present day in

Babaeski, is a simple mosque with a hipped roof and wooden ceiling covered with

tiles, similar to its counterparts in Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece, and Çorlu. The

square-planned mosque has a single minaret. As a result of the many repairs the

464 Özergin, “Eski Bir Ruznameye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri”, 263 – 290.

465 For Bayezid II’s effort to keep antinomian dervishes under control and his interventions in shrines

see: Yürekli. Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire.

466 Ahmed Bâdi Efendi. Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne, Vol. 3, 2035.

467 Zarcone. “Alévi et Bektasî de Thrace Orientale: Les tekke de Sari Saltuk à Babaeski et d'Ariz Baba

à Havsa”, 629 – 638.

190

mosque has gone through, there is not much of its original state, but the alternating

layers of stone and brick on some of its walls give clues to the original state of the

mosque. (Fig. 99) It is written on the Arabic inscription at the entrance that it was built

in 1467 by the order of Mehmed II.468 Remarkably, Mehmed II had mosques built in

his name in Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece, Silivri, Çorlu, and Babaeski. This shows

the importance that the sultan gave to the towns on the Edirne – Istanbul road.

Just across the mosque, there is a bath known as Fatih Hamamı today, whose

wall on the west façade has been demolished and its original state is understood to be

a double bath. (Fig. 100) Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine the date of this

bath, since the inscription is not in place. Its exteriors are composed of alternating

layers of stone and brick. It is unlikely that this bath is the bath of Semiz Ali Pasha,

who will have a complex in Babaeski built in the next century, because it is located

about 200 meters from the mosque which is a bit far considering compact arrangement

of complexes designed by Sinan. Evliya Çelebi mentions a hamam-ı dilistan

(charming bath) other than the Ali Pasha’s bath. The bath across the Fatih Mosque can

be the one that Evliya Çelebi mentions but does not give the name of its founder.469 It

is recorded in the Rumeli Muhasebe Defteri (Rumelia Accounting Register) dated 1530

that there was only one bath in the township of Babaeski.470 The bath in this record,

dated before Semiz Ali Pasha’s waqfiyya, may have been the bath that Evliya Çelebi

mentioned. In 1530, apart from Fatih Mosque, there were five masjids in Babaeski and

six neighborhoods. Together with the mosque, we can infer that each neighborhood

had a masjid.

468 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), Vol. 4, 55-56.

469 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 267.

470 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 68.

191

Benedikt Curipeschitz defines the place they stayed as a market, probably

because of the shops located near the caravanserai of the town.471 Catharin Zen writes

that there was a palazzo in Babaeski in 1550 where the regina was staying. He writes

that there were a beautiful mosque, a caravanserai, and a soup kitchen in the town.472

Curipeschitz’s and Zen’s notes predate the complex of Semiz Ali Pasha, therefore, we

cannot make any inference regarding the patron of the soup kitchen and the

caravanserai of the town but we can assume that there were already a caravanserai with

shops and a soup kitchen in the town before Semiz Ali Pasha endowed his complex.

Semiz Ali Pasha, as the successor of Rüstem Pasha and the predecessor of

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, served as the grand vizier between 1561 and 1565. The

complex of the pasha was the next step after Küçükçekmece, Büyükçekmece, Silivri,

Çorlu, and Karıştıran in the construction competition of the Edirne – Istanbul road

menzil complexes, which started during the reign of Süleyman I. Semiz Ali Pasha

Complex is not mentioned in the waqfiyya of the pasha from 1565. We get information

about the components of the complex from later documents, Sinan’s autobiographies,

and notes of travelers. It is written in Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin and Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye that

Sinan built a Friday mosque and a madrasa for Ali Pasha in Babaeski.473 In travelogues

and archival documents, the bath, caravanserai, and shops are also mentioned, but in

Sinan’s autobiographies, there is no mention of a caravanserai or a bath.

The complex was built on the west side of the town, near the creek that limited

the town, and was in a position to welcome travelers coming from the direction of

Istanbul with its imposing exterior design of the mosque as soon as they entered the

471 Von Obenburg. Itinerarium Wegrayss Kü. May. potschafft gen Constantinopel zu dem Türkischen

Kayser Soleyman Anno xxx.

472 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

473 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 80, 82, 106, 107.

192

town. This mosque is the only hexagonal baldachined mosque that Sinan has ever built

outside of Istanbul and particularly impressing with its tall drum, protruding mihrab,

and superstructure emphasizing verticality.474 Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque, with a dome

diameter of 13.80 m, was the largest mosque and most sumptous one on the Edirne –

Istanbul road in the early modern period.475 The large dome is supported by six piers

and exedrae. It has single minaret, a double portico with seven bays in the outer portico

and five bays in the inner portico with domes above the each bay. (Fig. 101, 102, 103)

Evliya Çelebi likens the hexagonal baldachined mosque to the Kara Ahmed Pasha

Mosque in Istanbul.476 In a document dated November 1575, we see a list of

construction material for Babaeski Mosque bought with the income of Sûk-ı Cedid

(Ali Pasha’s arasta) in Edirne.477 For this reason, the construction of the mosque was

probably underway in 1575. In a document dated 1585, it is written that the interior

and portico of the mosque were left incomplete and it was requested to be completed

as long as the sources of the waqf allowed.478 We do not know when exactly the

mosque was completed since it lacks foundation inscription but the document suggests

us that the mosque was built gradually with the surplus of the waqf and the construction

took a long time. Therefore, the construction of the caravanserai and the bath should

have been completed before the mosque.

The madrasa cells should have surrounded the courtyard of the mosque, it is

highly probable that the madrasa cells were adjacent to the present courtyard walls.479

Today, there are stairs to the upper floor of the northern entrance door of the courtyard,

474 Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan, 388-389.

475 Mülayim. Ters Lâle: Osmanlı Mimarisinde Sinan Çağı ve Süleymaniye, 272.

476 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 264.

477 BOA.EV.HMH.D.15

478 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.58.818

479 Küçükkaya. “Mimar Sinan Dönemi İstanbul-Belgrad Arası Menzil Yapıları Hakkında Bir

Deneme”, 183-254.

193

which still can be seen and these stairs must have belonged to the classroom of the

madrasa. (Fig. 104) Evliya Çelebi’s likening of the mosque to the Kara Mustafa Pasha

Mosque in Istanbul must be due not only to its hexagonal baldachin plan, but also to

the madrasa layout that surrounded its courtyard with a classroom which was located

directly opposite the entrance of the mosque. The madrasa may have been demolished

shortly after it was built. Although there are strong evidences for the existence of a

madrasa in the courtyard, there are no documents regarding the appointments to the

madrasa, and also the Ali Pasha Madrasa in Babaeski is not listed in the mid-17th

century ruznâme.

In an evkaf muhasebe defteri (accounting register of waqfs) dated 1574, it is

written that Ali Pasha had kervansaray-ı cedid (new caravanserai), hamam-ı cedid

(new bath), and shops in Babaeski.480 The fact that the bath and caravanserai in the

town are recorded as “new” indicates that there were older bath and caravanserai in

the town. The reason why little is known about Ali Pasha’s caravanserai may be that

his complex was smaller in scale compared to that of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. Lubenau

erroneously writes that the mosque in Babaeski was built by Ali Pasha, but the

caravanserai belonged to Mustafa Pasha.481 While Wolf Andreas von Steinach and

Contarini described it as good caravanserai without no description about it regarding

its layout, the scribe in the retinue of Jacopo Soranzo wrote that when they passed here

in 1575, the Ali Pasha caravanserai was not as spacious and beautiful as the one in

Havsa.482 The bath should be the one listed in accounting register of 1530 and the

caravanserai must be the one that Curipeschitz and Zen mentioned. It is possible that

the shops were adjacent to the caravanserai and some of the shops were in the place of

480 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 503-504.

481 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi: Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589, 156.

482 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 55-56.

194

the arasta-like bazaar that was located on the street going towards Edirne. In a register

from 1568, the names of the owners of the shops that paid rent to a caravanserai in

Babaeski were recorded down. The total annual rent paid by numerous shops was 245

aspers.483 These rent-paying shops may be the tenants of Ali Pasha’s caravanserai.

Gerlach writes that many shops and craftsmen’s workshops in Babaeski belong to Ali

Pasha.484 Similar measures were taken to protect Ali Pasha’s waqf in Babaeski to those

taken to protect Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqf in Bergos. In a decree sent to the qadi

of Babaeski in 1577, it was requested that the animals in the town should be given to

the serhâne (shop that sells head and trotters of an animal) of the waqf instead of being

sold to neighboring villages to prevent the waqf from suffering financial losses.485

Evliya Çelebi writes that apart from Semiz Ali Pasha’s complex, there were

seven elementary schools, seven inns, around 100 shops in the bazaar, and a fountain

in the town in the market during the mid-17th century. The date of the fountain is 1555-

6.486 Today, there is a monumental four-faced, square-planned, square fountain in the

square between Mehmed II’s Fatih Mosque and the bath. The lead covered, domed

fountain can be considered as the proto version of the 18th-century monumental square

fountains of Istanbul. (Fig. 105) The inscription of the fountain was destroyed under

the Bulgarian occupation after the Balkan War I. However, while Evliya Çelebi did

not mention this fountain in his first visit to Babaeski, he wrote that on his second visit,

Grand Vizier Köprülüzade Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s kethüda (assistant) had a new

fountain built here.487 Therefore, it is possible to date the fountain to the early 1660s.

The center of the town thus forms a beautiful palimpsest, with a simple mid-15th

483 Özdeğer. “16. Yüzyılda Vize Sancağı’nın Demografik ve Ekonomik Yapısı”. 87-123.

484 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 820.

485 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.30.377

486 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 264.

487 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 6, 87.

195

century mosque, a 16th-century bath, and a monumental mid-17th century square

fountain located between the two of them.

The presence of baths and fountains in the town surely suggests that there were

waterways as well. Today, the waterways that brought water from the water sources

in the modern military area in the north of the town to the town ceter, where the bath

and square fountain of the town are located, were reached by passing through the Su

Yolu Sokak (Waterway Street).488 Passing by Babaeski in 1675, Covel writes that

İbrahim Pasha was having an aqueduct built in the town with shafts recently opened

not far from the west side of the town.489 This must be Kara İbrahim Pasha (1620 –

1687), who was a kapudân-ı derya (chief admiral) and later the grand vizier during the

reign of Mehmed IV. However, it is not possible to find traces of this aqueduct today.

Also, in the waqfiyya of Kara İbrahim Pasha, there is nothing written that he

commissioned or endowed in Babaeski, but in a later document dated 1765, it is written

that İbrahim Pasha had waterways and four fountains built in Babaeski and since the

waqf had no authority in the town, the trustee of the waqf was asked to send the amount

of money spent by su yolcu Ahmed usta (waterways keeper and master repairer).490

In conclusion, probably short after its capture by Ottomans in 1361, a lodge

dedicated to Sarı Saltuk in the small town of Babaeski was founded by the Turks

migrated from Karesi region who venerated the saint. The lodge was probably one of

the important centers of the town until the 19th century. In the second half of the 16th

century, Semiz Ali Pasha’s complex became one of the important focal points of the

town after it was posthumously completed. Semiz Ali Pasha Complex was a

488 Mucit Öztabak states that the Municipality of Babaeski named the street as such because of the

waterways passing through here. His self-published works can be accessed at his website:

http://www.mucitoztabak.com.

489 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 186-187.

490 BOA.C.BLD.11.542

196

composition in which, its dependencies were less impressive, however majestic its

mosque is. The reason for this may be the Sarı Saltuk Lodge, which has the features

of an urban soup kitchen. Although it was not on the main public road, the fact that it

is mentioned in most travelogues of the period shows us that it was one of the most

frequented spots of the town. For this reason, Semiz Ali Pasha may have thought that

there was no need to build a large caravanserai since some passengers were already

accomodated by the dervishes in the lodge. In the 17th century, the monumental square

fountain, along with fountains and waterways built by İbrahim Pasha, on the other

hand, can be considered as a fine-tuning initiative in the urbanization, as we have seen

in Çorlu and Bergos. The town, which was already abandoned before its take over by

the Ottomans like Bergos, grew gradually until the 18th century like the other towns

located on the Edirne – Istanbul road. Babaeski, which was a 10-asper-town in 1521,

became a 15-asper-town in 1530, and after the construction of the Semiz Ali Pasha

Complex, it became a 150-asper-town in the second half of the 16th century and kept

its rank in the mid-17th century.491

491 370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937 / 1530) I, 68; Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi

Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 264; Kuru. “XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Rumeli Kadılıkları”, 261 – 294.

197

Figure 97. Townscape of Babaeski from the second half of the 16th century from Leiden Sketchbook.

Source: Klusáková, The Road to Constantinople, 70 – 71.

Figure 98. Covel’s drawing of the plan of Sarı Saltuk Lodge and the construction technique. Image:

Ousterhout, “The Byzantine Architecture of Thrace: The View from Constantinople”

198

Figure 99. Fatih Mosque in Babaeski showing traces of the original wall. Photo by Can Bozkır, April,

2022

Figure 100. The bath in Babaeski. Photo by Can Bozkır, April, 2022

199

Figure 101. Semiz Ali Paasha Mosque seen from qibla wall. Photo: Can Bozkır, April, 2022

Figure 102. Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque seen from the courtyard. Photo by Can Bozkır, April, 2022

200

Figure 103. Interior of Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque seen from upper galleries. Photo by Can Bozkır,

April, 2022

Figure 104. Remains of the madrasa in the courtyard of Semiz Ali Pasha Mosque. Photo by Can

Bozkır, December, 2022

201

Figure 105. Mid-17th c. square fountain. Photo by Can Bozkır, December, 2022

Figure 106. 19th century photo of Babaeski from the album of Abdülhamid II showing Semiz Ali

Pasha Mosque and Çoban Kasım Ağa Bridge. Source: Istanbul University Library, 90455/52

202

Figure 107. Hypothetical map of the early modern Ottoman buildings in Babaeski.

4.7 Havsa

The last chapter before the conclusion will examine Havsa, located between Edirne

and Babaeski. After mentioning the geography of Havsa, the small menzil complex of

Abdüsselam Çelebi, the mysterious Hafsa Hatun inn, and the complex that was built

in the name of Kurd Kasım Pasha, the son of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, which changed

the face of the village just like in Bergos, will be examined. The development of the

settlement, which progressed from a village to a town after the construction of the

complex, will be emphasized.

Havsa, which was the first stop in the en route to Istanbul from Edirne or the

last stop from Istanbul to Edirne, was founded in a valley with a slight slope and a little

depth. The Aşağıova Stream, which flows through the center of the town in a northsouth

direction, is one of the tributaries of the Ergene River. The fortress built by

203

Justinian I must have been destroyed long before the Ottomans took the town, since

there is no mention of a fortress in the town in any Ottoman narrative. Therefore, it is

impossible to predict where the fortress was located today. Even if Havsa is located on

the Edirne – Istanbul road, our information of the town in the 14th and 15th centuries is

quite limited, since Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa, located just north of the town, was the

central town of the region and also an alternative menzil point at that period.

The earliest known Ottoman mark in the town is the tomb of Kurt Bey. It is

written on the modern inscription of Kurt Bey’s Tomb, he died in the Battle of

Sazlıdere in 1361, and a tomb was built for him after he was buried in Havsa. (Fig.

108) Kurt Bey must have been an akinji who also gave his name to the village of

Kurtbey belonging to the township of Uzunköprü today. Evliya Çelebi, on the other

hand, describes him as Kurd Baba, not Kurd Bey, and says that he was one of the

fukara-yı bektaşiyan.492 He may have been both a ghazi warrior and a Bektashi dervish,

but there is no evidence of the existence of a lodge in the later periods in the vicinity

of his tomb, thus, we cannot make a claim about his identity precisely.

According to Giovanni Maria Angiolello, who passed through the town during

the reign of Mehmed II, Havsa was a large village and was inhabited and populated by

unruly and disobedient groups brought from the Karaman region, and previously it

was largely inhabited.493 The Venetian ambassador, Catharin Zen, writes that the town

was populated mostly by the Christians and there was a small Turkish population in

the town. 494 Yerasimos argues that these people were probably Orthodox Christians

from Karaman.495 Mehmed II must have felt the need to populate (şenlendirme) Havsa,

492 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 263.

493 Reinhard. Edition de J. –M. Angiolello (1452 -1525), Vol. 1, 38-39.

494 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

495 Yerasimos. Les Voyageurs Dans L'empire Ottoman (XIVe - XVIe Siècles), 52.

204

an important stopover point on the way to Rumelia, by bringing disobient troublesome

groups from Karaman after 1466.

The oldest complex of buildings in Havsa that we can prove to exist in the

Ottoman period belong to Abdüsselam Çelebi, who was a defterdar (finance minister)

during the reign of Selim I and early years of Süleyman I. Abdüsselam Çelebi endowed

a masjid, a zawiya-cum-inn, and an elementary school in Havsa according to his

waqfiyya from 1525.496

Abdüsselam Çelebi’s masjid is located just about 100 meters northwest of the

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s mosque. It is a single minaret mosque with a hipped roof

covered with tiles, walls made of alternating rubble stone and brick layers. (Fig. 109)

The newly restored mosque today has a rectangular plan reminiscient of a basilica. The

reason why Abdüsselam Çelebi’s masjid is also known as Hacı Süleyman Mosque

today is that it was destroyed during the Russo-Ottoman war in 1878 and then rebuilt

in 1890 by a person named Hacı Süleyman.497 Apart from this information written in

Edirne Yearbooks, the building may have been used as a church before. A document

in the archive shows that the Christian community in Havsa made a request to enlarge

their church and buy the land there in 1909.498 The document states that the building

was already used as a church before and shows the location of the Abdüsselam Çelebi

masjid. This point is extremely remarkable, but we do not know how long the building

has been used as a church. For this reason, it is difficult to get an idea about the original

plan of the building, but it can be said that it is on the scale of a small mosque like a

neighborhood masjid. A study on Havsa argues that the masjid was already out of use

496 VGMA, nr. 747, fol. 410.

497 Kayıcı. Sâlnâmelere Göre İdari, Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısıyla Edirne Sancağı, 92.

498 BOA.İ.AZN.83.42

205

in the early 16th century but this is impossible since the masjid is listed in evkaf register

of 1543.499 The mosque of the complex, built by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, must have

been sufficient for the Muslim community of this small town, where a significant

portion of the population was Christian in the 16th and 17th centuries, and after the

complex was completed, Abdüsselam Çelebi’s masjid may have lost its community

and the building may have been allocated to the use of Christians. However, it is

impossible to give a precise date about this handover. Gerlach writes that there was no

church in Havsa in 1578, and that even the Christians of the town were going to the

neighboring villages for religious services.500 Aşık Mehmed does not mention

Abdüsselam Çelebi’s masjid in Havsa in 1589, however the masjid is mentioned in the

Istanbul evkaf tahrir register from 1600.501 Although Aşık Mehmed usually did not

mention the masjids in the small towns he passed through, Evliya Çelebi did not

mention the masjid as well and Gerlach did not mention the church who were quite

attentive to Muslim presence and Christian presence respectively, suggesting that the

Abdüsselam Çelebi’s masjid might have been converted into a church after 1600 and

before the 1650s. While there are documents in archives about the appointments from

Abdüsselam Çelebi’s waqf in Küçükçekmece in the 18th and 19th centuries, there is no

appointment document for the waqf institutions in Havsa in the following centuries.

Another reason may be that after the 1752 earthquake that caused great damage to

Havsa, Hasköy, and Edirne, the buildings of this small complex may have been

destroyed and was not rebuilt since Mehmed Pasha’s waqf buildings would be

sufficient for the town.

499 Ertuğrul. “Havsa/Nikopolis/Hasköy”, 80 – 94.

500 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 821.

501 Canatar. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri: 1009 (1600) Tarihli, 276.

206

In the waqfiyya of the defterdar, it is written that an inn was built for those

who travel on the Edirne road and that this inn was similar to the inn in Küçükçekmece

in terms of architecture but it was simpler compared to the one in Küçükçekmece and

that it did not have a special section for married people as in Küçükçekmece. It is stated

that the building was solid and spacious, and had porticoes. The animals were

accomodated seperately like the caravanserai in Küçükçekmece. Benedikt

Curipeschitz writes that he stayed in a Turkish inn in Havsa in 1530.502 This must be

the inn endowed by Abdüsselam Çelebi. Also a school Qur’an recitation for the

children is mentioned in the waqfiyya. In the 1546 Istanbul evkaf tahrir register

(cadastral survey of foundations), only the masjid and the zawiya are listed.503

However, in the evkaf registers, the daily fee paid to the imam is listed along with

teaching fee, so we can assume that the imam of the masjid was also a teacher at the

elementary school. The waqfiyya also mentions an older inn as ribatü‘l-kebirü‘l-atik

(the old great inn) in the settlement which unsurprisingly implies that there were older

inns in the town for the travelers.

The Habsburg ambassador, Corneille de Schepper, who passed through the

town in 1533, writes that they stayed in a soup kitchen and that it was built by the

Valide Sultan (Queen Mother), but we have no evidence to confirm this.504 It is more

likely that this is the soup kitchen built by Abdüsselam Çelebi. We know that the

zawiya was serving food to the travelers since a cook (tabbah) and a baker (habbaz)

were employed. Evliya Çelebi also writes that Hafsa Hatun, the mother of Süleyman I

and wife of Bayezid II, gave the town its name because she lived here.505 However,

502 Von Obenburg. Itinerarium Wegrayss Kü. May. potschafft gen Constantinopel zu dem Türkischen

Kayser Soleyman Anno xxx.

503 Ayverdi, and Barkan. İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli,, 182.

504 De Schepper. Missions Diplomatiques de Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, dit Scepperus, 111.

505 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 262.

207

there is nothing written in Hafsa Hatun’s waqfiyya to confirm this. In addition, the fact

that the name of the town was the same when Angiolello was passing through here

during the reign of Mehmed II refutes the Hafsa Hatun claims of Evliya Çelebi. Evliya

Çelebi mentions a Hafsa Hatun inn near Kurd Bey’s tomb. This inn could not be the

Hafsa Hatun’s inn, but the fact that the inn is named Hafsa Hatun implies that it is the

oldest inn of the settlement which was older than complexes of Abdüsselam Çelebi

and Kurd Kasım Pasha. Apart from this inn, there were four smaller inns in the town.

Catharin Zen, who passed through the town in 1550, confirmed that the soup kitchen

where Corneille de Schepper stayed belonged to Abdüsselam Çelebi’s waqf. He leaves

no doubt by stating that there was a soup kitchen and a mosque with a good interior,

and there was a good caravanserai in the town, and that the same defterdar Abdüsselam

Çelebi had also a complex built in Küçükçekmece.506 Fresne-Canaye, who passed

through Havsa in 1573, a few years before the Sokollu Mehmed Pasha complex was

built, writes that there were numerous small caravanserais for the sultan and his

entourage to stay here during their journey to Edirne.507 One of them must definitely

have been built by Abdüsselam Çelebi. Lubenau, who passed through the town in

1587, writes that two more modest caravanserais apart from the Sokollu Mehmed

Pasha caravanserai were located in the town.508

Evliya Çelebi also mentions a dervish lodge, a madrasa, and a bridge here,

which were affiliated with Mehmed Pasha’s waqf, but there are no other records

regarding these dependencies.509 These buildings are also not mentioned in Sinan’s

autobiographies or in waqfiyyas, or in other travel accounts. Evliya Çelebi writes that

506 Zen. “Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen ambassador straodinario a

Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno”, 203 – 256.

507 Du Fresne-Canaye. Fresne-Canaye Seyahatnamesi 1573, 47.

508 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi: Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589, 154.

509 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 263.

208

the bridge is on the Bergos side of the town. Aslanapa reports that there are old bridge

abutments under the modern bridge here.510 However, this bridge may be the stone

bridge that Dernschwam mentioned in 1555.511 If this is the bridge Dernschwam wrote

about, it predates the complex and cannot be thought of as having been endowed by

Mehmed Pasha. The lodge mentioned by Evliya Çelebi may have been the zawiya of

Abdüsselam Çelebi. Tülay Reyhanlı published an inscription found in the courtyard of

the mosque. The names of Abdüsselam Çelebi, Kasım Pasha, and Koyun Baba are

mentioned in the inscription belonging to a fountain.512 Therefore, the lodge mentioned

by Evliya Çelebi may have been a Kalenderi lodge because of Koyun Baba’s name on

the inscription. The panorama of the town in the Leiden Sketchbook depicts a building

with multiple chimneys at the site of the Abdüsselam Çelebi’s zawiya, as well as the

arched stone bridge on the Bergos side. (Fig. 110)

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha had the great complex in Havsa built by Sinan for the

soul of his son Kurd Kasım Pasha, who was executed as sanjak governor. This complex

is briefly mentioned as a mosque and an imaret in Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqfiyya

in the archives of the General Directorate of Foundations which does not convey any

details.513 However, Sinan’s autobiographies provide us the list of buildings in the

complex. In Adsız Risâle, a bath, in Tuhfetü‘l-Mimarin a Friday mosque, hospice, and

hamam, and in Tezkiretü‘l-Ebniye, a Friday mosque, hospice, caravanserai, and a bath

are listed as the buildings constructed by Sinan for Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s son in

Havsa.514 In documents dated to the 18th century, we see that there was also a pastrami

510 Aslanapa. Mimar Sinan,, 66

511 Dernscwham. İstanbul ve Anadolu’ya Seyahat Günlüğü, 46.

512 Reyhanlı. “Havsa’da Sokollu veya Kasım Paşa Külliyesi Hakkında Tamamlayıcı Notlar”, 241-254.

513 VGMA, nr. 572, fol. 52.

514 Sinan’s Autobiographies, 57, 80, 83, 85, 106, 109, 110, 111.

209

slaughterhouse and a flour mill belonging to the foundation in Havsa.515 Since these

are not stated in the waqfiyya, they may have been built later on behalf of the waqf.

It is hard to predict when exactly the construction was started, but as Gerlach

wrote in 1575, we see that 120 enslaved captives sent from Istanbul for the

construction escaped.516 We can say that the construction was already underway this

year. In 984 AH / 1576-7 AD, in a decree written to the qadi of Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa,

the qadi was asked to help with construction materials such as tiles and lime for the

charity complex that Mehmed Pasha commissioned in Havsa.517 However, the same

date was written on the inscription of the mosque indicates that the construction was

completed this year. Evliya Çelebi reads the inscription on the prayer dome opening

towards the mosque side and gives the year of 984 AH / 1576-7 AD. Today the marble

inscription above the arch opening towards the north still stands there but it is illegible.

Göricek Azmî du‘â edüp dedi târîhini

Bu binâyı eyleye Allah bâkî üstüvâr. Sene 984.518

The complex designed by Sinan is similar to Mehmed Pasha’s other complexes

in Bergos and Payas with a prayer dome above the arasta connecting the caravanserai

and the mosque, and we can think that Sinan, who was busy with the construction of

Selimiye Mosque in Edirne at that time, personally supervised the construction of this

complex. (Fig. 111) The mosque of the complex is much more humble and less

assertive than the mosque in Bergos. (Fig. 112) If we evaluate this in the context of

‘adab (decorum), the modesty of a sanjak governor’s mosque is also supported by the

iconography of the narthex, a single portico with three bays and columns with müstevî

515 BOA.C.EV.454.22988, BOA.AE.SMHD.I.9.602

516 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 186.

517 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.28.214

518 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 263.

210

capitals.519 Also the personal wealth of a sanjak governor would not be as high as that

of a grand vizier to build a stately mosque. The square planned, single minaret, small

mosque has a three-bay portico and its interior is quite plain. The transition to the dome

is established through squinches. It has a simple but elegant marble pulpit and a

mihrab. (Fig. 113)

According to Evliya Çelebi’s travel account, the double-bath was a facility

whose câmekân (changing cubicle) was accessed via stone stairs.520 The entrance part

of the bath was accessed from the arasta (row of shops) side by porticoes. This is the

part Evliya Çelebi writes about, and then the gate was reached by stairs. It is written

in the waqfiyya in the Fatih Millet Kütüphanesi that water was brought to the double

caravanserai.521 Waterways must have been built for the fountains and baths in the

complex. The three-sided corner fountain at the end of the arasta on the Edirne side is

dated 1194 AH / 1780 according to its inscription. The fountain belonging to the period

of Abdülhamid I is in harmony with the 16th century architecture, unlike the quite

ornate baroque fountains of the period in Istanbul. (Fig. 114) The wall with niches and

hearths extending diagonally on the arasta side in the courtyard of the mosque may

belong to the soup kitchen.

An anonymous scribe in the retinue of the Venetian ambassador Jacopo

Soranzo gives the size of the caravanserai here as 135 by 25 steps in 1575. He also

mentions that the caravanserai had a section with a fountain where special guests who

519 This term, which means straight, is mentioned in Usûl-i Mi‘mâri-i Osmâni, which was prepared in

1873 by the commission consisting of architects and artists Pierre Montani, Bogos Şaşınyan, Eugene

Maillard, and Marie de Launay under the presidency of İbrahim Edhem Pasha. In the book, the three

column capitals employed in the Ottoman architecture and their iconographic use are recalling

Vitruvian orders of the Greco-Roman architecture. See: Osmanlı Mimarisi: Usûl-i Mi‘mâri-i Osmâni;

For decorum in the Ottoman architecture see: Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan.

520 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 263.

521 Gökbilgin. XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar, 512.

211

could be defined as VIPs stay. This place must have been belonged to the palatial

officers or the members of the harem like the palace in Bergos. The account also

records that there is was a primary school that is not mentioned in the waqfiyya.522

While the caravanserai was completed in 1575, the construction of the mosque should

still have been going on. In 1587, Lubenau had stayed in the caravanserai of the

complex consisting of a caravanserai, bath, hospital (referring to the imaret), and

mosque.523 Evliya Çelebi also writes that 120 people and 5000 animals can be

accommodated in the caravanserai and there are 300 shops next to the caravanserai

referring to the arasta. Evliya Çelebi’s account undoubtedly contain a great deal of

exaggeration, but the notes of other travelers prove that the caravanserai was indeed

large and among the best caravanserais of the period.524 Paolo Contarini writes that

one of the caravanserais had a capacity of 24 people and that there was a fountain in

the middle of its courtyard. This should be the special part of the caravanserai reserved

for the elites that the anonymous scribe in the retinue of Jacopo Soranzo writes. In the

other part, he writes that, unlike Evliya Çelebi, there was a space for 88 people. There

was also a women’s section. Although it is not written in the waqfiyya, Contarini

writes that there was a cellar, a woodshed, and a warehouse. 525 Wolf Andreas von

Steinach, who traveled to Istanbul from Vienna, says that the best caravanserai they

stayed on their way from Vienna was in Havsa.526 Heinrichs von Liechtenstein also

observed that it is different from other caravanserais in terms of layout with its large

522 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 55.

523 Lubenau. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi: Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-1589, 154.

524 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 263.

525 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 35-36.

526 Von Steinach. “Wolf Andreas’ von Steinach Edelknabenfahrt nach Constantinopel (1583).” 193 –

234.

212

courtyards and the fountain in the middle.527 Corneille van der Dreisch wrote that each

of the double caravanserais had seven arches. We can think of it as a double-winged

caravanserai, which was symmetrically divided into seven bays in each wing.528

According to the travel records, it is understood that arcades were surrounding

courtyards of the caravanserai. Salomon Schweigger, who spent the Christmas of 1578

in Havsa, writes about the ostentatiousness of the caravanserai.529 The fact that the

Habsburg embassy delegation celebrated Christmas by singing in the caravanserai here

is an example of the caravanserai being open to people from all religious backgrounds

as stated in waqfiyya documents.

Describing the caravanserai as chané, Covel writes that the complex here was

built in the same fashion as in Bergos, and says far better than Bergos for the

caravanserai, inferior than Bergos for the mosque and cupola (prayer dome).530 Under

the prayer dome, drums were played in Havsa as in Bergos in the mornings.531 In both

towns, the prayer dome must have had a symbolic significance for the townspeople.

(Fig. 115) The prayer dome was connecting the caravanserai and the mosque seperated

by the public road as in Bergos. Contarini writes that this prayer dome was the gateway

to the city when leaving the mosque.532 Indeed, in terms of location, it is like a gateway

separating the profane and the sacred realms.

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, like in Bergos, embraced the town of Havsa so much

that it was requested not to build another inn as a şart-ı vakıf (stipulation of waqf) in

527 Besolt. “Deß Wolgebornen Herrn/ Heinrichs Herrn von Liechtenstein/ von Nicolspurg/ u. Röm.

Keys. Maiest. Abgesandten/u. Reyß auff Constantinopol/ im 1584. Jar/ beschrieben durch Melchior

Besolt”, 515 – 531.

528 Von den Dreisch. Historische Nachricht von der Röm. Kayserl. Groß-Botschafft nach

Constantinopel, 135.

529 Schweigger. Sultanlar Kentine Yolculuk (1578 – 1581), 59.

530 Dallam, and Covel. Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant, 157.

531 Gerlach. Türkiye Günlüğü 1573-1576, 821.

532 Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini, 36.

213

this town, which turned the settlement almost to a waqf-town upon the completion of

his large complex.533 In addition, in a decree sent to the qadi of Edirne, it was forbidden

for bostancıs to persecute the townspeople who were exempt from taxes since it was a

menzil point.534

Like other towns on the Edirne – Istanbul axis, Havsa grew gradually thanks

to its location on the main road and the well-built menzil complexes. It was mentioned

as the karye (village) in Abdüsselam Çelebi’s waqfiyya but Soranzo’s scribe writes

that Havsa, which was a small settlement, grows day by day around the caravanserai

in the 16th century.535 This shows the vital role of the menzil complexes in the

urbanization of a town. Evliya Çelebi describes the place as a kasaba (town) with eight

masjids which implies that it had eight neighborhoods. Towards the end of the 17th

century, the transfer of the court in Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa to Havsa came to the fore

since the town is on the main road.536

The caravanserai and some shops here must have been destroyed in the great

earthquake of 1752 whose epicenter was Havsa. The hân-ı kebir (the great inn) was

demolished according to the Tarih-i İzzî (History of İzzi). This must have been the

largest hân of Havsa which was Mehmed Pasha’s caravanserai.537 Ahmed Badi Efendi

writes that the parts that were destroyed after the earthquake were not repaired and left

as they were.538 Since the use of the Edirne – Istanbul road by the palace decreased

significantly after 1703, the condition of the complex, which was heavily damaged

after the 1752 earthquake, should have been neglected.

533 BOA.C.BLD.122.6061

534 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.118.2000

535 Diario del Viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli Fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, 55.

536 BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.108.942

537 İzzî Süleyman Efendi. İzzî Tarihi, 954.

538 Ahmed Bâdi Efendi. Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne, Vol. 3, 1973.

214

In conclusion, Havsa was a village located on the Edirne - Istanbul road in the

kaza (township) where Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa (Hasköy) was the center of the township

after it was captured by the Ottomans. Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa was a larger settlement

than Havsa, as it was also a menzil point on the alternative Edirne - Istanbul road.

However, since Havsa is located on the Orta Kol, we can confirm the existence of

some inns from travelogues. The first known complex was built by Abdüsselam Çelebi

during the first years of the reign of Süleyman I, when the stopover points on the route

began to standardize. Nearly half a century later, the complex built by Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha in the name of his predeceased son which is reminiscent of the one in

Bergos in terms of layout changed the fate of Havsa in the early modern period. So

much so that the settlement that grew around this complex has evolved from a village

to a town. In fact, it has come to the fore that the court in Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa should

be transferred here because it is located on the frequented road to Havsa. The complex

built by Mehmed Pasha, as in Bergos, allowed the town to grow, but should have

restricted its further growth to some extent, because the construction of new inns was

prohibited due to the stipulations of the waqf. The final nail in the coffin of the

declining town and complex with the return of the palace from Edirne to Istanbul from

the early 18th century onwards, was the devastating earthquake of 1752.

In previous sub-titles, architectural and urban history of the towns that are the

subject of the present study are evaluated with references to geographical conditions,

demographies, economic activities, and material environments. Findings and more

comprehensive remarks about the the road and the settlements on the road presented

in this study are discussed in the conclusion of the thesis.

215

Figure 108. Tomb of Kurt Bey or Kurt Baba. Photo by Can Bozkır, January, 2022

Figure 109. Abdüsselam Çelebi’s recently restored masjid. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

216

Figure 110. Panorama of Havsa from the second half of the 16th century from Leiden Sketchbook.

Source: Klusáková, The Road to Constantinople, 68 – 69.

Figure 111. Plan of the Kurd Kasım Pasha Complex in Havsa by Arben N. Arapi. 1) Mosque, 2)

Prayer dome, 3) Istanbul – Edirne Road, 4) Double baths, 5) Caravanserai, 6) Abdüsselam Çelebi’s

masjid, 7) Modern building, 8) Modern building, 9) Excavated wall)

217

Figure 112. Mosque of Kurd Kasım Pasha. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 113. Simple interior of the Kurd Kasım Pasha’s mosque with marble minbar and mihrab.

Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

218

Figure 114. Fountain of Abdülhamid I at the end of the arasta with the double bath in a dilapidated

state. Photo by Can Bozkır, February, 2022

Figure 115. Prayer dome seen from the arasta on the former Istanbul – Edirne road. Photo by Can

Bozkır, February, 2022

219

Figure 116. Hypothetical map of the early modern Ottoman buildings in Havsa

220

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Connecting Belgrade and Constantinople, the Via Militaris was of secondary

importance for Romans and Byzantines and was overshadowed by the Via Egnatia in

the Roman road network. However, we can still determine from primary sources that

the existence of the towns on this important route dates back to Late Antiquity.

Nevertheless, it is very difficult to draw a panorama of of these towns in the Late

Antiquity and the early Middle Ages due to the lack of sources. Countless raids

apparently negatively affected the urbanization and development of the towns there.

Undoubtedly, the fact that the region, which is formed mostly by flat land, allowed

easy passage to the invaders coming from the north. Invaded numerous times by the

Goths, Huns, and Avars in Late Antiquity, and by the Bulgarians and Pechenegs in the

Middle Ages, the region was occupied by the Latins in 1204 until the Byzantines

recaptured in 1261. Therefore, it had been invaded continously until the arrival of

Ottomans which had hindered both the functionality of the road and the economic and

urban developments. The places that were mutatio and mansio on the roads connecting

important centers since the Roman period became fortified places for the defense of

Constantinople in the Byzantine period and they were relatively declined. In addition,

the busiest road of the Byzantine Empire was the Via Egnatia, which connected Rome

with Constantinople via Thessaloniki, the second capital of the empire. It is therefore

very difficult to draw social and economic panoramas of the towns on Via Militaris.

However, we can make safer interpretations within the framework of more concrete

information on some towns such as Late Byzantine Silivri, whose cultural and political

221

importance gradually increased from the later centuries of the Byzantine Empire, and

whose walls and some churches were preserved during the Ottoman period.

As a result of the Ottomans passing to Rumelia and advancing quickly, the

larger part of Thrace changed hands again in the 1360s. The fact that some towns were

already abandoned and some were devastated by plunders facilitated this advance.

Although the Ottomans, who declared Edirne as their new capital, continued their rapid

advance in the Balkans, the political unity of the Edirne – Istanbul road could only be

established until 1453. We can detect the existence of the first structures that have

survived or the documents of some structures that have not survived from the mid-15th

century after the political stabilization was established in the region. However, until

1453, the Ottomans did not spend much effort and make large-scale urbanism attempts

due to the poorer functionality of the road. Information about the first century of Çorlu,

Bergos, Babaeski, and Havsa under the Ottoman rule is quite limited. The only

Ottoman building dated before 1453 and survived to the present day is the Gâzi Ali

Bey Mosque in Bergos. As of 1453, when the Ottoman connection of the Edirne –

Istanbul road was completed, the importance of these towns increased in accordance

with the importance of the road. Via Militaris, which the Ottomans called the Orta

Kol, had begun to live its golden age when the Ottoman military and economic power

was at its peak, and in a short time it became the main public road of the empire to the

West. Athyra, Regio, Selymbria, Tzurullum, Druzipara, Bergule, Burtizo, and Hostizo,

which were mutationes and mansiones on the roads built by the Romans, totally

overlapped with Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece, Silivri, Karıştıran, Bergos,

Babaeski, and Havsa in the Ottoman period. During the Byzantine period, the route,

passing through Silivri and reaching Constantinople from the south of the Çekmece

lagoons, was largely preserved by the Ottomans, except for minor changes.

222

The army or the sultans and viziers with troops preferred alternative routes in

order not to cause damage to towns and not to be a burden to the townspeople. When

Süleyman I went on his great campaigns to Europe, he mostly avoided passing through

the these towns by drawing a route parallel to the Orta Kol. Even Evliya Çelebi writes

that when Melek Ahmed Pasha was staying in Bergos, they received the news that

another pasha was coming here, and they left the caravanserai in order to prevent the

chaos of the soldiers in the town and not to be a burden to the townspeople.539 In this

context, it would be possible to consider the decorum codes of the travel in this period.

While the sultans who went on a campaign with large armies did not prefer passing

throught the town centers, the traveling pashas should have avoided to be in the same

stopover complex at the same time. For ambassadors traveling with smaller entourage,

this was probably not an issue.

However, travel decorum codes must have changed for the ambassadors in the

later second half of the 16th century. While European visitors coming to the complexes

of which mosques form the center, it is seen that the presence of the non-Muslim

entourages around the mosques disturbed the ulema with the increasing religious

orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the 16th century. As a matter

of fact, while the Habsburg envoy celebrated Christmas by singing in the caravanserai

in Havsa in 1578, they were not welcomed in the caravanserai near the mosque Çorlu

in 1583 and had to stay elsewhere.

Considering the aforementioned phenomena, we can also talk about the

reflection of the increasing religious orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire on architecture,

especially on the complexes commissioned by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. In complexes

539 Evliya Çelebi. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 3, 265-266.

223

of pasha in Bergos and Havsa, which were completed in the 1570s, the sacred and

profane areas were separated by a sharp line. This seperation might be linked to the

increasing religious orthodoxy of the period. However, in the layout of the Abdüsselam

Çelebi in Küçükçekmece and Havsa, Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi in Büyükçekmece,

Piri Mehmed Pasha in Silivri, Ahmed Pasha/Süleymaniye complexes in Çorlu, which

were built in the 1520s or before, such a sharp distinction does not stand out. In the

second half of the 16th century, the construction of inverted T-shaped mosques, called

mosques with zawiya, was abandoned.540 In the complex in Çorlu, where such

seperation did not exist, the discomfort of the ulema may be attributed to absence of

such seperation while we see no denunciation of clergy or ulema in Bergos and in

Havsa where the Habsburg mission celebrated Christmas.

The most comfortable caravanserais along the Orta Kol, were on the Edirne –

Istanbul axis. For European travelers, however, caravanserais were often praised and

somewhat exotic buildings. Although the Europeans did not praise the accommodation

with the animals and the comfort of the caravanserais, the double-winged

caravanserais where the animals were separated were favored. Accommodation in the

same place with travelers from all walks of life and the opportunity to observe various

kinds of people was the exotic side of caravanserais for European travelers. These

caravanserais were praised by the European travelers especially with their free

accommodation, free meals, safety measurements, and presence of many shops in the

vicinity where they could meet their needs.

The part of Orta Kol where not only the caravanserais were best built but also

the roads were best paved was between Istanbul and Edirne. Many monumental stone

540 Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan:Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire, 52.

224

bridges were built in the second half of the 16th century, parallel to the period when

the complexes containing the caravanserais were built. Crossing the both Çekmece

lagoons, the marshes, and tributaries of the Ergene, these bridges were most frequently

located between Edirne and Istanbul. The well-paved and well-maintained roads were

as important as the existence of comfortable caravanserais. Müsellems, köprücüs,

kaldırımcıs, and derbendcis were employed to repair and pave the road and bridges,

and these four organizations were working on both repair and security of the road.

The road was of great importance both for the provision of the capital and for

the provision of the army on a campaign. For the provision of Istanbul and the

provision of the palace on the go, these towns were forming a network which pointed

to the role the center ascribed to them. Thrace was an important grain production center

both for Byzantine and Ottoman empires. Fertile Thracian plains were vital to the

provision of the capital of the two empires. The grain, straw, grass, dairy products, and

meat produced in this region were feeding Istanbul. These towns formed a network

both for the provision of Istanbul and for the provision of the traveling army, palace,

or ambassadors. For this reason, the road from Thrace to Istanbul had to be in the best

condition.

Naturally, as soon as Istanbul fell into the hands of the Ottomans, the

importance of the towns on the road connecting the two capitals of the empire

increased tremendously. The construction program during the reign of Mehmed II is

quite remarkable due to the important architectural initiatives that took place in towns

such as Büyükçekmece, Küçükçekmece, Silivri, Çorlu, and Babaeski. Mosques built

in the name of the sultan in Küçükçekmece, Büyükçekmece, Silivri (conversion),

Çorlu, and Babaeski during the reign of Mehmed II are noteworthy. Ayverdi states that

the mosques built in the name of Mehmed II formed several lines within the boundaries

225

of the empire and follows the route of military campaigns. One of these lines, which

is the subject of the present study, starts from Küçükçekmece and goes to Bulgaria via

Edirne.541 The reign of Mehmed II is the period when the first major steps were taken

in the revival of this road and flourishing the towns along the road. Not only the

mosques in the aforementioned towns, Mehmed II had the Büyükçekmece and

Küçükçekmece bridges rebuilt and had an inn built in Küçükçekmece. He endowed a

bath, waterways, and shops in Silivri, and a modest menzil complex was built by Çakır

Ağa in Silivri during his time, and a double-bath and fountain was built by his foster

mother Daye Hatun in Çorlu. In addition, the mosque and elementary school

commissioned by Arabacıbaşı Şüca Bey in Çorlu, and the mosque built by Daye

Hatun’s son-in-law İlyas Bey and the shop he endowed to Çorlu, which was considered

as the middle point of the Edirne – Istanbul road by the Ottomans in this period,

indicate the importance given and the care shown by the center to make the town

prospered. Çorlu was the largest town on the Edirne – Istanbul road. Since we have

very little information about the situation of the town in the Byzantine period, we can

assume that this place was more populated compared to the other towns during the

Byzantine period. The effort of the Ottoman center to prosper here may be linked to

the need to meet the needs of the townspeople, since the town was more populated.

The period between the reigns of Mehmed II and Süleyman I is a period of

slowdown in infrastructural constructions and urbanism. It would be possible to relate

this to the slowing of Ottoman expansion into Europe. The periods of Bayezid II and

Selim I were relatively quiet in terms of constructions on the road. Dizdarzâde

Mehmed Çelebi’s complex in Büyükçekmece, of which only a part of its mosque has

survived, was the only complex built on the Istanbul – Edirne road during the reign of

541 Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’marisinde Fatih Devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481), Vol. 4, 805.

226

Selim I. In addition, before the 1520s, the Orta Kol route and stopover places could

differ on each travel. Villages such as Sazlıdere, Elvanbeyli, Araplı, and Bigados were

also among the stopover points when comprehensive menzil complexes were not yet

built.

During reigns of Süleyman I and Selim II, great importance was attached to

the road and the urbanization of the towns along the road, and for this purpose serious

expenditures and effort were made by the center for the development of the road and

towns. Thanks to the bridges and stopover complexes built in the 16th century, the road

and the towns on it began to live their heyday. From 1520s onwards, the competition

to build a large menzil complexes on the Edirne – Istanbul road started, and this

competition continued during the reign of Selim II. In the first years of Süleyman I’s

reign, the complexes commissioned by Abdüsselam Çelebi in Küçükçekmece and

Havsa, Piri Mehmed Pasha in Silivri, and Hain Ahmed Pasha in Çorlu were completed

in the 1520s. In the remaining years of the reign of Süleyman I, additions were made

to the complex of Ahmed Pasha in Çorlu, complex Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and

Süleyman I in Büyükçekmece, and the complex of Rüstem Pasha in Karıştıran were

built. In the reign of Selim II, the complexes of Semiz Ali Pasha in Babaeski and

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Bergos and Havsa were completed. The stamps of the grand

viziers can be seen in most of the towns along the Istanbul – Edirne road. These

complexes, built by the central government to facilitate transportation and

communication, prove the importance given by the state especially to this part of the

road. Also, these dignitaries might had been vying to mark their presence on this route

to show their power to visitors on their way to Sublime Porte. All of these grand viziers

were names who held office during the reign of Süleyman I.

227

From the 16th century onwards, majority of the structures built on this route

were made of fine cut-stone. Among the structures that have survived to the present

day, very few of them were built with alternating layers of stone and brick. In this

period when the Ottoman economic and military power was at its peak, the bridges

built between Edirne and Istanbul and the high quality and solid stopover complexes

made of ashlar also reflected the imperial grandeur on the main artery of the empire

leading to the West.

The imperial policy of dotting major routes of the empire with social-religious

complexes was also reflected in a work of the court panegyrist (şehnameci) of Murad

III, Talikizâde (d. 1606). He conceived the imperial territories as one-day travel

distances. The presence of social complexes between one-day travel distances

facilitated both the travel and urbanization. The court panegyrist directly associated

the flourishin of Ottoman lands with waqfs that fostered urbanization in settlements

located on main public roads. For Talikizâde, this was a superior characteristic of the

Ottoman Empire which Safavids, major rivals of Ottomans in the East, lacked.542

On a side note, Fernand Braudel wrote that, contrary to popular assumption,

the land routes leading from the northern Europe to the Mediterranean were preferred

to the extent that they could compete with the sea routes until the end of the 16th

century.543 Braudel also argues that land traffic increased towards the 1600s including

the road traffic in the Balkans which increased to a considerabe degree. Braudel links

the increase in road traffic in Europe and the Balkans to the increase in mule breeding

in Europe overall and the increased preference of land routes by the Ragusan

merchants against the Venetian threat in the Adriatic. If we look at the road networks

542 Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan:Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire, 30 – 32.

543 Braudel. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol. 1, 284 –

289.

228

in Europe and the Balkans from a broader perspective than the Ottoman territories, the

increase in the traffic between Edirne and Istanbul on the Orta Kol from the second

half of the 16th century onwards and the increase in the importance of this road fit into

Braudel’s argument which might be a possible research topic for future studies. As a

matter of fact, the Ottoman Orta Kol was a route that stretched all the way to Belgrade.

Some of these towns, which developed around the waqfs of grand viziers,

almost turned into a waqf-town, namely Bergos and Havsa thanks to stipulations of

prohibition to build new inns. Apart from mosques and caravanserais, these towns had

fountains, soup kitchens, madrasas, elementary schools, baths, shops, important

waterways, and even imperial palaces which made them attractive centers both for

passersby and for neighboring settlements with their urban and intercity features.

During the Ottoman period, these towns had the opportunity to flourish as they were

on the main artery of the empire providing lucrative trade opportunities. As Fernand

Braudel wrote, without markets and roads there would be no towns.544 In the early

modern period, the towns on the Edirne – Istanbul road owed their development to

their location on the road between the two capitals of the empire. Towns owed their

existence to their presence on the road, but routes also owed their existence to towns

which were stopover points. Thus, routes and towns were formed simultaneously,

transforming each other. Also, almost one-third of the Edirne – Istanbul road stretched

along the shores of the Marmara Sea, allowing the coastal towns along the way to

revive their commercial activities thanks to the ports and provide fishing opportunities

for subsistence along with the agriculture.

544 Ibid, 312.

229

During this period, those who worked in the big waqfs founded in the towns,

the employment of many people in these waqfs, numerous shops opened around the

caravanserais, and the transformation some of these places into big market towns such

as Çorlu and Bergos contributed greatly to the development of the towns. The

exemptions of the townspeople on the road from various taxes both encouraged people

in the surrounding villages to move to the town and supported their economic

development and population growth. The towns along the Orta Kol in Thrace, where

the economy was largely based on agriculture and stockbreeding, also offered

important job opportunities for those who wanted to practice different professions for

the needs of passengers. In addition, the madrasas, which were higher education

institutions in the complexes in Küçükçekmece, Silivri, Çorlu, Bergos, and Babaeski,

turned the towns into education centers. Due to tax exemptions and educational

opportunities in the madrasas of the complexes, these towns became privileged

settlements compared to the surrounding settlements. In this period, when the towns

were in their golden age, qadis offices in the towns also grew on the basis of asper. Of

course, we cannot ignore effects of debasements, rising inflation, and price revolution

from the 1520s to the mid-17th century, but qadis of the townships on the Edirne –

Istanbul road also rose in rank.545 Looking at the morphology of the towns, we see that

the Ottomans had settled outside the walls in Silivri, Çorlu, and Bergos, as they did in

Bursa, Edirne, and the Balkan cities, and they had built their complexes outside the

walls or just below the citadels. The “exobazaars” established outside the walls marked

the direction of development and new center of the town which was one of the

characteristics of the Ottoman mode of urbanization.546

545 Pamuk. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, 112-149.

546 The term “exobazaar” is mentioned in the following article: Busch-Zantner. “Zur Kenntnis der

Osmanischen Stadt”, 1 – 13.

230

If we look at the demographics of the towns on the road, the density of the

Greek population from Istanbul to Çorlu, draws attention. From Çorlu to Edirne, we

see the density of Turkish population especially in Bergos and Babaeski. We can

attribute this to the fact that the towns of Bergos and Babaeski fell into the hands of

the Ottomans after they were abandoned. Çorlu and Silivri were captured by force after

hard sieges. In addition, the existence of Bektashi or Bektashi affiliated lodges in most

of the towns along the route draws attention. The lodges that we know to be existed in

Silivri, Çorlu, Babaeski, and Havsa can be linked to dervishes with “wooden swords”,

who are assumed to have played an important role in passages of Ottomans to Rumelia.

No large-scale complex was built in any town on the road after the second half

of the 16th century since at each destination point, there were complexes containing

caravanserais for the accommodation of passengers, and there was no need for a new

one. For this reason, the Istanbul – Edirne road is sometimes referred to as the Sinan

Road because of the complexes and bridges built by Sinan, but the constructions of

Abdüsselam Çelebi in Küçükçekmece, Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi in Büyükçekmece,

Piri Mehmed Pasha in Silivri, and Hain Ahmed Pasha complexes in Çorlu corresponds

to the period when Acem Ali was the chief imperial architect. For this reason, I believe

that this road is also the Acem Ali Road as much as the Sinan Road.

After the period of Sinan, the construction of bridges continued in the 17th

century with bridges built during the reigns of Ahmed I, Murad IV, and Mehmed IV.

Although the pace of constructions in this road and urbanization at these menzil points

decresead, the road and the towns still maintained their importance in the 17th century.

Like the monumental square-fountains in Bergos and Babaeski, the fountains built in

the towns along the road and some new stone bridges can be seen as a kind of finetuning

initiative in this period (See: Appendix A and B for building types and periods

231

of construction). This also suggests the continuation of the development of the towns

and the functionality of the road. After 1703, the palace made a definite return to

Istanbul and spent their effort on transforming Istanbul, so no large-scale and

noteworthy construction project was carried out on the Edirne – Istanbul road and in

the towns along the road.

As Fernand Braudel wrote, interruption in communication might lead to

stagnation or death of the town.547 After 1703, after the palace made a definite return

to Istanbul and spent its effort and resources on transforming Istanbul, the towns and

complexes on the Edirne – Istanbul road lost their importance to a great extent. The

18th century was a void century for the towns between Edirne and Istanbul. No

monumental mosque, caravanserai, bath, bridge, nor madrasa were built in the towns

between Istanbul and Edirne in the 18th century. Absolutely, towns were in stagnation

and even maybe in decline. For example, Havsa, which was in the shadow of Hasköy

(Havass-ı Mahmudpaşa) in the 15th century and in the first half of the 16th century,

reached to a level to compete with it from the second half of the 16th century onwards,

when Hasköy was left off the route and Havsa was included instead of it. However,

the great caravanserai and soup kitchen of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Havsa, which

was demolished after the earthquake of 1752, remained un-repaired since it was not

frequented as much as before and Havsa had begun to decline. After its military and

economic power gradually declined, the Ottoman state could not always allocate a

budget to repair the structures in these towns. In the second half of the 19th century,

many of the buildings in these complexes fell into decay and some of them disappeared

long before reaching the Republican Era, and some of the ones that survived to the

547 Braudel. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, Vol. 1, 315.

232

Republican period in the 20th century were demolished by the local governors or

deputies.548

This thesis attempted to fill a gap in the literature by examining the

understudied history of infrastructure, architecture, and urbanization in one of the

central areas of the Ottoman Empire. The development and roles of the Edirne –

Istanbul road and the towns on the road until 1703 were not emphasized enough in the

literature and did not get the attention they deserved. The urbanization of the towns

was studied with a holistic approach including social, demographic, and economic

aspects. Contrary to the studies focusing on the buildings of the Sinan period, this

study evaluated urbanization and architecture together with the buildings dated before

and after Sinan’s period. In addition, this study corrected the misunderstandings and

errors in some previous academic studies. In particular, the study demonstrated that

the first patron of the so-called Süleymaniye complex in Çorlu was Ahmed Pasha and

it showed that the complex was a rare damnatio memoriae case in the Ottoman Empire.

Browsing all the waqfiyyas of Süleyman I may provide new information on this case.

This work identified Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and Kara Mustafa Pasha bridges in Çorlu

through archival documents, which were confused in previous studies like the Silivri

bridges. This work also discovered the patron and construction date of the bridge

Haramidere and the bridge around Araplı, which once existed as a derbend village

between Silivri and Çorlu. This study also explored and presented Dizdarzâde

Mehmed Çelebi’s complex and its components in Büyükçekmece, which probably

addressed to the townspeople since it was not mentioned by the travelers. Moreover,

548 For example, Rüstem Pasha’s bath in Karıştıran was demolished in the 19th century. The buildings

in Thrace were damaged during the Russo-Ottoman War in 1877-1878 and during the Balkan War I in

1912. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s caravanserai and soup kitchen in Lüleburgaz were demolished in

1935 by the mayor to build a square, while the so-called Süleymaniye caravanserai and bath in Çorlu

was demolished in 1959 by a deputy of Tekirdağ.

233

this study discovered the patron and the construction period of the square fountain in

Babaeski, and determined the existence of waterways and fountains commissioned by

Kara İbrahim Pasha. In the part about the Sarı Saltuk Lodge in Babaeski, this work

explored some new information about the lodge, such as Bayezid II’s possible

intervention and the drawing in the Leiden Sketchbook.

On the other hand, there were significant difficulties encountered in the study.

Examining many other registers (tahrir, evkaf, etc.) in the archives may give us to

more details about the settlements. As can be seen in the settlement maps, the

hypothetic locations of some structures that have not survived are indicated.

Conducting archaeological excavations around the Abdüsselam Çelebi complex in

Küçükçekmece, the Ahmed Paşa / Süleymaniye Complex in Çorlu, the Rüstem Paşa

Complex and Mehmed IV Palace in Karıştıran, and the Abdüsselam Çelebi and

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha complexes in Havsa would have provided us a better

understanding of their layouts by showing us the approximate dimensions and exact

locations of the buildings. In addition, we do not have detailed information about the

urban fabric in most of the settlements. The drawings in the Leiden Sketchbook give

us only a brief impression. For example, it was not possible to locate cemeteries in

most of the settlements.

In addition, some buildings and areas studied in this work are at risk today.

Water is still springing from the springs in Çorlu that have supplied water to the town

since the mid-16th century. However, this water source is under threat due to the intense

and rapid constructions of residential buildings in the vicinity. I believe that these

historically valuable water resources should be protected. Three su terazisi in

Karıştıran should also be taken under protection.

234

I also think that this study can be a starting point or an inspiration for future

studies. One of the conspicious aspect of the study is the presence of Bektashi or

Bektashi affiliated lodges in Silivri, Çorlu, Babaeski, and Havsa. The information

presented about these lodges may contribute to a study on the Bektashi presence in the

region. Also, as Braudel mentioned, the increasing land traffic in Europe and

especially in the Balkans towards the 1600s may be the subject of a more

comprehensive study that examines the road and urban network in the Balkans. On the

other hand, whether the road that is the subject of the study has a counterpart in

Anatolia and its effect on urbanization can be examined. For example, it can be studied

whether there was an intense infrastructure construction and urbanization period on

the hajj route going from Anatolia to the Hijaz via Damascus, which had numerous

menzil complexes. In addition, by looking at the wider Persianate world, it can be

examined whether there was a similar infrastructure construction and urbanization

attempt between Tabriz and Isfahan, or between Bukhara and Samarkand, similar to

that between Edirne and Istanbul. Thus, Talikizâde’s claim would be also researched.

235

APPENDIX A

Settlements

Early Ottoman

(Pre-1453)

Mehmed II (1453 –

1481)

Bayezid II – Selim I (1481

- 1520)

Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 –

1574)

17th c.

Küçükçekmece

Mehmed II's mosque,

inn, and older bridge

Abdüsselam Çelebi Complex,

Küçükçekmece Bridge

Vizier Mehmed Pasha

Fountain

Büyükçekmece

Mehmed II Mosque

and elementary school

Dizdarzâde Mehmed

Çelebi complex

Süleyman I’s and Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha’s joint complex,

Büyükçekmece Bridge,

Haramidere Bridge

Silivri

Mehmed II’s shops,

waterways, baths, and

mosque (conversion),

Çakır Ağa’s complex

Piri Mehmed Pasha Complex,

Güzelce Kasım Pasha masjid and

shops, Abdüsselam Çelebi’s shops,

Long Bridge

Small Bridge in Silivri

Çorlu

Mehmed II Mosque,

Daye Hatun's bath and

masjid, Arabacıbaşı

Mosque and

elementary school

İmrahor İlyas Bey’s

mosque, school and shop

(?)

Hain Ahmed Pasha Complex with

Süleyman I’s additions, Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha’s shop, Sokollu

Mehmed Pasha Bridge

Acı Çeşme, İbrahim Efendi

Fountain, Kethüda Süleyman

Ağa Fountain, Çorlulu Ali

Pasha Fountains (early 18th

c.), Ahmed I Bridge (Araplı),

Kara Mustafa Pasha Bridge

(Ulaş)

Karıştıran Rüstem Pasha Complex

Mehmed IV’s hunting palace

and later additions, Rüstem

Pasha Bridge

Bergos

Gazi Ali Bey

Mosque

Hüseyin Bey Mosque

(likely to be dated before

1530), Old baths (before

1530)

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex,

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha bridges in

Alpullu and Bergos

Mehmed IV Fountain

Babaeski

Çandarlı Halil

Pasha Bath (?),

Sarı Saltuk

Lodge

Mehmed II Mosque

Bayezid II's intervention to

Sarı Saltuk Lodge and

Madrasa (?)

Semiz Ali Pasha Complex

Square fountain from 1660s,

Çoban Kasım Ağa Bridge,

Kara İbrahim Pasha's

fountains and waterways

Havsa Kurt Bey’s tomb

Abdüsselam Çelebi Complex,

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Complex,

non-existent stone bridge (?)

TABLE SHOWING THE BUILDINGS ACCORDING TO THE

CONSTRUCTION PERIODS

236

APPENDIX B

MAP AND LIST OF EXTANT AND NON-EXTANT BUILDINGS NUMBERED ON

THE MAP

237

Name Settlement Period

1 Gazi Ali Bey Mosque Bergos Early Ottoman (Pre-1453)

2 Çandarlı Halil Pasha Bath Babaeski Early Ottoman (Pre-1453)

3 Sarı Saltuk Lodge Babaeski Early Ottoman (Pre-1453)

4 Kurt Bey’s tomb Havsa Early Ottoman (Pre-1453)

5 Mehmed II's mosque, inn, and older bridge Küçükçekmece Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

6 Mehmed II Mosque and elementary school Büyükçekmece Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

7 Mehmed II’s shops, waterways, baths, and mosque (conversion) Silivri Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

8 Çakır Ağa’s complex Silivri Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

9 Mehmed II Mosque Çorlu Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

10 Daye Hatun's bath and masjid Çorlu Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

11 Arabacıbaşı Mosque and elementary school Çorlu Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

12 Mehmed II Mosque Babaeski Mehmed II (1453 – 1481)

13 Dizdarzâde Mehmed Çelebi complex Büyükçekmece Bayezid II – Selim I (1481 - 1520)

14 İmrahor İlyas Bey’s mosque, school and shop Çorlu Bayezid II – Selim I (1481 - 1520)

15 Hüseyin Bey Mosque Bergos Bayezid II – Selim I (1481 - 1520)

16 Old baths Bergos Bayezid II – Selim I (1481 - 1520)

17 Bayezid II's intervention to Sarı Saltuk Lodge and Madrasa Babaeski Bayezid II – Selim I (1481 - 1520)

18 Abdüsselam Çelebi Complex Küçükçekmece Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

19 Küçükçekmece Bridge Küçükçekmece Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

20 Süleyman I’s and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s joint complex Büyükçekmece Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

21 Büyükçekmece Bridge Büyükçekmece Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

22 Haramidere Bridge Büyükçekmece Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

23 Piri Mehmed Pasha Complex Silivri Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

24 Güzelce Kasım Pasha masjid and shops Silivri Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

25 Abdüsselam Çelebi’s shops Silivri Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

26 Long Bridge Silivri Süleyman I –Selim II (1520 – 1574)

238

239

REFERENCES

PRIMARY SOURCES

Archival Documents and Manuscripts

Abbreviations: BOA (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi – Prime Ministry Ottoman

Archives), MSBATASE (Milli Savunma Bakanlığı Askeri Tarih Arşivi – Ministry of

Defense Military History Archives), CA (Cumhuriyet Arşivi – Republic Archives),

VGMA (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi – General Directorate of Foundations

Archives)

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.6.500

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.9.144

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.12.718

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.14.1631

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.14.1545

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.15.481

BOA.A.DVNSMHMD.19.361

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.21.292

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.23.135

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.22.117

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.22.199

BOA.A.DVSNMHM.D.22.200

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.22.201

240

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.23.18

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.23.237

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.28.214

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.30.377

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.40.53

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.40.696

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.40.754

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.42.790

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.43.80

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.47.629

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.48.986

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.51.226

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.58.818

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.77.109

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.77.118

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.78.1906

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.93.225

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.100.495

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.103.785

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.108.942

241

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.118.2000

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.109.30

BOA.A.DVNSMHM.D.121.499

BOA.AE.SABH.I.28.2161

BOA.AE.SAMD.III.208.20073

BOA.AE.SSÜL.II.21.2174

BOA.AE.SMHD.I.9.602

BOA.AE.SMHD.I.46.2732

BOA.AE.SMMD.IV.24.2703

BOA.AE.SMMD.IV.50.5849

BOA.AE.SMMD.IV.66.7794

BOA.AE.SMST.II.117.12816

BOA.AE.SMST.II.136.15044

BOA.AE.SMST.III.177.13955

BOA.AE.SMST.III.236.18626

BOA.AE.SSLM.III.310.18080

BOA.C.BLD.11.542

BOA.C.BLD.11.1013

BOA.C.BLD.21.1013

BOA.C.BLD.45.2220

242

BOA.C.BLD.70.3493

BOA.C.BLD. 96.4789

BOA.C.BLD.114.5690

BOA.C.BLD.121.6049

BOA.C.BLD.122.6061

BOA.C.EV.32.1600

BOA.C.EV.88.4357

BOA.C.EV.103.5112

BOA.C.EV.138.6863

BOA.C.EV.318.16192

BOA.C.EV.441.22333

BOA.C.EV.444.22464

BOA.C.EV.454.22988

BOA.C.EV.483.24444

BOA.C.NF.13.616

BOA.C.NF.14.672

BOA.C.NF.35.1748

BOA.C.NF.46.2273

BOA.C.SM.118.5926

BOA.D.BŞM.D.387

243

BOA.D.BŞM.ŞHE.D.16520

BOA.D.MKF.D.31799

BOA.DH.MKT.361.53

BOA.DH.MKT.1791.13

BOA.EV.HMHD.15

BOA.EV.HMH.D.3729

BOA.EV.VKF.19.16

BOA.HAT.1537.60

BOA.HAT.1539.37

BOA.HR.THD.22.51

BOA.İ.AZN.83.42

BOA.İ.DH.283.17280

BOA.İ.DH.514.34994

BOA.İ.DH.540.37542

BOA.İ.DH.672.46786

BOA.İ.MVL.467.21130

BOA.İE.ENB.5.559

BOA.İE.EV.3.327

BOA.İE.EV.22.2663

BOA.İE.EV.24.2870

244

BOA.İE.EV.29.3375

BOA.İE.NF.1.61

BOA.İE.SM.5.392

BOA.İE.SM.8.769

BOA.İE.SM.11.1085

BOA.İE.SM.14.1466

BOA.İE.SM.13.1342

BOA.İE.SM.20.2079

BOA.İE.SM.26.2732

BOA.İE.TCT.11.1286

BOA.MAD.D.4033

BOA.MAD.D.4269

BOA.MAD.D.4517

BOA.MAD.D.5320

BOA.MAD.D.7150

BOA.MVL.891.47

BOA.ŞD.63.3638

BOA.TS.MA.5824

BOA.TS.MA.E.35.21

BOA.TS.MA.E.88.9

245

BOA.TS.MA.E.48.39

BOA.TS.MA.E.830.40

BOA.TS.MA.E.1132.68

BOA.TS.MA.E.1243.56

BOA.TS.MA.E.1289.15

BOA.TS.MA.D.3916

BOA.TS.MA.D.4842

BOA.TS.MA.D.4926

BOA.TS.MA.D.5104

BOA.TS.MA.D.5112

BOA.TS.MA.D.5648

BOA.TS.MA.D.5673

BOA.TS.MA.D.6993

BOA.TS.MA.D.9578

BOA.YB.04.1.34

CA.30-1-0-0.123.791.9

CA.30-10-0-0.213.446.4

MSBATA.ATASE.110-9-1-2.13.0.184

MSBATA.ATASE.110-9-1-2.13.0.185

246

Verschiedene. Historische sammelhandschrift. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,

Cod. 9026.

VGMA, nr. 128. (Piri Mehmed Pasha’s waqfiyya)

VGMA, nr. 572. (Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqfiyya)

VGMA, nr. 635. (Rüstem Pasha’s waqfiyya)

VGMA, nr. 747. (Abdüsselam Çelebi’s waqfiyya)

Wyts, L. Itinera in Hispaniam,Viennam et Constantinopolim, Österreichische

Nationalbibliothek. Cod. 3325.

Published Sources

Abdurrahman Hibrî. (1999). Enîsü’l-müsâmirîn: Edirne Tarihi 1350 – 1650 (Ratip

Kazancıgil, Tr.). İstanbul: Edirne Valiliği Yayınları.

Abuşoğlu, M. M. (1995). Sadr-ı a‘zâm Ali Paşa’nın vakıfnâmesi. Unpublished MA

Thesis, İstanbul University.

Ahmed Bâdi Efendi. (2014). Riyâz-ı belde-i Edirne: 20. yüzyıla kadar Osmanlı

Edirnesi (Niyazi Adıgüzel and Raşit Gündoğdu, Ed and Tr.). İstanbul: Trakya

Üniversitesi.

Alikılıç, D., & Koltuk, N. (eds.) (2017). Osmanlı döneminde Çorlu: Nüfus

defterlerinde. İstanbul: Çorlu Belediyesi.

Alikılıç, D., Topal, M., Şahin E., & Pakırdağ, N. (eds.) (2017). Osmanlı belgelerinde

Çorlu. İstanbul: Çorlu Belediyesi.

Âşık Mehmed. (2007). Menâzırü’l-avâlim (Mahmut Ak, Ed.). Vol .3, Ankara: Türk

Tarih Kurumu.

Âşıkpaşazâde. (2013). Tevârihi âl-i Osman: Âşıkpaşazâde tarihi (Ayşenur Kala,

Ed.). İstanbul: Kamer Yayınları.

Austell, H. (1599). The voyage of Master Henry Austell by Venice and thence to

Ragusa ouer land, and so to Constantinople: and from thence by Moldauia,

Polonia, Silesia and Germanie to Hamburg, &c. In R. Hakluyt (ed.), The

principal navigations, voyages, traffiques and discoveries of the English

nation made by sea or ouer-land, to the remote and farthest distant quarters

of the earth, at any time within the compasse of these 1600. yeres, Vol. 2,

(pp. 194 – 198). London: George Bishop, Ralph Newberie, and Robert

Barker.

247

Aykut, N., Bostan, İ., Cebecioğlu, M., Emecan, F., İlgürel, M., İpşirli, M., Küçük C.,

Mert, Ö., Özcan, A., Şahin, İ., Şentürk, H., & Varlık, M. Ç. (eds.) (1993). 3

numaralı mühimme defteri (966 - 968 / 1558 – 1560). Ankara: T.C.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire

Başkanlığı.

Ayverdi, E. H., & Barkan, Ö. L. (1970). İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546)

târîhli. İstanbul: Baha Matbaası.

Azamat, N. (ed.) (1992). Anonim tevârih-i âl-i Osman: F. Giese neşri. İstanbul:

Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi.

Barkan, Ö. L. (1963). Fatih Cami ve İmareti tesislerin 1489-1490 yıllarına ait

muhasebe bilançoları. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 23(1

– 2), 297 – 341.

Belon, P. (1555). Les observations de plusieurs singularités et choses mémorables

trouvées en Grèce, Asie, Judée, Egypte, Arabie et autres pays, rédigées par P.

Belon, du Mans. Anvers: Chez Jean Steelsius.

Bernardo, L. (1886). Viaggio A Costantinopoli di Sier Lorenzo Bernardo per L'

Arresto del Bailo Sier Girolamo Lippomano Cav. 1591 Aprile. Venezia: A

Spese Della Societa.

Besolt, M. (1595). Deß Wolgebornen Herrn/ Heinrichs Herrn von Liechtenstein/ von

Nicolspurg/ u. Röm. Keys. Maiest. Abgesandten/u. Reyß auff

Constantinopol/ im 1584. Jar/ beschrieben durch Melchior Besolt. In J.

Leunclavius (ed.), Neuwe Chronica türckischer Nation: von Türcken selbs

beschrieben, volgendts gemehrt, unnd in vier Bücher abgetheilt…(pp. 515 –

531). Franckfurt am Mayn: Marnius und Aubrius.

Blunt, H. (1650). A voyage into the Levant:A brief relation of a journey lately

performed by Mr. Henry Blunt Gentleman, from England by the way of

Venice, into Dalmatia, Sclavonia, Bosna, Hungary, Macedonia, Thessaly,

Thrace, Rhodes, and Egypt, unto Gran Cairo: With particular observations

concerning the moderne condition of the Turks, and other people under that

Empire. London: R.C for Andrew Crooke.

The Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 A.D.). (1887). Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem

(Aubrey Steward, Tr.). London: Adelphi.

Borsook, E. (1973). The travels of Bernardo Michelozzi and Bonsignore Bonsignori

in the Levant (1497-98). Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 36,

145 – 197.

Canatar, M. (2004). İstanbul vakıfları tahrir defteri: 1009 (1600) Tarihli, İstanbul:

İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Yayınları.

Cavalli, M. (1840). Relazione dell’Impero Ottomano di Marino Cavalli, stato bailo a

Constantinopoli nel 1560. In E. Albèri (ed.), Relazioni degli Ambasciatori

Veneti al Senato, Serie 3, Vol 1, (pp. 271 – 298). Firenze: Tipografia e

Calciografia All’Insegna di Clio.

248

Cavazza, G. (1886). Viaggio a Constantinopoli di Sier Lorenzo Bernardo per

l'arresto del bailo Girolamo Lippomano Cav., 1591, Aprile. Venezia: A

Spese degli Societa.

Cebecioğlu, M., Yekeler, N., Atik, V., Yıldırım, H. O., Özkılınç, A., Genç, Y. İ.,

Karaca, Y., Köse, R., & Kırca, E. (eds.) (2015). 91 numaralı mühimme defteri

(H. 1056 / M. 1646-1647) <Özet – çeviri yazı – tıpkıbasım>, İstanbul: T.C.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşiveri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire

Başkanlığı.

Chalkokondyles, L. (2014). The histories (Anthony Kaldellis, Tr.). Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Chesnau, J. (1887). Le voyage de Monsieur d'Aramon, ambassadeur pour le Roy en

Levant. Paris: Ernest Leroux.

Contarini, P. (1856). Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo

Contarini che andavo bailo per la Repubblica Veneta alla Porta Ottona nel

1580: Ora per la prima volta pubblicato. Venezia: Tipi di Teresa Gattei.

Dallam, T., & Covel, J. (1893). Early voyages and travels in the Levant: I. The diary

of Master Thomas Dallam, 1599-1600. II. Extracts from the Diaries of Dr.

John Covel, 1670-1679. With some account of the Levant Company of Turkey

Merchants (J. Theodore Bent, Ed.), New York: Burt Franklin.

De Busbecq, O. G. (2014). Türk mektupları: Kanuni döneminde Avrupalı bir elçinin

gözlemleri (1555 - 1560) (Derin Türkömer, Tr.). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası

Kültür Yayınları.

De La Brocquière, B. (1807). The travels of Bertrandon De La Broquière, counsellor

& first esquire-carver to Philippe Le Bon, Duke of Burgundy, to Palestine,

and his return from Jerusalem overland to France during the years 1432 &

1435 (Thomas Johnes, Tr.). Hafod: Hafod Press.

Dernschwam, H. (1992). İstanbul ve Anadolu’ya seyahat günlüğü (Yaşar Önen, Tr.).

Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

De Schepper, C. D. (1856). Missions diplomatiques de Corneille Duplicius de

Schepper, dit Scepperus: Ambassadeur de Christiern II, de Charles V, de

Ferdinand Ier et de Marie, Reine de Hongrie, Gouvernante des Pays-Bas, de

1523 a 1555. Bruxelles: M. Hayez.

Des Hayes, L. (1645). Voiage de Levant fait par le commandement du Roy en l'année

1621 par le Sr. D.C. Paris: Adrian Taupinart.

De Villehardouin, G., & De Valenciennes, H. (2008). IV. Haçlı Seferi kronikleri (Ali

Berktay, Tr.). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.

Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo,

ambasciatore straordinario della Serenissima Repubblica Venezia, al Sultano

Murad III in compagnia di M. Giovanni Correr Bailo Alla Porta Ottomana,

descritto da anonimo che fu al seguito del Soranzo, MDLXXV. (1856).

Venezia: Tipografia di Giambattista Merlo.

Doukas. (1975). Decline and fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks (Harry J.

Magoulias, Tr). Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

249

Dousae, G. (1599). Georgii Dousae de itinere suo Constantinopolitano, Epistola.

Lugdunum Batauorum: Raphalengius.

Du Fresne-Canaye, P. (2009). Fresne-Canaye seyahatnamesi 1573 (Teoman

Tunçdoğan, Tr.). İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Evliya Çelebi. (1999). Evliyâ Çelebi seyahatnâmesi. Vols. 1, 3, 6, (Seyit Ali

Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı, Eds.) İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

Fatih Mehmet II vakfiyeleri. (1938). Ankara: Vakıflar Umum Müdürlüğü Neşriyatı.

Gassot, J. (1550). Le discours du voyage de Venise à Constantinople: Contenant la

querele du grand Seigneur contre le Sophi, avec élégante description de

plusieurs lieux, villes et citez de la Grèce & choses admirables en icelle.

Paris: Antoine Le Clerc.

Gerlach, S. (2007). Türkiye günlüğü 1573-1576 (Kemal Beydilli, Ed. and Türkis

Noyan, Tr.). İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Gökbilgin, M. T. (1952). XV.–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar,

mülkler, mukataalar. İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi.

Gündoğdu, R., Ovalıoğlu, İ., Ekici, C., & Önal, E. F. (eds.). (2010). Osmanlı

mimarisi: Usûl-i mi‘mâri-i Osmâni. İstanbul: Çamlıca Basım Yayın.

İlgürel, S. (1975). Abdurrahman Hibrî’nin Menasîk-i mesâlik’i. İstanbul Üniversitesi

Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6, 111 – 128.

İnciciyan, L. (1976). Osmanlı Rumelisi’nin tarih ve coğrafyası (H. D. Andreasyan,

Tr). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Güney-Doğu Avrupa

Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4 – 5, 101 – 152.

İnciciyan, P. L. (1974). Osmanlı Rumelisi tarih ve coğrafyası (H. D. Andreasyan,

Tr.). İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Güney-Doğu Avrupa

Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2 – 3, 11 – 88.

İstanbul kadı sicilleri: Evkaf muhasebesi 1 numaralı sicil (H. 1042 – 1044 M. 1632 –

1635), (2019), Vol. 47, İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür A.Ş,

İSAM Yayınları.

Itinéraire Brugeois composé vers 1380, (1858). Bruxelles: Imprimerie de J.-H.

Dehou.

İzzî Süleyman Efendi. (2019). İzzî tarihi (Ziya Yılmazer, Ed.). İstanbul: Türkiye

Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı.

Hiltebrandt, C. J. (1937). Conrad Jacob Hiltebrandt's dreifache Schwedische

gesandtschaftereise nach Siebenburgen, der Ukraine and Constantinopel

(1656-1658), (Franz Babinger, Ed.), Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Hoca Sadeddin Efendi. (1979). Tacü’t-tevarih. 5 Vols, (İsmet Parmaksızoğlu, Tr.).

Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Kazancıgil, R., Gökçe, N., & Öncel, M. (eds.). (2014). Edirne vilâyet sâlnâmesi

(Edirne il yıllığı) (H: 1319 = M: 1901). Vol. 2, Edirne: Edirne Valiliği Kültür

Yayınları.

250

Kılıç, F., Arslan, M., & Bülbül, T. (eds.). (2007). Otman Baba velayetnamesi

(Tenkitli metin). Ankara.

Kılıç, Ş. (ed. and tr.) (2013). Bizans kısa kronikleri (Chronica Byzantina breviora):

Osmanlı tarihinin Bizanslı tanıkları. İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları.

Klusáková, L. (2002). The road to Constantinople: Sixteenth-century Ottoman towns

through Christian eyes. (Anna Bryson Tr.), Prague: ISV Publishers.

Kritovoulos. (2018). Kritovoulos tarihi (1451 – 1467). (Ari Çokona, Tr.), İstanbul:

Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.

Latîfî, (2018). Tezkiretü’ş-şu’arâ ve tabsıratü’n-nuzamâ, (Rıdvan Canım, Ed.),

Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı.

Lescalopier, P. (1921). Le voyage de Pierre Lescalopier Parisien de Venise a

Constantinople, L’an 1574. Revue d’histoire Diplomatique / publiée par les

soins de la Société d’histoire diplomatique, 35, 21 – 55.

Lucas, P. (1712). Voyage du sieur Paul Lucas, fait par ordre du Roy dans la Grèce,

l'Asie Mineure, la Macédoine et l'Afrique: Contenant la description de la

Natalolie, de la Caramanie, & de la Macedonie. Paris: Chez Nicolas Simart.

Lubenau, R. (2012). Reinhold Lubenau seyahatnamesi (Osmanlı Ülkesinde, 1587-

1589). (Türkis Noyan, Tr.), İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Mayer, L. (1810). Views in the Ottoman dominions, in Europe in Asia, and some of

the Mediterranean islands, from the original drawings taken for Sir Robert

Ainslie by Luigi Mayer, F.A.S. with descriptions historical and illustrative.

London: P. Bowyee.

Mehmed Neşrî. (1949) Kitâb-ı cihan-nümâ: Neşrî tarihi. 2 Vols., (Mehmed A.

Köymen and Faik Reşit Unat, Ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Miller, K. (1916). Itinerara Romana: Römische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula

Peutingeriana dargestellt von Konrad Miller. Stuttgart: Strecker & Schroder.

Necipoğlu, G., Crane H., & Akın, E. (eds.). (2006). Sinan’s autobiographies: Five

sixteenth-century texts. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Otwinowski, E. (1860). Wypisanie drogi tureckiej, gdym tam z posłem wielkim

wielmożnym panem Andrzejem Bzickim, kasztelanem chełmskim, od króla

Zygmunta Augusta posłanym roku pańskiego 1557 jeździł. In J. I.

Kraszewski (ed.), Podróże i poselstwa polskie do Turcyi: a mianowicie:

podróż E. Otwinowskiego 1557, Jędrzeja Taranowskiego komornika j.k.m.

1569, i Poselstwo Piotra Zborowskiego 1568 (pp. 7 – 40). Krakow: Biblioteki

Polskiej.

Özdeğer, M. (2001). 16. Yüzyılda Vize Sancağı’nın demografik ve ekonomik yapısı.

Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, 132, 87 – 123.

Özergin, M. K. (1974). Eski bir ruznameye göre İstanbul ve Rumeli medreseleri.

İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4 – 5, 263 –

290.

Özkılınç, A., Coşkun, A., Sivridağ, A., & Yüzbaşıoğlu, M. (eds.) (2001). 370

numaralı muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli defteri (937 / 1530) I: Paşa (Sofya) ve

251

Vize Livâları ile Sağkol kazâları (Edirne, Dimetoka, Ferecik, Keşan, Kızılağaç,

Zağra-i Eski-hisâr, İpsala, Filibe, Tatar-bâzârı, Samakov, Üsküb,

Kalkan-delen, Kırçova, Manastır, Pirlepe ve Köprülü) <Dizin ve

tıpkıbasım>, Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü

Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı.

Palerne, J. (1606). Peregrinations Dv S. Iean Palerne Foresien, Secretaire de

François de Valois Duc d’Anjou, & d’Alençon, &c. Où est traicté de

plusieurs singularités, & antiquités remarquées és Prouinces d’ Egypte,

Arabie deserte, & pierreuse, Terre Saincte, Surie, Natolie, Grece, & plusieurs

Isles tant de la mer mediterranee, que Archipelague. Auec la maniere de

viure des Mores & Turcs ... Plus est adiousté vn petit dictionaire en langage

François, Italien, Grec vulgaire, Turc, Moresque, ou Arabesque, & Esclauon,

necesssaire à ceux qui desirent faire le voyage. Lyon: Jean Pillehotte.

Peçevi İbrahim Efendi.(1981). Peçevi tarihi. Vol. 1, (Bekir Sıtkı Baykal, Ed.),

Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Pigafetta, M. (1890). Itinerario di Marc’Antonio Pigafetta gentil’huomo vicentino. In

Petar Matković “Putopis Marka Antuna Pigafette u Carigrad od god. 1567”,

Starine, Vol. 22, (pp. 70 – 194). Zagreb: Akademickoj Knjizari L. Hartmana

(Kugli I Deutsch) Na Prodaju.

Pococke, R. (1745). A description of the East, and some other countries. Vol. 2 Part

2, London: W. Bowyer.

Polonyalı Simeon. (2013). Polonyalı Simeon'un seyahatnâmesi (1608-1619). (Hrand

Der Andreasyan, Trans.). İstanbul: Everest.

Porsius, H. (1583). Historia belli Persici, gesti inter Murathem III. Turcarum et

Mehemetem Hodabende Persarum regem. Francofurti: Sigismundi

Feyrabendt.

Procopius. (1971). VII, Buildings. General index to Procopius. (H. B. Dewing, Ed.

and Tr.). London: Harvard University Press.

Rålamb, C. (2013). İstanbul’a Bir Yolculuk: 1657 – 1658. (Ayda Arel, Tr.). İstanbul:

Kitap Yayınevi.

Ramberti, B. (1541). Delle cose de Turchi. Libri tre. Delli quali si descriue nel primo

il viaggio da Venetia à Costantinopoli, con gli nomi de luoghi antichi et

moderni. Nel secondo la Porta, cioe la corte de Soltan Soleymano, signor de

Turchi. Nel terzo & vltimo il modo del reggere il Stato et Imperio suo.

Vinegia: in casa di maestro Bernardin Milanese.

Reinhard, J. (1913). Edition de J. –M. Angiolello (1452 -1525): Ses Manuscrits

Inédits. Vol. 1, Besançon: Impr. Jacques et Demontrond.

Röhricht, R. (1891). Die Jerusalemfahrt des Peter Sparnau und Ulrich von

Tennstaedt (1385). Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, 26,

479 – 491.

Schaendlinger, A. C. (1978), Die Feldzugstagebücher des ersten und zweiten

ungarischen Feldzugs Suleymans I, Wien: Verlag des Verbandes der

wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.

252

Schweigger, S. (2014). Sultanlar kentine yolculuk (1578 – 1581). (Türkis Noyan,

Tr.). İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Senemoğlu, Y. (ed.). (1973). Haydar Çelebi ruznâmesi, İstanbul: Tercüman 1001

Temel Eser.

Sivori, F. (1944). Memoriale delle cose occorse a me Franco Sivori dopo della mia

partenza da Genova l’anno 1581 per andare in Vallachia. In Ştefan Pascu

(ed.), Petru Cercel şi Ţară româneăscă: la sfârşitul sec. XVI (pp. 135 – 277).

Sibiu: Tip. “Cartea Romaneasca Din Cluj”.

Somer, J. (1649) Beschrijvinge van een zee ende landt reyse naer de Levante, als

Italien, Candyen, Cypres, Egypten, Rhodes, Archipelago, Turckyen, en

wederom door Duytslant. Amsterdam: voor Joost Hartgers.

Tafur, P. (1926). Travels and adventures: 1435 – 1439. (Malcolm Letts, Ed. And

Tr.). London: George Routledge & Sons, LTD..

Taranowski, A. (1571). Beschreybunge einer Reyse oder eins zuges/ eins

fürnemlichen Polnischen Herrn/ von Königklicher Polnischen wirden/

Botschafftweiß gen Constantinopel/ und von dannen inn die Tartarey

gezogen: Mit bericht und meldunge mancherley seltzamer hendel/ und

grossen schaden/ so die Türcken dazumal erlitten; sehr nützlich unnd wol zu

lesen. Nürnberg: Dieterich Verlag.

Ungnad, D. (1892). Putovanje car. Poslanika Davida Ungnada od Beča u Carigrad

god. 1572. In Petar Matković “Putovanja po Balkanskom poluotoku XVI.

vieka. Opis putovanja dvaju carskih poslanstva u Carigrad: K. Ryma godine

1571 i D. Ungnada godine 1572”, Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti I

Umjetnosti, Vol. 112, (pp. 199 – 243), Zagreb: Knjizara Jugoslavenske

Akademije (Dioničke Tiskare).

Van den Branden, H. (1892). Put od Bruselja iz Brabanta u Carigrad u Traciji, glavni

grad turskoga cara. In Petar Matković “Putovanja po Balkanskom poluotoku

XVI. vieka. Opis putovanja dvaju carskih poslanstva u Carigrad: K. Ryma

godine 1571 i D. Ungnada godine 1572”. Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije

Znanosti I Umjetnosti, Vol. 112, (pp. 157 – 199). Zagreb: Knjizara

Jugoslavenske Akademije (Dioničke Tiskare).

Von den Dreisch, G. C. (1723). Historische Nachricht von der Röm. Kayserl. Groß-

Botschafft nach Constantinopel, Nürnberg: Peter Conrad Monath.

Von Obernburg, B. C. (1531). Itinerarium Wegrayss Kü. May. potschafft gen

Constantinopel zu dem Türkischen Kayser Soleyman Anno xxx, Augsburg:

Heinrich Steiner.

Von Haimendorff, C. F. (1646). Christoph Fürers von Haimendorff, Ritters, Desz

Eltern geheimen Rahts/ vordersten Losungers/ Schultheissen/ vnd Obristen

Kriegshaubtmanns der Stadt Nürnberg/ auch des löblichen Fränkischen

Kraises Kriegsrahts Reis=Beschreibung. Jn Egypten/ Arabien/ Palästinam/

Syrien/ etc. mit beygefügter Landtafel/ vnd derselben Erklärung: Sambt

kurtzem Anhang Jacob Fürers von Haimendorff/ seines Bruders/

Constantinopolitanischer Reise, Nürnberg: Wolfgang Endter.

253

Von Steinach, W. A. (1881). Wolf Andreas’ von Steinach Edelknabenfahrt nach

Constantinopel (1583). In J. v. Zahl (ed.), Steiermärkische Geschichtsblätter,

Vol. 2, (pp. 193 – 234), Graz: Leykam-Josefsthal.

Wratislaw, W. (1862). Adventures ff Baron Wenceslas Wratislaw ff Mitrowitz. What

he saw in the Turkish metropolis, Constantinople, experienced in his

captivity, and, after his happy return to his country, committed to writing in

the year of our Lord 1599, London: Bell and Daldy.

Wenner, Crailsheimlı A. (2011). Padişahın huzurunda elçilik günlüğü, 1616 – 1618.

(Türkis Noyan, Tr.). İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Wrancic, A. (1860). Verancsics ès Teuffenpach utazàsuk Pozsonytól

Konstantinàpolyig. In Monumenta Hungariae Historica: Magyar Történelmi

Emlékek, Seria Scripttores, VI, (pp. 78 – 84). Pest.

Yıldırım, H. O., Atik, V., Birinci, M., Cebecioğlu, M., Özyurt, A., Yavuz, F., &

Yekeler, N. (eds.) (2002). 85 numaralı mühimme defteri (1040 – 1041 (1042)/

1630 – 1631 (1632)) <Özet – transkripsiyon – indeks>. Ankara: T.C.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşiveri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire

Başkanlığı.

Yıldırım, H. O., Atik, V., Cebecioğlu, M., Çağlar, H., Serin, M., Uslu, O., &

Yekeler, N. (eds.) (1998). 7 numaralı mühimme defteri (975 - 976 / 1567 –

1569) <Özet – transkripsiyon - indeks>. Vols 1 – 3. Ankara: T.C.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire

Başkanlığı.

Yıldırım, H. O., Atik, V., Cebecioğlu, M., Demirbaş, U., Karazeybek, M., Safi, M.,

Serin, M., Uslu, O., Yekeler, N., & Yıldırım, Z. (eds.) (1994). 5 numaralı

mühimme defteri (973 / 1565 – 1566) <Özet ve indeks>. Ankara: T.C.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire

Başkanlığı.

Yıldırım, H. O., Atik, V., Cebecioğlu, M., Safi, M., Serin, M., Uslu, O., & Yekeler,

N. (eds.) (1996). 12 numaralı mühimme defteri (978 - 979 / 1570 – 1572)

<Özet – transkripsiyon ve iİndeks>. Vols 1 – 2. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık

Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı.

Zen, C. (1878). Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catherin Zen

ambassador straodinario a Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno. In Petar Matković

(ed.), Dva talijanska putopisa po balkanskom polnotoku iz XVI vieka.

Starine, 10, (pp. 203 – 256). Zagreb: Knjizari Lavoslava Hartmana Na

Prodaju.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Ahunbay, Z. (1988). Mimar Sinan’ın eğitim yapıları: Medreseler, darülkurralar,

mektepler. In S. Bayram (ed.), Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan: Yaşadığı çağ ve

eserleri (pp. 239 – 309). Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü U.A.

254

Akkaya, T. (1984). Trakya’da Marmara kıyısında İstanbul’a bağlı bir kasaba: Silivri

( = Selymbria) tarih içindeki gelişimi ve eski eserleri. Unpublished PhD

Dissertation, Istanbul University.

Akkaya, T. (1989). Silivri’de bir Osmanlı abidesi Pirî Mehmed Paşa Camii ve

Külliyesi. Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(5), 43 – 48.

Alkan, M. (2020). Arşiv belgeleri ışığında Sadrazam Rüstem Paşa’nın

Büyükkarıştıran’daki mimari eserleri. Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi

Dergisi, 10(19), 1 – 34.

Altınay, A. R. (2001). Sokollu: Geçmiş asırlarda Osmanlı hayatı. İstanbul: Tarih

Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.

Altunan, S. (2006). XVII. Yüzyıl sonlarında İstanbul-Edirne arasındaki menziller ve

bazı menzilkeş köyler. Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25(39), 75 – 99.

Ambraseys, N. N. & Finkel, C. F. (2006). Türkiye’de ve komşu bölgelerde sismik

etkinlikler: Bir tarihsel inceleme 1500 – 1800. (M. Umur Koçak, Trans.).

Ankara: Tübitak Yayınları.

Arslan, A. (2011). Kasabadan kente bir cumhuriyet yürüyüşü: Lüleburgaz. Vols. 1-2,

Lüleburgaz: Görünüm Yayınları.

Aslanapa, O. (1992). Mimar Sinan. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Ayverdi, E. H. (1972). Osmanlı mi‘marisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad devri: 806

– 855 (1403 – 1451). Vol. 2, İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti.

Ayverdi, E. H. (1973). Osmanlı mi‘marisinde Fatih devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481).

Vol. 3, İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti.

Ayverdi, E. H. (1989). Osmanlı mi‘marisinde Fatih devri: 855 – 886 (1451 – 1481).

Vol. 4, İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti.

Babinger, F. (1992). Osmanlı tarih yazarları ve eserleri (Coşkun Üçok, Tr.). Ankara:

Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.

Barkan, Ö. L. (1975). Kolonizatör Türk dervişleri. İstanbul: Hamle Yayınları.

Baltacı, C. (2021). XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı medreseleri. İstanbul: Marmara

Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları.

Boykov, G. (2015). The borders of the cities: Revisiting Early Ottoman urban

morphology in southeastern Europe. In M. Baramova, G. Boykov, & I.

Parvev (eds.), Bordering Early Modern Europe (pp. 243 – 256). Wiesbaden:

Harrasowitz.

Bozhinova, E. (2012). Thrace between East and West: The Early Iron Age cultures in

Thrace. In A. Çilingiroğlu, & A. Sagona (eds.), Ancient Near Eastern Studies,

Supplement 39: Anatolian Iron Ages 7: Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian

Iron Age Colloquium Held at Edirne, 19-24 April 2010 (pp. 51 – 71). Leuven:

Peeters Press.Busch-Zantner, R. (1932). Zur Kenntnis der Osmanischen

Stadt. Geographische Zeitschrift, 38, 1 – 13.

Braudel, F. (1972). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the age of

Philip II. Vol. 1, (Siân Reynolds, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

255

Busch-Zantner, R. (1932). Zur kenntnis der Osmanischen stadt. Geographische

Zeitschrift, 38, 1 – 13.

Cantay, G. (1988). Kervansaraylar. In S. Bayram (ed.), Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan:

Yaşadığı Çağ Ve Eserleri (pp. 369 – 392). Ankara: Vakıflar Genel

Müdürlüğü U.A.

Çeçen, K. (1988). Sinan’ın yaptığı köprüler. In S. Bayram (ed.), Mimarbaşı Koca

Sinan: Yaşadığı çağ ve eserleri (pp. 429 – 438). Ankara: Vakıflar Genel

Müdürlüğü U.A.

Cengiz, H. A. (2020). 1752 Edirne depremi (Zelzele-i azîme). İstanbul: Kitabevi,

Yayınları.

Çetintaş, S. (2011). Kör kazma. In İsmail Dervişoğlu (ed.), İstanbul ve mimari

yazıları (pp. 13-19). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.Çobanoğlu, A. V.

(1994). Dua Kubbesi. In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, 9 (pp 539 – 540).

Retrieved from: September 3, 2022. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/duakubbesi.

Ćurčić, S. (1993). Late Antique palaces: The meaning of urban context. Ars

Orientalis, 23, 67 – 90.

Ćurčić, S. (2010). Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Süleyman the

Magnificent (c. 300 – ca. 1550). New Haven and London: Yale University

Press.

Çulpan, C. (2002). Türk taş köprüleri: Ortaçağdan Osmanlı devri sonuna kadar.

Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Demir, F. (2016). Drusipara’dan Büyükkarıştıran’a. İstanbul: Büyükkarıştıran

Belediyesi.

Durliat. J. (1995). L'approvisionnement de Constantinople. In C. Mango, & G.

Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and its Hinterland (pp. 19 – 33). Aldershot:

Variorum.

Erdoğan, M. (1978). Osmanlı devrinde Trakya âbidelerinde yapılan imar çalışmaları.

İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları

Dergisi, 6 – 7, 121 – 188.

Ertuğrul, Ö. (1988). Acem Ali. In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, 1 (pp. 322).

Ertuğrul, Ö. (2014). “Havsa/Nikopolis/Hasköy”. Vakıf Restorasyon Yıllığı, 8, 80 –

94.

Eyice, S. (1978). Encore Une Fois l’église d’Alexis Apocauque à Sélymbria ( =

Silivri). Byzantion, 48(2), 406 – 416.

Eyice, S. (1978). Tarihde Küçükçekmece. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi

Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6 – 7, 57 – 120.

Freely, J. (2011). A history of Ottoman architecture. Southampton: WIT Press.

Gökbilgin, M. T. (1956). Kanuni Sultan Süleyman devri başlarında Rumeli Vilayeti,

Livaları, Şehir ve Kasabaları. Belleten, 20(78), 247 – 294.

256

Gökpınar, B. (2020). 1712 tarihli avârız defterine göre Bergos (Lüleburgaz) kazası.

FSM İlmî Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 15, 63-98.

Hartmuth, M. Building the Ottoman city: A linear or cumulative process? Lessons

from fifteenth-century Skopje. In Centre and periphery? Islamic architecture

in Ottoman Macedonia, 1383-1520, Research Project No. 26406 Working

Paper #3.

Haldon, J. (2005). The Palgrave atlas of Byzantine history. New York: Palgrave

Macmillian,.

İnalcık, H. (1993). Edirne’nin Fethi (1361). In Edirne: Edirne’nin 600. fethi

yıldönümü armağanı (pp. 137-159). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

İnalcık, H. (2012). Aḥmad Pas̲ h̲ a K̲ h̲ āʾin. In P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E.

Bosworth, E. van Donzel & W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopedia of Islam,

Second Edition

İnalcık, H. (1994). An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire: Volume

I: 1300 – 1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jireček, C. J. (1877). Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad Nach Constantinopel und Die

Balkanpässe: Eine Historisch-Geographische Studie. Prag: Verlag von F.

Tempsky.

Kaçan Erdoğan, M. (2015). Hüsrev Kethüda Vakfı ve Selanik’teki gelir kaynakları.

Vakıflar Dergisi, 50, 65 – 83.

Kayıcı, H. (2013). Sâlnâmelere göre idari, sosyal ve ekonomik yapısıyla Edirne

Sancağı. İstanbul: Edirne Valiliği Kültür Yayınları.

Kuban, D. (2007). Osmanlı mimarisi. İstanbul: YEM Yayın.

Küçükkaya, G. (1990). Mimar Sinan dönemi İstanbul-Belgrad arası menzil yapıları

hakkında bir deneme. Vakıflar Dergisi, 21, 183 – 254.

Külzer, A. (2008). Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Ostthrakien (Eurōpē). Vol. 12, Wien:

Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Kuran, A. (1979). Mimar Sinan’ın bilinmeyen ve kaybolan camileri. Boğaziçi

Üniversitesi Dergisi, 7, 81 – 94.

Kuran, A. (1988). Mimar Sinan’ın camileri. In S. Bayram (ed.), Mimarbaşı Koca

Sinan: Yaşadığı Çağ Ve Eserleri (pp. 175 – 214). Ankara: Vakıflar Genel

Müdürlüğü U.A.

Kuran, A. (1987). Sinan: The grand old master of Ottoman architecture. Washington

D.C.: Institute of Turkish Studies.

Kuran, A. (1996). A spatial study of three Ottoman capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and

Istanbul. Muqarnas, 13, 114 – 131.

Kuran, A. (1975). Üsküdar'da Mihrimah Sultan Külliyesi. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi

Dergisi, 3, 43 – 72.

Kuru, L. (2019). XVI. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Rumeli kadılıkları. Balkan Araştırma

Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(2), 261 – 294.

257

Magdalino, P. (1978). Byzantine churches of Selymbria. Dumbarton Oaks Papers,

32, 309 – 318.

Magdalino. P. (1995). The grain supply of Constantinople, ninth-fifteenth centuries.

In C. Mango, & G. Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and its Hinterland (pp. 35

– 47). Aldershot: Variorum, 1995.

Müderrisoğlu, M. F. (1993). 16. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda inşa edilen

menzil külliyeleri. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

Mülayim, S. (2001). Ters lâle: Osmanlı mimarisinde Sinan çağı ve Süleymaniye.

İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Necipoğlu, G. (2005). The age of Sinan:Architectural culture in the Ottoman Empire.

London: Reaktion Books.

Necipoğlu, G. (2016). Sinan çağında mimarlık kültürü ve âdâb: Günümüze yönelik

yorumlar. In H. Aynur, & A. H. Uğurlu (eds.), Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi’nin

Anısına: Osmanlı Mimarlık Kültürü (pp. 19 – 66). İstanbul: Kubbealtı

Neşriyatı.

Ocak, A. Y. (2016). Sarı Saltık: Popüler İslamın Balkanlar’daki destani öncüsü, 13.

Yüzyıl. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Ocak, A. Y. (1978). Zaviyeler (Dini, Sosyal ve Kültürel Tarih Açısından Bir

Deneme). Vakıflar Dergisi, 12, 247 – 269.

Öğretmenoğlu, B. (2022, February 14). Kazdıkça ‘Eski Lüleburgaz’

çıkıyor!. Görünüm.

Önge, Y. (1988). Anadolu Türk hamamları hakkında genel bilgiler ve Mimar Koca

Sinan’ın inşa ettiği hamamlar. In S. Bayram (ed.), Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan:

Yaşadığı Çağ Ve Eserleri (pp. 403 – 412). Ankara: Vakıflar Genel

Müdürlüğü U.A.

Orhonlu, C. (1972). Meslekî bir teşekkül olarak kaldırımcılık ve Osmanlı şehir

yolları hakkında bazı düşünceler. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi

Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 93 – 138.

Orhonlu, C. (1970). Köprücülük. In VII. Türk Tarih Kongresi: Kongreye Sunulan

Bildiriler, Vol. 2, (pp. 701 – 708). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Orhonlu, C. (1990). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda derbend teşkilatı. İstanbul: Eren

Yayıncılık.

Ousterhout, R. (2011). The Byzantine architecture In Thrace: The view from

Constantinople. In C. Bakirtzis, N. Zekos, & X. Moniaros (eds.), Byzantine

Thrace, Evidence and Remains: Komotini, 18-22 April, 2007; Proceedings

(pp. 489 – 502). Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert.

Ousterhout, R. (2012). Two Byzantine churches of Selymbria. In M. J. Johnson, R.

Ousterhout, & A. Papalexandrou (eds.), Approaches in Byzantine

Architecture and Its Decoration: Studies in Honor of Slobodan Ćurčić (pp.

239 – 257). Ashgate: Farhnam; Burlington, VT.

Kazhdan, A. P. (1991). The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium. Vols. 1-3, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

258

Özcan, A. (1988). Mimar Sinan’a siparişte bulunanlar. In S. Bayram (ed.),

Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan: Yaşadığı Çağ Ve Eserleri (pp.131 – 145). Ankara:

Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü U.A.

Pamuk, Ş. (2003). A monetary history of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Renda, G. (2018). The panorama of Constantinople. In Karin Ådahl (ed.), Cornelius

Loos In The Ottoman World: Drawings For The King Of Sweden 1710-1711

(pp. 62 – 71). İstanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.

Reyhanlı, T., & Altun A. (1976). Edirne / Havsa’da Sokollu (veya Kasım Paşa

Külliyesi). Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı, 6, 67-88.

Reyhanlı, T. (1977). Havsa’da Sokollu veya Kasım Paşa Külliyesi hakkında

tamamlayıcı notlar. Türkiyat Mecmuası, 19, 241 – 254.

Özkılınç, A., Coşkun, A., & Sivridağ, A. (eds.) (2013). Rumeli Eyaleti (1514 –

1550), Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı

Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı.

Şenel, M. (1964). Çorlu Kazası tarihçesi. Unpublished Graduation Thesis, Istanbul

University.

Soustal, P. (1991). Tabula Imperii Byzantini: Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und

Haimimontos). Vol. 6, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften.

Tanyeli, U. (2020). Mimar Sinan: Tarihsel ve muhayyel. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

Tanyeli, U. (1990). Sinan mimarlığında dış mekânın biçimlendirilmesi. Mimarlık

Dergisi, 2, 68 – 71.

Tuna, M. (1963). Geçmişten bugüne Çorlu, İstanbul: Sıralar Matbaası.

Ülkü O., & Ünalan Özdemir H. S. (2019). Tekirdağ/Çorlu – Fatih Camisi’nin dünü

bugünü. Sanat Dergisi, 34, 153 – 166.

Ünlüsoy, C. (2018, April 23). Lüleburgaz’ın her yerinden tarih fışkırıyor. Hürfikir.

Veinstein, G. (2012). “Soḳollu Meḥmed Pas̲ h̲ a” In P. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C.E.

Bosworth, E. van Donzel & W.P. Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopedia of Islam,

Second Edition.

Von Hammer, J. (1828). Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches: Grossentheils aus

Bisher Unbenützen Handschriften und Archiven, Vol. 3, Pest: C. A.

Hartleben’s Verlage.

Wimmel, R. (2016). Architektur osmanischer Karawanseraien: Stationen des

Fernverkehrs im Osmanischen Reich, PhD. Dissertation, Technische

Universität Berlin.

Wimmel, R. (2019). Edirne as a stopover destination. The Ekmekcioğlu Caravanserai

and the Ottoman road network. In B. Krawietz, & F. Riedler (eds.), The

Heritage of Edirne in Ottoman and Turkish Times (pp. 152 – 203), Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

259

Yazıcı Metin, N. (2019). XV. Yüzyıl bânilerinden Çakır Ağa ve mimari eserleri.

Belleten, 83(298), 913 – 932.

Yerasimos, S. (1991). Les Voyageurs dans L'empire Ottoman (XIVe - XVIe Siècles)

bibliographie, itinèraires et inventaire des lieux habitès. Ankara: Société

Turque d’Histoire.

Yıldız, M. (2014). Havsa’daki Şehit Mehmed Paşazade Kasım Paşa Vakfı. Vakıflar

Dergisi, 41, 97 – 114.

Yücel, E. (1969). Büyükçekmece’deki Türk eserleri, Vakıflar Dergisi, 9, 95 – 106.

Yürekli, Z. (2012). Architecture and hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The

politics of Bektashi shrines in the classical age, Farnham: Ashgate.

Zarcone, T. (1990). Alévi et Bektasî de Thrace Orientale: Les tekke de Sari Saltuk à

Babaeski et d'Ariz Baba à Havsa. In M. Sağlam, B. Kodaman, A. Ünal, & M.

Özbalcı (eds.), İkinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi Bildirileri, 1-3

Haziran 1988 (pp. 629 – 638). Samsun: T.C. On Dokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi

Eğitim Fakültesi.