SPATIAL AND SOCIO-CULTURAL CHANGES IN EYÜP
BETWEEN THE FIFTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES
ABSTRACT
Spatial and Socio-Cultural Changes in Eyüp
Between the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Centuries
The district of Eyüp was one of the three largest extra muros settlements of Ottoman
Constantinople/ Istanbul along with Galata and Üsküdar. Eyüp has received much
attention in academia as a sacred site where a funerary complex dedicated to Abu Ayyub
al-Ansari (a.k.a. Eyüp Sultan in Turkish) —a companion of the Prophet Muhammad—
was constructed as a marker of the new Islamic identity of Constantinople after the
Ottoman conquest in 1453. Besides its religio-political importance, Eyüp developed into
a significant social and cultural center with its gardens, promenades, lodges, shrines,
waterside mansions, taverns, and shops, where artists, craftsmen, poets, scholars, and
commoners were meeting. Furthermore, it was an agricultural production area which
played a crucial role in provisioning the city. As a result of the multifunctional uses of
spaces in Eyüp, there were fluid relationships between sacred, recreational, and
agricultural sites; its tomb courtyards and orchards were used as excursion destinations
and picnic spots, and cemeteries were utilized as market gardens. Thus, my purpose in
this research is to understand the visual and spatial reflections of the entangled social,
cultural, and environmental histories and the changes in functions, practices, and
conceptions of public spaces from the conquest until the eighteenth century.
v
ÖZET
On Beşinci ve On Yedinci Yüzyıllar Arasında
Eyüp’te Mekansal ve Sosyo-Kültürel Değişimler
Eyüp, Galata ve Üsküdar ile birlikte, Osmanlı İstanbul’unun üç büyük sur dışı
yerleşiminden biriydi. İstanbul’un fethinden sonra, eski Bizans başkenti
Konstantinopolis’e yeni bir İslami kimlik kazandırma amacının bir parçası olarak,
Hazreti Muhammed’in yakın arkadaşı ve sancaktarı olarak bilinen Eyüp Sultan’ın türbe
kompleksi Fatih Sultan Mehmet’in emriyle Eyüp’te inşa edildi. Bu hem dinsel hem
politik yönü dikkate alınarak, başta tarih alanı olmak üzere Eyüp üzerine pek çok
akademik çalışma yapılmıştır. Ancak bunun ötesinde, Eyüp’ün, erken modern
İstanbul’unda önemli bir sosyal ve kültürel merkez olma özelliği genellikle
ıskalanmıştır. Bu tez, bahçeleri, gezinti yerleri, tekkeleri, türbeleri, yalıları, konakları,
kahvehaneleri, tavernaları ve çok çeşitli dükkanları ile, sanatçılar, zanaatkarlar, şairler,
bilginler ve sıradan halkın buluşma noktası olan Eyüp’e farklı bir açıdan bakmayı
amaçlamaktadır. Osmanlı İstanbul’unun sosyal ve kültürel yaşamındaki öneminin
yanında, Eyüp aynı zamanda, tarım, bahçecilik ve hayvancılık için sunduğu doğal
imkanlar ile kentin gıda temininde de önemli bir yer tutmuştur. Bu bağlamda, bu
çalışma, erken modern dönemde Eyüp’te yakın bir ilişki içinde konumlanan ve hatta iç
içe geçen kutsal mekanlar, eğlence ve sosyalleşme mekanları ve üretim mekanlarını ele
almayı amaçlamaktadır. On beşinci ve on yedinci yüzyıllar arasında Eyüp’ün kentsel ve
mimari gelişimi ele alınmış, kamusal alanlar, buralarda gerçekleşen aktiviteler ve
devletin günlük hayatı düzenlemedeki rolü üzerinde durulmuştur.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my advisor, Çiğdem
Kafescioğlu, for her endless guidance, support, and patience. Without her insightful
comments and corrective suggestions, this thesis would not have been possible. Beyond
that, I should also thank her for initiating my interest in architectural and urban history
with her seminal book titled Constantinopolis / Istanbul, which I had read long before I
came to Boğaziçi University as a graduate student. I will always feel myself very lucky
to have such a great academic mentor, whose works have been a source of inspiration
for me.
I am grateful to Oya Pancaroğlu and Shirine Hamadeh for accepting to be a
committee member and giving useful criticism and advice that improved this thesis
substantially. Moreover, I would like to specially thank Oya Pancaroğlu again for her
intellectually stimulating art history seminars and kind support in every aspect of my
academic life.
Last but not least, from the bottom of my heart, I wish to express my thanks to
my friends, companions, and family. No words can describe how grateful I am for
unconditional love, encouragement, and patience that my parents Hayriye and Rasim
Gedikli have given me. A heartfelt thanks goes to my sister Sibel Gedikli for her
extraordinary support whenever I need. I would also like to thank Birsen Goralı and
Evren Goralı for being my ‘second’ caring and loving family. Above all, I owe my
deepest gratitude to my beloved husband Gökhan Goralı who has always been there for
me. Without him, I would have never dared to switch my ‘safe’ career path and embark
on this 'unconventional' journey.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of the study ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Sources ............................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2: THE FOUNDATION OF EYÜP IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY ........ 8
2.1 Geographic and topographic features of Eyüp ................................................ 8
2.2 Pre-Ottoman period of Eyüp ......................................................................... 10
2.3 Discovery of the burial site of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and its significance ... 18
2.4 Construction of the funerary mosque complex dedicated to Abu Ayyub al-
Ansari ................................................................................................................... 28
2.5 The initial growth process of Eyüp ............................................................... 38
CHAPTER 3: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE URBAN LANDSCAPE OF EYÜP IN
THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES ............................................. 44
3.1 Historical overview of the urban growth in Eyüp ......................................... 46
3.2 The surrounding area of the Abu Ayyub al-Ansari Shrine Complex ............ 56
3.3 The route between the Abu Ayyub al-Ansari Shrine Complex and
Edirnekapı ............................................................................................................ 61
3.4 Eyüp’s shoreline: yalıs .................................................................................. 73
3.5 Sufi networks in Eyüp: dervish lodges .......................................................... 77
3.6 Visual representations of Eyüp in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
sources .................................................................................................................. 84
CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC SPACES AND URBAN EXPERIENCES IN EYÜP ................ 91
viii
4.1 Ottoman use and perception of public spaces ............................................... 94
4.2 Public spaces in Eyüp: entanglements of sacred, recreational, and
agricultural sites ................................................................................................. 100
4.3 State control over public life in Eyüp ......................................................... 112
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 121
APPENDIX A: DETAILED INFORMATION ON SELECTED BUILDINGS ........... 124
APPENDIX B: MAPS, PHOTOS AND DRAWINGS .................................................. 152
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 201
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The location of Eyüp on a map showing Istanbul and environs, ca. 1900 .... 152
Figure 2. The topographic map of Eyüp ....................................................................... 153
Figure 3. Map of Constantinople in Cristoforo Buondelmonti’s Liber Insularum
Archipelagi, ink drawing, ca. 1481 .................................................................... 154
Figure 4. Locations of the fifteenth-century mosques and masjids .............................. 155
Figure 5. The fifteenth-century Eyüp neighborhoods developed around the mosques and
masjids ................................................................................................................ 156
Figure 6. Locations of the fifteenth-century dervish lodges ......................................... 157
Figure 7. Locations of the early sixteenth-century mosques and masjids ..................... 158
Figure 8. Locations of the sixteenth-century mosques and masjids built by the architect
Sinan ................................................................................................................... 159
Figure 9. Isometric projection of Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex
(drawn by Arben N. Arapi) ................................................................................ 160
Figure 10. Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex ................................ 161
Figure 11. General view of Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex seen
in the left middleground (photo by Reha Günay) .............................................. 161
Figure 12. Defterdar Masjid .......................................................................................... 162
Figure 13. Şah Sultan Mosque ...................................................................................... 162
Figure 14. Locations of other mosques and masjids built after the 1530s .................... 163
Figure 15. Locations of the sixteenth-century dervish lodges ...................................... 164
Figure 16. Cafer Pasha Tomb’s standing walls and his madrasa and convent complex
seen in the background ....................................................................................... 165
x
Figure 17. Cafer Pasha Madrasa ................................................................................... 165
Figure 18. Location of Surp Yeghia Apostolic Armenian Church ............................... 166
Figure 19. Surp Yeghia Church’s entrance from the street, courtyard, eastern façade and
bell tower ............................................................................................................ 166
Figure 20. Locations of the seventeenth-century mosques and masjids ....................... 167
Figure 21. Locations of the seventeenth-century dervish lodges .................................. 168
Figure 22. Location of Surp Asdvadzadzin Apostolic Armenian Church .................... 169
Figure 23. Surp Asdvadzadzin Church’s interior as seen from the west, apse and altar
table, and interior as seen from the east ............................................................. 169
Figure 24. Major cemeteries of Istanbul indicated on Hellert’s 1836 map of the city . 170
Figure 25. Tombs of grandees and complexes .............................................................. 171
Figure 26. The tomb of Siyavuş Pasha .......................................................................... 172
Figure 27. The tomb of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha ........................................................... 173
Figure 28. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and İsmihan Sultan Quran School ........................ 174
Figure 29. The tomb complex of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and İsmihan Sultan containing
a madrasa and a Quran school ............................................................................ 174
Figure 30. Ebussuud Efendi Tomb and Primary School Complex ............................... 175
Figure 31. Plak (Bulak) Mustafa Pasha Tomb and Abu Ayyub Mosque ...................... 175
Figure 32. Mirmiran Mehmed Agha Tomb ................................................................... 176
Figure 33. Feridun Ahmed Pasha Tomb ....................................................................... 176
Figure 34. A view of graveyards on a road towards Abu Ayyub Mosque, 1992 (photo
by Nuray Özaslan) .............................................................................................. 177
Figure 35. A view of the Golden Horn from the Eyüp Cemetery, 19th century (drawn by
William H. Bartlett) ........................................................................................... 177
xi
Figure 36. A view of the Golden Horn from the Eyüp Cemetery (photo by Engin
Özendeş) ............................................................................................................. 178
Figure 37. Estimated locations of piers (iskeles) in Eyüp ............................................. 179
Figure 38. Nakkaş Hasan Pasha Tomb and Abu Ayyub Mosque Complex, a view
looking from roof of Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque, 1933 (photo by Ali Saim
Ülgen) ................................................................................................................. 180
Figure 39. Overturned and dismantled graves in graveyard between Kızıl Masjid and
Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque, 1950s (photo by Ali Saim Ülgen) ....................... 180
Figure 40. Wooden houses in Eyüp, 1989 (photo by Marc Eginard) ........................... 181
Figure 41. A vegetable garden (bostan) in Eyüp, behind the Şah Sultan and Zal
Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex, wooden houses seen in the background, 1992
(photo by Nuray Özaslan) .................................................................................. 181
Figure 42. Dervish lodges built in Eyüp between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries
............................................................................................................................ 182
Figure 43. Şeyhülislam Dervish Lodge ......................................................................... 183
Figure 44. The courtyard of the Şeyhülislam Dervish Lodge ....................................... 183
Figure 45. Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge (drawing by Nezih) ............................ 184
Figure 46. Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge, wooden northern façade .................. 185
Figure 47. Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge, rubble masonry facades ................... 186
Figure 48. The interior of Savaklar (Cemalizade) Dervish Lodge, the mihrab wall and
the tomb of Sheikh Cemaleddin (drawing by Nezih) ......................................... 187
Figure 49. Karyağdı Dervish Lodge .............................................................................. 188
Figure 50. Ümmi Sinan Dervish Lodge ........................................................................ 188
xii
Figure 51. The ritual space (tevhidhane) of Ümmi Sinan Dervish Lodge, the windows at
two sides of the mihrab opening to the tomb of the sheikh ............................... 189
Figure 52. The Istanbul map, 1537-38, Matrakçı Nasuh, Mecmu’-i Menazil ............... 190
Figure 53. The detail of Eyüp from the panorama of Istanbul, Melchior Lorichs, 1559
............................................................................................................................ 191
Figure 54. The map of Kırkçeşme waterways, 1579, Süleymanname .......................... 192
Figure 55. View of Istanbul, 1584-85, Lokman Bin Seyyid Hüseyin, Hünername ...... 193
Figure 56. “Nuruosmaniye-2990”; Istanbul map, Kitab-ı Bahriye (short version, copied
1645 by Ahmed bin Mustafa) ............................................................................ 194
Figure 57. “London-4131”; Istanbul map, ca. 1620, Kitab-ı Bahriye (short version) .. 195
Figure 58. “University-123”; Istanbul map, ca. 1600, Kitab-ı Bahriye (short version) 196
Figure 59. “Paris-956”; Istanbul map, ca. 1650, Kitab-ı Bahriye (long version) ......... 197
Figure 60. “Topkapı-1633”; Istanbul map, ca. 1680s, Kitab-ı Bahriye (long version) . 198
Figure 61. Map of Constantinople, produced by the Hydrographic Service of the Navy
of France, late 17th century ................................................................................ 199
Figure 62. Detail of Eyüp from the map of Constantinople given above ..................... 200
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the study
The initial motivation for conducting this study has come from a graduate seminar on
comparative urban history offered by Çiğdem Kafescioğlu in my first semester at
Boğaziçi University in fall 2016. We had an extensive reading list covering both primary
and secondary sources, and during our weekly meetings, we were focusing on different
aspects of urban life in early modern Istanbul, Isfahan, and Delhi such as urban layouts
and spatial configurations, palace architecture and ceremonial, saints, shrines and their
narratives, residential fabrics, and public spaces. Many questions and concepts that I
attempt to delve into in this study are actually based on these fruitful discussions.
Moreover, the research paper that I wrote as an assignment for this seminar and the
valuable feedback that Çiğdem Kafescioğlu gave me afterwards also immensely helped
me to discover my main interests and specify my thesis topic.
The research paper was about public gardens in the Ottoman Istanbul, more
specifically recreational sites and pleasure spots outside the city walls between the
fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.1 In this context, the borough of Eyüp was also one
of my focal points, but actually, in the beginning, I did not expect finding a significant
connection between the ‘entertainment’ life of Istanbulites and this renowned ‘sacred’
1 The public use of gardens in the Ottoman context has been generally seen as a new development that was
initiated by the royal household during the so-called ‘Tulip period’ under the rule of Ahmed III (r. 1703-
1730). In this regard, the eighteenth century has been discussed as a kind of turning point towards a new
way of socialization in urban life as a result of the construction of Sadabad Palace at Kağıthane and the
transformation of the shores of Golden Horn into a promenade area. This prevalent narrative made me
curious about the situation prior to the eighteenth century; therefore, I decided to focus on the period
particularly between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.
2
town. After I started examining various sources from literary narratives to court records,
I slowly realized that my prejudgment was wrong and that Eyüp was not only a primary
place for pilgrimage but also a favored excursion destination. In addition, quite
differently from our perception today, the ‘religious’ and ‘profane’ spaces or activities
were not necessarily divided from each other in daily life. A reflection of this fluidity
can also be seen in architectural development of the town. For instance, many luxurious
mansions in which the elites and the members of royal household spent ostentatious
lives were just beside the holy shrine of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari or other religiously
important places such as mosques, Sufi lodges, and tombs. This made me think of that it
would not be possible to understand ‘religious’ landscape of Eyüp independently of its
‘secular’ landscape. Moreover, although it has been widely known as the first ‘Islamic’
settlement of Istanbul after the Ottoman conquest, neither its dwellers nor its visitors
were actually limited with Muslims. Non-Muslim communities, mostly Christians, also
lived in the town and became active participants of social, cultural, and economic life
and of leisure activities. These little ‘explorations’ aroused my curiosity about Eyüp’s
urban history more and more and led me raise many questions which would finally
compose the basis of this thesis.
As I have been interested in both physical and social fabric of the town, the
purpose of the present study is twofold. Firstly, I aim to examine the foundation process
of Eyüp following the construction of the funerary mosque complex of Abu Ayyub al-
Ansari and its transformation period into one of the largest extra muros settlements of
Istanbul in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In this context, the emergence of the
legend of the Muslim warrior saint Abu Ayyub and its role in shaping the urban fabric,
the religio-political motivations of the Ottoman sultans for promoting the Islamic
3
identity of the town, the patterns of the elite architectural patronage, topographical
boundaries that may have had an impact on the urban development, and spatial
relationships between different kinds of buildings and open spaces are among the main
concerns of this thesis. Secondly, I attempt to investigate Eyüp’s wide range of public
spaces from eateries to dervish lodges and the dynamics of social and cultural life that
developed in this lively environment. The urban experiences of diverse groups of people
including men, women, Muslims, non-Muslims, locals, and migrants, the leisure and
pleasure activities that were taken place in Eyüp, and the state’s role in regulating social
life and public order are some of the significant issues that I aim to elaborate on further.
1.2 Sources
Considering the secondary literature on Eyüp, it would not be wrong to say that
most of the publications are monographs, which either represent general historical and
architectural surveys or focus on more specific topics such as a particular monument
(e.g. the shrine complex of Abu Ayyub), a site (e.g. Piyer Loti Hill), and a type of
structures (e.g. tombs) in Eyüp.2 In some of these works, only Eyüp’s religious character
and its importance for Muslims are dominantly emphasized, and other aspects of the
town are usually neglected. Moreover, the content of several of them are quite similar,
and it is difficult to find new information and original interpretations. On the other hand,
this does not mean that they are totally useless. For instance, Mehmet Nermi Haskan’s
two-volume monograph called Eyüp Tarihi, which is an arduous survey of the
architectural works in Eyüp, has been a kind of reference book for this research. Even
2 As examples of these monographs, see Öğüt, Eyyub Sultan; Alpak, Eyüp Sultan ve türbesi; Bilgin, Eyüp
Sultan ve civarını tanıyalım; Koman, Eyüp Sultan Loti Kahvesi ve çevresi; Nidayi, Medeniyetimizin sessiz
tanıkları; Demiriz, Eyüp’de türbeler; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi.
4
though he is not a specialist in the fields of history or art history and his descriptions are
solely based on physical characteristics rather than providing a broader social and
cultural context, his study is still very beneficial especially as a starting point. In
addition to the library research, Haskan investigated every street of Eyüp and tried to
identify every historical building that he could find any trace.3
In the beginning of the 1990s, History Foundation (Tarih Vakfı) and the Ministry
of Culture and Tourism of Republic of Turkey developed a collaborative project with the
aim of introducing and publishing sources that would contribute to shed light on the
history of Eyüp. Within the framework of this project, a symposium was organized on
11-12 December 1993 with the participation of very valuable historians, and some
proceedings of this meeting were published in a book entitled Eyüp: Dün / Bugün edited
by Tülay Artan. It is a small book that includes only nine articles together with the
introduction.4 However, I think it is one of the most important and pathbreaking sources
on Eyüp’s urban history because the articles cover a wide range of topics from non-
Muslim population in Eyüp to the seaside mansions on the Golden Horn and each of
them brings a new perspective into the subject.
In 2008, History Foundation (Tarih Vakfı) published another book on Eyüp.5 It is
composed of the studies in which court registers were utilized to offer a better insight on
different aspects of social life in Eyüp town such as villagers, migrants, life styles and
consumption habits, and money and credit issues. Although the book is focusing on the
3 Parlar, “Haskan, Mehmet Nermi.”
4 The selected articles are as follows: 1) Halil İnalcık, “Eyüp projesi” 2) Halil Berktay, “Azizler, cismani
kalıntılar, haclar, yatırlar: tektanrıcılık içinde özümsenmiş paganizm” 3) Cemal Kafadar, “Eyüp'te kılıç
kuşanma törenleri” 4) Jean-Lois Bacque-Grammont, “Eyüp mezarlıklarının incelenmesi üzerine
düşünceler” 5) Tülay Artan, “Eyüp'ün bir diğer çehresi: sayfiye ve sahilsaraylar” 6) Abdülaziz Bayındır,
“Eyüp mahkemesi” 7) Ahmet Hazarfen, “Havas-ı Refi'a (Eyüp) kazasındaki gayrimüslimler”
8) İlber Ortaylı, “Eyüp'te sanayi ve çevre kirlenmesi” 9) Aptullah Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi”
5 The book titled 18. yüzyıl kadı sicilleri ışında Eyüp’te sosyal yaşam is edited by Tülay Artan.
5
eighteenth century that is out of scope of this study, for me, it is quite a helpful source
especially for seeing how I can use court registers and what kind of information I can get
them.
Eyüpsultan Municipality has held a series of symposiums on history, art, and
culture of Eyüp starting from 1997, and the proceedings between 1997 and 2004 were
published in eight volumes.6 It can be found a wide array of topics pertaining to Eyüp in
this extensive collection. In addition to many studies on various architectural works from
well known mosques to unknown tombs or fountains, the pre-Ottoman history of the site
of Eyüp, the waqf documents of the complex of Abu Ayyub, the craftsmen such as
potters and toy makers, the agricultural production, and the flower markets are just a few
examples to illustrate the variety of subjects that are examined. As you may see
throughout this thesis, I have extensively used articles from these books to expand and
support my discussions.
Overall, the available secondary sources provide a good amount of information
on Eyüp's urban history, including its architectural development, public spaces, and
social and cultural life. On the other hand, it is not an easy task to collect and
contextualize this scattered information. As the sources mainly consist of the
proceedings of the symposiums that touch upon a limited aspect of a certain issue, to
have a broader sense about Eyüp’s urban life in the early modern period is a little bit
challenging.
6 The proceedings were collected under the title Eyüpsultan Sempozyumu: tebliğler. Eyüpsultan
Municipality has intermittently continued to organize this symposium with a little bit different name and
concept. As far as I could find on the Internet, the last symposium was the thirteenth and was held in 2016.
For more information, see http://www.eyupsultansempozyumu.com/
6
I have also benefitted from a broad array of primary sources, both textual and
visual. The textual sources can be basically classified into two groups as literary
narratives and archival documents. Travelogues, diaries, biographical dictionaries
(tezkire), a city description (evsaf), treatises on architecture, a book of adventure
(sergüzeştname), and unofficial and official histories provided me a good amount of
information that constitute the main body of this research. Among the authors of these
sources, I should underline particularly two names, the seventeenth-century Ottoman
travellers Evliya Çelebi and Eremya Çelebi. Their narratives cover not only geographic,
topographic, spatial, and architectural characteristics of urban environment but also
many details regarding social, cultural, and commercial life and social practices and
daily habits of people; therefore, they became very useful sources for this study in which
I attempted to analyze both physical and social aspects of Eyüp. Moreover, in most of
travel accounts about Ottoman Istanbul, particularly the ones who produced by
foreigners, Eyüp as a settlement outside of the city walls was ignored or was briefly
mentioned within the context of the shrine of Abu Ayyub. In this respect, the works of
Evliya Çelebi and Eremya Çelebi are invaluable since they offer an immense amount of
information regarding Eyüp, its environs, and the Golden Horn. On the other hand, all of
these literary sources should be examined with a critical eye in a comparative
perspective, as it is impossible to be sure to what extent they represent reality.7
In addition to these literary sources, I used various archival documents such as
endowment deeds (vakfiyes), court registers (kadı sicilleri), records containing sultan’s
7 By saying that, I do not mean that authors’ imagination and their ways/ preferences to narrate their urban
environment are not important.
7
orders (mühimme defterleri), and records of chief gardeners (bostancıbaşı defterleri). On
the other hand, as a crucial note, these are limited with only published sources.
Besides textual sources, I have also benefitted from visual city depictions produced in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The panoramic drawing of Istanbul by Melchior
Lorichs dated 1559 and the pictorial depictions of the city that are found in various
Ottoman manuscripts such as Beyan-ı Menazil-i Sefer-i Irakeyn-i Sultan Süleyman Han
(1530s), Süleymanname (1579), Hünername (1584), and seventeenth-century copies of
Kitab-ı Bahriye contributed to this study to develop a broader perspective regarding the
urban fabric and spatial setting of Eyüp.
The methodology of this thesis is in conformity with the typical historical
method of textual and visual analysis of primary sources with contextualization by
secondary sources. Moreover, since I have also investigated the spatial formation and
architectural development of the town of Eyüp, the surviving architectural works and
spatial setting are also taken into consideration.
8
CHAPTER 2
THE FOUNDATION OF EYÜP IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
2.1 Geographic and topographic features of Eyüp
To have a better understanding of urban fabric and built environment of Eyüp, first of
all, it is essential to examine its location considering its geographic, topographic, and
environmental characteristics. Eyüp is situated at the far end of the Golden Horn, outside
of the city walls (see Appendix B, Figure 1). It is surrounded by the Golden Horn in the
north and east, the hills in the north and west, and the land walls in the south, it is thus a
safe and pleasant bay (see Appendix B, Figure 2). These physical boundaries including
waters, hills, and walls were effective on shaping the urban patterns of Eyüp; therefore,
particularly the center of the town was developed along the shoreline of the Golden
Horn in the early modern period.8
The Golden Horn has been known as one of “the three seas” of Constantinople
alongside with the Marmara Sea and the Bosphorus.9 It is an inlet about seven and half
kilometers long on the west side of the Bosphorus, and its width changes between 200
meters around Eyüp at the north and 700 meters around Kasımpaşa at the south.10 It is
deep enough to allow big ships to enter; however, since it has V-shape at the bottom, its
depth may vary.11 Two small rivers named Cydarus (Alibeyköy) and Barbyses
(Kağıthane) flow into the northern end of the Golden Horn. The Byzantine historian
Procopius (ca. 500-ca. 560), whose works are immensely valuable sources for not only
8 Özaslan, “Historic urban fabric,” 231.
9 Arseven, Eski Istanbul, 25.
10 Eyice, Tarih boyunca Istanbul, 233.
11 Eyice, Tarih boyunca Istanbul, 233.
9
political and military events of his time but also geographical information, describes the
Golden Horn as the third strait of Constantinople. According to him, “this bay is always
calm, being fashioned by nature that is never roiled, just as if limits were set there for
turbulent waters and all billows were excluded from that area so as to do honor to the
city.”12 Similarly, in his extensive travel account, Ruy González de Clavijo (d. 1412),
who was the ambassador of King Henri III of Castile (r. 1390-1406) to the court of
Timur (1336-1405) at Samarkand, indicates that the Golden Horn is the most beautiful
port of the world as well as the most protected from both winds and enemies.13
As a result of its location, Eyüp was the last stopping point rather than a way
station that was passed through. Considering that Eyüp was the most respected and
visited pilgrimage site of the Ottoman capital, its position in the city was also important
for ceremonial aspect. Furthermore, it was like an enclosed and complete settlement in
itself, however, linked to the other parts of the city by main roads and sea routes. The
waterways were particularly important for the transportation as we learn from various
accounts from different periods. For instance, Procopius portrays that flatboats were
used to carry people to this area in the sixth century.14 About a thousand years later, the
sixteenth-century endowment document of the complex of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari also
shows that the rents of boathouses on the coastline of the Golden Horn constituted one
of the main sources of income for the waqf.15 According to the chief gardener
(bostancıbaşı) records of 1815, there were seven piers and ten boathouses between
12 Procopius, Buildings, 61.
13 Clavijo, Narrative of the embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, 47.
14 Procopius, Buildings, 63.
15 Yerasimos, “16. yy’da Eyyüb Vakfı muhasebelerinde Eyüp kasabası,” 146.
10
Ayvansaray and Bahariye Kasr-ı Humayun, a distance of approximately three
kilometers.16
The lands of Eyüp were very fertile for agricultural production and horticultural
activities. Various vegetables and fruits were cultivated to contribute to supplying fresh
food to the city. Numerous market gardens (bostans) thus became the part of urban
fabric of Eyüp, and they created great open and green spaces between the buildings and
provided nice view, fresh air, and good light to the inhabitants of the town. Moreover,
there were many farms for animal husbandry, particularly for dairy products.
Thanks to its lush greenery, mild climate, and nice weather, Eyüp became a
much frequented excursion spot of Istanbulites in the early modern period. In addition to
being the main pilgrimage site of the city, the function of Eyüp as a recreational area is
also crucial to comprehend its multifaceted roles in the urban life. For instance, the
sixteenth-century Ottoman poet Latifi, who wrote a book on the urban fabric and social
life of Istanbul around 1525, describes the beautiful natural landscape of Eyüp and how
popular it was among the denizens as a pleasure spot in the city.17
2.2 Pre-Ottoman period of Eyüp
Located at a very well protected harbor in a natural way, the site of Eyüp has many
geographical and topographical advantages with its favorable living conditions including
mild climate, fruitful lands, and access to sea and streams. It is therefore estimated that
one of the earliest settlements of Istanbul may have been situated in the vicinity of Eyüp,
most probably in the northwestern part of the Golden Horn on a hilly area known as
16 Özaslan, “Historic urban fabric,” 232.
17 Lâtifî, Evsâf-ı Istanbul, 65.
11
Silivri Tepesi between two small rivers of Cydarus (Alibeyköy) and Barbyses
(Kağıthane).18
Some stories from the Greek mythology regarding the origins of Constantinople
and the foundation of Byzantium also refer to the similar area. According to the sixthcentury
Byzantine chronicler and biographer Hesychius of Miletus, one of the most
plausible versions of these legends is that Io, who was the daughter of the Argive king
Inachus and had to escape from the wrath of Zeus’ wife Hera,19 gave birth to Ceroessa
near an altar of Semestre, a local water nymph, at the far end of the Golden Horn.20 The
inlet was named after Ceroessa as the Ceras (keras in Greek meaning ‘horn’).21 It was
believed that Byzas, the son of Ceroessa and Poseidon and the founder of the city, was
born at the confluence of Cydarus (Alibeyköy) and Barbyses (Kağıthane) streams where
their sweet waters mixed with the sea; therefore, it would not be wrong to assume that
this location was quite sacred in the Byzantine’s eyes.22 It seems that these mythical
stories were closely related to the geography of the area. The shape of the inlet which
rounds like a horn or the metaphorical connection between the waters as source of life
and the born of Byzas can be interpreted as clear indications of this understanding.
There are not sufficient archeological findings from ancient Byzantium that
would allow us to develop further interpretations. However, several sculptures dated
18 Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan semtinde tarih ve sanat tarihi,” 13.
19 The legend told by Hesychius of Miletus says that Zeus fell in love with Io and sent to his son Hermes
to kill her guardian Argus and then raped her. Io was transformed into a cow, and the wife of Zeus, Hera,
who was very jealous of Io sent a gadfly to suffer Io. As a result, Io was driven place to place and arrived
in Thrace. She passed across the strait and returned to the Golden Horn. In addition to the Golden Horn,
the origin of the name of ‘Bosphorus’, which in Greek signifies ‘the passage of the cow’, was also
believed to come from Io. In addition to Hesychius of Miletus, similar stories can also be found in the
works of Dionysius of Byzantium, who was a Greek geographer of the second century, and Procopius,
who was a Byzantine historian of the sixth century.
20 Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus, 43-44.
21 Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus, 44; Procopius, Buildings, 57.
22 Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus, 44-45.
12
circa AD 300 including the depictions of the goddesses Nike and Artemis and the war of
the giants (gigantomachia) were discovered during the excavation initiated as a result of
a construction close to the Silahtarağa electrical power station at the northwestern end of
the Golden Horn in 1949.23 Moreover, the remains of water pipes were also unearthed,
suggesting that there may have been a nymphaeum, namely a monument with a fountain
built for consecrating a water nymph.24 Except these archaeological discoveries
indicating an ancient pagan sacred center close to Eyüp, no evidence of earlier
settlements has been found yet in this area. For that reason, it would be useful to
examine literary sources in order to illuminate the historical topography and the
transformation of the site.
During the Byzantine period, the area was known as Cosmidion. Christian Saints
Cosmas and Damian were believed to have extraordinary healing power and to cure
desperately sick people without asking for anything, and a monastery dedicated to them
was built on where today Eyüp is located. Because of that Ss. Cosmas and Damian, who
were twin brothers, refused to monetary payment for their service, they were called
Anargyroi, which literally means “without silver” in Greek. In Procopius’ book focusing
on the architectural works built by Justinian (r. 527-565), he states:
At the far end of the bay, on the ground which rises steeply in a sharp slope,
stands a sanctuary dedicated to Saints Cosmas and Damian. When the Emperor
himself once lay seriously ill, giving the appearance of being actually dead (in
fact he had been given up by the physicians as being already numbered among
dead), these Saints came to him here in a vision, and saved him unexpectedly and
contrary to human reason and raised him up. In gratitude he gave them such
requital as a mortal may, by changing entirely and remodeling the earlier
building, which was unsightly and ignoble and not worthy to be dedicated to
23 Russell, Byzantium and the Bosporus, 45; Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan semtinde tarih ve sanat tarihi,” 14;
Başak, “Silahtarağa kazısı/ The Silahdarağa excavations,” 51-55.
24 Karagöz, “Silahtarağa sculptures,” 65.
13
such powerful Saints, and he beautified and enlarged the church and flooded it
with brilliant light and added many other things which it had not before.25
It is clear that the town was called Cosmidion after this sacred building, furthermore,
became a kind of healing center of the Byzantine Constantinople. Procopius states that
anyone who was assailed by illness that could not be cured by physicians got into
flatboats and travelled up the bay to this holy place as a last hope.26 The Byzantine
philosopher, theologian and statesman Michael Psellus (1018-1078) indicates that St.
Cosmas and his brother St. Damian, who had been physicians and made no charge for
their medical services, were put to death in the Diocletian persecution at the beginning
of the fourth century. Justinian built the church in Constantinople in their honor.27
According to Cyril Mango who is one of the most distinguished scholars in the field of
Byzantine history, at Eyüp (Cosmidion), the famous shrine of Ss. Cosmas and Damian
existed well before Justinian’s reign, and quite possibly there was also an imperial
palace, where Justinian had laid seriously ill and the saints appeared to him in a dream
and healed him.28 Alexander van Millingen (1840-1915), who was a professor of history
and Byzantine architecture at Robert College between 1879 and 1915, claims that the
celebrated church and monastery of Ss. Cosmas and Damian on the hill at the head of
Golden Horn commanding the most beautiful view of the harbor was built by Paulinus,
the friend of Theodosius II (r. 408-450).29 However, Mango points out a Syrian woman,
Paulina, as a founder and asserts that the shrine was built in the fifth century, no later
than 480, and became popular in the sixth century.30 Both male and female pilgrims
25 Procopius, Buildings, 63.
26 Procopius, Buildings, 63.
27 Psellus, The Chronographia, 297.
28 Mango, “The Fourteenth region of Constantinople,” 4.
29 Van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople, 170; Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan semtinde tarih ve sanat tarihi,” 15.
30 Özaslan, “From the shrine of Cosmidion to the shrine of Eyüp Ensari,” 384-85. In her article, Özaslan
14
were allowed access to healing tombs. In the shrine of Ss. Cosmas and Damian, the
pilgrims brought their own bedding and stayed under shaded porticoes; although
sometimes curtains were used to divide private spaces, men and women often were
laying right next to each other.31 This demonstrates that the site of Eyüp has been a
significant pilgrimage center since at least the sixth century; and although
Constantinople was transformed from the Christian capital to the Muslim one, a kind of
continuation between the urban patterns can be identified.
An anonymous chronicle from the early seventh century known as Chronicon
Paschale or Easter Chronicle, which explains the major events of world history, speaks
of the attacks of Avars and Slavs to Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius II (r.
610-641). According to this account, Avars harshly plundered the suburbs outside of the
city walls and entered the church of Ss. Cosmas and Damian; and then, Slavs burnt both
the church of healer saints and the church of St. Nicholas at Blachernae and all
surrounding areas.32 The church of Ss. Cosmas and Damian was rebuilt after these
damages; moreover, the walls were constructed around it in order to prevent further
attacks. In the beginning of the eleventh century, Psellus recounts how the church was
enlarged and beautified by the emperor Michael IV (r. 1034-1041) who was seriously
suffering from hydropsy (today known as oedema). The whole body of Michael IV was
swollen because of his illness and nobody was able to cure him; therefore, the healing
site in honor of the Anargyroi was the last hope for the emperor. Psellus says:
also argues that the cult center of Ss. Cosmas and Damian, who had lived and were martyred at the end of
the third century, was in Syria; and the cult was spread by Syrian immigrants to other parts of the Empire
such as Cilicia, Antioch, Constantinople, Thessaloniki, and Ravenna.
31 Talbot, “Women’s space in Byzantine monasteries,” 116.
32 Chronicon Paschale 284-628, 165, 180.
15
There had been a sacred building on the spot before, although it was not noted
for any magnificence, nor it was remarkable for architectural style. This erection
he now beautified, built additions, on to it, and surrounded it with walls. The new
chapels enhanced its glory. When all the work was done, he dedicated this church
as a monastery. So far as the building of sacred churches, was concerned Michael
suppressed all his predecessors, both in workmanship and in magnificence. The
depths and heights of this edifice were given a new symmetry, and his chapels
harmonized with the church to bestow on it an infinite beauty. The most
wonderful stones were used in the floors and walls, and the whole church became
resplendent with gold mosaic and the painter’s art. Images that seemed almost to
live, set in every possible part, filled the sacred building with glory. Besides all
this, there were near this church, and practically incorporated into its precincts,
lovely baths, numerous fountains, beautiful lawns, and whatever else can delight
or attract the eye.33
Today unfortunately we do not have any remains from neither baths nor fountains
described by Psellus; however, there are some literary works that mention the building
of church covered by the walls and the pleasurable environment of the area. For
instance, Bohemond I (ca. 1054-1109), who was one of the commanders of the First
Crusade (1095-1099), encamped with his army at the monastery of Ss. Cosmas and
Damian; the building thus started to be known as the castle of Bohemond.34 An account
written by the chronicler and one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204),
Geoffrey of Villehardouin, demonstrates that after about two hundred years, this name
was still being used. Villehardouin explains that the crusaders came to the end of the
harbor where a river flows into the sea, then they passed over the bridge and set up a
camp “between the palace of Blachernae and the castle of Bohemond, which was, in
fact, an abbey enclosed behind high walls.”35 Another crusader Odo de Deuil (1110-
1162), who was a monk and took part in the Second Crusade (1147-1149), vividly
describes the beautiful view of the harbor and the city from the top of the hill. He says,
33 Psellus, The Chronographia, 71-72.
34 Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan semtinde tarih ve sanat tarihi,” 14-15; Özaslan, “From the shrine of Cosmidion to
the shrine of Eyüp Ensari,” 387.
35 Villehardouin and Joinville, Chronicles of the crusades, 68.
16
“It gives its inhabitants a threefold pleasure, for it looks over sea, meadow, and city.”36
This depiction provides a useful clue to imagine the location of the monastery of Ss.
Cosmas and Damian; it was most likely located on the hill above Eyüp, which is called
Piyer Loti Hill today and famous for its wonderful scenery.
As is understood from these accounts, since Cosmidion was outside of the land
walls and close to the city at the same time, it was a target of many besiegers of the
Byzantine Constantinople. Hence, it was looted and destroyed many times; moreover, it
was also chosen as an encampment site because of its strategic situation and suitable
environmental and topographical conditions. Furthermore, the literary sources show that
the cult of the healer saints Cosmas and Damian survived for hundreds of years, at least
from the fifth to the fifteenth centuries as far as is known. The church and monastery
dedicated to them were renovated several times and Cosmidion continued to be one of
the well-respected pilgrimage sites of the city. For instance, in the thirteenth century,
after fifty-seven years of Latin occupation, Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1261-1282)
restored the Byzantine capital, and the members of the imperial family highly
contributed to the construction and restoration activities in Constantinople. In this
period, the empress Theodora Palaiologina, the wife of Michael VIII, was the patron of
the monasteries of Lips and Ss. Cosmas and Damian.37 This high-level funding and
support can be interpreted as an indication of the symbolic importance of the site for not
only the urban dwellers but also royal elites.
Thanks to many travel descriptions of Constantinople written by Russian
travellers in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, more specifically between the years
36 Bradford, The great betrayal, 82; Odo de Deuil, De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem, 65.
37 Talbot, “The restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” 257.
17
1349 and 1422,38 it can be possible to follow the traces of Cosmidion until the Ottoman
period. The work known as the “Wanderer of Stephen of Novgorod” dated around 1349
represents quite detailed geographical and topographical information of Constantinople;
and since its author was a pilgrim, it is particularly a useful source to learn more about
the sacred sites of the city.39 Stephen of Novgorod tells that they went farther outside the
city to a field near the sea, where a large monastery in honor of Cosmas and Damian was
located, and there they kissed the heads of the healer saints that were artfully covered in
gold.40 There are also other reports of Russian travelers mentioning the monastic
establishment at Cosmidion and the relics preserved in it; however, it is still unclear
where this building was exactly situated. Stephen’s depiction points out a field near the
sea as the place of the monastery; on the other hand, in many other sources that I
mentioned above, it is indicated as on one of the hills overlooking the Golden Horn.
More archeological researches are needed in order to have more precise topographical
information. In any case, it can be asserted that the area of today’s Eyüp has been
perceived as sacred based on different beliefs by various groups of people since
antiquity.
The latest reference to a structure at the site of the monastery of Ss. Cosmas and
Damian can be found in the narrative of Giovan Maria Angiolello in the fifteenth
century.41 Angiolello was a Vicenzan captive and took different roles at the Ottoman
court between the years 1470 and 1483; thus, he was able to observe the transformation
of Constantinople after the Ottoman conquest and described the city in a very detailed
38 Majeska, Russian travelers to Constantinople, vii.
39 Majeska, Russian travelers to Constantinople, 15.
40 Majeska, Russian travelers to Constantinople, 44.
41 Özaslan, “From the shrine of Cosmidion to the shrine of Eyüp Ensari,” 389.
18
manner in his account.42 He does not indicate the name of the saints or the character of
the building and just mentions that at the site close to the grave of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari,
there was a tower built for besieging Constantinople by the Tatars.43 Stephanos
Yerasimos argues that the Tatars have never attacked to the city and the tower was a
remnant from the monastery of Ss. Cosmas and Damian that was later surrounded with
the walls and transformed into the castle.44 From the fifteenth century onward, the cult
of Cosmas and Damian vanished in Ottoman Istanbul, and a new Islamic legend in
relation to the sacredness of the site has been emerged and rapidly grown.
2.3 Discovery of the burial site of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and its significance
Abu Ayyub Khalid b. Zayd al-Ansari hailing from Najjar branch of the Khazraj tribe
was a close companion of Prophet Muhammad.45 Along with his wife Umm Ayyub, Abu
Ayyub was among the first people who embraced Islam.46 When the Prophet migrated
from Mecca to Medina in 622, he took up residence in Abu Ayyub’s two-storey house in
Lower Medina, also known as Safila; therefore, the epithet “the owner of the house of
the Messenger of God” started to have been used for Abu Ayyub.47 According to a wellknown
narrative, all Muslims in Medina were willing to host the Prophet in their houses.
The Prophet did not want to hurt the feelings of his supporters by choosing a specific
person; instead, he decided to stay where his camel would stop and kneel down. As a
result, the camel knelt down at a place very close to Abu Ayyub’s house, and the
42 Yerasimos, “Giovan Maria Angiolello,” 34-35.
43 Yerasimos, “Giovan Maria Angiolello,” 36.
44 Yerasimos, “Giovan Maria Angiolello,” 41.
45 Lecker, “Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī.”
46 Algül, “Ebû Eyyûb el-Ensârî,” 123-24.
47 Lecker, “Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī.”
19
Prophet stayed there as a guest for seven months, until a mosque and his own house
were constructed.48
Abu Ayyub participated in the Prophet’s expeditions and the battles of early
Islam, and he took significant political and military roles during the reigns of the fourth
caliph Ali (r. 656-661) and his successor, the Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I (r. 661-
680).49 In several literary sources, it is indicated that Abu Ayyub died during an Arab
campaign against the Byzantines with the aim of the conquest of the imperial city
Constantinople in 668 and 669 and his body was buried somewhere close to the land
walls. There is no consensus between the sources about the exact date of his death and
the precise location of his grave.50 Moreover, while some authors claim that the tomb of
Abu Ayyub was protected and venerated by the Byzantines, others do not mention such
sacred historical figure or place in Constantinople.
Ibn Sa’d (d. 845), an Arab scholar and biographer, is the first to tell the story of
Abu Ayyub in his work entitled Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (The Great Book of Strata).51
Ibn Sa’d recounts that Abu Ayyub died during the siege of Constantinople led by
Muawiyah’s son Yazid (d. 683), then Yazid buried him in a place next to the city walls
within the Byzantine lands.52 The earliest source that clearly mentions the tomb of Abu
Ayyub that was visited by the Byzantines as a sacred site of the city is Ibn Qutayba’s (d.
889) Kitab al-Ma‘arif (Book of Knowledge).53 According to that, Yazid aimed to hide
Abu Ayyub's grave from the enemies, therefore, ordered his horsemen to run over the
48 Algül, “Ebû Eyyûb el-Ensârî,” 124; Guillaume, The life of Muhammad, 228.
49 Lecker, “Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī.”
50 For a brief and useful discussion about these questions, see Coşkun, “Osmanlı İstanbul’unda müstesna
bir ziyaretgah,” 548-50.
51 Yerasimos, Konstantiniye ve Ayasofya efsaneleri, 238.
52 Yerasimos, Konstantiniye ve Ayasofya efsaneleri, 239.
53 Yerasimos, Konstantiniye ve Ayasofya efsaneleri, 239.
20
grave in order to flatten the soil. However, the Byzantine emperor noticed the
importance of this grave and said that it would immediately be destroyed after the Arabs
pulled back. In response, Yazid threatened the emperor and indicated that if such a thing
happened, then he would take the revenge from the Christians in his territory. As a
result, a domed tomb was built for Abu Ayyub by the Byzantine emperor, and the site
became a place that was highly respected by Constantinopolitans and especially visited
for rain prayer during the drought. After Ibn Qutayba, many authors from the Arab
world repeated the same story. For instance, Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Harawi (d. 1215), who
was an Iraqi Muslim scholar and traveller and wrote a guide book about the medieval
pilgrimage sites of the Near East, North Africa, Byzantium, and Mediterranean islands,54
says:
Next to its [Constantinople’s] wall is the tomb of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, may
God be pleased with him, Companion of the Messenger of God, may peace be
upon him. His given name is Khalid ibn Zayd. When he was killed, the Muslims
buried him and said to the Byzantines: “This was among the most important
companions of our Prophet. Should his grave be desecrated, not a church bell
will ever ring in the lands of the Arabs.”55
This common motif in the Arab narratives can be interpreted as an effort to represent a
military failure as a spiritual victory,56 in other words, to put an Islamic mark to the
Christian capital with the help of a Muslim saint and warrior. On the other hand,
Yerasimos argues that Christian historians never mentioned Abu Ayyub, and Muslim
historians gave a limited space to Abu Ayyub in their stories and were mostly interested
in Yazid.57 Moreover, according to Theophanes the Confessor (ca. 752- ca. 818) who
54Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Harawi, A lonely wayfarers guide to pilgrimage, xix.
55 Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Harawi, A lonely wayfarers guide to pilgrimage, 144.
56 Coşkun, “Osmanlı İstanbul’unda müstesna bir ziyaretgah,” 550.
57 Yerasimos, Konstantiniye ve Ayasofya efsaneleri, 240. As Yerasimos indicates, Yazid was accused of
killing Imam Husain, therefore, the positive or negative comments of Muslim historians about Yazid were
closely related to their attitude towards the Shiite belief.
21
was the author of the earliest source as far as is known about the Arab siege in the
seventh century, the Arab army barely reached Chalcedon (today’s Kadıköy) in the
Asian side of the Bosphorus and then returned to Syria.58 Considering that the Arab
chroniclers also do not indicate the existence of sea power to cross the Bosphorus and
arrive to the European side of Constantinople, the claim of Theophanes is implicitly
supported.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, many travellers who visited the sacred
places of Constantinople were also silent about Abu Ayyub and his alleged tomb.59 In
this regard, the Muslim traveller Ibn Battuta (1304-ca. 1377), who stayed in the
Byzantine capital for more than a month in 1332, is an intriguing example. He depicts
the Great Church of Hagia Sophia and the monasteries of the city, however, does not
speak of the tomb of Abu Ayyub as a pilgrimage site.60 Similarly, the fifteenth-century
Castilian diplomat and traveller Clavijo illustrates the churches and monasteries in
Constantinople in a detailed manner including their relics, altars, architectural features,
and decoration; but he does not mention the grave of Abu Ayyub as a venerated site by
the Byzantines although he visited the area of Blachernae.61 Another Castilian traveler
and writer Pero Tafur who came to Constantinople in 1437 also does not give any clue
about Abu Ayyub even though he describes the prominent architectural monuments and
the holy sites of the city.62
We do not know which of these earlier narratives were transmitted to what extent
to the Ottomans during and after the siege; however, many Ottoman sources tell the
58 Yerasimos, Konstantiniye ve Ayasofya efsaneleri, 240; Theophanes, The chronicle of Theophanes, 48-
50.
59 Özaslan, “From the shrine of Cosmidion to the shrine of Eyüp Ensari,” 390.
60 Ibn Battuta, Ibn Battuta Seyahatnamesi, 504-8.
61 Clavijo, Narrative of the embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, 30-49.
62 Tafur, Travels and adventures, 139-42.
22
miraculous discovery of the grave of Abu Ayyub, and this discovery is generally
attributed to the Sufi sheikh Akşemseddin (1390-1459), who was the spiritual guide of
Mehmed II (r. 1444-1446, 1451-1481). According to the epic story (menakıb) of
Akşemseddin written by Emir Hüseyin Enîsî in the sixteenth century, Mehmed II asked
for the opinions of prominent members of ulema about the conquest of Constantinople,
and in contrast to several negative comments indicating the impossibility of the victory,
Akşemseddin supported such a military attack.63 Furthermore, after a long siege
continuing for fifty-four days, at a time when the Ottomans started to be desperate,
Akşemseddin boosted the morale of the troops by saying that the conquest would be
achieved very soon and specifying the exact time of the triumph.64 After the Ottomans
captured the city, upon the request of Mehmed II, the sheikh found the location of the
blessed grave of Abu Ayyub in a forest and marked it with his wand.65 Some people did
not believe him, and hid his wand in order to test him on whether he could point out the
same place in night. Akşemseddin confidently determined the grave again, and claimed
that there was the tomb of Abu Ayyub under the earth near a holy spring, which was
constructed by a member of the clergy who converted to Islam after he had seen the
Prophet Muhammad in his dream. Akşemseddin told that the Prophet ordered the
Christian cleric to become a Muslim and to build a tomb for his companion Abu Ayyub
who was buried in the enemy’s lands.66 As the Sufi sheikh asserted, after the soil was
dig up, the tomb and the holy spring were discovered; therefore, under the patronage of
63 Enîsî, Menâkıb-ı Akşemseddin, 47-48.
64 Enîsî, Menâkıb-ı Akşemseddin, 49-50.
65 Enîsî, Menâkıb-ı Akşemseddin, 51.
66 Enîsî, Menâkıb-ı Akşemseddin, 51.
23
Mehmed II, a mausoleum (mezar-ı şerif), a convent (hankah), and a lodge (tekye) were
constructed on this site in the honor of Abu Ayyub.67
In the early sixteenth century, the Ottoman Kurdish historian and bureaucrat İdris
Bidlisi (d. 1520) asserts that there were two different visiting sites that were venerated as
the grave of Abu Ayyub; one was located within the city walls, and other was in the
same neighborhood but approximately two thousand feet outside from the walls.68 After
the conquest, Mehmed II began to investigate the truth about the tomb of Abu Ayyub
that he had heard from the hadiths, the exegesis of Quran (tafsir), and the comments of
religious scholars; furthermore, he wanted help from the eminent Islamic leaders to
solve this mystery.69 Akşemseddin as one of the most significant figures among the
Muslim scholars interpreted certain remarks and signs and designated that Abu Ayyub’s
real grave was situated outside of the walls; consequently, the sultan ordered to have
been built a very nice mausoleum along with a mosque with two minarets, a convent, a
madrasa, and a kitchen.70 Moreover, the revenues of many waqfs, lands, and farms were
allocated to cover the costs of the funerary complex of Abu Ayyub.71 The Austrian
historian Paul Wittek (1891-1978) also argues that two sites, not one, were respected as
the warrior saint’s grave based on the anonymous history of Constantinople written in
1491.72 According to Wittek, the second site was within the enclosure of the Blachernae
Palace where the land walls met the sea; and the Ottoman name of this quarter,
Ayvansaray, was derived from the name of Ayyub Ansari.73 As these narratives show,
67 Enîsî, Menâkıb-ı Akşemseddin, 52.
68 İdris Bidlisi, Heşt-Bihişt, 79.
69 İdris Bidlisi, Heşt-Bihişt, 79.
70 İdris Bidlisi, Heşt-Bihişt, 79.
71 İdris Bidlisi, Heşt-Bihişt, 79-80.
72 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 46-47.
73 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 47.
24
although there are some differences in terms of when, where, and how Abu Ayyub’s
grave was determined, the miraculous discovery attributed to Akşemseddin has
continued to be told.
According to the account of Ottoman poet and bibliographer Latifi (1491-1582),
Akşemseddin found the body of the warrior saint covered with blood during the siege
and informed Mehmed II immediately; later, the sultan ordered a shrine, a mosque, and a
madrasa to be built on the grave of the blessed martyr.74 Another significant Ottoman
intellectual figure from the second half of the sixteenth century, Mustafa Ali of Gallipoli
(1541-1600), recounts that the sacred tomb of Abu Ayyub had been disappeared and
nobody knew its place; therefore, after the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II
wanted Akşemseddin to locate where Abu Ayyub was buried.75 The Sufi sheikh claimed
that the tomb was situated on the shoreline and was still a visiting site; however,
Mehmed II had some doubts and asked for further evidence. Then, Akşemseddin
showed a certain point that was the head of the body of Abu Ayyub; furthermore, he
explained that over the grave, there was a white marble inscribed in Hebrew stating the
name of the saint. After the grave was unearthed and the inscription was read by
someone who knew Hebrew, Mehmed II was entirely convinced. Thus, upon the sultan’s
order, a strong and nicely decorated building with a dome on the grave, a mosque with
two minarets, a beautiful madrasa, and a hammam were erected and the waqf dedicated
to Abu Ayyub was maintained very carefully.76 In his famous Ottoman history titled
Tarih-i Solakzâde, the seventeenth-century chronicler Solakzâde Mehmed Hemdemi
74 Lâtifî, Evsâf-ı Istanbul, 62-63.
75 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Künhü’l-Ahbar, 68.
76 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Künhü’l-Ahbar, 68.
25
Çelebi (ca. 1590-1657) repeats exactly the same story as Mustafa Ali.77 Evliya Çelebi
(1611-1684), who produced an extensive travelogue that provides very valuable
information about Istanbul and other regions of the Ottoman lands in the seventeenth
century regarding various aspects from geographical features to social life, speaks of the
similar narrative with slightly different details. Mehmed II, after having laid siege to
Constantinople, searched for the tomb of Abu Ayyub with his seventy-seven attendant
saints during the whole seven days.78 In the end, Akşemseddin exclaimed the good news
that he had found the blessed grave; then, he entered in a forestland and began to pray.
After a while, he fell asleep; and many people rumored that he slept because of his
shame that he had lied about the grave. Yet, after one hour, Akşemseddin woke up, his
eyes became bloodshot, his face was sweating, and he said to the sultan that Abu
Ayyub’s tomb was located under where he spread out his prayer rug. The ground
thereupon was dug up by three attendants, together with the sheikh and the sultan; and, a
green stone on which was written, “This is the tomb of Abu Ayyub” in Kufic letters, was
found along with his well-preserved body wrapped up in a saffron-colored shroud, with
a brazen signet ring in his right hand.79 According to Evliya Çelebi, all Ottoman soldiers
witnessed this discovery, and they respectfully filled the earth that had been dug up, and
laid the foundation of the new mausoleum of Abu Ayyub.80 A domed monument for the
grave, a mosque, a madrasa, a khan, a hammam, a soup kitchen (imaret), and a bazaar
77 Solakzâde, Solak-zâde Tarihi (Vol. 1), 362-63.
78 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170.
79 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170. Gülru Necipoğlu makes an analogy between the grave of Abu Ayyub
in Constantinople and the relics of St. Mark in Venice. She argues that in a similar manner of how Abu
Ayyub’s brazen signet ring, an ancient emblem of sovereignty, symbolically sanctioned Mehmed II’s rule
in Constantinople, the golden ring on St. Mark’s finger legitimized the power of Doge in Venice. See
Necipoğlu, “Dynastic imprints on the cityscape,” 25.
80 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 171.
26
were built by Mehmed II to commemorate the martyr saint.81 Hafız Hüseyin al-
Ayvansarayi (d. 1786) also mentions the essential role of Akşemseddin for discovering
the location of Abu Ayyub’s grave in his Hadikat-ül Cevami, in which he introduces the
mosques of Istanbul and other civic and religious buildings in the eighteenth century.82
In contrast to the commonality of Ottoman sources produced from the sixteenth
century onwards regarding the miraculous revelation of Abu Ayyub’s burial place,
contemporary chroniclers of the siege of Constantinople do not say a word about this
discovery.83 For instance, one of the most significant historians of Mehmed II, Tursun
Bey (1420-1499), illustrates the shrine and mosque complex of Abu Ayyub as the
earliest constructions of the conquered city; however, he does not explain how the site of
Abu Ayyub’s grave was determined and by whom.84 Similarly, in his famous work
Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, Aşık Paşazade (ca. 1400-1484), also known as Derviş Ahmed or
Aşıki, elucidates how Istanbul was rebuilt after the conquest and turned into a prosper
city; in this context, he also mentions the imperial complex dedicated to Abu Ayyub
including the tomb, mosque, madrasa, and soup kitchen.85 On the other hand, he does
not give a hint about the exploration of Abu Ayyub’s burial place. As German historian
Franz Babinger (1891-1967) argues, it is not also possible to find a word about the
Prophet’s companion Abu Ayyub and his blessed grave in the official letters of Mehmed
II sent to the Muslim world, even his missive to Mecca, regarding the conquest of
81 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 171.
82 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 333.
83 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his time, 113; Kuran, “A spatial study of three Ottoman
capitals,” 126; Özaslan, “From the shrine of Cosmidion to the shrine of Eyüp Ensari,” 391.
84 Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 75. Like Tursun Bey, another important court historian Kritovoulos
(1410-1470) also does not point out either the legend of Abu Ayyub or the miraculous discovery of his
grave. See Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 93-94, 104-5.
85 Aşıkpaşazâde, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 220.
27
Constantinople.86 Because of that, Babinger defines the legend of Abu Ayyub’s tomb
and Akşemseddin’s miracle as “a pious fraud” which was invented for political reasons.
This ‘discovery’ was represented as a symbol of the Islamic roots of the city,
which had been the center of the Orthodox Christianity; thus, the cultural transformation
from Constantinople to ‘Islambol’ was legitimized and this ‘re-explored’ spiritual center
turned into one of the most venerated sites of the new Ottoman capital. Similar to the
conversion of the church of Hagia Sophia into a mosque, the construction of the
memorial tomb complex of Abu Ayyub was a major step for creating the ‘Islamic-
Turkish’ character of the city and establishing physical, social, and religious connections
between the new dwellers and the new urban sphere.87 Another reason for inventing
such a story can also be considered as military, in other words, Mehmed II aimed to
keep up Ottoman soldiers motivated during the long and exhausting siege.88 For
centuries the conquest of Constantinople had been represented as the ultimate objective
of Islam by referring to various hadiths; therefore, innumerable attempts to capture the
city had been occurred.89 In parallel, Mehmed II took the advantage of the legend of
‘discovery’ to strengthen the faith of his armies, hence, inspired them to fight against the
‘infidels’ and achieve the conquest.90 At that point, it should be noted that the tomb of
Abu Ayyub was not a unique example, and such ‘discoveries’ were quite common in the
86 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his time, 113; Ateş, “İstanbul’un fethine dair,” 11-50.
87 As Gülru Necipoğlu argues, there is also a myth claiming that Abu Ayyub was the first Muslim to pray
in the church of Hagia Sophia before he was betrayed and martyred by the Byzantines. According to the
Prophet Muhammad, the church was predestined to become a mosque and whoever prayed in it would go
to paradise. Based on this prophecy, Abu Ayyub made an agreement with the Byzantine emperor to stop
the Arab siege of Constantinople in return for permission to pray in Hagia Sophia. See Necipoğlu, “The
life of an imperial monument,” 200.
88 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 2-3. In relation to that, Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan also tells a well-known
story among the Rum (Greek) community of Istanbul about how Abu Ayyub became the source of faith
and enthusiasm for Ottoman soldiers during the siege. See Kömürcüyan, Istanbul tarihi, 27-30.
89 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and his time, 84.
90 Hammer-Purgstall, Histoire de l'Empire ottoman, 278; Kuran, “A spatial study of three Ottoman
capitals,” 126.
28
Muslim world.91 For instance, at the siege of Baghdad in 1534 under Süleyman I, where
religious animosities might be used to encourage the soldiers, the tomb of the orthodox
(Sunni) doctor Abu Hanifa was ‘discovered’ under the walls of the heretic (Shia) town.92
Prior to the Ottoman period, such memorials were also sought for and identified in a
similar manner by the Seljuks as we can see in the case of Seyyid Battal Ghazi.93 The
grave of the saintly figure Seyyid Battal Ghazi, who is thought to have been attended in
the eighth-century Arab campaigns, was discovered by a revelation to the mother of the
Seljuk ruler Alaeddin Keykubad I (r. 1220-1237) in her dream.94 Then, the mother of the
sultan, Ümmühan Hatun, built a mausoleum for the saint, and the site located at the
south of Eskişehir has become one of the most respected pilgrimage centers of Anatolia.
Although the authenticity of all these 'miraculous discoveries' is quite doubtful, it is
obvious that they were very useful tools to legitimize the new political and religious
power in newly conquered lands.
2.4 Construction of the funerary mosque complex dedicated to Abu Ayyub al-Ansari
One of the earliest Ottoman sources that provides information about the construction of
the funerary complex of Abu Ayyub is the endowment deed of the foundation dated
1457. According to that, the first building near the designated grave was a convent
91 Halil İnalcık discusses the importance of such folk narratives in the medieval and early modern periods.
He indicates that today we as people living in the materialist world describe these stories as 'legends', yet
we should remember that they were the 'realities' of people in the past. In another article, he also remarks,
“every Ottoman city had its own wali or saint whose tomb, usually located on a hilltop outside the city,
combined Islamic mystic tradition with a Pre-Islamic monument cult.” In this context, Halil Berktay
develops a broader comparative perspective and argues that these traditions are not limited with Islam and
can be seen in other religions and belief systems. See İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 3-4; İnalcık, “Istanbul: an
Islamic city,” 4; Berktay, “Azizler, cismani kalıntılar, haclar, yatırlar.”
92 Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the sultans, 716.
93 Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the sultans, 714.
94 Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the sultans, 704-7. For more information on the shrine of Seyyid
Battal Gazi considering its social, religious, political, and architectural contexts, see Yürekli, Architecture
and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire.
29
established by the vizier Sinanüʾd-din Yusuf Pasha. The land for the convent was gifted
by the sultan to the vizier, and the deed was signed by prominent statesmen such as
Mahmud and Ishak Pashas who were the members of the imperial council.95 As these
details imply, thanks to this document, we can understand how much the Ottoman elite
respected the blessed grave and gave importance to the site. Around two years after the
convent, Mehmed II initiated the construction of an imperial complex containing the
monumental mausoleum of Abu Ayyub along with a mosque, madrasa, soup kitchen,
hammam, and dervish rooms.96 Ayvansarayi refers to an inscription at the entrance of
the mosque which indicates the construction date as 863 according to the hegira
calendar; therefore, although the chronology of the buildings is not precisely known, it
can be estimated that the complex was completed in 1458-59.97
This is the first religious building in monumental scale that was newly built in or
near the city under the commission of the Ottoman sultan during the early years after the
conquest of Constantinople.98 As I have discussed regarding the political message of
Abu Ayyub’s legend in the previous part, the establishment of this complex also aimed
to legitimize the decision of Mehmed II to inhabit the city. The imperial claims over the
site was consolidated by the completion of the royal mosque near the blessed grave,
thus, the initial step in the imperialization of the city itself was taken.99 According to
Yerasimos, the discovery of the saint’s grave and the construction of such a monument
were not only linked to the conquest but also to Mehmed’s choice of moving the
95 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 46; Fatih Mehmed II vakfiyeleri, 336-39.
96 Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 75; Aşıkpaşazâde, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 220; Tâcî-zâde Cafer Çelebi,
Heves-nâme, 118-19.
97 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 333. Aptullah Kuran also remarks that in addition to the tomb and the
mosque, a madrasa, a soup kitchen (darül-it’am), and a double bathhouse were erected in 1458. See
Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi,” 129.
98 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 46.
99 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 51.
30
imperial capital from Edirne to Istanbul.100 The ghazis (Muslim frontier warriors), who
had been emphasizing the traditional way of governance, did not support Mehmed II’s
imperial vision of creating a centralized bureaucratic state and his wish to make
Constantinople the seat of the empire.101 In the view of ghazis, “the city was no more
than a target of conquest and expansion,” hence, they were against the idea of rebuilding
and repopulating it.102 In a collection of the ghazi legends compiled around 1470s by
Ebu’l Hayr-i Rumi, who was a member of Prince Cem’s court, it is remarked that the
commanders of Mehmed II advised him to “build a wall around Ayasofya and destroy
the rest [of Constantinople].”103 We do not know to what extent this story reflects the
reality; however, it may still help us to understand the mentality of ghazis. In order to
change this perception seeing the city as the lands of ‘infidels’, the sultan developed the
cult of Abu Ayyub and built a complex dedicated to him, in this way, the memories of a
distant Islamic past of the recently vanquished Christian city were reminded and the
whole area of Istanbul was made a consecrated place for Muslims.104 Along with the
Topkapı Palace at the tip of the peninsula and Mehmed II’s funerary mosque complex
inside the walled city, the tomb complex of Abu Ayyub outside the city walls became
one of the symbolic monuments which determined the urban, architectural, and
ceremonial patterns in the new capital.105
100 Yerasimos, “Osmanlı İstanbul’unun kuruluşu,” 200.
101 For more information on the ghazi traditions and the changes in the polity of Ottoman state in the
fifteenth century, see Kafadar, Between two worlds.
102 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 46-47.
103 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 20, 46; Ebu’l-Hayr-i Rumi, Ṣalṭuḳ-nāme (Vol. 3), 365.
104 İnalcık, “Istanbul: an Islamic city,” 4; Necipoğlu, “Visual cosmopolitanism,” 23. In addition to Abu
Ayyub, the tombs of many Companions of the Prophet who had taken part and fallen in the sieges of
Constantinople under the Umayyads were discovered by the Ottomans, and following the conquest, the
mausoleums for them were erected in Istanbul. Most of the tombs are located around Eyüp. For further
information, see Ünver, İlim ve sanat bakımından Fatih devri notları, 108-111; Ünver, İstanbul'da sahabe
kabirleri.
105 Necipoğlu, “Dynastic imprints on the cityscape,” 23.
31
Abu Ayyub’s tomb rapidly grew into a town, which was predominantly settled
by Muslims, and became the most venerated place in Istanbul that has been visited by
hundreds of people seeking the saint’s help everyday. The royal visits to the tomb,
which were organized for different significant reasons such as the beginning/end of a
military campaign or the enthronement of a new ruler, were also a crucial part of this
vivid picture. For instance, in the sixteenth century, it is noted that Selim I (r. 1512-
1520), Süleyman I (r. 1520-1566), and Mehmed III (r. 1595-1603) performed visits to
the tomb before military expeditions.106 A record in the imperial council’s register of
important affairs (mühimme defteri) clearly shows the motivation behind these visits. On
7 May 1566, before the critical siege of Szigetvar under the command of Süleyman I, it
was requested from the ulema and huffaz (someone who has completely memorized the
Quran) to gather at the mosque of Abu Ayyub and pray for the victory of the Ottoman
army.107 Beyond that, in order to understand the high degree of the Ottoman court’s
respect to the tomb, the sword girding ceremony, which was comparable to the Western
ritual of consecration and coronation, was of primary importance. Each sultan upon his
accession to the throne visited the tomb following the same procession route, and at the
site the most respected sheikh of that time girded the sultan with the sacred sword of
ghaza (holy war).108 A tradition reports that Mehmed II was also girded there with the
sword of sovereignty by Akşemseddin though it is not possible to confirm this narrative,
because there is no reliable information on the girding ceremony until the seventeenth
106 Coşkun, “Osmanlı İstanbul’unda müstesna bir ziyaretgah,” 559. Selim I visited the tomb before the
campaign against the Safavids, Süleyman I before the sieges of Belgrad and Szigetvar, and Mehmed III
before the expedition of Hungary.
107 5 numaralı mühimme defteri, 249-50, edict no: 1555.
108 İnalcık, “Istanbul: an Islamic city,” 4. For more information on the history of sword girding ceremony
and the Ottoman ceremonials at Eyüp, see Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the sultans, 604-22;
Kafadar, “Eyüp’te kılıç kuşanma törenleri.”
32
century.109 As far as is known, the earliest source mentioning this subject was written by
Mustafa Safi (d. 1616), who was the imam of Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617).110 In his work
Zübdetü’t-tevarih, Safi recounts Ahmed I’s enthronement ceremony taken place at the
inner courtyard between the tomb and mosque of Abu Ayyub.111 According to Safi’s
description, the sultan reached the complex located on the Golden Horn through the sea
route; after the ceremony, he returned to the palace on horseback by following the main
arteries, and on his way back, he also paid visits sacred tombs of his ancestors.112 There
are many unanswered questions concerning the earlier stages of official royal visits to
Abu Ayyub’s tomb; on the other hand, the ritual visits to the sacred mausoleum were
possibly initiated by its founder, namely Mehmed II.113 Taşköprizade (d. 1561) suggests
that the sultan visited the tomb from time to time, and the route that he passed through
during these visits was most likely the Divan Yolu, a branch of the Byzantine Mese
leading from the Imperial Gate of the Topkapı Palace to the Edirne Gate of the city
walls.114
Since the early years of its construction, the tomb of Abu Ayyub has gained
importance not only as the most respected pilgrimage site that was frequented by both
elites and commoners but also as a burying ground. There are many graves belonging to
the prominent members of the state, religious, and intellectual high class within the
complex area.115 Among the first persons buried in the mosque graveyard, the famous
109 Necipoğlu, “Dynastic imprints on the cityscape,” 25.
110 Kafadar, “Eyüp’te kılıç kuşanma törenleri,” 54-55.
111 Kafadar, “Eyüp’te kılıç kuşanma törenleri,” 54-55; Mustafa Safi, Zübdetü’t-Tevarih (Vol. 1), 8-9.
112 Mustafa Safi, Zübdetü’t-Tevarih (Vol. 1), 8-9.
113 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 50.
114 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 50.
115 Ahmet Süheyl Ünver represents a detailed list of scholars and high-ranking members of the religious
elite buried in the graveyard within the complex by referring a story of Abu Ayyub from the mid sixteenth
century. In addition, Jean Louis Bacque-Grammont has analyzed the texts of Ayvansarayi and Evliya
33
astronomer and mathematician Ali Kuşçu (d. 1474), who came to Istanbul from the court
of Uzun Hasan in Tabriz by request of Mehmed II, and the grand vizier Sinan Pasha,
who had endowed the first convent near Abu Ayyub’s tomb, can be indicated.116 Semiz
Ali Pasha (d. 1565), Lala Mustafa Pasha (d. 1580), and Gürcü Mehmed Pasha (d. 1626)
were also among the high-level bureaucrats buried close to the tomb.117 The chief
eunuchs Mustafa Ağa (d. 1623) and Hacı Beşir Ağa (d. 1746) were buried in two sides
of Abu Ayyub’s tomb.118 This can be interpreted as a clear indication of the eunuchs’
powerful position in the court particularly from the seventeenth century onwards.
Moreover, the grave of Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan (d. 1628), the wife of Ahmed I and the
mother of Osman II, was at the back of the tomb, and Saliha Sultan (d. 1778), the
daughter of Ahmed III, was buried in the outer courtyard.119
With a mosque, a soup kitchen, a madrasa, and a bathhouse, the complex of Abu
Ayyub replicated the royal complexes in other Ottoman cities. Its architectural plan was
a variation of those in Bursa dated in earlier periods.120 The layout of the buildings was
asymmetrical rather than symmetrical and axial that began to be seen in the complexes
built in later years of Mehmed II’s reign.121 The tomb, which was an octagonal structure
of ashlar masonry with a lead-covered dome and had two-storey windows on its walls,
Çelebi and created a prosopographic index. See Ünver, İlim ve sanat bakımından Fatih devri notları, 38-
41; Bacque-Grammont, “Eyüp mezarlıkları,” 70-105.
116 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 50.
117 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 334.
118 As I will mention in the following paragraphs, Hacı Beşir Ağa built two lodges in Abu Ayyub’s
complex, but they were demolished during the restoration under Selim III in the eighteenth century.
Besides that, Hacı Beşir Ağa established many pious foundations including a library, a school, and a
fountain at Eyüp. See Hathaway, Beshir Agha, 85-106.
119 Similar to Hacı Beshir Ağa, Mahfiruz Hatice Sultan also endowed a building in the complex. She
constructed a room for reciting Quran.
120 Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi,” 130.
121 Tanman, “Eyüb Sultan Külliyesi,” 239.
34
was a significant monument pioneering the later Ottoman mausoleums in the city.122
This is the first monumental funerary structure in Ottoman Istanbul and has mostly
preserved its original form and character except the tiles from the sixteenth century. On
the other hand, the mosque standing across from the mausoleum was rebuilt in the end
of eighteenth century; therefore, only the historical accounts can help us to illustrate its
original situation. Based on the descriptions of Evliya Çelebi and Ayvansarayi, Aptullah
Kuran suggests that the praying hall in square shape was covered by a single dome
resting on squinches and that there was another half-dome on top of the mihrab placed in
a niche at the qibla side.123 The convent rooms were located at two sides of the main
building. Considering the asymmetrical positions of the minarets, Kuran argues that first
a single minaret was built at the right of the entrance, and after some time, the second
one was added at the left side.124 According to Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, this addition was
made by Mehmed II in order to mark the transformation of the building from conventmosque
into sultanic monument.125 Furthermore, since the mosque was depicted with
two minarets in a drawing of the city produced around 1481 for the manuscript of the
Italian traveler Cristoforo Buondelmonti, and in a narrative of İdris Bidlisi, the second
minaret was possibly erected in a short time after the completion of the building (see
Appendix B, Figure 3).126 As Evliya Çelebi describes, Kuran designates that the sixteen
madrasa rooms/cells were placed around the three sides of the courtyard in front of the
122 Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi,” 130.
123 Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi,” 130-1; Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 168-69; Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-
Cevami, 333-36. Before Aptullah Kuran, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi analyzed the available sources, which
provide glimpses about the architectural plan of the complex, and suggested a plan. In his article, Kuran
also takes into consideration the work of Ayverdi and develops further interpretations on it. For more
information on Ayverdi’s study, see Ayverdi, Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri, 348-56.
124 Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi,” 131.
125 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 49.
126 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 236.
35
mosque like an U-shape.127 However, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi argues that these units were
located at longitudinal sides of the rectangular courtyard in the direction of qibla.128 The
soup kitchen, which was close to the southeast corner of the mosque, has been standing
until 1950s despite its neglected and poor condition; however, it was demolished as a
result of the restoration and road-widening projects in this period.129 Since it was not
documented before destruction, we do not have enough information about its
architectural features. The double hammam, which is located at the northeast of the
mosque, has in large part survived. Evliya Çelebi describes it as one of the oldest
bathhouses in Istanbul and recommends to patients to go there for recovering their
health.130
In the following years, not only the Ottoman sultans and the members of imperial
family but also many high officials added new parts to the complex or made renovations.
For instance, in 1494, Çandarlı İbrahim Pasha (d. 1499) built a fountain (şadırvan) at the
center of the inner courtyard shared by the mosque and the tomb; and around a hundred
years later, in 1580, Koca Sinan Pasha (d. 1596) erected an elevated (fevkani) kiosk on
top of this fountain.131 Interestingly, as far as is known, there is no similar example of
such kiosk in another Ottoman mosque. Hence, Baha Tanman argues that the reason of
its construction was closely related to the special position of Abu Ayyub mosque in the
sword girding ceremonies and it was probably used as both a resting place of the sultans
127 Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi,” 131.
128 Ayverdi, Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri, 350-5. In relation to this issue, Çiğdem Kafescioğlu raises
important questions that are worthwhile to think about further. She asks why the madrasa did not have its
own courtyard and classroom. Was the madrasa planned later? Or would it be possible that the complex
was built on an older monastic establishment, therefore, its layout was different than other mosque
complexes? See Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 49-50.
129 Ayverdi, Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri, 355.
130 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 136-37.
131 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 334-5; Tanman, “Kılıç kuşanma törenleri,” 79.
36
and a meeting point for the ulema and high bureaucrats.132 Evliya Çelebi describes that
there were two big plane trees between the kiosk, which was elevated by four marble
columns, and the tomb, and under the shadows of these trees, crowded communities
were praying.133 Since the kiosk was completely demolished in 1798-1800 during the
restoration of the mosque by Selim III (r. 1789-1807), we do not have further evidence
regarding its architectural features and possible functions. In 1591-92, Ekmekçizade
Ahmed Pasha (d. 1618), who worked as the head treasurer between 1606 and 1613,
constructed an additional building (zamime) whose purpose is not known.134 Ahmed I (r.
1603-1617) did some significant changes in the complex. In 1613-14, a wall covered
with tiles from different periods between the mausoleum and the mosque was set up, and
these two buildings were visually connected with a big window (hacet or muvacehe
penceresi), which opened on the left side of that wall with the aim of providing a view
of the cenotaph of Abu Ayyub to those wishing to pray.135 Moreover, the well situated
near an inner wall of the tomb was restored, and in order to share this water with public,
Sedefkar Mehmed Ağa (d. 1617), who was the chief architect of the time, built a new
fountain.136 The wife of Ahmed I and the mother of Osman II (r. 1618-1622), Mahfiruz
Hatice Sultan, built a special room (cüzhane) next to the door of Abu Ayyub’s tomb for
Quran recitals.137 During the reign of Ahmed III (r. 1703-1730), in 1723-24, it was
ordered that light illuminations (mahya) should be hanged between the minarets of all
sultanic mosques in the city during the Ramadan; however, the minarets of Abu Ayyub
132 Tanman, “Kılıç kuşanma törenleri,” 79-81.
133 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 168. Today only one of these plane trees has survived.
134 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 333; Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan Külliyesi,” 10.
135 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 334; Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan Külliyesi,” 10-11.
136 Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan Külliyesi,” 11; Coşkun, “Osmanlı İstanbul’unda müstesna bir ziyaretgah,” 553.
137 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 334.
37
mosque were not high enough for such decorations.138 Accordingly, the minarets were
elevated. After two years, the minaret facing the Golden Horn was demolished by a
thunderbolt but was restored in a short time.139 In the same period, the tomb was restored
and the silver railings around the sarcophagus of Abu Ayyub were renewed by
Nevşehirli Damat İbrahim Pasha (d. 1730) who served as the grand vizier of Ahmed
III.140 In 1732-33, the chief eunuch of the Ottoman imperial harem during the time of
Mahmud I (r. 1730-1754), Hacı Beşir Ağa, added two lodges (mahfil) to the complex.141
As is seen, throughout the years, many spatial and visual alterations took place
with the aim of decreasing the negative effects of time or natural disasters on the
buildings and of conforming to the changes in Ottoman ceremonial. On the other hand,
the complex has generally preserved its initial state until the second half of the
eighteenth century. The catastrophic earthquake of 22 May 1766 caused crucial
destruction, particularly on the mosque.142 Consequently, an extensive restoration
project started in 1797-98, however, it was understood that there was no solution except
completely demolishing the mosque and rebuilding it.143 The mosque, which has been
still standing today, was reconstructed in the baroque style under the patronage of Selim
III (r. 1789-1807) in only two years between 1798 and 1800.144 During this process, the
madrasa rooms, the lodges, the fountain at the center of the inner courtyard and the kiosk
138 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 333.
139 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 334.
140 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 335. Abu Ayyub’s sarcophagus (or symbolic coffin) was first
encircled by Ahmed I with silver wires. The beautifully adorned silver sarcophagus of Abu Ayyub that we
can see today was placed by Selim III.
141 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 334.
142 Mazlum, 1766 Istanbul depremi, 51-56.
143 Ayverdi, Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri, 351-52.
144 Ayverdi, Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri, 351-52; Kuran, “Eyüp Külliyesi,” 132.
38
on top of it were also torn down.145 While a new fountain (şadırvan) was built in the
outer courtyard and its each tap was marked with the seal of Sultan Selim III, on the
place of the older fountain in the inner courtyard, a rectangular green area containing the
plane trees was created.146 The outer courtyard was enlarged and four rooms for
attendants, such as imam and tomb keeper, were added. Furthermore, a ramp that
provides a direct entrance to the sultan’s lodge (hünkar mahfili) of the mosque was
constructed in the outer courtyard, and a roof (sakıf) was attached to the tomb for
protecting visitors at the inner courtyard from rain and snow.147 The last important
restoration of the complex was conducted between November 1819 and March 1820
under Mahmud II (r. 1808-1839).148
2.5 The initial growth process of Eyüp
Mehmed II, who was eager to transform Constantinople into his new capital, wanted the
rapid recovery of the city, both physically and socially.149 As a part of this imperial
project aiming to rebuild, repopulate, and restructure Ottoman Istanbul, the first
religious and social complex was established around the tomb of Abu Ayyub at the end
of the Golden Horn. Besides its function as a shrine commemorating the Muslim warrior
saint and providing a religious and social symbol for the newcomers, the complex was
conceived as the core of a district to be developed.150 As Doğan Kuban argues, it must
have developed fairly soon, because in the administrative division of the city, Eyüp had
145 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 338.
146 Eyice, “Eyüp Sultan Külliyesi,” 11; Coşkun, “Osmanlı İstanbul’unda müstesna bir ziyaretgah,” 553-54.
147 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 338; Coşkun, “Osmanlı İstanbul’unda müstesna bir ziyaretgah,” 554.
148 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatu’l-Cevami, 338-39.
149 For a very detailed and useful study covering political, religious, social, cultural, and architectural
aspects about the transformation of the city between the Byzantine and the Ottoman rule, see Kafescioğlu,
Constantinopolis / Istanbul.
150 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 50.
39
its own jurisdiction.151 Following the conquest, Istanbul was divided into four
administrative regions (Bilad-ı Selase) and each region was under the jurisdiction of a
kadı (a judge who was the supreme official responsible for municipal and legal
affairs).152 According to that, Eyüp was determined as one of the four administrative
units along with the walled city, Galata, and Üsküdar.153 Eyüp Kadılığı, which was also
known as Haslar Kadılığı or Havass-ı Refia, was responsible for the lands extramural in
the west and northwest of the city including Çatalca, Büyük-Küçük Çekmece and
Silivri.154
When Mehmed II and his army appeared before its walls in the spring of 1453,
Constantinople was a half-ruined city whose population was probably no more than fifty
thousand.155 The city had progressively declined since the Latin occupation in 1204; and
already in the second half of the fourteenth century, Constantinople and its vicinity were
like a small island surrounded by Ottoman territories.156 Considering the damages of the
siege and of the sack that followed the conquest, it is not hard to imagine that the picture
of the city became gloomier.157 Seemingly, Constantinople in the fifteenth century was
151 Kuban, Istanbul, an urban history, 254.
152 The exact establishment date of Bilad-ı Selase is not exactly known. Kuban and Ayverdi suggest the
date as early as 1459, but it is difficult to be sure about that. See Kuban, Istanbul, an urban history, 234;
Ayverdi, Fatih devri sonları, 5.
153 The most elevated level of jurisdiction belonged to the Istanbul Kadılığı (the walled city). Besides that,
the three administrative units outside of the city walls, Eyüp, Galata, and Üsküdar, were called Bilad-ı
Selase (the three cities).
154 Kuban, Istanbul, an urban history, 234; Artan, “Eyüp,” 2. As is seen, the Eyüp Kadılığı covered a very
large area. For instance, although we cannot be sure about the accuracy of these numbers, in the
seventeenth century Evliya Çelebi indicated that seven hundred villages and twenty six districts were
administered by the Eyüp Kadılığı. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that this thesis examines only the
central area of Eyüp and that other areas are out of scope of this study.
155 İnalcık, “The policy of Mehmed II,” 230.
156 İnalcık, “The policy of Mehmed II,” 230.
157 Tacizade Cafer Çelebi (d. 1515) reports that Mehmed II proclaimed the assault and sack in these terms:
“The stones and the land of the city’s appurtenances belong to me; all other goods and property, are booty
for the troops.” The sultan first had granted permission for three days of sack, but he put an end to the
plunder on the evening of the first day. Both Byzantine and Ottoman sources recount that he felt profound
40
not an attractive resettlement destination for Ottoman subjects living in other parts of the
empire; therefore; Mehmed II developed some policies, such as offers of free property,
and forced deportations, to increase the city’s population.158 The sultan appointed
Karıştıran Süleyman Bey, who was the former subaşı (chief of police) of Bursa, as the
first prefect of the city; furthermore, “he put him in charge of everything, but
particularly of the repopulation of the city, and instructed him to be very zealous about
this matter.”159 In this context, Eyüp was subject to the same policies of repopulation as
the city proper, and Muslim communities forced to emigrate from Bursa were settled in
the environs of the complex of Abu Ayyub.160 Yet, it should be noted that this process
could not be carried out very easily. Wealthy dwellers of Bursa such as merchants
engaged in silk trade resisted deportation; however, although they felt themselves
powerful enough to attempt to resist the sultan’s order, they lost.161 Mehmed II
intervened and stayed in Bursa for more than a month to deal with the local revolts.162
As a result, deportees from Bursa were placed in Eyüp and had a significant role in the
foundation of the township.
After the conquest, Istanbul was rebuilt and transformed by not only the
intensive construction effort of the sultan but also the contribution of high-ranking state
sadness as he toured the looted and enslaved city. See İnalcık, “The policy of Mehmed II,” 233;
Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 76-77, 104-5; Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 62-64.
158 For more information on the policies of Mehmed II, the changes in demography of Istanbul after the
conquest, and how the neighborhoods were developed socially, institutionally, and architecturally, see
Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 178-206. For some contemporary primary sources mentioning
this issue, see Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 93-4, 104-5; Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-
Feth, 65-76; Aşıkpaşazâde, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, 219-21.
159 İnalcık, “The policy of Mehmed II,” 236; Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 65.
160 İnalcık, “The policy of Mehmed II,” 237; Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 50.
161 İnalcık, “The policy of Mehmed II,” 237.
162 İnalcık, “The policy of Mehmed II,” 237; Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 95.
41
officials and other affluent people.163 Kritovoulos recounts that Mehmed II commanded
wealthy and most able persons to erect places of worship, baths, inns, marketplaces,
workshops, and grand houses and to adorn and embellish the city with many other such
edifices.164 New neighborhoods (mahalles) commonly emerged around religious
buildings and were named after founders of these local institutions. This pattern of
Ottoman urban development was also applied in Eyüp. According to the available
sources,165 in the fifteenth century, including the complex of Abu Ayyub, ten mosques
and masjids were built in Eyüp, and eight of them became the nuclei of further spatial
developments (see Appendix B, Figures 4-5).166 In addition, there were also three
dervish lodges, but one of them, Yavedüd Convent, was actually erected as a part of a
convent-mosque that was called either Abdülvedüd or Yavedüd (see Appendix B, Figure
6).167 Considering today’s historic urban area of Eyüp, which is spanned roughly
between Ayvansaray and Piyer Loti Hill, it can be said that a significant part of this area
started to be developed in the fifteenth century. On the other hand, there were probably
163 As Çiğdem Kafescioğlu indicates, a central method of urban construction inherited by the Ottomans
from former Turco-Mongol and Islamic polities was the delegation of public works to high-ranking state
officials and this method was implemented in Eyüp too. See Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 50.
164 Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 140-41.
165 Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi argues that in comparison to the walled city, the amount of information about
what happened in the suburbs of Istanbul in the fifteenth century is much more limited, and that especially
Eyüp was not mentioned at all in many documents at that period. Because of that, he uses Ayvanasarayi’s
Hadîkatu’l-Cevami and a neighborhoods list dated 1922 as main sources of his research. In addition, I also
benefitted from Mehmet Nermi Haskan’s extensive work on Eyüp. See Ayverdi, Fatih devri sonları, 53,
footnote 60; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosque; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vols. 1-2).
166 Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi lists these neighborhoods as: Abdülvedüd Mosque Neighborhood, Cami-i Kebir
(the grand mosque or the Abu Ayyub Mosque) Neighborhood, Fethi Çelebi Mosque Neighborhood,
Kasım Çavuş Masjid Neighborhood, Mehmed Bey Masjid Neighborhood, Çayırbaşı (Otakçıbaşı) Masjid
Neighborhood, Sofular Masjid Neighborhood, and Ülice (Evlice) Baba Neighborhood. In addition to
them, there were also Arpacı Hayreddin Masjid and Bıçakçı Masjid that were not indicated as having
neighborhoods. See Ayverdi, Fatih devri sonları, 53-54; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, xxviii,
304; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 26.
167 The fifteenth-century dervish lodges built in Eyüp can be listed as Karyağdı, Yavedüd, and Balçık.
These are discussed in more detail later in this chapter, in the section focusing on dervish lodges in Eyüp.
42
many empty spaces and the density of construction activities and of population was low
compared to the later periods.
Contemporary sources portray that after the completion of Abu Ayyub’s
complex, a settlement, almost a small city, was developed in Eyüp rapidly. In 1470s,
Angiolello describes that a lot of people were living there and many houses and palaces
had been built around the shrine so that a large and beautiful town emerged.168 Similarly,
Tursun Bey indicates that a number of houses and kiosks were built close to the
complex, which was visited by the folk coming from various places.169 Consequently, a
very nice town was constructed, and people who want peace and rest went there both by
a caique through sea and by horses or on foot from the land, to socialize and
pilgrimage.170 Parallel to the narratives of Angiolello and Tursun Bey, İdris Bidlisi
recounts that thanks to the benevolence and donations of the sultans, Abu Ayyub’s
complex and its vicinity turned into a beautiful and prosperous city.171 Even though
these literary depictions are quite useful to get a glimpse of how urban dwellers
conceived their environment in a period full of changes and transitions after the
conquest, they are not sufficient enough to provide a clear picture of Eyüp’s urban image
in the fifteenth century. Moreover, in contrast to the extensive archival documentation
produced in later periods, the fifteenth century lacks many sources, such as court records
or mühimme registers, which would be very helpful to researchers of Ottoman urban
history.172 Some available documents, which could be examined to shed light on the
monuments, patrons, and residents of the city during this period, are unbound imperial
168 Yerasimos, “Giovan Maria Angiolello,” 36.
169 Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 75.
170 Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 75. Tursun Bey describes Eyüp as “bir hoş teferrüc-gah kasaba.” Since
‘teferrücgah’ means excursion spot, his depiction implies that the town was similar to a promenade.
171 İdris Bidlisi, Heşt-Bihişt, 80.
172 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 13.
43
edicts, surveys of urban property, sales and ownership documents, and the deeds and
account books of pious endowments.173
The original waqfiyya (endowment deed) of Abu Ayyub complex had been lost;
what we have is a waqfiyya compiled in 1582 under Murad III (r. 1574-1595) to
reorganize the maintenance of the waqf.174 The only document, which can give us an
idea about the complex and its vicinity in the fifteenth century, is an account book dating
to 1489-1490.175 According to the list of income sources given in this register, most of
the properties devoted to the waqf for covering its costs were located in Thrace and
Western Anatolia, and near the complex, only two bathhouses and the lands and gardens
around the tomb were recorded. On the other hand, in the waqfiyya of 1582, many
houses and shops located within the township of Eyüp were indicated as sources of
income.176 In addition, compared the costs of the complex registered in these two
documents, it is seen that in the sixteenth century, a larger number of people were
employed with higher wages. These differences can show us that after the foundation
and initial growth process of Eyüp in the fifteenth century, from the sixteenth century
onwards, the town developed more dramatically and its population increased.
173 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 13.
174 Ayverdi, Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri, 348-49.
175 Barkan, “Ayasofya Cami‘i ve Eyüp Türbesi,” 373-79.
176 Fatih Mehmed II vakfiyeleri, 313-27; Ayverdi, Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri, 348.
44
CHAPTER 3
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE URBAN LANDSCAPE OF EYÜP IN THE
SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES
The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the most significant periods for the urban
development of Eyüp. Numerous architectural structures serving different needs of its
dwellers were built in this period and its image as the first ‘Islamic’ settlement of the
Ottoman new capital was strengthened.177 As a result of extensive building campaigns,
as Evliya Çelebi indicates in the seventeenth century, Eyüp and Istanbul became fully
connected with each other, and no empty field remained between the land walls and
Eyüp.178 Moreover, besides its religious sacredness and ideological importance, the town
developed as a significant social and cultural center and a favored recreation site. In
addition to this vibrant environment, Eyüp also expanded as a city of the dead with its
large cemeteries that emerged around the tomb of Abu Ayyub. Therefore, its urban
landscape presents a harmonized combination of motifs of death and life.
In this chapter, I will explore the physical structure of Eyüp and its architectural
and spatial development considering the social and cultural contexts of the time. In this
regard, I aim to examine the essential elements of Eyüp’s urban landscape including
177 According to the account of Ayvansarayi and the detailed study of Mehmet Nermi Haskan on the built
environment of Eyüp based on both library research and his travel notes, 57 mosques and masjids, 41
dervish lodges, 109 tombs, 11 madrasas, 26 primary schools, 105 fountains, 13 bathhouses, and many
seaside mansions and kiosks were constructed in Eyüp from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. Based
on Ayvansarayi’s and Haskan’s works, I have prepared a detailed list of architectural structures built in
Eyüp in different periods to comprehend its urban development better. As a result, I saw that most of these
buildings were erected during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. On the other hand, I should note
that it is hard to be sure about the precision of these numbers considering that many buildings are no
longer extant, or some of them started to have been used for another function, for instance a madrasa or a
convent may have been turned into a masjid. Still, I wanted to provide this data in order to offer an idea
about the size of architectural ventures in the township. See Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques;
Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vols. 1-2).
178 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 168.
45
mosques, tombs, madrasas, dervish lodges, soup kitchens, bathhouses, fountains, shops,
boathouses, piers, houses, palaces and seaside mansions as well as open spaces such as
courtyards, squares, promenades and cemeteries. The structures in this list can be simply
classified according to their functions as socio-religious, commercial, residential, and
infrastructural. However, I do not think that such a classification would be appropriate
for this study, taking into account that in many cases, a number of building types were
built together and constituted multifunctional complexes. For instance, commercial and
production areas were mostly built as a part of charitable foundations to provide income,
or some funerary complexes had socio-religious buildings such as madrasas or dervish
lodges. Furthermore, these places were closely settled with each other in the spatial
setting of the township, and apparently, there was no clear separation between religious,
social, commercial, and residential areas.
Because of these reasons, rather than depending on a conventional classification,
first I would like to follow the urban growth of Eyüp within a historical framework
(mostly based on religious buildings because new settlements were generally established
around them), and then discuss the significant urban nodes around which the main parts
of the township developed. In this context, in Appendix A, more information on
particular buildings, which had significant roles in the town’s historical and architectural
development, can be found. The locations, patrons, architectural features, and symbolic
or functional importance of these structures are some of the questions that are dwelled
on. In the last part, I will examine the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century visual
representations of Eyüp, which offer further insight regarding the urban landscape and
the Ottoman’s perception of their urban environment.
46
3.1 Historical overview of the urban growth in Eyüp
3.1.1 The earlier sixteenth century, 1500s-1530s
Considering the architectural ventures that took place in Eyüp in other historical periods,
it would not be wrong to claim that the township developed much faster in the sixteenth
century and that the backbone of Eyüp’s urban fabric and identity was formed.179
However, in the first two decades of the sixteenth century under Bayezid II (r. 1481-
1512) and Selim I (r. 1512-1520), only a few significant construction projects were
initiated in Eyüp. The most common public buildings that were erected in this period
were masjids.180 Unlike Friday mosques that required royal approval, the sultan’s
permission was not compulsory for the construction of masjids because Friday prayers
were not held in them.181 Compared to congregational mosques, masjids were relatively
modest institutions with small waqfs; hence, they were commissioned by a wider
spectrum of patrons in terms of their positions in social hierarchy.182 Therefore, not only
the members of the royal household and highest-ranking grandees but also minor
officers, servants or aghas of the imperial palace, and craftsmen founded endowments in
Eyüp. Other than the masjids, until 1530s, only one congregational mosque, which was
called Cezeri Kasım Pasha, was built in the township together with a primary school and
madrasa, which are no longer extant. The founder Cezeri Kasım Pasha was a high-level
179 According to the list that I have prepared based on the works of Ayvansarayi and Haskan, 27 mosques
and masjids, 40 tombs, 30 fountains, ten primary schools, eight dervish lodges, seven madrasas and one
school for training of Quran (darülkura), three bathhouses, and three open-air praying platforms
(namazgah) were built in Eyüp in this period. See Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques; Haskan, Eyüp
tarihi (Vols. 1-2).
180 The masjids that were built in this period were Kara Süleyman (Defterdar), Saçlı Abdülkadir Efendi,
Kızıl (Kiremitçi Süleyman), İslam Bey, and Zeyneb Hatun. Each of them is discussed in more detail in
Appendix A, and their locations can be seen in Appendix B, Figure 7.
181 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 47.
182 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 47.
47
state official who also served as grand vizier; thus, his endowment was important as one
of the early examples of elite patronage in Eyüp.183
Considering the locations of these structures, most of them were concentrated
around the complex of Abu Ayyub, such as the masjids of Kara Süleyman (Defterdar),
Saçlı Abdülkadir Efendi, and Kızıl (Kiremitçi Süleyman). On the other hand, a few
buildings such as İslam Bey Masjid, Zeyneb Hatun Masjid, and Cezeri Kasım Pasha
Mosque were situated a little bit far away from the very center of the township (see
Appendix B, Figure 7). As the foundation of the most important personage among the
patrons of this period, Cezeri Kasım Pasha’s mosque complex was on the royal
ceremonial route that connected the venerated shrine of Abu Ayyub to the Topkapı
Palace. Zeyneb Hatun’s and her husband İdris Bidlisi’s foundations, which were located
close to today’s Piyer Loti Coffeehouse, contributed to enlarge the settlement towards a
more hilly terrain beyond the flat land on the shore of the Golden Horn. Except Saçlı
Abdülkadir Efendi Masjid, all other mosques and masjids mentioned above had
neighborhoods.184 Taking into account the area in which buildings spread in the fifteenth
century, it can be claimed that the boundaries of the township did not change
dramatically in this period.
183 For more information on Cezeri Kasım Pasha Mosque and other masjids in terms of their patrons,
locations, and architectural features, see Appendix A.
184 The main source of this information is Ayvansarayi’s Hadika’tül Cevami (The Gardens of the
Mosques). In his work, he indicated whether the mosque had a quarter or not, specifying whether the
mosque was the central worship place for the quarter’s residents or not. Considering that Ayvansarayi
lived in the eighteenth century, it would be good to keep in mind that we do not actually know when
neighborhoods exactly developed around these mosques or masjids.
48
3.1.2 The mid- to late sixteenth century and the era of chief architect Sinan
Parallel to the military, economic, and political developments in the Ottoman state, most
of the investments were realized in later years of the sixteenth century under three
sultans: Süleyman I (r. 1520-1566), Selim II (r. 1566-1574), and Murad III (r. 1574-
1595). In this process, the contribution of Sinan, who served as chief royal architect
between 1539 and 1588 for nearly half a century, was of huge importance. Sinan’s
appointment as chief architect coincided with a multivalent transformation in Ottoman
political structures and culture, and in relation to that, changes in imperial ideology and
iconography.185 Under Süleyman I, the Ottoman territories were expanded extensively to
include Hungary in the West, to Azerbaijan, Western Iran, and Iraq in the East, and to
the North African coast with the exception of Morocco in the South. The Ottoman state
thus turned into a powerful empire that dominated the eastern Mediterranean basin, and
on that had claims for universal sovereignty. Moreover, as a result of the extension of
Ottoman rule over the three holy cities Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, Süleyman I
claimed symbolic leadership over the Islamic world and began to represent himself as
‘the caliph of the whole world’.186
As a consequence of these military and political developments, the state
organization evolved into a much more autocratic, centralized, and bureaucratized
structure, and Sunni orthodoxy dramatically increased its impact on imperial institutions
and discourse. Ebussuud Efendi, who was the confidant and counselor of Süleyman I
and held the office of shaykh al-Islam about thirty years between 1545 and 1574,
formulated the new official policy, which marked the beginning of a more conservative
185 For a detailed examination of how architectural trends were articulated in connection with the political
agenda of the period between 1520s and 1570s, see Kafescioğlu, “The visual arts,” 510-28.
186 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 27.
49
and sharia-minded Ottoman state.187 His activities included the construction of masjids
in every village and Friday mosques in towns and cities where they were lacking, along
with the compulsory observance of congregational prayers.188 He even declared several
fatwas authorizing the punishment of those who failed to attend the five daily prayers in
the masjids.189 The state's growing emphasis on the obligation of the communal prayers
caused a considerable increase in the number of Friday mosques and masjids both in
Istanbul and other parts of the empire during the reign of Süleyman I and his immediate
successors.190 Parallel to this trend, in Eyüp, four congregational mosques and five
masjids were built, all commissioned to the chief architect Sinan (see Appendix B,
Figure 8).191 The majority of the sponsors of these institutions were members of the
ruling elite, as a continuation of patronage patterns that had been established in the
1460s and 1470s.192 Moreover, the visibility of royal women as patrons of foundations
and architecture increased saliently in connection with changes in their political role.193
The dynastic women established urban institutions in Eyüp either alone or with their
high-ranking spouses. For example, Şah Sultan, the daughter of Selim I and the halfsister
of Süleyman I, commissioned a convent-mosque in the town to the architect
187 İnalcık, “State and ideology,” 81.
188 İnalcık, “State and ideology,” 81; Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 35.
189 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 48-49.
190 According to Gülru Necipoğlu, the large number of Friday mosques that Sinan built in Istanbul must
have been blurred their difference from masjids and turned them into monuments associated with specific
neighborhoods rather than towns or cities. See Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 57.
191 These are Arpacı Hayreddin (Arpacıbaşı) Masjid (restoration), Davudağa (Kapı Ağası) Masjid,
Defterdar Mahmud Efendi Masjid, Dökmeciler (Düğmeciler) Masjid, Emir Buhari Mosque, Nişancı
Mustafa Pasha Mosque, Münzevi Süleyman (Müzevvir) Masjid, Şah Sultan Mosque, and Zal Mahmud
Pasha and Şah Sultan Mosque. Except Arpacı Hayreddin (Arpacıbaşı) Masjid, each of these buildings is
discussed in more detail in Appendix A, and their locations can be seen in Appendix B, Figure 9.
192 Kafescioğlu, “The visual arts,” 514.
193 Kafescioğlu, “The visual arts,” 516.
50
Sinan.194 Another Şah Sultan, who was one of the three daughters of Selim II, was the
builder of a mosque and mausoleum complex in Eyüp together with his husband Zal
Mahmud Pasha.195
In addition to the political and ideological agenda of the state, another reason that
contributed to the rising demand for Friday mosques in this period was the general
population growth in the sixteenth-century Mediterranean world and consequently the
increase in urbanization.196 Istanbul’s population had grown from about 100,000 people
at the end of the fifteenth century to over 500,000 in the 1590s.197 Although the
sixteenth-century Ottoman intellectual Mustafa Ali thought that building so many Friday
mosques in the city was a wasteful extravagance triggered by prestige value rather than
piety and need, these establishments had been created at the request of community
members.198 The two common criteria that were presented in the petitions to justify the
foundation of a new Friday mosque were the increased size of a congregation and the
inconvenience caused by the distance of the nearest existing Friday mosque.199 Besides
initiating new construction projects, another practice was to transform a sufficiently
large masjid into a Friday mosque simply by the addition of a minbar.200 For instance,
the status of the masjid that was built by Şah Sultan, daughter of Selim I, in Eyüp was
changed in this way by the approval of the Sultan Süleyman I.
194 For more information on Şah Sultan’s architectural patronage and her motivation behind endowing a
convent-mosque, see Appendix A.
195 For more information on the patrons, history, location, architectural layout, and other stylistic
characteristics of Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex, see Appendix A.
196 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 57.
197 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 57.
198 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 45, 57; Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Meva‘idu’n-nefais fi-kava‘ıdi’l-mecalis,
118.
199 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 57.
200 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 57.
51
Sinan’s monuments, particularly mosque complexes, which were preferably sited
on hilltops or along the waterfront, enhanced the spectacular image of Istanbul by
elaborating already established urban patterns.201 His complex and multivalent
architectural compositions were in a close relation with the topography of the city as
well as its extant urban fabric.202 Not only his major works like the Süleymaniye in the
walled city but also his relatively minor works in Eyüp also reflect these characteristics.
For instance, Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex, which is situated on
a slope at Eyüp, was organized around two courtyards at two different levels connected
with stairs; in this way, Sinan provided multiple points of visual and physical access to
the visitor (see Appendix B, Figure 9). Besides its sophisticated layout and design, the
visual dominance of the complex was also strengthened with its significant location on
the royal ceremonial route (see Appendix B, Figures 10-11). Defterdar Masjid, which is
a more modest work of Sinan (see Appendix B, Figure 12), is located along the shore of
the Golden Horn, close to Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque. Seemingly both
of these buildings were more intimately connected to the sea than they are today.203 In
the seventeenth century, Evliya Çelebi expresses that there were piers called Defterdar
and Zal Pasha.204 Şah Sultan Mosque, which was commissioned by the daughter of
Selim I, is also located on the shoreline at the northern side of the shrine of Abu Ayyub
(see Appendix B, Figure 13). Sinan’s monuments developed the township not only along
the Golden Horn but also towards more hilly and inner terrains (e.g. Dökmeciler Masjid,
201 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 108-9.
202 Kafescioğlu, “The visual arts,” 525.
203 Constructed in the mid-twentieth century as a part of the renewal project for Eyüp, the large boulevards
and roads, together with the fill areas at the coastline, decreased the physical connection of these
monuments with the sea. Moreover, taking into account that people were generally reaching Eyüp by sea
in the early modern Istanbul, the locations of these mosques probably had of more importance than we
perceive today.
204 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 167.
52
Nişancılar Mosque, Davud Ağa Masjid, Münzevi Süleyman Masjid, Emir Buhari
Mosque).205 They became the center of further settlements and gave their names to new
neighborhoods.206
The great master Sinan, whose works played a crucial role in shaping the unique
urban structure and character of Eyüp, also conducted important infrastructural projects
for supplying water to the city. For instance, Kırkçeşme waterways, were restored and
expanded by Sinan during the reign of Süleyman I.207 One of the most important water
distribution centers of Kırkçeşme waterways, Eğrikapı Maksemi, also known as
Savaklar Fountain, is located in Eyüp, just outside of the city walls, and the
neighborhood located around it is known with its name, Savaklar.208
In addition to the works of Sinan, from the 1530s to the end of the sixteenth
century, eleven more masjids, whose architects are unknown, were erected in Eyüp, and
eight of them had neighborhoods.209 As can be observed on the map, they expanded the
borders of the town towards west and contributed to increase the density of the
settlement in general (see Appendix B, Figure 14). It should also be noted that some of
these masjids like Baba Haydar, Nakşi Musa Çavuş, and Savak functioned also as
205 For the full list of Sinan’s works in Eyüp, see Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 164-65; Kuran, Sinan, 254-
67. One significant difference between these two sources is about the tomb of Ayas Paşa. Haskan claims
that this monument is the first work of Sinan. On the other hand, Kuran explains that the tomb of Ayas
Paşa registered in Tuhfetü’l-Mi-marin was actually located in Diyarbakır and that the Ayas Paşa
mentioned here is not the Grand Vizier Ayas Mehmed Paşa, who was buried in Eyüp, but the Beylerbeyi
Ayas Paşa, who was executed for his complicity in the feud between Süleyman I’s two sons Bayezid and
Selim. Semavi Eyice also supports the argument of Kuran. See Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 156-58;
Kuran, Sinan, 27-28; Eyice, “Ayas Paşa Türbesi,” 204.
206 Except Arpacı Hayreddin (Arpacıbaşı) Masjid which is thought to have been restored by Sinan, other
masjids and mosques mentioned above as Sinan’s works had neighborhoods.
207 Çeçen, Mimar Sinan ve Kırkçeşme tesisleri; Çeçen, “Kırkçeşme tesisleri.”
208 Çeçen, “Eğrikapı maksemi.” Kazım Çeçen notes that when Eğrikapı Maksemi was built, it was not
immediately used for distribution of water to the township of Eyüp. Another water distribution center
called Eyüp Maksemi was most likely constructed there in a later period.
209 Aşçıbaşı Masjid, Baba Haydar Masjid, Topçular Masjid, Semiz Ali Pasha Masjid, Dede (Dere) Masjid,
Nakşi Musa Çavuş Masjid, Servi Masjid, and Savak Masjid had neighborhoods. Other three masjids were
Demirciler, Kaptan Pasha, and Bali Hoca.
53
convent. Similarly, among the architect Sinan’s works, the mosques of Emir Buhari and
Şah Sultan included dervish lodges. Other than these, four more Sufi convents were
established in Eyüp in this period (see Appendix B, Figure 15).210 One of them, Cafer
Pasha Convent, was a part of a complex containing a madrasa and a tomb (see Appendix
B, Figures 16-17). Cafer Pasha (d. 1587) served as the weapons bearer (silahdar) of
Süleyman I, then he was promoted as the Janissary agha and the vizier. As these
examples demonstrate, dervish lodges were quite prevalent charitable endowments in the
sixteenth-century Eyüp. Not only certain sheikhs but also imperial family members and
Ottoman grandees were among the founders and had connections with Sufi orders.211
In addition to the Muslim places of worshipping, in the sixteenth century, a
church called the Apostolic Armenian Church of Surp Yeghia (Saint Elia) was also
erected in the town (see Appendix B, Figure 18).212 Its construction date is not exactly
known, however, it is believed to have been built during the reign of Süleyman I.
According to that, for the construction of the Kırkçeşme water supply system, Süleyman
I employed Armenian master masons from Palu, which is in the city of Elazığ today, and
established a brick-making workshop for manufacturing water pipes, roof tiles, and
bricks. Armenians who were working in this workshop settled in the surroundings, and
seemingly, they also founded a church and developed a neighborhood around it.213 The
church, which is located on Karayel Street in Nişanca quarter, was rebuilt in the
nineteenth century. Elmon Hançer argues that this is a small and modest but
harmoniously designed church built for a community of low-income Armenians (see
210 These are Ümmi Sinan, Molla Çelebi, Yahyazade, and Cafer Pasha.
211 For a useful historical overview of the institutionalization of Sufism in the Ottoman central lands
during the first three centuries of the Ottoman rule, see Terzioğlu, “Sufis in the age of state-building.”
212 Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 167-70.
213 Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 167.
54
Appendix B, Figure 19).214 Although Eyüp has been generally recognized with its
‘Islamic’ character, as this church demonstrates, Christian communities also lived in the
town and left their mark on the urban fabric.
3.1.3 The seventeenth century
Starting from the late sixteenth century, construction activities in Istanbul dramatically
slowed down parallel to the changes in economic, military, and political circumstances
of the state. A complex combination of factors such as inflation, budget deficits due to
the expanded army, lack of territorial expansion, recurrent rebellions in the provinces,
and changing identities of the dynasty and ruling elite led to the emergence of a new
architectural paradigm by the turn of the seventeenth century.215 Monuments
commissioned in the city began to shrink not only in number but also in scale, as patrons
adapted their aspirations to their diminishing means.216 A very limited number of royal
mosque complexes were built in Istanbul in the seventeenth century; moreover, during
the second half of the period, the sultans preferred to reside in Edirne and refrained from
big building campaigns in the capital.217 Consequently, there was a shift from mosquecentered
monumental complexes to more modest ones organized around madrasas,
sometimes featuring Sufi convents and masjids.218 At that point, it should be noted that
in the case of Eyüp, as is discussed above, convents were already a prominent part of the
foundations in the sixteenth century.
214 Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 170.
215 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 46, 506-19.
216 Kafescioğlu, “The visual arts,” 529.
217 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 511, 518.
218 As an alternative reason of this transformation, Gülru Necipoğlu also points out a large number of
Friday mosques already built in Istanbul. According to her, it must have become increasingly difficult to
find a legal justification for the construction of new congregational mosques in the seventeenth century.
Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 509-10; Kafescioğlu, “The visual arts,” 530.
55
The shrinking number and scale of architectural works sponsored in Istanbul
found a parallel in the township of Eyüp. As far as I have investigated from the account
of Ayvansarayi and the detailed work of Mehmet Nermi Haskan, in the seventeenth
century, only three masjids were built in Eyüp, and only one of them had a
neighborhood (see Appendix B, Figure 20).219 Additionally, three convents were
established (see Appendix B, Figure 21).220 As is expected, the number of high-ranking
Ottoman statesmen and members of royal household who founded urban institutions in
the township in this period is very limited.
Other than these Islamic endowments, similar to the previous century, in the
second half of the seventeenth century, presumably in 1675, a new church was built in
Eyüp.221 The Apostolic Armenian Church of the Surp Asdvadzazin (Mother of God) is
located in Islambey quarter at the northwest of the Abu Ayyub Mosque on a picturesque
hill from where one has a complete view of Eyüp Cemetery (see Appendix B, Figure
22).222 The original building was made of wood, and after several restorations, it was
rebuilt in stone in 1855. According to Hançer, as in the case of Surp Yeghia Church,
Surp Asdvadzazin Church was also built modestly for a not wealthy community, but
nevertheless it can be said that it was done with a good artistic taste especially
considering its interior decoration (see Appendix B, Figure 23).223 Whatever their
architectural merits, these two Armenian churches are important as monuments
representing the presence of multi-religious and multicultural environment in Eyüp.
219 These are Tahta Minare Masjid, Ümmühan Hatun (Hacı Hüsrev) Masjid, and Arakiyeci Masjid. Only
Arakiyeci Masjid had a neighborhood. More information on these buildings can be found in Appendix A.
Also see Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 303-4, 306; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 97-99, 104.
220 These are Kara Mezak Ahmed Ağa Convent, Sivasi Convent, and Murad Buhari Convent.
221 Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 170-73.
222 Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 171.
223 Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 173.
56
3.2 The surrounding area of the Abu Ayyub al-Ansari Shrine Complex
It is no doubt that the most prominent urban node in the development of Eyüp was the
tomb and mosque complex of Abu Ayyub. It was not only a place of internal pilgrimage
for Istanbulites and a major stop on the ceremonial map of the imperial capital but also a
center of a new Ottoman settlement developed on an area that was almost empty in the
Byzantine era. The town of Eyüp grew starting from this nucleus. On the other hand,
considering the urban fabric in the immediate vicinity of the complex, the most
dominant element would not be probably identified as residential, commercial, or
religious buildings. Instead, numerous funerary structures and large graveyards that
surrounded it would grab the attention.
As I previously discussed, because of the legendary reputation of the Muslim
warrior saint Abu Ayyub, a lot of people wanted to be buried near his venerated shrine;
therefore, the town turned into one of the largest and the most famed necropolis in the
city (see Appendix B, Figure 24). This interest was not only limited with common folk,
and many Ottoman grandees built prestigious mausoleums for themselves and their
families, which were often accompanied by other socio-religious endowments such as
madrasas, Quran schools, convents, or fountains (see Appendix B, Figure 25). For
instance, as far as is known, only the great architect Sinan was commissioned to build
seven mausoleums around the complex of Abu Ayyub. The tombs of Dukakinzade
Mehmed Pasha, Lala Hüseyin Pasha, Pertev Pasha (d. 1572), Semiz Ali Pasha (d. 1565),
Siyavuş Pasha (d. 1602) and his children, and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (d. 1579) and his
children were all built by Sinan and became the salient structures reflecting the Eyüp’s
57
historical urban character (see Appendix B, Figures 26-27).224 Among them, the
mausoleum of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is a part of a complex, which was actually a
collaborative endowment of the pasha and his wife İsmihan Sultan, who was the
daughter of Selim II. Together with the tomb, Sinan was commissioned to construct a
madrasa and a fountain in 1568-69; and after a decade, a school for teaching the reading
of Quran was added in 1579 again by Sinan (see Appendix, Figures 28-29).225 In
addition to the works of Sinan, many other tombs belonging to important personages
were built, which made Eyüp an elite burial place. The tombs of sheikh al-Islam
Ebussud Efendi (d. 1574), the chief admiral Plak (Bulak) Mustafa Pasha, the vizier
Mirmiran Mehmed Agha (d. 1589), the chief accountant Feridun Ahmed Pasha (d.
1552), and the vizier Cafer Pasha (d. 1586) are just some examples in this regard (see
Appendix B, Figures 16-17, 30-33),226 and this list can be easily expanded.227
The religious and symbolic importance of Eyüp was most likely the main reason
of this increase in the number of funerary structures. Besides that, a new regulation
regarding the memorial tombs in the second half of the sixteenth century might have
also caused a special interest to Eyüp among the high-ranking officials. Accordingly, the
construction of founders’ mausoleums adjoining non-royal mosque complexes in
Istanbul was seriously restricted, requiring special written permission from the
sultans.228 Mausoleums were allowed only in marginal districts along the city’s land
224 Kuran, Sinan, 255, 259, 261-63.
225 Parlak, “Sokullu Mehmed Paşa Külliyesi” 358; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 364; Haskan,
Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 257-59; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 9, 26-27, 41-42.
226 The tomb complex of Cafer Pasha containing a convent and a madrasa is also briefly discussed in the
previous part. It should also be noted that Cafer Pasha was the son-in-law of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. The
proximity of their complexes in Eyüp can also be considered in this context. In Appendix B, figures 16
and 17 show the complex of Cafer Pasha.
227 Bacque-Grammont, “Eyüp mezarlıkları,” 62-105; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vols. 1-2).
228 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 111.
58
walls, in the three townships, and their outlying suburbs. As a result of this policy, the
number of monumental domed mausoleums in the blessed necropolis of Eyüp
proliferated. Stephan Gerlach (1546-1612), who was assigned to the Istanbul mission by
the Habsburg emperor as a Protestant priest between 1573 and 1578, writes in his diary
that Ottoman grandees were paying great sums to be buried near the tomb of Abu
Ayyub.229 Similarly, in his travelogue, the Maghribi traveller Ebu’l-Hasan Ali, who
arrived to Istanbul in 1589, recounts that the high-ranking Ottomans were competing
with each other to buy a burial place in Eyüp.230 Not only empty spaces but also a
number of urban gardens endowed for the complex of Abu Ayyub were also converted
into graveyards in the later sixteenth century.231 On the other hand, it should be noted
that despite this interest of Ottoman elite, Eyüp was not preferred by the sultans as a site
to be built their dynastic mausoleums. During the long history of the empire, Mehmed
Reşad V (r. 1909-1918) was the first and only sultan ever to be buried in Eyüp, outside
the walls of the city.232
In addition to these prestigious funerary structures, Eyüp cemetery was also
considerably enlarged from the second half of the sixteenth century onwards. It
developed mainly on the slopes of the hill to the northwest of the shrine and encircled
parts of the town.233 Apart from sacredness of the site and people’s wish to be buried
there, the expansion of burial grounds in the township might be related to the state’s
regulations for public health and hygiene, particularly against the spread of diseases like
229 Gerlach, Türkiye günlüğü, 331, 572.
230 Yerasimos, “Ebu’l-Hasan Ali.”
231 Kafescioğlu, “Eyüp;” Barkan, “Ayasofya Cami‘i ve Eyüp Türbesi,” 373-80; Yerasimos, “16. yy’da
Eyyüb Vakfı muhasebelerinde Eyüp kasabası,” 140-9.
232 Eldem, Death in Istanbul, 34.
233 Kafescioğlu, “Eyüp.”
59
plague.234 Although it is not exactly known how burial space was organized in Ottoman
Istanbul, the city’s increasing exposure to epidemics and high levels of mortality might
have contributed to the development of such policies.235 For instance, Evliya Çelebi
recounts that a great plague broke out in Istanbul under the reign of Selim II (r. 1566-
1574) and because of that, three thousand corpses were carried out of the twenty-seven
gates of the city every day.236 To ensure health in the city, it seems likely that starting in
the sixteenth century, most of Istanbul’s dead were buried outside of the city, even when
there was no plague going on.237 As a consequence, graveyards along with their essential
embellishment, cypress trees, and other greeneries became a crucial part of the built
environment of Eyüp (see Appendix B, Figures 34-36).
Despite its dominant association with concepts of death, other world, and
mysticism, the shrine complex of Abu Ayyub was at the same time was the center of
very vibrant social and economic life. A great number of people who came to Eyüp to
pay a visit to the sacred mausoleum of the Muslim saint and their various needs
contributed to emerge a lively market place consisting a wide range of shops from food
sellers to toy makers.238 Furthermore, commercial structures and production facilities
were erected to provide income for the waqf of the complex. Stephanos Yerasimos
examines the earnings and expenses of the shrine complex of Abu Ayyub between the
234 For a detailed study for the history of plague in the Ottoman lands from the fourteenth to the
seventeenth century, see Varlık, Plague and empire, 131-203.
235 Varlık, Plague and empire, 274.
236 Varlık, Plague and empire, 259; Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 53-54.
237 Varlık, Plague and empire, 272. Nükhet Varlık explains that it is important to consider the ideas of
miasma, the prevalent epidemiological paradigm, to better understand the rationale behind these policies.
It was believed that dead bodies and the effluvia believed to arise from them were associated with miasma.
Therefore, to protect ‘healthy air’ from contamination with miasma, the state would remove the plagued
bodies outside the walls to a controlled area. There were also additional regulations such as proper digging
of graves and possibly using lime scattered on top. For further information on disposal of the bodies and
regulating bodies in urban space, see Varlık, Plague and empire, 262-83.
238 Even today there is a street called Oyuncakçılar (Toy Makers) as a reference to its history even though
the products selling in these shops totally changed.
60
years 1575 and 1598 thanks to the detailed registers in the endowment deed of the waqf.
In this sixteenth-century document, shops (dekakin), slaughterhouses (selhane),
tanneries (debbağhane) candle workshops (mumhane), soap workshops (sabunhane),
storehouses (mehazin), and boathouses (kayıkhane) were listed as sources of income.239
Two bathhouses, known as the Old Hammam and the New Hammam, and the shops
adjacent to them were also indicated as important revenue sources.240 Further
information about the shops, for instance what kinds of products were sold or who the
workers and owners were, was not given in the document. It was just recorded that on
the one side of the Old Hammam, there was a shop that served cooked animal heads
(başçı dükkanı). In another study, which represents a more detailed analysis of the
waqf’s accounting registers for the fiscal year between March 1575 and March 1576, it
is indicated that 73.41% of total revenue was provided from sources in the vicinity of
Eyüp.241 When it is compared to the fiscal year 1489-1490, in which only around 4% of
the total income was provided from the rents of the bathhouse in Eyüp and the rest of the
income was from the produce of 28 villages in Anatolia and Rumelia,242 it is better
understood that in the sixteenth century many new commercial buildings and production
areas were built in the township.
According to Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu, the shops and bazaars located around the
sacred shrine constituted the busiest commercial site; on the other hand, she states that
the market place of Eyüp developed towards the south and southwest of the complex of
Abu Ayyub and continued up to the area called Defterdar, passing nearby the Şah Sultan
239 Yerasimos, “16. yy’da Eyyüb Vakfı muhasebelerinde Eyüp kasabası,” 146-47.
240 Yerasimos, “16. yy’da Eyyüb Vakfı muhasebelerinde Eyüp kasabası,” 144-45.
241 Öztürk, “Eyüb Camii, Türbesi ve İmareti Vakfı” 54.
242 Cezar, Typical commercial buildings, 270. Mustafa Cezar’s analysis is based on the balance sheets of
the complex of Abu Ayyub that were published by Ömer Lütfi Barkan. For the details of the records dated
1489-1490, see Barkan, “Ayasofya Cami‘i ve Eyüp Türbesi,” 373-79.
61
and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque.243 Parallel to this view, it would also be plausible to
suggest that workshops mentioned above were mostly established on the coastline of the
Golden Horn, especially close to the piers (see Appendix B, Figure 37).244 In this way,
artisans and craftsmen might have used sea transport more effectively for carrying
commercial goods as well as reached more people who visited the township to sell their
products. The area spreading roughly between the complex of Abu Ayyub and the land
walls will be examined in detail in the following part; in this context, I will turn to the
subject of the commercial and production facilities again.
3.3 The route between the Abu Ayyub al-Ansari Shrine Complex and Edirnekapı
From the time of its foundation onwards, the shrine of Abu Ayyub was a site of royal
and urban visits, and with the Ottoman accession ceremonies that began to take place at
the shrine presumably at the end of the sixteenth century, Eyüp acquired a new and more
important role.245 As I also pointed out in the second chapter of this thesis, although it is
generally thought that the ritual of sword girding goes back to the reign of Mehmed II,
until the beginning of the seventeenth century, there is no reliable historical record
describing this kind of tradition. Nevertheless, it is known that the tomb complex of Abu
Ayyub was established by Mehmed II as one of the three essential imperial projects,
243 Yenişehirlioğlu, “Eyüp çarşısı.”
244 The estimated locations of piers (iskeles) mentioned in literary and archival sources, Bostan İskelesi,
Eyüp İskelesi, Zal Paşa İskelesi, Balçık İskelesi, Defterdar İskelesi, and Yavedüd İskelesi, are showed on
the map in figure 37 in Appendix B. It is quite difficult to identify which pier existed in which period and
where they were situated exactly because of the lack of sources. In a certain extent, the chief gardener
(bostancıbaşı) records are helpful for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; however, we do not have
such records for the previous centuries.
245 A girding ceremony was held at the shrine shortly following the enthronement of a sultan that preceded
a visit along Istanbul’s ceremonial artery to the tombs of former Ottoman rulers. For more information,
see Kafescioğlu, “Eyüp;” Kafadar, “Eyüp’te kılıç kuşanma törenleri,” 50-61; Tanman, “Kılıç kuşanma
törenleri.”
62
along with the Topkapı Palace and his funerary mosque complex, which determined
urban, architectural, and ceremonial patterns of the new capital.246 Moreover, Ottoman
sultans visited the venerated tomb of Abu Ayyub not only for a girding ceremony during
their enthronement but also for other purposes such as marking the beginning or end of a
big military campaign.
Parallel to the growing ceremonial significance of Eyüp, the routes connecting
the shrine complex to the Golden Horn shore and the city center also gained importance.
The main artery lying along the shoreline between Eyüp and Ayvansaray was adorned
with the dynastic and elite foundations. As can be seen in figure 25 in Appendix B, the
prominent endowments of the township such as Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha
Mosque Complex, Cezeri Kasım Pasha Mosque Complex, and Defterdar Mahmud
Efendi Mosque were situated on this road. Moreover, many other more modest urban
establishments such as masjids, dervish lodges, madrasas, primary schools, soup
kitchens, and fountains were spread out its environs. Compared to the area around the
shrine of Abu Ayyub, the number of mausoleums and graveyards was less on this main
artery and its vicinity. Although there were some tombs (e.g. Mehmed Vusuli Efendi,
Hubbi Ayşe Hatun, and Nakkaş Hasan Pasha) and small-scale burial grounds mostly
shared by family members and relatives, apparently large cemeteries did not develop
(see Appendix B, Figures 38-39).
As in the case of the waqf of Abu Ayyub Shrine Complex, to maintain the
operations of pious and charitable foundations from big complexes to very small
endowments, founders gave special attention to construct some income-yielding
buildings such as shops, markets, and workshops and stimulate commercial and
246 Necipoğlu, “Dynastic imprints on the cityscape,” 23.
63
production activities. For instance, according to the endowment deed of the Şah Sultan
and Zal Mahmud Pasha Complex, twenty-four rental rooms, six shops, and a candle
factory were built along an avenue bordering Golden Horn in order to increase the
revenue of the waqf.247 It was also recorded that a building, which included six shops
and sixty-three rooms, at the backside of the qibla wall of the mosque and a bakery in
Eyüp were erected as source of extra income.248 In a similar manner, Ayvanasarayi
recounts that a madrasa and a primary school that had been accompanying the Defterdar
Mahmud Efendi Masjid were turned into rental properties for providing income to the
waqf.249
The court registers are also substantial sources that provide some useful hints
about the types of shops and workshops operated in the township and their locations and
architectural characteristics. For example, a record dated 1644 indicates that Harito v.
Rizo, who was a candle maker from the town of Hasköy, was appointed as a protector
(vasi) to Agoro and Haydo, the orphan daughters of İsterpo.250 In this regard, it was
noted that İsterpo had a workshop producing candles near the Balçık Pier in Eyüp.
Therefore, besides taking care of these young girls, Harito was responsible for
maintaining this production place until the girls would reach the legal age. This
document supports the assumption that many of the production areas in Eyüp were most
247 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 371.
248 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 371; Eyice, “Eyüp’de Zal Mahmud Paşa Camii,” 18; Orman, “Zal
Mahmud Paşa Külliyesi,” 109.
249 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 305; Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97. Ayvansarayi
indicates that the madrasa was made into lodgings for married persons (müteehhilin odaları) and the
school was torn down to build rental properties. Eyice claims that the madrasa was turned into the
bachelor rooms. On the other hand, neither Ayvansarayi nor Eyice gives information about the date of
when this change happened. Ayvansarayi also writes that coffeehouses and other shops were built on the
two sides of the Defterdar Pier at the beginning of the reign of Abdülhamid I (r. 1774-1789) and that
therefore, this quarter gained a more commercial character.
250 Eyüb mahkemesi 49 numaralı sicil, 102, case no: 83.
64
likely situated on the shoreline. In parallel to that, another court register dated 1680
reports that Hacı Mehmed Beşe b. Bali sold his boathouse, which was located next to the
Bostan Pier and candle-makers (şem‘haneler), to Hasan Ağa b. Ali.251 The Bostan Pier
was very close to the complex of Abu Ayyub, and it was symbolically very important
since it was the landing point of the sultans when they came to Eyüp via sea route. Thus,
despite this piece of evidence demonstrating the presence of production places at the
very center of the town, it can be suggested that it was not probably very common to
establish a workshop in this ceremonial area. A record dated 1637 is another example
that shows that a slaughterhouse and a candle workshop in Eyüp were located side by
side on the shoreline of the Golden Horn.252 In this register, it was reported that Mustafa
Ağa, who was the administrator of the waqf of İbrahim Ağa, came to Eyüp to investigate
the renovation activities of these waqf properties. The exact location of the
slaughterhouse and candle workshop was not specified, but it was noted that they were
situated near a pier and on the one side of them was a farrier shop (nalbant dükkanı).
A register dated 1679 is about the fifty per cent share transfer of a candle
workshop from Hristo v. Nikola to İstamola v. Panav.253 It was recorded that this candle
production place (mumhane, şem‘hane), which was located in the neighborhood called
el-Hac Hüsrev in the township of Eyüp, was actually a property belonged to the waqf of
the Sheikh Hüseyin Efendi. Hristo rented it from the waqf and then wanted to share it
251 The document gives further information about the boathouse, which was an important commercial
structure. It was reported that the boathouse, which had nine cells, was a waqf property and its annual rent
was 120 akça. The closed area was situated on a plot about 348 zira, and there was open space about 462
zira (33 zira in length and 14 zira in width). ‘Zira’ is an Ottoman unit of measure that was equal to
0.57417 square meters. The same term, ‘zira’, was also used for measuring length and width, and in this
case, it was equal to 0.75774 meter. No additional information regarding the candle workshops was
provided. See Eyüb mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil, 460, case no: 558.
252 Eyüb mahkemesi 37 numaralı sicil, 208, case no: 233.
253 Eyüb mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil, 280, case no: 299.
65
with İstamola. It was described that on the one side of the workshop was a
slaughterhouse (selhane), which was also the waqf’s property, and on the other three
sides were Hasan’s home, Muslim graveyards (mekabir-i müslimin), and a street (tarik-i
am). According to the register, both the slaughterhouse and the candle workshop were
two-storey buildings. At the upper floor of the slaughterhouse was only one room while
at the second floor of the candle workshop were three rooms side by side and a hall
(sofa). It was explained that the tenant Hristo had the right to use these four rooms
together with a storehouse (mahzen) and a toilet (kenif). However, it was not clearly
indicated whether the rooms were utilized as a part of the production place or as a
residential unit. Considering that next to the candle workshop was also a residential
structure (Hasan’s home), it is possible that the ground floor was a work place and the
upper floor was a living area. Moreover, two-story buildings, whose ground floors were
used for commercial purposes and upper floors as residences, were quite common in the
Ottoman commercial architecture.254
Thanks to many court registers, it can also be understood that workshops and
shops that manufactured and sold potteries had an important role in commercial life of
the township. In the registers, some of these pottery ateliers were recorded as boundary
markers of other buildings,255 or the sales and share transfer of pottery shops in Eyüp
were indicated.256 In addition, it can be seen that in several records, people involved in
different court cases were introduced as among Eyüp's artisans who were working in
254 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 31.
255 The locations of some buildings in Eyüp were described by referring to their proximity to the pottery
shops/ workshops (e.g. çömlekçiler sükunda, çömlekçiler çarşısında, Çömlekçi mahallesinde). For
example, see Bab mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 719, case no: 929; Eyüb mahkemesi 37 numaralı sicil, 255,
case no: 303; Eyüb mahkemesi 19 numaralı sicil, 238, case no: 263.
256 As an example of these registers, see Eyüb mahkemesi 49 numaralı sicil, 134, case no: 127; Eyüb
mahkemesi 49 numaralı sicil, 176, case no: 184.
66
ceramics production.257 As I will focus on in a detailed manner in the next chapter, the
seventeenth century Ottoman travelers Evliya Çelebi and Eremya Çelebi also provides a
good amount of information about the pottery makers in Eyüp. According to Evliya
Çelebi, Çömlekçiler Neighborhood, which was located on a flat land on the shoreline of
the Golden Horn, included 250 pottery shops in rows on the two sides of a street.258
Furthermore, he writes that a big number of farrier shops and around 300 shops selling
various products were also located in the market place of this neighborhood.259 Although
it is not possible to rely on the numbers that Evliya Çelebi provides, similar to his
depiction, the court registers demonstrate that a wide variety of shops were located in the
vicinity of Çömlekçiler. Among these were the shop of a halvah maker,260 a grocery,261 a
yoghurt shop,262 and a bakery.263
In that regard, another court register dated 1680 offers a broader picture about
what types of commercial and production spaces could be found in Eyüp in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. In this record, certain materials were requested from the
artisans and craftsmen of Eyüp for the Ottoman imperial tent complex (Otağ-ı
Humayun).264 Accordingly, more than twenty groups of occupations were listed, and
among them are market gardeners, stallholders, tailors, yoghurt makers, bakers,
herbalists (attaran), barbers, bathhouse attendants, mug and glass makers, pottery
257 These artisans were described as a member of the community of potters or a pottery-maker (e.g. erbâbı
hırefden çömlekçi taifesinden, çömlekçi). For example, see Eyüb mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 137, case
no: 191; Eyüb mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil, 110, case no: 61; Eyüb mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil, 135,
case no: 92.
258 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 167.
259 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 167.
260 Eyüb mahkemesi 49 numaralı sicil, 109, case no: 94. Halvah is a tahini-based sweet.
261 Eyüb mahkemesi 61 numaralı sicil, 57, case no: 16.
262 Eyüb mahkemesi 82 numaralı sicil, 118, case no: 125.
263 Eyüb mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil, 153, case no: 117.
264 Eyüb mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil, 542, case no: 679.
67
makers, tanners, shoe makers (haffafan), iron heel makers (nalçacıyan), timber sellers,
blacksmiths, tinsmiths, silk manufacturers (kazzaz), gardeners, halvah makers, farriers,
and well diggers and water carriers. This list might not cover all types of occupations of
artisans and tradesmen who served in Eyüp; yet, it still helps us develop further
interpretations of what kinds of commercial buildings and production places that were
built in the township.
As is understood from all these examples represented above, in Eyüp, there were
many commercial enterprises that produced income for the upkeep and running of
charitable institutions in different scales, stimulated economic activity, and provided
employment. Unfortunately we do not have enough sources to help us to create a bigger
and clearer picture, but at least we can get some general ideas regarding the locations,
spatial settings, and architectural features of these buildings. It can be interpreted that the
commercial and production establishments were situated in close proximity to the
coastline and piers in order to take advantage of the sea transport. Apparently, shops and
workshops that sold and manufactured similar types of products were located close to
each other and formed a kind of specialized market area, such as the pottery makers.265
Moreover, since the fat of slain animals was used for producing candles and soaps, it
was probably quite common that slaughterhouses, tanneries, and candle- and soapmakers
were situated next to each other.266 These commercial and production places
265 In parallel to that, Halil İnalcık indicates that in Ottoman Istanbul, the shops and production spaces
were generally built as rectangular blocks and were situated in rows according to the related occupations.
Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu also remarks that in Eyüp, the names of streets, where similar shops and workshops
were located side by side, were given according to their common products, such as Çömlekçiler Street or
Oyuncakçılar Street. She states that many shops were used as both production place and selling area. See
İnalcık, “Istanbul (Tarih/ Türk devri),” 222; Yenişehirlioğlu, “Eyüp çarşısı.”
266 Selma Akyazıcı Özkoçak also describes slaughterhouses, tanning workshops, candle- and soap-makers
as “dependent’ establishments” in her article which focuses on the topographical, economic, and social
68
were built as one- or two-storey structures; furthermore, the upper floors of some of
them were used as residential.267 Today no significant remains of the sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century commercial structures have survived in Eyüp; therefore, it can be
said that they were generally timber constructions that were not so durable.268
Other types of wooden buildings that have almost completely disappeared but
once constituted the fundamental element of urban form of the township were houses.
As one of the largest settlements outside of the city walls, Eyüp had a huge number of
residential structures in a wide range from simple houses to more luxurious pavilions
(köşks), mansions (konaks), and seaside villas (yalıs). At the end of the reign of Mehmed
II, eight neighborhoods, whose total population is estimated as 4,000 people, emerged
around the socio-religious establishments in the town.269 In the sixteenth century,
particularly during the reign of Süleyman I, the population of both Istanbul and Eyüp
increased significantly. In the last years of Süleyman I’s rule, 30-40% of total population
of Istanbul, which is thought to have been around 500,000 people, was settled outside of
the city walls, and Eyüp was among the densest suburban settlements together with
Galata and Kasımpaşa.270 In the seventeenth century, the building activities decelerated
compared to the previous century and the boundaries of Eyüp did not expand so much;
on the other hand, the current residential areas continued to become denser and a large
development of the districts of Edirnekapı and Yedikule in the sixteenth century in relation to the system
of meat supply. See Özkoçak, “Two urban districts,” 28.
267 For Edirnekapı and Yedikule, Selma Akyazıcı Özkoçak states that in both districts, commercial and
residential areas developed at some distance from the unpleasant occupations related to the slaughter of
animals. On the other hand, we cannot see such a clear separation between these areas in Eyüp considering
the examples in the court registers above. This might be because that the scale of slaughterhouses in Eyüp
and the production processes in relation to that may have been smaller than Edirnekapı and Yedikule. On
the other hand, I do not know the exact answer and just want to put a question mark here.
268 Moreover, it should also be noted that many of them were demolished during the new construction and
urban transformation projects in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
269 Kara, “Eyüp,” 247.
270 Kara, “Eyüp,” 248.
69
number of migrants from the villages of Rumelia and Anatolia settled in the township.271
Moreover, due to its religious significance, natural beauties, and vivid social and cultural
life, Eyüp was also a preferred residential site among the members of royal households,
high-ranking officials, scholars, artists, and poets. From the sixteenth century onwards, it
became quite fashionable to construct seaside mansions (yalıs) along the Golden Horn
among the Ottoman royal women, which will be discussed separately later in this
chapter.272
The residential areas of early modern Istanbul were mostly composed of one- or
two-storey houses that were built of modest material in small size (see Appendix B,
Figure 40).273 In 1534, the Venetian Benedetto Ramberti (1503-1546) writes that the city
was full of houses, not many of which were good, being made of clay and wood and
only a few of stone.274 As is seen in the endowment deeds of a number of foundations,
there were also larger residential complexes, which laid out around multiple courtyards
and included more facilities such as a garden, stables, furnace, water well, and numerous
rooms.275 Based on travelers’ accounts and waqf documents, Halil İnalcık considers the
types of houses in Istanbul into five groups as follows: rooms (oda, hücre) that were
built either detached in rows around a court or in the style of khan, neighborhood
(mahalle) houses that were one- or two-storey structures of wood or mud-brick for
people in humble circumstances, houses with gardens, palaces (kasr) of statesmen and
271 As Suraiya Faroqhi states, in contrast to forced migration policy which was ordered to repopulate the
city after the conquest, from the seventeenth century onwards the state authorities put effort to stop the
migration flows from different parts of the empire to Istanbul. Eyüp was one of the favored destinations
among these newcomers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. See Faroqhi, “Eyüp kadı sicillerine
yansıdığı şekliyle 18. yüzyıl ‘büyük İstanbul’una göç.”
272 Artan, “Eyüp,” 3-4; Artan, “Eyüp’ün bir diğer çehresi,” 107.
273 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 200.
274 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 200; Ramberti, “The second book,” 239.
275 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 200.
70
rich merchants; and villas and yalıs of sultans and dignitaries.276 These general remarks
about the residential fabric of Istanbul, apparently, conform to that of Eyüp. Since
nothing remains of residential structures built in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
court registers, which covered various issues regarding new constructions, renovations,
inheritance, renting, sales, and endowment deeds, are quite useful sources that offer
further information about domestic architecture in Eyüp. Although it is not possible to
have a complete picture by using these records, below I would like to discuss some
examples to provide a glimpse of different types of residential buildings that could be
found in the township.277
A register dated 1655 describes how the deceased Abdurrahman Çelebi b. Ali’s
estate would be shared among his inheritors.278 Accordingly, it was recorded that his
house, which was located in the neighborhood around the complex of Abu Ayyub,
composed of a room on the ground floor (bir tahtani oda), two upper-storey rooms (iki
bab fevkani odalar), a hall (sofa), a water well, a stable, and a toilet (kenif).279 On the
three sides of the house were a residence (menzil) and a freehold property (mülk), which
belonged to two Muslim men, and a street (tarik-i am). According to the court registers
276 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 261, endnote 101; İnalcık, “Istanbul (Tarih/ Türk devri),”
231; İnalcık, “Istanbul.” In the matter of rooms (oda, hücre), Halil İnalcık adds that these places were
generally occupied by unmarried men who had come to Istanbul for searching job. Therefore, these rooms
were known as bachelor’s rooms (bekar odaları) and were not encouraged in a neighborhood where
mostly married households were settled. Moreover, as İnalcık states, “unmarried workmen frequently used
a single room in a khan or a caravanserai both as a workshop and living quarters.” In this regard, I would
like to note that the ‘rooms’ could be thought in association with commercial buildings and spaces of
production.
277 In addition, as I could not identify a clear change/ difference between the sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury
residential structures, I did not make a classification while choosing examples from the registers.
It seems that domestic architecture of the seventeenth century in Istanbul was a continuation of the
sixteenth century. For a similar comment on this issue, see Açık and Düzenli, “XVI-XVII. yüzyıl Istanbul
evleri,” 245.
278 Eyüb mahkemesi 61 numaralı sicil, 187, case no: 198.
279 It was also indicated that the plot on which the house was built was around 168 zira (length 24 zira,
width 7 zira). Considering that one zira is equal to about 0.57 square meters, the plot was approximately
95 square meters.
71
that I have examined, most of Eyüp’s houses were spatially connected with public
streets (tarik-i am) that were open to everyone’s use, and residential structures rarely had
private streets (tarik-i has). Therefore, in this section, I use the word ‘street’ in the
meaning of ‘public thoroughfare’.280
Considering the spatial relationships that were noted in the court registers, it
seems that the boundaries between residential, agricultural, and sacred areas in Eyüp
were quite fluid (see Appendix B, Figure 41).281 One of the examples in this regard can
be a record dated 1586, which is about the deceased person’s estate. Since there was no
one as inheritor, his property was shared among the waqfs.282 It was reported that a part
of the residential complex, which was located in Yavedüd Neighborhood, had been
endowed to a dervish lodge before, and that the rest of it would be given to the waqf of
Abu Ayyub. The number of rooms was not exactly indicated; however, it was implied
that it was a large two-storey building.283 More importantly, as border markers of the
residence, it was recorded that there were two market gardens (bostans), Muslims’s
graves (mezarat-ı müslimin), and a street. Similar to that, a register dated 1679-80
describes a house, which was bordered by two streets and two Muslim graveyards
(mekabir-i Müslimin).284 It was recorded that Hüseyin Dede b. Abdullah endowed his
house (mülk menzil) to a waqf. The house was a one-storey building that composed of
four rooms set aside for male visitors (selamlık), a toilet, a water well, a garden (bahçe),
and a courtyard (avlu). Another register dated 1637-38 illustrates that on the two sides of
280 I should also note that for English translations of words regarding residential buildings in the registers,
I got help from the glossary prepared by Suraiya Faroqhi. See Faroqhi, Men of modest substance, 222-27.
281 The photo (figure 41) in Appendix B was taken in the end of the twentieth century. But I think, in a
way, it can give a sense of this fluidity mentioned here.
282 Eyüb mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 174, case no: 270.
283 It was written that numerous rooms were situated on the first and second floors (fevkani ve tahtani
odalar).
284 Eyüb mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil, 65, case no: 3.
72
a house were market gardens, which belonged to the two different waqfs.285 Apparently,
in the neighborhoods of Eyüp, residential areas were not settled separately from
agricultural production lands and burial grounds. In this respect, it would not be wrong
to claim that urban and rural elements, and profane and sacred spheres coexisted in daily
life.
In many court registers, in addition to the architectural features and layout of
residential structures, information about trees and plants in gardens and courtyards could
also be found. This might be an indication of that agricultural and horticultural products
were also perceived as a significant part of the property. For instance, a record dated
1619-20 depicts the sales of a two-storey house, which had a room (beyt) on the ground
floor, a room on the upper floor, two porches (sundurma), and a barn (samanlık).286 The
house was bordered with three other houses and a street. Moreover, it was indicated that
in the courtyard (muhavvata), there were trees with and without fruits (eşcar-ı müsmire
ve gayr-ı müsmire). Similarly, in another sales contract register from the same year, it
was recorded that the house included an upper room, two halls, a pantry (kiler), a
veranda-like structure/balcony (şehnişin), a kitchen (matbah), a toilet, and a stable
(ahır).287 Located next to two other residential buildings and a street, the house had also
a courtyard with both fruit-bearing and fruitless trees. In some records that are mostly
related to houses with larger courtyards or gardens, the types of trees such as mulberry,
285 Eyüb mahkemesi 37 numaralı sicil, 153, case no: 151.
286 Eyüb mahkemesi 19 numaralı sicil, 76, case no: 24. In the registers, it seems that the words ‘beyt’ and
‘oda’ were used interchangeably and both mean ‘room’. On the other hand, ‘beyt’ could also mean
‘residence, house’, so there is a little bit ambiguity. For more examples on the registers in which the word
‘beyt’ was written, see Açık and Düzenli, “XVI-XVII. yüzyıl Istanbul evleri,” 258-61.
287 Eyüb mahkemesi 19 numaralı sicil, 107, case no: 70.
73
olive, fig, quince, pear, and walnut and their numbers were also indicated in a detailed
manner.288
3.4 Eyüp’s shoreline: yalıs
Apart from modest houses and relatively larger residential complexes that I have
represented above, numerous palaces and seaside mansions (yalıs) were also built in
Eyüp. On the other hand, it is not easy to identify the construction dates, architectural
features, and spatial setting of these opulent houses due to several reasons. First of all,
we have no or very little architectural remains from these less durable structures, which
were mostly built of wood. Secondly, they very often changed hands between the
members of royal household or high-ranking officials, and according to the tastes of
their new residents, they were renovated, rebuilt, and redecorated many times.
Moreover, when their owners changed, same buildings may have started to be known
with different names, and this makes it harder to establish a chronology for these
buildings.289 Finally but more importantly, historical documents about them are very
dispersed.290 Nonetheless, several pieces of information, from both archival and
narrative sources, demonstrate that prestigious and luxurious residential buildings were
added to the urban fabric of Eyüp in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
In the early sixteenth century, Hançerli Fatma Sultan (d. 1533), who was the
granddaughter of Sultan Bayezid II and the wife of Mehmed Bey, son of the grand vizier
288 For some examples, see Eyüb mahkemesi 49 numaralı sicil, 85, case no: 57; Eyüb mahkemesi 37
numaralı sicil, 140, case no: 130; Eyüb mahkemesi 19 numaralı sicil, 95, case no: 51; Eyüb mahkemesi 61
numaralı sicil, 132, case no: 125; Eyüb mahkemesi 82 numaralı sicil, 142, case no: 163.
289 In this respect, another difficulty is that the names of some Ottoman princesses, who lived in different
periods, could be the same. For instance, in this study, we can see two ‘Şah Sultan’, one of them was the
daughter of Selim I and the other was the daughter of Selim II.
290 Tülay Artan explains very well why it is hard to follow the chronology of the mansions, see Artan,
“Eyüp’ün bir diğer çehresi,” 107-11.
74
Çandarlı İbrahim Pasha, was one of the owners of these seaside mansions.291 The yalı
was built on the coastline of Bahariye, which was one of the most prestigious districts
spanned between Bostan Pier and today’s Silahtarağa.292 The grave of Hançerli Fatma
Sultan overlooking the main road was located next to her mansion.293 Her tomb, which
was supported by four columns in a square plan without walls covered with a thin dome,
is today situated within the enclosure of cemetery of Abu Ayyub. After the death of
Hançerli Fatma Sultan, her seaside palace most likely passed into the hands of Şah
Sultan (d. 1572), a daughter of Selim I, who built a mosque and a dervish lodge next to
this mansion.294 In the end of the eighteenth century, the yalı of Hançerli Fatma Sultan
was recorded as the fourth mansion following the yalıs of Beyhan Sultan, Hatice Sultan,
and Esma Sultan after the Bostan Pier.295
At the end of the coastline of Bahariye, there was also an imperial kiosk (kasr-ı
hümayun) that gave its name to the area.296 Its construction date is not known; however,
archival documents show that in 1708 and 1722, it was extensively restored and its
garden was rearranged.297 Based on this information, it is possible to claim that it was
built before the eighteenth century.298 We do not have enough evidence of the earlier
291 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 70.
292 For more information on the district of Bahariye in Eyüp, see Artan, “Bahariye,” 235-36.
293 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 280, 292; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 198-99.
294 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 70; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 280. Ayvansarayi claims
that Şah Sultan was the first owner of the well-known seaside palace (sahilsaray) known at present as
‘Hancarlı’ Sultan Sarayı. However, chronologically it seems more plausible that Şah Sultan was the
second owner after Hançerli Fatma Sultan. I will discuss Şah Sultan Mosque in more detail in the
following chapter.
295 Artan, “Esma Sultan Sahilsarayı,” 208.
296 Bahariye Kasr-ı Hümayunu was indicated as the last mansion on the coastline of Bahariye in the
nineteenth-century registers of chief gardener (bostancıbaşı defterleri); and after this building, the area
until Alibeyköy was empty. See Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 64; Artan, “Bahariye Kasrı.”
297 Artan, “Bahariye Kasrı.”
298 According to Mehmet Nermi Haskan, Bahariye Kasrı is thought to have been built during the reign of
Mehmed II or Bayezid II. On the other hand, he does not point out any reference to solidify his claim. See
Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 64.
75
history of the kiosk. On the other hand, taking into account that in the eighteenth
century, the sultans hosted many official events in this imperial residence and visited it
for entertainment and relaxation, it can be thought that it was used in similar ways in the
previous periods.299
Besides official historical documents, narrative sources also offer some evidence
of palaces and seaside villas. For instance, Evliya Çelebi describes the Melek Ahmed
Pasha Palace located in the Topçular Neighborhood in Eyüp as a very beautiful mansion,
and likens it to a garden of angels. Near it, there were also palaces of Gürcü Pasha and
Defterdar Nişancı Pasha.300 Melek Ahmed Pasha (d. 1662), who was an Ottoman
statesman and grand vizier during the reign of Mehmed IV (r. 1648-1687), was first
married to Kaya Sultan (d. 1659), daughter of Murad IV. Evliya Çelebi writes that Kaya
Sultan died while giving a birth in her seaside villa in Eyüp when she was twenty-seven
years old.301 He calls this villa ‘Eba Eyyub Ensari Yalısı’; hence, possibly because it was
close to the venerated shrine of Abu Ayyub.302 After Kaya Sultan, Melek Ahmed Pasha
became so sad and was forced to marry Fatma Sultan (d. 1667), the aged daughter of
Ahmed I, in 1662; but this unhappy marriage was short-lived, ended by Melek Ahmed
Pasha’s death in the same year.303 Evliya Çelebi recounts that the wedding took place in
299 Tülay Artan asserts that after the renovations in the beginning of the eighteenth century, the kiosk
recovered its prestige. According to her, it was particularly used during the reign of Mahmud I (r. 1730-
1754) for hosting ambassadors and other official guests or organizing banquets. She also writes that
during the visits of the sultans, many traditional games and entertainments took place there. See Artan,
“Bahariye Kasrı.”
300 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 166. Haskan also recounts Gürcü Mehmed Pasha’s and Melek Ahmed
Pasha’s palaces based on the available sources; see Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 69, 75.
301 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 149.
302 Haskan mentions this villa as ‘Kaya Sultan Yalısı’; see Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 75.
303 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 122-23; Uluçay, Padişahların kadınları ve kızları, 51-52.
76
Fatma Sultan’s seaside mansion, which was located on the Golden Horn just outside of
the city walls after the gate of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari.304
The Ottoman historian Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa (d. 1723) points out
another yalı, which was located between the Şah Sultan Mosque and the Bostan Pier in
the Bahariye area on the Golden Horn. He remarks that Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha
(d. 1683), Ottoman military commander and grand vizier, gave a feast in this palace for
the Sultan Mehmed IV.305 According to Haskan, after Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha,
this mansion passed to his son, Ali Paşa, who was married to Safiye Sultan, daughter of
Sultan Mustafa II (r. 1695-1703), in 1710. The next owners of the seaside villa were
Safiye Sultan’s daughter and granddaughter, Zahide Hanım Sultan and Ümmü Gülsüm
Hanım Sultan. Because of the title of its residents, it was known as ‘Hanım Sultan
Yalısı’.306
Despite many missing pieces of information about these luxurious residential
complexes built in Eyüp mostly along the Golden Horn, it would not be wrong to claim
that they played an important role in the urban fabric of the township. They functioned
as resort houses and pleasure grounds for elites and members of royal household. In this
respect, these prestigious buildings and flamboyant life style represent Eyüp in a
‘different’ way than its sacred image. On the other hand, as Tülay Artan discusses,
considering these examples, we should question how Ottomans might perceive the
boundaries between ‘sacred’ and ‘recreational’ sites in the early modern world.
Although we generally tend to think spiritual values and earthly habits as conflicting
concepts, for the Ottomans instead of this dichotomy, they might be intertwined in daily
304 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 135; Artan, “Eyüp’ün bir diğer çehresi,” 108-9.
305 Silahdar, Nusretname (Vol. 2), 41.
306 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 70-71.
77
life in a more harmonious way.307 In a similar manner, these delightful palaces and
mansions in Eyüp were in close spatial connections with numerous sacred sites such as
mosques, mausoleums, dervish lodges, and cemeteries.
3.5 Sufi networks in Eyüp: dervish lodges
Earlier in this chapter, in the part focusing on the historical overview of the urban
development of Eyüp, I briefly mentioned the Sufi lodges that were built in the town
between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries (see Appendix B, Figure 42). Here, I
would like to elaborate more on the significant role of these foundations in both the
urban texture and the religious, social, and cultural life of Eyüp. This is actually a very
broad topic that would be almost impossible to cover thoroughly within the limited
scope of this study. Therefore, rather than to attempt to offer a very detailed
examination, my aim is simply to highlight the importance of Eyüp as one of the richest
areas in terms of the dervish lodges in the early modern Istanbul.308
Although most of these buildings have not survived to the present day, according
to Baha Tanman, more than sixty dervish lodges were located in Eyüp to represent
almost all Sufi orders that were active in Istanbul.309 Tanman remarks that Eyüp as a
borough connected to the capital included a much higher number of Sufi lodges than
many Ottoman cities. Hence, a careful investigation of dervish lodges just in Eyüp
would make it possible to follow the architectural development of Sufi orders’ buildings
307 Artan, “Eyüp’ün bir diğer çehresi,” 106.
308 Eyüp kept this characteristic for a long period of time and remained as one of the most important
centers of various Sufi orders until the abolition of all dervish lodges in 1925 by the Republic of Turkey.
309 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 102. For more information on the historical background and
characteristics of each of these Sufi orders, see Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 82-151.
78
and identify certain typologies between the mid-fifteenth to the twentieth centuries.310
Tanman divides dervish lodges in Eyüp, and in Istanbul in general, into three main
groups based on their layout and prominent design features.311 The first group, which
consists of masonry structures having porticoed open courtyards, bears a resemblance to
Ottoman madrasas and mosque-madrasa complexes. In this type of building, the
courtyard provides a peaceful and silent environment away from the chaos and noise of
outside world for dervishes. The spaces of ritual and prayer, dervish rooms, and
sometimes kitchen, refectory, and storage rooms are situated around the courtyard; thus,
a connection between different functional parts is established, and closed areas can get
fresh air and natural light thanks to the openness in front of them. The house in which
the Sufi sheikh and his family were living is usually a separate unit that is situated a bit
away from the main building.312 One of the best-preserved examples of this first group is
the Şeyhülislam Dervish Lodge, which was established in 1744-45 by the sheikh al-
Islam Seyyid Mustafa Efendi (d. 1745) in the Nişanca Quarter in Eyüp (see Appendix B,
Figures 43-44).313 Even though the eighteenth-century structures are not included in the
scope of this research, I think it would be useful to share this building as an exception
because its original form has been mostly kept.
According to Tanman’s classification, the buildings in the second group
functioned as both mosque (or masjid) and dervish lodge.314 It was a very common
model in Ottoman religious architecture, and many examples of it could also be found in
310 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 102, 113.
311 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 102; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 257-62.
312 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 102-3; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 257-59.
313 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 103-5; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 2), 72-81.
Şeyhülislam Dervish Lodge is today located at the intersection of Baba Haydar Mektebi Street, Balcı
Yokuşu, and Haydar Çeşmesi Street in the Nişanca Quarter.
314 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 105; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 259-61.
79
Eyüp. This type of buildings were used by dwellers of the surrounding neighborhoods
for performing five daily prayers, and other times, by members of Sufi orders for their
gatherings and rituals. Some of these foundations were planned as dual-functional from
the beginning and their endowment deeds and architectural program were arranged
accordingly; others were initially designed as mosque or masjid, then, started to be
utilized also as dervish lodge. In any case, the additional units that are necessary for a
dervish lodge such as sheikh’s house, dervish rooms, or kitchen were usually
constructed separately from the main place of worship.315 Moreover, the east, west, and
south sides of mosques (or masjids) were often reserved for burial grounds in which Sufi
sheikhs’ tombs were also located.
To have a better understanding of the characteristics of the second group’s
buildings, Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge can be a good example as it has mostly
kept its original architecture (see Appendix B, Figures 45-47).316 It was commissioned
by the Sultan Süleyman I in honor of Baba Haydar Samarkandi (d. 1550), who was one
of the great sheikhs of Naqshbandi order.317 It is situated in the middle of the plot, and as
described above, its three sides are surrounded by graves including the tomb of Baba
Haydar. In front of its northern façade is a courtyard. Other units of the dervish lodge,
which are no longer extant, were probably wooden structures situated around this
315 Baha Tanman points out that these additional units were wooden constructions, and in time, most of
them have been completely ruined and disappeared. On the other hand, the mosques (or masjids) of these
small complexes were usually made of stone masonry and covered with wooden roofs; therefore, they
have been mostly survived. Because of that, in some examples, although mosques and masjids might have
been a part of larger complexes together with dervish lodges, it is not always possible to identify. See
Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 105; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 259.
316 For the location of Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge, see Appendix B, Figures 14-15. It is today
located at the intersection of Haydar Baba Street and Baba Haydar Mosque Street in Eyüp.
317 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 105; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 2), 106-11;
Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 303. During the reign of Sultan Mustafa III (r. 1757-1773), Baba
Haydar Masjid was turned into a mosque; Sheikh Abdullah Efendi, the imam of Arpacı Masjid in Eyüp,
installed its minbar.
80
courtyard. Although three walls of the masjid were constructed with rubble masonry, the
northern wall was made of wood and has a roof fringe measuring two meters. In this
way, it may have been aimed to create a kind of conformity between the masjid and
other wooden structures of the dervish lodge.318 Emir Buhari Mosque-Dervish Lodge,
which was again built by Süleyman I, and Şah Sultan Mosque-Dervish Lodge, whose
patron was the daughter of Selim I and the half-sister of Süleyman I, are also important
examples of the second group.319 Savak (Cemalizade) Masjid-Dervish Lodge, which was
commissioned by the vizier Hirami Ahmed Pasha (d. 1599) in the last quarter of the
sixteenth century in Eyüp, can also be classified under this category. However, its
interior layout has a different characteristic that is worth mentioning. In this dervish
lodge, the tomb of the sheikh was located within the place of worship on an elevated
platform just behind the prayer niche (see Appendix B, Figure 48).320 According to
Tanman, as a result of this spatial setting, which was as an effective way of showing
honor and reverence to the sheikh, the building was moved away from mosque
architecture and its function as dervish lodge was emphasized.321
The third and last group consists of dervish lodges that have many similarities
with civil architecture in terms of their both exterior and interior design, therefore, it is
even possible to call them ‘house-convents’.322 The main difference of Sufi orders’
buildings than other religious structures was to combine various functions such as
318 Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 2), 108. Baha Tanman asserts that even though there may be some
changes in time, the original façade was most likely very similar to the present day.
319 These buildings are discussed in more detail in Appendix A. For more information, also see Tanman,
“İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 2), 218-22, 264-74.
320 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 106-7; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 2), 398-405;
Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 257-59; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 79-82.
321 Baha Tanman also states that this striking feature unfortunately cannot be observed now because during
the restoration around 1958 a wall between these two parts was erected. See Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da
tarikat yapıları,” 106-7.
322 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 107; Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 261.
81
prayers, Sufi ceremonials, visitation, education, accommodation, and feeding. This
characteristic can be seen most obviously in the examples of the third group because all
these various units or most of them were generally gathered under the same roof like a
house. One of the reasons of applying this kind of architectural layout might have been
the smallness of the plot or the financial incapability. On the other hand, many important
Sufi lodges, which were established on large lands and had wealthy endowments, also
followed this type of plan.323 As the main construction material, wood was used.
Moreover, both the façade arrangements and the architectural ornamentations were
likening to residential architecture. It seems that although some of the dervish lodges
under this category were similar to modest houses and some of them grand mansions, in
general their design aimed to represent them as a part of residential fabric, rather than as
conspicuous monuments.
In Eyüp, Karyağdı and Ümmi Sinan dervish lodges, which are thought to have
been built in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries respectively, are good examples of the
third group (see Appendix B, Figures 49-50).324 Karyağdı was a Bektashi convent,
which was established on the highest hill of Eyüp, today known as Piyer Loti Hill.325
Karyağdı Baba is said to have been one of the saints from Khorasan and attended in the
conquest of Constantinople.326 Tanman states that in addition to the members of
323 The mawlawi houses (mevlevihanes) in Yenikapı, Kasımpaşa, and Galata can be showed as some wellknown
examples in this regard. See Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 262.
324 It is important to note that both of these dervish lodges were rebuilt or extensively restored in the
nineteenth century; however, it is thought that their original appearance was probably taken as reference.
Therefore, based on what has remained today, we can have an idea about how they looked like when they
were first constructed. For more detailed architectural analysis, see Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 2),
484-93, 601-6; Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 108-10.
325 Bektashi dervish lodges were usually located away from densely settled areas. Parallel to that,
Karyağdı Dervish Lodge was founded on the hilly site of Eyüp rather than on a more central area along
the Golden Horn.
326 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 285, 320, 322-23; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 128-30.
82
Bektashi order, who later mostly served in Janissary corps, various Sufi orders supported
the Ottoman army during the conquest of Constantinople. Therefore, it is thought that
some convents around Istanbul, which were located in strategic positions such as
Karyağdı in Eyüp and Şehidler Dervish Lodge in Rumeli Hisarı might have been built
during the conquest, even before the city was captured.327 Compared to Karyağdı, Ümmi
Sinan was a larger convent. Because the tomb of Ümmi Sinan (d. 1568), who was the
founder of the Sinaniye branch of Khalwati order, was located there, it had a special
status for the followers of this branch.328 Although these two dervish lodges were built in
different scales in different periods for the use of different Sufi orders, their general
design was quite similar. Without seeing what kinds of rooms they have (see Appendix
B, Figure 51), from outside, it is almost impossible to distinguish these buildings from
ordinary houses. According to Tanman, this harmony of the dervish lodges with the
urban fabric of neighborhoods can be seen as a piece of evidence that Sufi orders
comprehended the public life in a deep manner and became a part of it.329
As is seen from all these examples that I have discussed above, it would not be
enough to describe dervish lodges as only religious foundations. Instead, they were like
multifunctional centers that served different needs of members of Sufi orders as well as
327 Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 74.
328 Tanman, “Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları,” 108-10; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 143-44.
329 While discussing this issue, Tanman also points out the role of dervish lodges on shaping the ‘popular
religion’ that directed daily life of populace besides the ‘official religion’ that was represented by the
ulema and madrasa system. I agree with this idea to a certain extent. On the other hand, it should keep in
mind that there was not always a clear-cut distinction between Sufism and Ottoman religious institution
(ilmiye). It is known that many Ottoman high-state officials and members of royal family, even sultans,
endowed Sufi lodges in many places including Eyüp. As Zeynep Yürekli correctly explains in her article
focusing on the Sufi convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Kadırga, “The fact that part of the sixteenthcentury
ulema criticized Sufi rituals and part of the seventeenth-century ulema did not want to see Sufis in
the pulpit does not mean that we should conceive Sufism and ‘ilmiyye as two different universes, since this
would ignore the members of the ‘ilmiyye who attended Sufi convents.” See Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri”
(Vol. 1), 536-37; Yürekli, “A building between the public and private realms of the Ottoman elite,” 181.
For further information on ilmiye, see İpşirli, “İlmiye.”
83
local population. Parallel to that, for the construction of dervish lodges, hybrid
architectural styles that had several commonalities with religious, education, and
residential structures were applied. From the conquest onwards, new Sufi convents were
established in Istanbul, and in this regard, Eyüp became one of the most favored districts
owing to its location outside of the city walls and its fame related to the holy shrine of
Abu Ayyub. The followers of various Sufi orders not only combined mysticism with
religious duties but also took an interest in the arts and sciences of the time in these
dervish lodges that provided a freer atmosphere for intellectual life and social
intercourse. Thus, in addition to Sufis, poets, composers, musicians, calligraphers,
painters, and other artists and craftsmen were grown up in these socio-religious
institutions, and these learned people highly contributed to the development of social
and cultural life in Eyüp.330
The last point that I would like to underline is that some dervish lodges in Eyüp
also functioned as recreational sites and excursion spots of the dwellers of Istanbul.
According to Tanman, it was quite a popular activity to organize a few-day trips to pay
visit the Sufi convents, which were located in the suburbs of the city, especially in the
spring and summer seasons.331 During their visit, people were either staying in the guest
houses of dervish lodges if available or setting up tents in gardens and meadows. It is
also known that food was served to the visitors from the kitchens of some convents.332
Similar to that, travellers and itinerant Sufis from other parts of the Ottoman territories
or farther Islamic lands like Afghanistan or India were welcomed in dervish lodges.333
330 Kara, “Eyüp,” 249.
331 Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 175.
332 Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 175.
333 Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 170-2.
84
Furthermore, some convents were particularly built for this purpose. In Eyüp, for
instance, Özbekler Dervish Lodge was constructed in the first half of the eighteenth
century to provide a place for Sufis, who came to Istanbul from Central Asia,
particularly from the area of Uzbekistan.334 This shows us that Sufi centers might have
also played an important role for creating communication networks and establishing
cultural connections between different regions in the Muslim world.
3.6 Visual representations of Eyüp in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources
The earliest known Ottoman map of Istanbul, which is a miniature contained in a
manuscript entitled Beyan-ı Menazil-i Sefer-i Irakeyn-i Sultan Süleyman Han, also
known as Mecmu’-i Menazil (The Collection of Stations), illustrates the city with its
important architectural monuments and provides visual information regarding the initial
stages of urban development in the sixteenth century (see Appendix B, Figure 52). The
manuscript, which is an account of Süleyman I’s military campaign in eastern Anatolia,
Persia, and Iraq undertaken against the Safavids between 1533 and 1536, was completed
by the famous Ottoman polymath Nasuh’üs-Silahi el-Matraki, today more commonly
called Matrakçı Nasuh, in 1537-38.335 Matrakçı Nasuh, who made contributions in the
fields of mathematics, geography, history, and calligraphy, asserts that he was not only
334 Tanman, “İstanbul tekkeleri” (Vol. 1), 170; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 282-83, 296;
Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 126-27.
335 The manuscript was first published in facsimile in 1976 with an introduction and a transcription of the
text by Hüseyin G. Yurdaydın. Recently, in 2015, Nurhan Atasoy has published the facsimile of the
manuscript with a translation of the text to contemporary Turkish and a comparative analysis between the
Nasuh’s images and the narrative of Evliya Çelebi. See Nasuh’üs-Silahi el-Matraki, Beyān-ı menāzil-i
sefer-i ʻIrāḳeyn-i Sulṭān Süleymān Ḫān; Atasoy, Silahşör, tarihçi, matematikçi, nakkaş, hattat Matrakçı
Nasuh ve Menazilname’si.
85
the author of the text but also the painter of the illustrations.336 Nasuh’s Istanbul map
measures 31.6 x 46.6 centimeters and covers the entire surface of two book pages.337
The walled city of Istanbul almost fully occupies the right half of the picture surface
while the three suburbs, Galata, Eyüp, and Üsküdar, and the waters of the Bosphorus
and the Golden Horn are all shown on the remaining left half.
Eyüp is depicted as a small settlement including Abu Ayyub’s complex and a
few buildings with lead-covered domes. Even though we cannot assess the precise
layout of Eyüp on Nasuh’s map because of its truncated state as the result of trimming
its lower and upper edges, apparently the town was not big enough to deserve much
pictorial emphasis.338 In this regard, Nasuh's Istanbul map, compared with the images of
the city produced in the later periods, helps us to see that although construction activities
in the town began in the early years of the sixteenth century, Eyüp's urban development
was much faster and remarkable after 1540s. As Kafescioğlu explains, Nasuh’s painting
represents Ottoman Istanbul at the end of 1530s, that is, on the eve of the wide-scale
building campaign launched by Süleyman I and his grandees and realized by the chief
architect Sinan and the imperial office of architects working under him.339 Similar to
Mehmed II’s ambitious project transforming the Byzantine Constantinople to the
Ottoman capital, Süleyman I aimed to consolidate the new imperial image through
architecture and to make Istanbul the capital of a world power. In this context, many
336 These are the notes of Hüseyin G. Yurdaydın, who prepared Nasuh’s Mecmu’-i Menazil for publishing
and wrote a useful introduction that provides information about Nasuh’s life and his works. See Nasuh’üs-
Silahi el-Matraki, Beyān-ı menāzil, 13, 31-32.
337 In terms of the measurements, it should be noted that the manuscript has been rebound at least twice,
hence, during the rebounding process, the pages must have gone considerable trimming. Because of that, it
can be claimed that its original format was probably somewhat larger. See Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 47.
338 According to İffet Orbay, we may assume that originally, the settlement of Eyüp was approximately
twice the size we see now. See Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 55.
339 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 207.
86
new public buildings serving religious, social, cultural, educational, health, and
economic needs of the community were constructed in Eyüp; consequently, the town’s
borders were expanded and its urban fabric became denser.
It is possible to follow the traces of the extensive building campaign in the
Ottoman imperial capital in the second half of the sixteenth century thanks to visual
materials produced in this period. Although Eyüp was neglected in some of these
sources because of its location outside of the city walls, there are still useful
representations to understand the urban development of the town.
The panoramic drawing of Melchior Lorichs dated to about 1559 is one of the
most essential visual documents in this regard (see Appendix B, Figure 53). He
illustrates Eyüp from the Golden Horn as a dense settlement developed around Abu
Ayyub’s complex. Together with the religious buildings, this depiction also shows
residential, commercial, and transportation structures. Furthermore, it is seen that the
core of the town was developed along the coastline of the Golden Horn with respect to
topographic boundaries.
In a historical work on Süleyman I’s reign entitled Süleymanname completed in
1579, the map of Kırkçeşme water distribution system attributed to Nakkaş Osman
represents Eyüp in a detailed manner (see Appendix B, Figure 54). The mosques of Abu
Ayyub, Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha, and Nişancı Mustafa Pasha can be identified
together with Eyüp Pier, small islands in the Golden Horn, water structures, and
neighborhoods settled in lush greeneries.340
Another fundamental visual source to offer further ideas about the urban fabric
of Eyüp in the late sixteenth century is a schematic map of Istanbul in Hünername,
340 Genim, “XV. ve XVI. yüzyıllarda seyreyle gözüm Eyüp’ü,” 145-46.
87
which was produced during the reign of Murad III and consists of two volumes
completed in 1584 and 1588 respectively (see Appendix B, Figure 55).341 The map
associated with Veli Can depicts Eyüp as a considerably developed settlement that
almost borders the walls of the city.342 Many monumental buildings within their
courtyards and lots of houses around these structures can be identified from this
miniature painting. More importantly, as İffet Orbay points out, it demonstrates that in
the second half of the sixteenth century, Istanbul’s urban life and growth had gravitated
toward the Golden Horn, and consequently, the slopes also began to be settled.343
For the seventeenth-century depictions of the city, among prominent sources are
the later manuscript copies of a book entitled Kitab-ı Bahriye, which was composed by
the Ottoman admiral and geographer Piri Reis (d. 1553) in the early sixteenth century.
Kitab-ı Bahriye (The Book of Matters Pertaining to the Sea) is a navigational manual
that covers the Mediterranean Sea and is illustrated with coastal detail maps.344
Considering that Istanbul and the Marmara Sea are out of scope of the geographical
coverage of the work, it is not known whether Piri Reis added the Istanbul map himself
or not.345 The earlier examples of Istanbul map are dated to the second half of the
sixteenth century, and especially in the copies that were produced from the midseventeenth
century onwards, Istanbul appeared as an impressive topographical view of
the Ottoman capital.346 Although Eyüp was not represented in all versions of the Istanbul
341 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 74.
342 For a further discussion regarding the issue of authorship for the map of Istanbul in Hünername, see
Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 74-80.
343 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 307-8.
344 For more information on Kitab-ı Bahriye and detailed analysis of its later versions that include the map
of Istanbul, see Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 117-298.
345 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 119-20.
346 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 162-63.
88
map,347 there are a few illustrations that offer significant evidence of the urban landscape
of the town in the seventeenth century. For instance, in a manuscript (Nuruosmaniye-
2990) dated 1645, Eyüp and Kasımpaşa can be seen at the edge of the Istanbul map (see
Appendix B, Figure 56).348 Compared to the images of the city in earlier copies of Kitabı
Bahriye, these settlements appeared as new details and, according to Orbay,
corresponded to the increased interest in depicting the Golden Horn as an urban area.349
Moreover, Orbay states that in both this map and two other maps (London-4131 and
University-123), which are thought to have been produced in the same period, Istanbul
was depicted in the northern view as seen on the Golden Horn (see Appendix B, Figures
57-58).350 She asserts that this might be evidence of the particular attention to the
Golden Horn. In the illustration of Istanbul in a copy of Kitab-ı Bahriye (Paris-956)
dated to the mid-seventeenth century, Eyüp was fully represented for the first time in
comparison with the previous versions (see Appendix B, Figure 59).351 The town was
also listed as ‘Hazret-i Ayyub’ among the place names in the legend of the map.352 Since
standard houses and mosques were used for depicting the urban areas, the map does not
reflect every detail regarding the urban fabric; yet, it demonstrates that a dense
settlement developed in Eyüp in the seventeenth century. In a similar manner, in another
Istanbul map (Topkapı-1633) that is estimated to have been produced in the 1680s, Eyüp
was also illustrated as among the densely built areas (see Appendix B, Figure 60).353
347 İffet Orbay lists twenty manuscripts of Kitab-ı Bahriye that contain the map of Istanbul. For the list
including the estimated dates of the manuscripts and the locations where they are preserved now, see
Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 118-19.
348 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 215.
349 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 216.
350 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 220-21.
351 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 235-36.
352 For the whole list of the place names, see Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 342.
353 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 254.
89
The elaborate topographical content of the seventeenth-century Istanbul maps in
copies of Kitab-ı Bahriye properly reflect the city’s growth including the settlements
outside of the walls such as Eyüp.354 Besides that, according to Orbay, the most
significant aspect of the variants in this later stage is that they illustrate not only the
residential areas extending beyond Istanbul but also the green areas.355 In addition to the
royal gardens, informal green areas were also represented either because of their visual
impact on the landscape such as cemeteries densely planted with cypress trees, or
because of their social importance such as places of public excursion.356 In this regard,
as I will discuss in detail in the following chapter, the emphasis on gardens and other
pleasure grounds in contemporary narratives like accounts of Evliya Çelebi and Eremya
Çelebi greatly correspond to the seventeenth-century pictorial depictions of the city and
of Eyüp. Together with its function as being the most venerated pilgrimage site, Eyüp
took on a new meaning as a social and cultural center in this period and strengthened its
function as a resort place where people from other parts of Istanbul came for enjoyment.
Lastly, I would like to draw attention to one more Istanbul map, which was most
likely produced in the end of the seventeenth century and provides a good amount of
details of Eyüp’s urban fabric at that time (see Appendix B, Figure 61).357 The map has
been published online in 2016 in the digital library of the Bibliothèque nationale de
France, widely known as Gallica. It is a part of a collection of the cartographic
354 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 312.
355 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 313.
356 Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 313.
357 I would like to thank Çiğdem Kafescioğlu for sharing this map with me. Kafescioğlu has estimated the
production date of the map as the end of the seventeenth century by examining the absence and/ or
presence of certain monuments, whose construction dates are known.
90
documents of the Hydrographic Service of the Navy of France.358 The beginning date of
this archive goes back to the period in which Jean-Baptiste Colbert (d. 1683) was the
secretary of state for the navy (from 1668) under the King Louis IX and undertook to
make France a great power at sea.359 The map of Istanbul consists of two large folios
depicting the Bosphorus and Constantinople, whose measurements are 165 x 178 and
165 x 219 centimeters respectively. As the map does not neglect the suburbs of the city,
it is quite a helpful visual source for this study. When we look at Eyüp closely on the
map, the route along the Golden Horn between the complex of Abu Ayyub and
Edirnekapı that I have previously discussed can be clearly seen. Several important
monuments on this route including the mosques of Abu Ayyub, Şah Sultan and Zal
Mahmud Pasha, Cezeri Kasım Pasha, and Defterdar Pasha can be identified (see
Appendix B, Figure 62). Moreover, smaller religious buildings with a minaret and
settlements around them were also illustrated. Although it is not possible to distinguish
between luxurious and modest houses as all residential structures were depicted in the
same standard way, the density of houses on the shoreline of the Golden Horn can be
interpreted as a reflection of the increasing number of the seaside mansions from the
sixteenth century onwards.
358 The series of cartographic works that includes this map is dated to 1686-1793 in Gallica; however, as
far as I can understand, each work's date has not been indicated separately. See
https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb442888752.
359 Sarazin, “Service hydrographique de la Marine”; Tapié, “Jean-Baptiste Colbert.”
91
CHAPTER 4
PUBLIC SPACES AND URBAN EXPERIENCES IN EYUP
Founded following the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Eyüp developed rapidly and
became one of the largest extra muros settlements where many high state officials,
members of ulema, artists, craftsmen, poets, and scholars lived and built significant
architectural works. In addition to the venerated shrine of Abu Ayyub which has always
been the focal point of the township, numerous urban institutions were established.
Furthermore, as Harrison Griswold Dwight correctly puts, Eyüp was indeed, more than
any other place, the Pantheon of Istanbul, so that many important personages chose to be
buried near the friend and standard-bearer of the Prophet.360 Apart from that, it was an
essential agricultural and horticultural area where fresh vegetables, fruits, and dairy
products as well as various types of flowers and plants were produced. The town’s lush
green fields were also quite charming for picnicking, walking, and enjoying the nice
weather. For all of these outlined reasons, Eyüp attracted a lot of people from all around
the city and even other parts of the empire and turned into a lively social, cultural, and
commercial center. Because many diverse urban and rural or religious and secular
elements existed together in Eyüp, it would be more useful to examine overlaps and
connections between different spaces rather than simply making classifications.
Before going into the detail of issues regarding public spaces and diversity of
their use, I would like to briefly mention Eyüp’s population, considering that the
dwellers of the township were the main actors who experienced as well as shaped these
places of encounters. Even though Eyüp has been famous for its Islamic character and
360 Dwight, Constantinople, 139.
92
predominantly Muslim settlers, communities of other religions also lived in the township
together with Muslims through the Ottoman period. For instance, Christian Armenians,
who were forced to migrate from Anatolia to repopulate Istanbul during the reign of
Mehmed II, were first settled in the walled city; after some time, a group of them moved
to Eyüp.361 Reşad Ekrem Koçu remarks that Armenians in Eyüp engaged with various
sorts of crafts.362 Two Armenian churches in Eyüp, which are estimated to have been
founded in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries respectively, represent the presence
of Armenian community in the township.363 It is also known that a huge number of non-
Muslim migrants from the Balkans such as Bulgarians and Albanians resided in Eyüp
and worked in gardens and dairy farms.364 Based on her analysis of the court registers in
the eighteenth century, Suraiya Faroqhi points out that Eyüp was like a part of the
Balkans due to the large populations from this region.365 Moreover, she mentions that
according to records that indicated the occupations of migrants, in this period, several
grocery shops in Eyüp were owned by Orthodox Greeks, who came from small villages
located in the borders of today’s Greece and Macedonia.366
The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century court registers also demonstrate the
presence of non-Muslims in Eyüp since we can see their names in various cases such as
361 Kara, “Eyüp,” 249; Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 165-66.
362 Koçu, İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 10), 5452-53. In this regard, the account of the eighteenth-century
historian Sarkis Sarraf Hovhannesyan (d. 1805) supports Koçu’s argument. He explains that there were
forty-two ceramics manufacturers in Eyüp and Armenians constituted the majority of pottery makers
working in these ateliers. See Hovhannesyan, Payitaht İstanbul’un tarihçesi, 32.
363 For more information about these churches, which are called the Apostolic Armenian Church of Saint
Elia (Surp Yeghia) and the Apostolic Armenian Church of the Mother of God (Surp Asdvadzazin), see
Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri,” 167-73; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 53; İnciciyan, XVIII. asırda
İstanbul, 92; Hovhannesyan, Payitaht İstanbul’un tarihçesi, 33-34.
364 Ayşe Nur Akdal, who focused on market gardens and gardeners of Istanbul between the seventeenth
and nineteenth centuries in her master’s thesis, explains that the registers do not show any evidence of
ethno-religious divisions. According to her, apparently, Muslims and non-Muslims, natives and migrants
worked together in the same garden. See Akdal, “Provisioning the Ottoman capital,” 81.
365 Faroqhi, “Eyüp kadı sicillerine yansıdığı şekliyle 18. yüzyıl ‘büyük İstanbul’una göç,” 40.
366 Faroqhi, “Eyüp kadı sicillerine yansıdığı şekliyle 18. yüzyıl ‘büyük İstanbul’una göç,” 43.
93
estate sales, inheritance, divorce, and illegal acts.367 Seemingly in daily life there were
many interactions and both personal and professional relationships between different
communities regardless of religion. To illustrate, a record dated 1661-62 indicates that
non-Muslims called Dimo and Yorgi sold fruit trees situated in their garden close to Şah
Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque to a Muslim named Ali Beşe.368 Another register
dated 1644 shows that a Muslim woman, Aişe Hatun, rented her bread bakery located
near the complex of Abu Ayyub to a non-Muslim man called Kiro.369 Two records dated
1670-71 mentions a conflict that broke out about money between a Muslim yoghurt
maker, Seydi Beşe, and Şiro, who was a dhimmi. Accordingly, we learn that Seydi Beşe
sold goats to Şiro but could not take money from him. After the judge intervened in the
situation, Şiro paid his debt to Seydi Beşe; thus, they made peace.370 There was no need
to be a Muslim to consult the court applying Islamic law. For instance, a register dated
1670-71 recounts that an Armenian pottery maker called Avanos bought alcoholic drinks
from another Armenian known as a tavern owner Margos but did not pay the price, and
Margos applied to the kadi of Eyüp for taking his money from Avanos.371 The last
interesting example that I want to share is a register dated 1619-20. This document
explains that a certain Todori divorced his wife, Kirana, at the court of Eyüp based on
the Sharia law, and their witnesses consisted of both Christians and Muslims.372 As these
cases imply, not only Muslims but also communities from different religions were a part
367 Regarding these registers, it should be noted that the court of Eyüp was responsible for not only the
central neighborhoods of Eyüp that are covered in this study but also a very large area, including Çatalca,
Büyük-Küçük Çekmece, and Silivri. Therefore, I tried to choose more relevant records for the scope of
this research. Although not all of them, many documents provide information about locations of where
events happened or where plaintiffs or defendants were living.
368 Eyüb mahkemesi 74 numaralı sicil, 219.
369 Eyüb mahkemesi 49 numaralı sicil, 106.
370 Eyüb mahkemesi 82 numaralı sicil, 57-58.
371 Eyüb mahkemesi 82 numaralı sicil, 58.
372 Eyüb mahkemesi 19 numaralı sicil, 355.
94
of the population of Eyüp. On the other hand, we should keep in mind that this does not
mean that they lived there without any constraints. The public order in Eyüp, particularly
in the neighborhoods located around the complex of Abu Ayyub, was strictly controlled
by the Ottoman state.373 As I will discuss later in this chapter, in archival sources, there
are many imperial orders sent to the judges of Eyüp with the aim of regulating social life
and designating some standards regarding proper manners, especially in relation with
non-Muslim populations.
4.1 Ottoman use and perception of public spaces
As this chapter focuses on public spaces in Eyüp, first I will briefly discuss what
‘public’ meant in the early modern Ottoman world and how Ottomans conceived and
defined ‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces.
In his work that was produced to provide a manual of etiquette to Ottoman
society, the sixteenth-century intellectual and bureaucrat Mustafa Ali makes a clear
distinction between public and private places. He describes ‘the rooms/ houses of
strangers/ foreigners’ (büyut-ı bigane) and ‘private rooms’ (halvet-i has) as follows:374
Public places (eyl evi) consist of rooms and pavilions for pleasure in the dressing
rooms and private areas of bathhouses, as well as in wine taverns, boza taverns,
and coffeehouses, and in the chambers of worship in masjids and mosques and
dervish lodges. Furthermore, the term alludes to hans, caravansarays, and the
delightful places known as düğün evi, as well as the tight slots and narrow holes
inside constricted spaces aboard boats and ships.
But private chambers consist of the following: the choice pavilions in the palaces
of kings and commanders; the sublime private devotional chambers in the
mansions of veiled ladies; the cells, free of blemish, in the dervish lodges of
373 Ahmet Refik Altınay asserts that considering the efforts of the state in terms of maintaining law and
order, Eyüp received the most attention in comparison to other settlements of Istanbul. See Altınay, Eski
İstanbul Manzaraları, 50.
374 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Meva‘idu’n-nefais fi-kava‘ıdi’l-mecalis, 210.
95
sheikhs; the libraries in the houses of scholars and masters of gnosis; above all,
the private galleries in noble mosques and masjids and the nicely furnished upper
stories of the houses of grandees and famous men. This shows that persons of
renown and of insignificance, princes and paupers, even monarchs and ministers,
desire private chambers to which entrance is forbidden without permission and
leave.375
As is seen from this detailed depiction, according to Mustafa Ali, one of the crucial
differences between public and private places is about whether permission was needed
to enter or not. In his view, public places belonged to the ‘others/ strangers’ and their
entrance or exit was not restricted with a special permission, namely, they were open to
everyone. He points out mostly residential areas such as pavilions, mansions, cells, and
houses as ‘private’ and indicates that not only elites but also commoners had private
places. On the other hand, although Mustafa Ali describes masjids and mosques as
public places, he expresses that noble masjids and mosques may have included private
chambers that were reserved for certain persons’ use. Similarly, ‘wedding houses’
(düğün evis) were halls or houses where circumcision feasts or wedding feasts were
held.376 Because of that, he classifies these places as ‘public’ differently from ‘private’
houses. In this respect, considering that Mustafa Ali’s description is a reflection of the
Ottoman mentality of his time, it would not be wrong to claim that public and private
places were conceptualized separately in the sixteenth-century Ottoman world.
The seventeenth-century traveller Evliya Çelebi also makes a distinction between
public and private spaces in his account. For instance, he classifies gardens in Istanbul
into two groups concerning their status as either public (amm) or private (has). One of
his lists includes imperial gardens that were reserved for the sultans (padişahlara
375 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, The Ottoman gentleman of the sixteenth century, 142-43.
376 Douglas S. Brookes, who did the annotated English translation of Mustafa Ali’s Meva‘idu’n-nefais fikava‘
ıdi’l-mecalis, describes düğün evi in this way. See Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, The Ottoman gentleman
of the sixteenth century, 142, footnote 848.
96
mahsus bağ-ı İremezat misilli has bağçeler) and the other contains gardens that could be
frequented by both elites and commoners (has u amm içün bi-tekellüf olan mesiregah-ı
ferah-fezalar).377 In this context, Evliya Çelebi’s definition of ‘private’ implies formal,
privileged, and therefore restricted spaces.
Parallel to that, Tülay Artan indicates that in the Ottoman court registers, the
terms, ‘amm(e) and hass(a), are identified as referring respectively to the public and
non-public.378 She suggests that the intimate physical and emotional space into which
civil or religious authorities could not intrude should be regarded as private.379 On the
other hand, she points out that such privacies may have occurred within public sphere,
and at the same time, violations of privacy in non-public areas may have also be
observed. Therefore, she offers a third area between the public and the private, an
“intermediate sphere where boundaries between the individual and society tended to
blur.”380
In this study, the term ‘public space’ is used in connection with its social
function. In other words, my main aim is to examine public gathering places that were
frequented by the city’s dwellers for meeting their various social and cultural needs.
Moreover, the issues regarding forms of sociability, urban experiences, and leisure,
pleasure, entertainment culture within the Ottoman context are also concerned. Another
377 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 237-41.
378 Artan, “Forms and forums of expression,” 381. In her another article focusing on the miniatures of the
eighteenth-century copies of Hamse-i Atayi, Tülay Artan argues that until the end of the seventeenth
century, amme was used as ‘public’ and hassa as ‘official’. According to her, in parallel to the social and
cultural changes in the eighteenth century, the terms amme and hassa acquired some meanings that we can
associate with the notion of ‘public’ and ‘private’. In this period, some instances from the private life of
urbanites (e.g. entertainments, wine drinking, dancing, playing music, women in low-cut dresses, and
homosexual relationships) were depicted in miniatures. In this way, for the first time, people started to
represent their privacy, and this raised the concept of ‘non-private’, namely ‘public’. See Artan,
“Mahremiyet: mahrumiyetin resmi.”
379 Artan, “Forms and forums of expression,” 381.
380 Artan, “Forms and forums of expression,” 381.
97
significant aspect of public space that will be taken into consideration in this study is its
function as a space of surveillance. In this regard, the relationship between the
authorities and the subjects and the state control mechanisms over social life will also be
investigated. Besides coffeehouses, wine taverns, boza houses, and other eateries, public
gardens were the most vibrant venues of social life in early modern period both in
Istanbul and Eyüp. Because of that, to take a brief look at Ottoman garden culture with
special emphasis on Istanbul would be helpful to examine the situation in Eyüp in a
broader perspective.
Green areas, including gardens, courtyards, promenades, meadows, orchards, and
vineyards, had huge importance as outing spaces of leisure and recreation in early
modern urban life of Istanbul. Differently from our modern age, the motivation of going
to these kinds of ‘natural’ places was not to run away from tiring, polluted, and noisy
city life. Although today it is quite hard for us to find such an open space to rest and
enjoy nature in Istanbul, in Ottoman times these pleasure grounds were not physically
very separated from urban structure and architectural and natural elements were
overlapping harmoniously, particularly in boroughs. Thus, social practices and daily
habits were shaped accordingly.
The garden-related terminology in the Ottoman world is quite complex, as can be
seen in the texts of Evliya Çelebi, Eremya Çelebi, and their contemporaries. There is a
wide range of words to describe gardens with different functions, locations, vegetation,
and characteristics, such as mesiregah, teferrücgah, bağçe, has bağçe, bağ, bağ-ı irem,
koru, saydgah, avgah, seyrangah, temaşagah and ziyaretgah. There were most likely
some nuances between these places according to people’s view at that time. On the other
98
hand, for us it is not always easy to differentiate one from another.381 According to
Nurhan Atasoy, this wide array of words demonstrates that the term ‘garden’ should be
understood within a broader perspective than warranted by Western garden studies.
Furthermore, she states that very different places from wilderness to the urban, qualify
as gardens in an Ottoman perspective.382 In parallel to that, Gülru Necipoğlu discusses
that Ottoman garden tradition did not fit well into the usual definitions of the so-called
Islamic garden.383 For instance, she indicates that compared to generally known
‘Islamic’ garden types such as quadripartite formal gardens with straight water channels
that came to be known as chaharbagh in the Iranian world, classical Ottoman gardens
were less formal.384 According to her, even in royal estates where some structures were
built in gardens, the primacy of nature was clearly expressed and architectural elements
were kept to a minimum.385
In the first half of the seventeenth century, Evliya Çelebi lists scores of public
spaces that were used by both elites and commoners for amusement, relaxation, and
381 Suraiya Faroqhi suggests some comparative descriptions for these terms. For instance, she indicates
that mesire/mesiregah stands for ‘picnic place’ or ‘beauty spot’. Teferrücgah means ‘promenade’ and
‘place of enjoyment’ and seems to be a synonym for mesire/mesiregah. Bağçe is probably one of the most
general terms and stands for ‘garden’. Has bağçe refers to a garden that belonged to the sultan. Koru refers
to ‘grove’ or ‘orchard’. Saydgah and avgah both mean ‘place for hunting’. Seyrangah can be defined as
‘excursion spot’ similar to ‘promenade’; moreover, it can imply a place with a nice view. Temaşagah has
also a similar meaning with seyrangah as temaşa means contemplation and spectacle. The word
ziyaretgah was used for indicating shrines, cemeteries, and other sacred sites as ziyaret means ‘visit’. For
further information, see Faroqhi, “What happened in Istanbul gardens,” 122-23.
382 Atasoy, “Matrakçı Nasuh and Evliya Çelebi,” 209.
383 Necipoğlu, “Suburban landscape,” 32.
384 Necipoğlu, “Suburban landscape,” 32.
385 Necipoğlu, “Suburban landscape,” 39. In her article, Gülru Necipoğlu focuses on the sixteenth-century
gardens and suburban landscape of Istanbul as reflection of garden culture. She says, “Unlike the
Persianate chaharbaghs or the formal gardens of Renaissance Europe, the relatively informal Ottoman
gardens that merged Turko-Islamic elements with Byzantine ones were not the creation of architects but of
gardeners.” On the other hand, she explains that this classical Ottoman garden tradition was transformed
in the eighteenth century, and the Sadabad Palace along the Golden Horn, built for Sultan Ahmet III (r.
1703-1730), was a marker of this change in garden design and court ceremonial. See Necipoğlu,
“Suburban landscape,” 45.
99
excursion without any restraint.386 He describes more than thirty places in intramural
Istanbul, and among them are public squares (meydans) such as Atmeydanı, Eminönü,
Süleymaniye, Fatih, Şehzade, Valide Mosque, Ayasofya, Ayazmakapısı, and Ebu Ensari
Kapısı, vegetable gardens and vineyards such as Langa and Lalezar, and even a pier,
Langa, where people went for sea bathing. Moreover, outside of the city walls, Evliya
Çelebi illustrates many other promenades, meadows, squares, mosque courtyards,
villages, dervish lodges, green areas around aqueducts and lakes, fishing zones, and
dairy farms as delightful open places.
Similar to Evliya Çelebi, Eremya Çelebi tells about plenty of beautiful and
pleasant park-like landscapes located on the banks of the Golden Horn and the
Bosphorus and in the overlying hills. According to him, there was almost no empty area
from Kağıthane to the Bosphorus due to a large number of mansions and gardens. The
coastline was full of assorted trees such as cypress, sycamore, bay, pine, and Judas trees,
and the local folk of Istanbul were going to these enchanting pleasure grounds for
entertainment from the advent of spring to the end of November.387
In his article about the emergence and spread of coffeehouses in the sixteenthcentury
Istanbul, Cemal Kafadar also focuses on the rise of new forms of entertainment
such as Karagöz shadow theatre and Meddah story-telling performances.388 He indicates
that the recurrent themes in the stories offer hints of various types of leisurely activities
taking place according to newly established routines of experiencing the city.389 In this
context, in the Meddah stories, ‘secular’ sightseeing could be found as a common
386 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 206-9.
387 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 45.
388 Kafadar, “How dark is the history of the night,” 244.
389 Kafadar, “How dark is the history of the night,” 263.
100
theme.390 Even the visit to the Hagia Sophia or to the shrine of Abu Ayyub was part of
seeing the beauties of the city rather than being part of a religious performance.
4.2 Public spaces in Eyüp: entanglements of sacred, recreational, and agricultural sites
With its picturesque hills, rich vegetation, nice weather, streams, and favorable location
along the shore of the Golden Horn, Eyüp became one of the most celebrated excursion
spots among the denizens of the city from the fifteenth century onward. Besides the
venerated shrine of Abu Ayyub that was the main attraction point for pious visitations,
the town had also many pleasurable recreational areas that were used by a wide range of
people for leisurely activities. In Eyüp where urban and rural elements combined,
gardens cultivating fruits, vegetables, and flowers, or dairy farms having large meadows
were also used as places for rest and relaxation. Furthermore, although it seems unusual
to us today, tranquil green graveyards of Eyüp full of trees, plants, and flowers were
perceived as public parks by the early modern Istanbulites; therefore, strolling,
picnicking, or gathering with friends were quite common activities taking place in the
cemeteries.391 In connection to a large number of visitors, commercial life in Eyüp was
also vibrant. Ateliers producing ceramic ware and toys, and shops selling delicious local
food, such as yoghurt, clotted cream, and kebab, were very popular. Considering the
topography of the town, the sea route was the main transportation method for reaching
390 Kafadar, “How dark is the history of the night,” 264.
391 Ebru Boyar and Kate Fleet explain that the importance of green and its association with paradise
encouraged the desire for trees and flowers in the graveyards in the Ottoman period. Accordingly, it was
believed that any green plant over a grave would aid the soul of the dead by decreasing the effect of the
first punishment after death before going to the other world. Maurice Cerasi also comments on the green
environment of Ottoman cemeteries and points out that there are many travelogues depicting denizens of
Istanbul who were walking, eating, or singing songs in the cemeteries. See Boyar and Fleet, A social
history of Ottoman Istanbul, 230; Cerasi, Osmanlı kenti, 201.
101
Eyüp; however, beyond its practical aspect, tours by rowing boats throughout the
Golden Horn was an enjoyable event in itself and liked very much.
In his work entitled Heves-name dated 1493, which provides one of the earliest
depictions of Ottoman Istanbul, Tacizade Cafer Çelebi (d. 1515) represents Eyüp as the
most prominent sacred site of the city and as a favored pleasure ground with its beautiful
gardens and rose-beds.392 According to him, despite its distance from the city center, it
was worthwhile to see this nice town, which delighted its visitors.393 In the beginning of
the sixteenth century, parallel to Cafer Çelebi, Latifi described Eyüp as a charming
promenade like a part of heaven and wrote that this sanctified, pleasant, and peaceful
town was frequented by a large number of folk.394
In the 1570s, Stephan Gerlach, the Protestant priest attached to the Habsburg
embassy at Istanbul, reported that the mausoleum of Abu Ayyub was visited by huge
crowds, particularly women.395 He portrayed the long candles were lighting around the
tomb, some old women kissing the stairs of this blessed place, and some people
sacrificing animals.396 Gerlach also mentioned some communal celebrations that took
392 Tâcî-zâde Cafer Çelebi, Heves-nâme, 190-94. The Ottoman bureaucrat and poet Cafer Çelebi, who was
born in Amasya, small town in the northeastern part of Anatolia in the Black Sea region, was assigned to
the madrasa of Mahmud Çelebi in Istanbul in 1493. Here he made a circle of friends including poets,
artists, and intellectuals, and in the same year, completed his work. Written in sergüzeştname style in
which adventures that an author experienced was told, Heves-name depicts a love story of Cafer Çelebi.
According to that, during a warm spring day, he and his friends were bored to be sitting inside, and they
decided to gather at a nice recreational area known as Kağıthane for entertaining, drinking, dining, and
having conversations. In the pleasing atmosphere of this popular public park, he fell in love with a
beautiful woman. This literary narrative is important as it both provides a description of the city about
forty years after the Ottoman conquest and gives some hints regarding daily life, leisure culture, and ways
of socialization in the end of the fifteenth century. For more information about Cafer Çelebi and his work,
see the introduction part of Heves-nâme written by the editor of the book, Necati Sungur.
393 Tâcî-zâde Cafer Çelebi, Heves-nâme, 194.
394 Lâtifî, Evsâf-ı Istanbul, 65.
395 Gerlach, Türkiye günlüğü, 330, 572.
396 Gerlach, Türkiye günlüğü, 330, 572. As Gerlach mentions, Evliya Çelebi also recounts that numerous
people were offering sacrifices to God in Eyüp and the meat was given to needy and poor ones. A share of
this meat was also most probably donated to charitable institutions such as public kitchens. See Evliya
Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170.
102
place in Eyüp, including not only Muslim feasts but also special days for Christians. For
instance, he explained that it was very common among Muslims to visit the township on
the third day of Eid al-Fitr, and during this festival, they were strolling through streets,
greeting each other, and offering desserts, meat dishes, flowers, and some other gifts.397
As an example of a non-Muslim celebration, Gerlach recounted that there were a holy
spring and a small church called “Ayia Fotini” in Eyüp and that thousands of people
were coming to this place to celebrate the feast day of St. Philip and St. James, Apostles,
on the 1st of May.398 He stated that Turks, Jews, Catholics, and Greeks were washing
with the water of the holy spring because it was believed to have been beneficial for eye
health. Moreover, Greeks were sticking candles into the walls; afterwards, they were
eating, drinking, and having fun whole day around the holy spring.399 These
observations by Gerlach imply that religious rituals were not limited to a certain
community. Instead, either Islamic or Christian, sacred days had broader and
intercommunal social and cultural implications in daily life; furthermore, holy sites in
Eyüp functioned also as recreational areas.
In the first half of the seventeenth century, Evliya Çelebi describes Eyüp as a
grand city (şehr-i azim) that was like paradise.400 According to him, the heaven-like city
was praised a lot due to its pleasant weather and water as well as its beautiful men and
women.401 Located on the west side of Istanbul, nine miles away from the sea, Eyüp was
full of well-cared, prosperous mansions many of them owned by viziers, high-ranking
397 Gerlach, Türkiye günlüğü, 289-90.
398 Gerlach, Türkiye günlüğü, 783.
399 Gerlach, Türkiye günlüğü, 783.
400 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 168.
401 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170.
103
officials, elegant folks, and sultans.402 Many notables were living in the township, and
the majority of its population was composed of scholars.403 There were 9,800 homes and
1,085 shops in Eyüp, and no empty land remained between the city walls and the
township.404
In addition to the core area of Eyüp, Evliya Çelebi describes its significant
neighborhoods such as Topçular, Otakçılar, Nişancı Paşa (today Nişanca), and
Çömlekçiler separately. In his depictions, besides residential structures, he often
explains public places such as pious foundations, market places, bazaars, squares, and
gardens; in this way, he helps us imagine both spatial setting and social life in the
settlements. According to him, Topçular, located in the inner part of Eyüp far from the
sea, was a high and pleasant place having about a thousand mansions and houses.405
Similarly, Otakçılar, founded on a high land compared to the sea level, was a lively
neighborhood that had very nice weather and water. More than two thousand residential
structures, including both modest houses and prestigious mansions with paradise-like
gardens, were located in Otakçılar. Moreover, there were four mosques, seventeen
masjids, six convents, three khans, and approximately a hundred shops. Evliya Çelebi
also mentions a public space called Otak Meydanı, which was a pleasing lush meadow
frequented by dwellers especially in the afternoon to take a rest and relax.406 Nişancı
Paşa Neighborhood situated on an airy hill was a large settlement with three thousand
prosperous, fancy mansions and about twenty shops.407 On the coastline of the Golden
Horn on a flat area was Çömlekçiler Neighborhood, which had four thousand prosperous
402 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 168.
403 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170.
404 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 168-69.
405 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 166.
406 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 166-67.
407 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 167.
104
mansions and seaside villas with their beautiful gardens and orchards.408 On the two
sides of the main street of Çömlekçiler, three hundred shops that belonged to all kinds of
craftsmen were located. Apart from this market place, Evliya Çelebi notes that there was
also a special bazaar for pottery makers, where two hundred and fifty shops selling
various pots, jugs, plates, and drink ware were situated. According to him, very special
amber-scented clay was brought from Kağıthane and Sarıyer, and goods produced here
were as beautiful as Chinese porcelains or İznik tiles. Evliya Çelebi recounts that in this
neighborhood, there were four piers called Yavedud, Defterdar, Zal Pasha, and Hoca
Efendi respectively. This shows us that Çömlekçiler was quite a crowded and developed
settlement in the 1630s. Furthermore, it would not be wrong to argue that as Eyüp was
easily accessible from water, rowing boats were the traditional means of transport in this
period.
Evliya Çelebi remarks that white bread, clotted cream, yoghurt, peach, apricot,
and sour pomegranate were the most famous, unique products of Eyüp.409 He thus points
out the well-known bakeries, shops, dairies, and urban gardens of the township. He
recounts that every Friday thousands of men were coming to visit the mausoleum of Abu
Ayyub, consequently, the bazaar and market place became like a sea of men.410 Since
Friday afternoon prayer is obligatory for adult male Muslims, the complex of Abu
Ayyub might have been visited by a larger number of males on Fridays compared to the
other days of the week.411 Evliya Çelebi tells that these gentlemen were sitting at the
408 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 167.
409 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170.
410 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169.
411 Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu discusses that the weekly local markets of Eyüp were held on Fridays; therefore,
it was the busiest visit day to the tomb of Abu Ayyub. Moreover, she does not indicate the gender and
translates Evliya Çelebi’s expression (niçe bin adem) as ‘thousands of people’. See Yenişehirlioğlu, “Eyüp
çarşısı.”
105
balconies of the clotted cream shops with pleasure, drank fresh milk and ate cheese and
pure honey.412 He also points out the third days of Muslim feasts, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-
Adha, as the most crowded times of Eyüp. Yoghurt and clotted cream shops were again
packed with people on these days. He indicates that there were five hundred yoghurt
shops in total in Istanbul, and one fifth of them were located in Eyüp. The taste of dairy
products produced in the township was believed to have been delicious due to the
miracle of Abu Ayyub among the folk.413 On the other hand, it is apparent that thanks to
the fresh and pure milk provided from dairy farms in the township, clotted cream and
yoghurt were so tasty.414 From the sixteenth century onwards, clotted cream shops
emerged as significant places of socialization in Eyüp for both men and women.
Because of that, as I will discuss in detail in the next section, these places also gained
attention from the state authorities, who perceived them as “the spatial culprits.”415 In
addition to the clotted cream shops, boza-houses, taverns, and particularly coffeehouses
were also important socializing places, which were mainly male-dominated.
Kebab shops in Eyüp were also frequented by Istanbulites.416 According to
Reşad Ekrem Koçu, who composed his text in the twentieth century based on written
and oral sources, the reason of this popularity was that Eyüp’s cooks were very famous
for their skill of marinating meat.417 Taking into account the fact that in 1580, 48 butcher
shops were operating in Eyüp while there were only four or five shops in Galata and one
or two in Kasımpaşa, Eyüp’s significant role in supplying meat products to the city
412 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169.
413 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 243.
414 Koçu, “Eyyubsultan kaymağı, kaymakçı dükkanları,” “Eyyubsultan yoğurdu,” İstanbul ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 10), 5459, 5469.
415 Zilfi, Women and slavery, 57.
416 Kara, “Eyüp,” 250; Yenişehirlioğlu, “Eyüp çarşısı.”
417 Koçu, İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 10), 5459-60.
106
would be understood better.418 In addition to the kebab shops, which were mostly
located around the complex of Abu Ayyub, in a small village called Küçükköy close to
the Rami Farm uphill from Eyüp, a flock of sheep was raised for the royal household by
a special corps (saya ocağı).419 The members of this corps, whose number was around
forty, were very good at cooking meat with different methods; therefore, many people
were directly going to this village and eating delicious meals, enjoying the nice view of
meadows and green lands.420
Evliya Çelebi states that there were also many confectionery stores in the
township. These sweet shops belonged to the candy makers of Galata, who were mainly
Europeans (Frenks) or Greeks coming from Chios.421 The candy makers purchased
violets, tulips, hyacinths, and daffodils, which were grown in the flower gardens of
Eyüp, to prepare syrups and sweets.422 Besides the renowned food shops, Eyüp was also
famous for its toy sellers. It was believed that Abu Ayyub liked children very much, so,
as a kind of tradition, particularly little boys who would be circumcised and children
who would start school were brought to the tomb of Abu Ayyub to pay a visit.423
Moreover, considering the large number of women visitors, it can be estimated that
many of them were coming to the township together with their children. As a result, toy
production developed, and according to Evliya Çelebi, there were 105 toy maker
craftsmen and 100 shops selling toys in Eyüp.424 Colorful playthings, such as carriages,
418 Altınay, Onuncu asr-ı hicride İstanbul hayatı, 135, footnote 1.
419 Göncüoğlu, “Saya ocağı.”
420 Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey, Eski zamanlarda İstanbul hayatı, 103-4.
421 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 253.
422 Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey, Eski zamanlarda İstanbul hayatı, 267.
423 Kılıç, “Eyüp oyuncakçılığı,” 252.
424 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 300.
107
tambourines, end-blown flutes, drums, roly-poly toys, and spinning tops, entertained
children who visited the township.425
Evliya Çelebi elaborately depicts Eyüp's excursion spots that were frequented by
denizens of the city for rest, relaxation, and pleasure. Accordingly, he illustrates ten
different recreational sites with their distinctive features.426 The promenade called Eyüp
Sultan was located on a high hill overlooking the Golden Horn on the way to Kağıthane.
There was a sacred spring known as Küplüce, and Evliya Çelebi depicts it as life-giving
water, which cured the disease of malaria.427 Another promenade looking over the
Golden Horn was Ağa Sekisi, which was a meadow.428 Ceres Square was a large open
space, where thousands of cavalries gathered in every Friday and displayed their talent
for swordsmanship, and Evliya Çelebi points out that this square, which was located on
the way to Kağıthane, was similar to At Meydanı.429 Kalamış was an excursion area
covering the small islands, which can be still seen in front of Eyüp, in the Golden Horn.
According to Evliya Çelebi, it was a particularly favored site for fishing, and every
Friday hundreds of friends were taking boats and going across there.430 Similarly, Deniz
Hamamı, literally meaning sea bath, was a popular pleasure spot on the islands of Eyüp.
It was especially preferred for swimming, and many folks were relaxing and entertaining
themselves on the green lands of the islands, eating, drinking, and having nice
425 Eyüp toys were also sold in other parts of Istanbul mostly by peddlers. From the nineteenth century
onwards, they started to lose their popularity, and in the twentieth century, they were almost completely
lost. It has been argued that they were roughly made products, which did not contribute to the child
development; therefore, they could not compete with new types of toys imported from Europe. See Koçu,
İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 10), 5461-62; Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey, Eski zamanlarda İstanbul
hayatı, 104-5.
426 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169-70.
427 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169.
428 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169.
429 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169. Rather than pointing out any hippodrome, Evliya Çelebi refers to At
Meydanı in Istanbul. This area was hippodrome of Constantinople in Byzantine period, and is today
generally known as Sultanahmet Meydanı.
430 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169.
108
conversations. Evliya Çelebi remarks that such a pleasing place, which made people
cheer up, was unmatched and could only be found in the city of Eyüp.431 Can Kuyusu
was a promenade around a water well that was believed to have the magical power of
answering any question. For instance, Evliya Çelebi expresses that people visited this
site to learn who stole their belongings or what happened to their beloved ones, who had
been lost. The ‘magical’ well was situated in one of the old houses located in a
graveyard at the northern side of Eyüp.432 This depiction is one of the examples, which
demonstrates that a site in the cemeteries could be designated as promenade in early
modern Istanbul.
İdris Köşkü, which was actually a dervish lodge, was another pleasure spot in the
township of Eyüp. Built by Sheikh İdris who was a member of Bayramiye Sufi order,
the lodge’s garden became a joyful meeting place for dervish friends. Evliya Çelebi
recounts that the sheikh was accused of being a nonbeliever during the reign of Sultan
Mustafa I (r. 1622-1623). As a consequence of these slanders, his dervish lodge was
destroyed. Nevertheless, its garden remained as a pleasure ground with its grand trees,
green lands, sweet water fountain, and big pool.433 Eyüp’s other public gardens in the list
of Evliya Çelebi are Kırkserviler, Ağakarlığı, and Bülbül Deresi. According to him,
Kırkselviler was an airy, high, and wooded excursion spot. Ağakarlığı was a meadow
located in lush greenery so that its ground looked like green velvet. Bülbül Deresi was
famous for its thousands of nightingales whose sound gave joy and pleasure to the
visitors.434
431 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169.
432 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169-70.
433 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170.
434 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 170.
109
Parallel to Evliya Çelebi’s account, Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan (1637-1695),
Ottoman Armenian historian and poet who wrote a book on physical and social
topography of Istanbul, depicts Eyüp as a well populated and developed settlement. He
indicates that it had been a seclusion place where monasteries had been located in
Byzantine period; however, now, the town was predominantly populated by Muslims
and had many mosques, masjids, bazaars, shops, bakeries, and bathhouses.435 Eremya
Çelebi praises the quality of potteries produced in the Çömlekçiler Neighborhood, and
explains that various cups for olive oil, honey, wine, and water manufactured here were
very precious gifts, which were carried to even far away lands.436 Besides pottery
makers, there were also many shops selling toys for children of different ages. On the
shoreline of the Golden Horn, a lot of mansions had been built for sultans and princes,
and a little further away from them were pits for preserving snow for summer use.437
Eremya Çelebi points out the density of green spaces, which had different forms
and functions such as promenades, meadows, orchards, and market gardens, and
recounts that these gardens lying under shades of trees made people refreshed and
cheerful.438 He notes that in many market gardens located in the vicinity, Bulgarian and
Armenian gardeners were working.439 Furthermore, he expresses that so many kinds of
flowers were sold in Eyüp that he could not write their names.440 In a similar manner,
Reşad Ekrem Koçu describes that the hilly areas around the valley where Silver Spring
435 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 27-28.
436 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 27.
437 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 30.
438 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 27.
439 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 30.
440 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 30.
110
(gümüş suyu) was located were full of flower gardens.441 Roses, tulips, hyacinths, and
daffodils, which were raised there, were sold in the flower bazaar set up on Fridays on
the street where toy stores were situated.442 A separate market for selling varied types of
roses was also established in the Yavedüd Neighborhood during the rose season.443
Moreover, one flower garden called Fulya Tarlası or Fulya Bağı was used as an
excursion spot, and as it was far from the eyes, it became a meeting place particularly
for friends who wanted to entertain themselves until late night playing music, drinking
and having amicable conversations.444
Differently from the previous examples, although they were not public spaces
that were open to everyone, several private gardens in Eyüp were also significant
gathering places for Ottoman intellectuals, scholars, poets, and artists. As Gülru
Necipoğlu explains, these gardens, which were owned by the urban middle classes,
functioned as private, informal spaces for pleasurable relaxation.445 Reading and writing
poetry, playing backgammon and chess, conversing, musical entertainments
accompanied by dance performances, and drinking wine were some of the activities that
took place in these gardens.446 In a way, they were quite similar with public parks,
promenades, and coffeehouses, but access to them was limited to a certain intellectual
circle. In this regard, the private gardens were also a part of vivid social life of the
441 Koçu, “Eyyubsultan’da fulya tarlası,” İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 10), 5451. Reşad Ekrem Koçu does
not give an exact date for the flower gardens but states that they existed much earlier than the nineteenth
century. He also reports that in 1962 the gardens were completely lost and their place was occupied by
shanty houses (gecekondu).
442 Koçu, “Eyyubsultan’da fulya tarlası,” İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 10), 5451.
443 Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey, Eski zamanlarda İstanbul hayatı, 266.
444 Koçu, “Eyyubsultan’da fulya tarlası,” İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 10), 5451-52. Abdülaziz Bey (1850-
1918) also lists Fulya Bahçesi as a promenade in Eyüp along with ‘Türbe Bahçesi’ (the Garden of the
Tomb) and ‘Bahariye Köşkü yeri’ (the place of Bahariye Pavilion). See Abdülaziz Bey, Osmanlı adet,
merasim ve tabirleri, 298.
445 Necipoğlu, “Suburban landscape,” 43.
446 Necipoğlu, “Suburban landscape,” 43.
111
township, so it would be useful to illustrate a few of them. For instance, in his
biographical dictionary of poets, Aşık Çelebi (1520-1572) describes the garden of
Hayati and Memati, who were the sons of the imam of Sultan Selim Mosque.447 Two
brothers created a beautiful garden like heaven, which was located close to the complex
of Abu Ayyub, and gatherings full of wine and joy were held there throughout the year.
Another garden that Aşık Çelebi depicts as a meeting place for the Istanbulite elegant
folk was owned by Nigari, who was a talented painter (nakkaş).448 Nigari was originally
from Galata and his father was a chess player called Satranç-baz Arab. Nigari’s house
with a pleasing garden in Eyüp became a popular gathering spot, which was frequented
by artists, members of ulema, high-ranking officials, and notables. Aşık Çelebi notes
that it also functioned as a lodge (tekyegah, hankah) for Qalandar dervishes. He recounts
that during a meeting at Nigari’s place, a hookah that contained opium was offered the
guests. The hookah with opium offered to the guests was likened to mesir paste, which
was believed to have been like a medicine good for health. However, consequently, as
Aşık Çelebi notes, among those who consumed it, Sinan Çelebi, who was the judge of
Eyüp, died. Some of them became sick and some became fuddled.449 Even though we do
not know to what extent Aşık Çelebi’s narrative reflects the reality, it is still a useful
source that gives an idea of the intellectual networks in the sixteenth-century Istanbul,
the socialization places of these people, and their leisure, pleasure and entertainments
habits. In addition to the private gardens, Aşık Çelebi also points out the promenades
and meadows of Eyüp. He tells that he and his friend Celali frequented these spots as
447 Aşık Çelebi, Meşâʻirüʼş-şuʻarâ (Vol. 2), 637. Hayati and Memati were their pen names, and their real
names were respectively Mehemmed Çelebi and Ali Çelebi.
448 Aşık Çelebi, Meşâʻirüʼş-şuʻarâ (Vol. 2), 893. Aşık Çelebi notes that Nigari’s real name was Haydar
and that he was also known as Galatalı Nakkaş Haydar.
449 Aşık Çelebi, Meşâʻirüʼş-şuʻarâ (Vol. 2), 894-95.
112
they did the Kağıthane garden, Galata and Hasköy gatherings, Zati’s shop, Atmeydanı,
Davut Paşa pier, and dervish convents.450
To sum up, as is seen from all these examples, besides its religious importance,
Eyüp was one of the most prominent recreational sites of the early modern Istanbul,
which included a wide variety of public places. Visiting sites (e.g. the shrine of Abu
Ayyub, mausoleums, and sacred springs), open green areas (e.g. promenades, meadows,
market gardens, flower gardens, vineyards, and farms), cemeteries, dervish lodges,
bazaars, and shops in Eyüp were frequented by the city dwellers for socialization, rest,
relaxation, and pleasure. Furthermore, apparently, religiosity and sacredness were not so
separate from worldly life, and it was quite common to combine devotional and leisure
activities, for instance, first paying a visit to the venerated shrine of Abu Ayyub and
afterwards enjoying green spaces and the seashore or taking a stroll in bazaar. In this
regard, Eyüp was quite a unique place in which sacred, recreational, and agricultural
sites were entangled and religious and worldly life intermingled.
4.3 State control over public life in Eyüp
As I have discussed throughout this study, Eyüp was the most sacred pilgrimage center
of Istanbul and developed as one of the largest settlements outside of the city walls. It
was visited by thousands of people particularly on Fridays and special feast days.
Without a doubt, the venerated mausoleum of Abu Ayyub was the main attraction point
of the township; however, its beautiful recreational sites, vibrant commercial areas, and
socio-religious establishments together with delightful geographical and topographical
features and tasty foods were also significant motives for city dwellers to come to Eyüp.
450 Aşık Çelebi, Meşâʻirüʼş-şuʻarâ (Vol. 3), 469.
113
Therefore, a quite vivid social life emerged in the vicinity. In addition to the visitors, a
large number of newcomers arriving in Istanbul chose to settle in the township,
temporarily or permanently, due to the different reasons such as job opportunities and
existing networks. Consequently, although the majority of its population was composed
of Muslims, ethno-religiously diverse groups gathered in Eyüp, and various social,
cultural, and leisure habits were intermingling in daily life.
In response to that, state authorities defined many rules, regulations, and
prohibitions to attempt to control public spaces. As is expected, it was not only the case
for Eyüp, and the control and surveillance mechanism over all spheres of social life did
work for the whole city and even the empire. For instance, Shirine Hamadeh argues that
sumptuary regulations covered a broad sphere of intervention in various domains of
behavior and consumption, and among them, public recreation was one of the main
concerns.451 She indicates that sumptuary laws dated back to at least the second half of
the sixteenth century.452 Based on the Sharia (or Islamic religious) law and former rules
concerning the conduct of non-Muslim subjects (dhimmi), these measures, which were
promulgated in the form of imperial edicts, sometimes pertained to matters of public life
and public spaces such as bathhouses, taverns, and coffeehouses.453
In this context, considering the religious, political, and ideological importance of
Eyüp, it would not be wrong to think that state authorities placed more emphasis on the
regulation of spaces of sociability and the prevention of improper behavior in public
sphere in this highly reputable town. The imperial edicts aimed for imposing certain
social norms that were sent to the judge of Eyüp mostly focused on issues associated
451 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 127.
452 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 128.
453 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 128.
114
with complaints that arose from the presence of non-Muslims in the township, disorders
caused by those who migrated from the Balkans and Anatolia, and restrictions on
women's participation in public life. In some cases, the whole population of Eyüp was
addressed regardless of religion, settlement status, and gender; thus, intending to
regulate public spaces and public behavior in a broad manner. On the other hand, as I
will discuss in detail below, taking into account that similar imperial orders were issued
more than once, it is worthwhile to question to what extent these rules and regulations
may have been applied in reality.
An imperial edict dated to the 26th of October 1567 demonstrates that a wide
range of restrictions on different aspects of social life in Eyüp was imposed.454 In the
beginning of this document, it was stated that sinful acts, lewdness, and debauchery
became quite common in Eyüp, and therefore, an intervention was deemed necessary. In
this respect, it was commanded that producing, selling and drinking wine (hamr) and
heavily fermented millet drink (Tatar bozası),455 playing backgammon and chess in
market places, and playing musical instruments were to be forbidden in the township. It
was also ordered that prostitutes living and working in Eyüp were to be caught and
punished. In addition to the judge, it was noted that imams, muezzins, and wardens
(kethüdas) were responsible for reporting on prostitutes, burglars, and anyone who
committed crime in their neighborhoods.456 Moreover, it was recorded that all
454 7 numaralı mühimme defteri (Vol.1), 80-81, edict no: 155; Altınay, Onuncu asr-ı hicride İstanbul
hayatı, 202-3.
455 There were two different kinds of boza (fermented millet drink): sweet boza (tatlı boza) and Tatar
bozası. Since Tatar bozası contained excessive alcohol, the production and sales of it were generally
restricted similar to wine.
456 As Marinos Sariyannis explains, in the Ottoman Empire, the inhabitants themselves were the guardians
of public morality in the neighborhood level, especially when they had moral standing, when for instance
they were bearing titles such as el-Hac or es-Seyyid. In this regard, a special position was reserved for
imams and muezzins. They clearly had an institutional role, as is seen from imperial decrees which
115
coffeehouses in Eyüp were to be closed down and henceforth the new ones were not to
be opened.
Similar to that, in another imperial edict dated to the 23rd of May 1568, which
was sent to the judges of Istanbul and Galata, it was ordered that the coffeehouses,
taverns, and boza-houses in Istanbul and Galata were to be shut down,457 for the reason
that in these places, alcoholic drinks were sold and rumors in opposition to the state
became widespread.458 Particularly coffeehouses, which were introduced to Istanbul in
the mid-sixteenth century, became one of the major targets of state authorities because
these novel public institutions were perceived as sites of social unrest, indecent
discourses, and political gossip.459 As far as is known from two registers above, the
regulations about this matter was first enforced in Eyüp and after about six months in the
intramural city and Galata.460 However, it seems that despite the prohibitions, the
number of coffeehouses increased. Ignatius Mouradgea d’Ohsson (1740-1807), historian
and diplomat, who was born in Istanbul as a son of a Catholic Armenian family, remarks
that nearly fifty coffeehouses were operating in Istanbul around 1560s, and this number
raised up to nearly six hundred in the last years of the reign of Selim II (r. 1566-1574).461
charged them to search for criminals and other wanted people. See Sariyannis, “Law and morality in
Ottoman society,” 309-10.
457 7 numaralı mühimme defteri (Vol. 2), 130, edict no: 1453.
458 Yaşar, “The coffeehouses in early modern Istanbul,” 19.
459 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 128. For more information about the spread of coffee, the rise of
coffeehouses and controversy over coffee in the early modern period, see Hattox, Coffee and coffeehouses;
Yaşar, “The coffeehouses in early modern Istanbul,” 89-110.
460 Although it is not exactly known why Eyüp came before the intramural city and other suburbs, the
priority given to the town might be related to its religious, political, and ideological importance as I
suggested above.
461 Yaşar, “The coffeehouses in early modern Istanbul,” 19-20. In his article focusing on the history of
coffee and its impact on leisure and pleasure life in early modern Istanbul, Cemal Kafadar indicates
d’Ohssons’s first figure might well be accurate while the second figure of six hundred could be slightly
exaggerated. To reach such conclusion, he compares the number of coffeehouses and populations in
Jerusalem and Istanbul in that period and also briefly looks at the situation in India. See Kafadar, “How
dark is the history of the night,” 251, footnote 20.
116
In the first half of the seventeenth century, the Ottoman historian and geographer Katip
Çelebi (1609-1657) explains, “But these strictures and prohibitions availed nothing. The
fetwas, the talk, made no impression on the people. One coffeehouse was opened after
another, and men would gather together, with great eagerness and enthusiasm, to
drink.”462 Likewise, it did not also become possible to completely prevent the opening
and spreading out of the coffeehouses in Eyüp after the imperial edict issued in 1567
(and probably after many more orders). It is known that when Murad IV (r. 1623-1640)
gave the same order to close down all coffeehouses and ban coffee drinking in the city,
120 coffeehouses were shut down only around Eyüp.463 The coffee controversy is a
useful example to think about further about the dynamics between the state and its
subjects in the context of public spaces and public life, and to question the effectiveness
of strict regulations and prohibitions of the authorities.
An imperial edict dated to the 25th of May 1573 is significant in this regard. We
learn that it was sent after a letter that was written by Eyüp’s judge to the imperial court
in order to report unpleasant situations that disrupted peace in the township and
disturbed its Muslim dwellers.464 The judge reported that some women were sitting at
clotted cream shops with the pretext of eating cream but that their real purpose was to
meet with men/ unrelated people (namahrem). Moreover, it was recorded that shops,
bakeries, and market gardens around the complex of Abu Ayyub were mostly frequented
by non-Muslims (kefere taifesi). In the document, regarding the improper behaviors of
non-Muslim groups, it was further explained that they were playing end-blown flutes,
dancing by strongly tapping their feet, and making too much noise that was hindering
462 Katip Çelebi, The balance of truth, 60.
463 Yaşar, “The coffeehouses in early modern Istanbul,” 95.
464 Altınay, Onuncu asr-ı hicride İstanbul hayatı, 60-61.
117
the call to prayer. As a result, it was ordered that all of these non-Muslims were to be
expelled from shops and gardens in the vicinity and women were not to be allowed to
enter the clotted cream shops. However, apparently, the sultan’s strict command did not
work.
A new imperial edict issued in 1581 indicated that despite several orders that had
been issued to prohibit the non-Muslim communities from residing around the sacred
mausoleum of Abu Ayyub, there were still a lot of non-Muslims in the very center of the
town.465 It was recorded that they were working as day laborers, gardeners, sellers in the
market, or artisans such as yoghurt maker and baker, and that their entertainment and
leisure habits including drinking alcohol, playing music, and watching belly dancers
were not acceptable. Therefore, it was dictated that the settlers around the complex of
Abu Ayyub were to be only Muslims, and these kinds of immoral activities were not to
take place near this blessed site.466 As Halil İnalcık argues, this archival source
demonstrates that non-Muslims, who came from the Balkans and Anatolia, constituted a
big population in Eyüp, and as in the case of Galata, taverns and other places of
entertainment were run by these communities.467 However, it seems that Eyüp’s
development as a kind of entertainment center contradicted its religious reputation and
disturbed members of ulema and elegant, pious Muslim folk living in the township.
Because of that, since it was impossible to expel all of these non-Muslim migrants from
the town completely, regulations aimed at least to drive them out of the most sacred
areas.468
465 Altınay, Onuncu asr-ı hicride İstanbul hayatı, 79.
466 Altınay, Onuncu asr-ı hicride İstanbul hayatı, 79.
467 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 14.
468 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 14.
118
An earlier document dated 1567 also reflects the disturbances in both Eyüp and
the city of Istanbul due to a considerable number of uncontrolled migrants, but this time
their religion was not specified.469 It was explained that many Ottoman subjects (reaya)
left agricultural lands in their hometowns, came to Istanbul, and settled in either the
walled city or the coasts of Eyüp and Kasımpaşa. The local judge of Eyüp was requested
to investigate the dwellers of each neighborhood to identify the newcomers with the help
of neighborhoods’ imams, muezzins, and wardens. In this regard, one of the major
concerns of the state was that poor migrants caused a dramatic rise in criminal acts and
prostitution, and accordingly, maintaining public order became more difficult.470
During the religious festivals, more attention was given to social order and extra
regulations were enforced on those days. According to a local court record (kadı sicili)
of Eyüp, in 1665, the chief police (subaşı) of the township was commanded not to allow
women to go to the market places, bazaars, and the swings and to shut down the taverns
from the eve of the festival (ıyd-i serif) until the end of the fourth day.471 Moreover, he
was ordered to prevent fights and noisy quarrels.
Besides the imperial orders, the change in the administrative role of chief
gardener (bostancıbaşı) in the seventeenth century was another significant state policy
that aimed to control the scope, nature, and forms of public life.472 The main duty of the
chief gardener, until then, had been limited to the maintenance of the gardens of the
469 7 numaralı mühimme defteri (Vol. 1), 67-68, edict no: 130; Altınay, Onuncu asr-ı hicride İstanbul
hayatı, 205-6.
470 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 13. In addition to that, as Halil İnalcık expresses, migrants coming from
different parts of the empire increased the population of Istanbul, as a result, providing food for the whole
city became a bigger issue and a danger of food scarcity emerged. Furthermore, since migrants left
agricultural lands in the Balkans and Anatolia, many fertile plots remained uncultivated and empty.
471 Eyüb mahkemesi 61 numaralı sicil, 296.
472 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 126-27.
119
Topkapı Palace and those of the imperial suburban retreats.473 Moreover, imperial
gardeners (bostancıs) under the command of the chief gardener were responsible for
guarding the imperial palace, steering the imperial barge, transporting material by sea
for the construction of new imperial buildings, and if necessary, attending the military
campaigns.474 Although the exact time of this change is not known, in the second half of
the seventeenth century, the jurisdiction of chief gardener spread beyond the boundaries
of imperial gardens and into the public domain; and imperial gardeners were now
expected to maintain order in all of the public gardens, promenades, meadows, and
forests located all around the city from the Golden Horn to the Black Sea.475
In relation to that, the account of Eremya Çelebi is a good source that we can
find further information and some (unpleasant) personal experiences regarding the rising
power of chief gardener. He reports that the chief gardener kept an eye on the whole
shoreline of the city including ‘Filurya’ (Florya), Ayestefanos (today Yeşilköy),
Hebdomon (today Bakırköy), Kağıthane, villages along the Bosphorus, Üsküdar,
Pendik, Kartal and the islands. He was patrolling the shores on his boat all day and
giving orders like a sultan in his capacity as sultan’s representative. When he heard any
noise from a garden, he was immediately going there to see what was happening, and if
he encountered drunken men and women, he severely punished them.476 Eremya Çelebi
indicates some incidents to illustrate the arbitrary and unethical executions of the chief
gardener. For instance, if wealthy women were caught during garden entertainments,
473 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 127.
474 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 127.
475 Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 127. Shirine Hamadeh argues that these changes were most probably
instituted during the periods of absence of the court from Istanbul in the seventeenth century, however, for
now, it is not easy to determine whether they occurred at one particular moment or as the consequence of a
series of gradual developments. See Hamadeh, The city’s pleasures, 270, endnote 47.
476 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 50.
120
they had to offer their valuable earrings, bracelets, or belts to chief gardener as a bribe in
return for saving their lives. Similarly, if Greeks did not bribe the chief gardener, they
were not allowed to access certain places of pilgrimage. Eremya Çelebi also gives an
example of extreme punishments of the chief gardener. Accordingly, when the chief
gardener encountered a group of men and women singing and entertaining themselves
on a boat in the sea, he would sink the boat without hesitation and further questions.477
As a result of the change in the role of the chief gardener and imperial gardeners and the
stricter control policy over public gardens, it is very likely that the recreational areas in
Eyüp were also adversely affected and their use was restricted. In this regard, in the
passage where Eremya Çelebi describes the beauty of gardens, promenades, and
meadows in and around Eyüp including Kağıthane, he also points out people’s
unhappiness about the prohibitions of the use of gardens for entertainment and
pleasure.478
477 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 51.
478 Kömürciyan, Istanbul tarihi, 31.
121
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
This thesis attempts to investigate the spatial and socio-cultural developments of the
district of Eyüp between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries taking into account the
political, ideological, religious, social, and cultural contexts. In addition to the physical
change in the urban landscape of Eyüp, my purpose is also to understand the dynamics
that shaped public sphere and social life.
With these aims, after introduction, in the second chapter, I first focus on the
foundation process of Eyüp in the second half of the fifteenth century. I examine the
location of the town, and in relation to that, its natural, geographic, and topographic
characteristics that may have had an impact on its urban development. Considering that
Eyüp was surrounded by the sea, hills, and land walls, this examination is particularly
helpful for grasping the patterns of settlement. Then, I look at the history of Eyüp before
the Ottomans with a special emphasis on the Byzantine era. Here my aim is to
investigate the question of how Eyüp was transformed from a small suburban area,
which was settled by a few monasteries and churches in Byzantine Constantinople, to a
large and dense extra muros settlement in Ottoman Istanbul. After that, I briefly explain
different versions of the legend of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, who is thought to have been
martyred outside of the city walls during one of the Arab sieges of Constantinople. By
providing this information, my goal is to demonstrate how Abu Ayyub’s legend and the
‘miraculous’ discovery of his grave helped to legitimize the Ottoman rule in a newly
conquered land. In this context, I discuss the political, institutional, and symbolic
importance of the construction of a shrine complex comprising a mosque, hospice, soup
122
kitchen, madrasa, and bathhouse around the alleged grave of the blessed saint Abu
Ayyub, upon the order of Mehmed II. Lastly, I investigate how Eyüp became a site of
patronage by the Ottoman elite from the second half of the fifteenth century onwards,
and the first charitable endowments around which new settlements started to develop.
The third chapter is a detailed survey of the urban development of Eyüp during
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Rather taking these two centuries as a unit, I try
to represent different political, economic, demographic, social, and architectural
experiences that Eyüp and Ottoman Istanbul went through in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. To offer a deeper insight of the built environment of the town, I
examine a wide range of structures, including not only architectural monuments such as
mosques that have been received much attention but also commercial and residential
buildings, which seem as if insignificant. Moreover, since a lot of people, including both
elites and commoners, wanted to be buried near the venerated shrine of Abu Ayyub,
large cemeteries and numerous mausoleums also became a crucial part of the urban
fabric of Eyüp. Therefore, funerary structures are also a part of this chapter. Lastly, I
examine the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century pictorial depictions that would offer
further idea about the changes in urban landscape of Eyüp. These visual sources, which
are partly based on the imagination of their producers, can also be useful to provide
insight about how Ottomans perceived and represented their urban environment.
In the fourth chapter, I focus on Eyüp’s public spaces having different forms and
functions and try to understand how people experienced these spaces as well as how
these spaces influenced people’s social habits and daily life. Besides its function as a
pilgrimage site of the city, Eyüp developed as a favored excursion spot among urban
dwellers, and social life in the town was quite vibrant with numerous public gardens,
123
promenades, shops, market places, coffeehouses, and taverns. Furthermore, mosque
courtyards, dervish lodges, shrines, and cemeteries were also among the places that
people gathered and socialized. Eyüp was also a significant agricultural production area;
therefore, market gardens, orchards, vineyards, and farms should also be taken into
consideration as open green spaces that may have been used for rest and relaxation. In
this context, this chapter reconsiders the dominant image of Eyüp as a ‘sacred’ place and
makes picture more complicated by adding its less mentioned (but not less important)
features. Lastly, I examine how state attempted to control public life and defined social
norms, what kinds of leisure activities were determined as ‘immoral’ and aimed to be
prevented, and how people respond to rules and regulations imposed by state. The
findings of this study suggest that compared to the other suburbs of the city, state
authorities paid more attention to public life in Eyüp, particularly the settlements around
the complex of Abu Ayyub. Numerous imperial orders were issued to restrict social life
in the town in many ways, and more often, rules and regulations addressed women,
migrants, and non-Muslims. However, it is hard to answer to what extent these orders
were effective in daily life. All in all, rather than coming to a definite conclusion about
these issues, my aim is to reconsider the urban experiences in Eyüp and the reciprocal
relationships between public spaces, people, and state.
As a final note, this thesis is by no means a complete study. One of the crucial
shortcomings is an extensive archival research, as I did use only published primary
sources. For future studies, it would be absolutely useful to strive with the archival
documents.
124
APPENDIX A
DETAILED INFORMATION ON SELECTED BUILDINGS
1. The early-sixteenth century buildings
1.1 Cezeri Kasım Pasha Mosque
One of the significant monuments erected in Eyüp in the early sixteenth century was
Cezeri Kasım Pasha Mosque, which is still standing today and is located at the
intersection of the Cezeri Kasım Akar Çeşmesi Street and the Zal Paşa Street in the
Nişanca Neighborhood. Ayvansarayi recounts that the mosque was built in 1515-16,
along with an upper-storey primary school and a wooden madrasa,479 which are no
longer extant.
The patron of the complex, Cezeri Kasım Pasha, was a high state official who
served in different positions for a long period from the mid-fifteenth to the early
sixteenth century.480 He worked as an accountant (defterdar) in Amasya under Bayezid
II, who was a prince at that time, and in the province of Rumelia. After Bayezid II was
enthroned, he was appointed as the head of the imperial chancery (nişancı) and then the
479 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 299-300. It should be noted that there is no inscription in the
complex that refers to the initial construction date; therefore, some discussions over this issue are going
on. As a result of her analysis on the construction materials and building techniques, Gönül Cantay
suggests that the construction may have been completed earlier than 1515, most likely around the last
years of Bayezid II’s reign. She argues that cast iron was used in the walls of the complex of Bayezid II in
Edirne by the architect Hayrettin as a new method, and the same approach can be seen in Cezeri Kasım
Paşa Mosque. She also shows similarities in terms of design and scale between Firuz Ağa Mosque in
Sultanahmet built during the reign of Bayezid II and Cezeri Kasım Paşa Mosque. Moreover, Cantay
asserts that this small complex probably had an L-shape layout, but unfortunately we do not have enough
architectural evidence of primary school and madrasa to make further interpretations. See Cantay, “Cezeri
Kasım Paşa Külliyesi,” 117, 120.
480 There is conflicting information about Cezeri Kasım Pasha’s family, background, and career. The date
of his death is also given differently in the sources, probably because of other persons who were known as
'Kasım Pasha' but had different nicknames such as Koca, Evliya, and Güzelce. Ayvansarayi asserts that
Cezeri Kasım Pasha died in 1485; on the other hand, he also tells that in 1492-93, the Kasımiyye Mosque
in Thessaloniki converted from church into mosque by Cezeri Kasım Pasha. For more information about
his life and the differences between sources in this regard, see Erünsal, “Kasım Paşa, Cezeri.”
125
grand vizier. He was also sent to Thessaloniki as a local governor. According to the
biographical dictionary written by Sehi Bey (d. 1548), Cezeri Kasım Pasha died in
Thessaloniki and his grave was located there.481 On the other hand, Ayvansarayi writes
that he died in Bursa and was buried in Emir Sultan Neighborhood, which was settled
around the complex of Emir Sultan built in the first half of the fifteenth century in honor
of the famous mystic and Bayezid I’s son-in-law.482 Despite this disagreement about the
location of Cezeri Kasım Pasha’s grave, both Ayvansarayi and Sehi Bey praise his
philanthropist character in a same manner and point out his charitable foundations
established in different cities.483 Moreover, Cezeri Kasım Pasha was also famous for his
talent in literature, and the poems, which he wrote under the pseudonym of Safi, were
quite popular among the folk.484
The mosque, which is covered with a single dome having an 8.80 meterdiameter,
has a square plan with exterior dimensions of 11.20 x 11.20 meters.485 Its
walls consist of two layers of brick and one layer of ashlar; and, the stone was a type of
limestone which was extracted from the quarries between Davutpaşa and Küçükçekmece
in Istanbul and have also been used by the chief architect Sinan in later years.486 The
monuments commissioned by the sultans were generally fully built of ashlar; and as in
this complex, stone and brick were used together in other buildings. The porch of the
mosque is covered by three small domes supported by four columns, which have
481 Sehi Bey, Tezkire, 61.
482 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 299. For more information on the life of Emir Sultan, who
was the husband of Bayezid I’s daughter Hundi Fatma Hatun, and the complex dedicated to him, see
Algül and Azamat, “Emir Sultan”; Tanman, “Emir Sultan Külliyesi.”
483 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 299-300; Sehi Bey, Tezkire, 61-62.
484 Sehi Bey, Tezkire, 61-62.
485 Eyice, “Cezeri Kasım Paşa Camii,” 507.
486 Vardar, “Tarihsel süreçte Cezeri Kasım Paşa Camii,” 353-54, 57. This limestone is called küfeki taşı in
Turkish.
126
different colors and shapes and are thought to have been Byzantine construction
materials reused by the Ottomans.487 The balcony of the stone minaret is supported on a
corbel elegantly decorated in shape of oyster shell. Inside the mosque, the tiles in the
prayer niche (mihrab) and at the left side of the pulpit (minbar) are important decorative
elements, and particularly the tile panel illustrating the Kaaba in a realistic style is a
quite rare example.488 The inscription on the panel shows that it was endowed by
Osman, the son of Mehmed from İznik, in 1726.
According to the epitaph on the entrance door, the mosque was comprehensively
restored in 1822-23 by the housemistress of Sultan Mahmud II.489 The fountain in the
courtyard was constructed in the first half of the eighteenth century by Mehmed Efendi,
who was the attendant (kethüda) of Hadice Sultan; and as the inscription on the fountain
demonstrates, it was renovated in 1850.490 Apparently, in time, a settlement flourished
around this mosque; hence, Cezeri Kasım Pasha Neighborhood was indicated in the
eighteenth- century registers as one of the thirteen quarters of Eyüp.491
1.2 Zeyneb Hatun Masjid and İdris Bidlisi Primary School
In the early sixteenth century, among the significant builders of socio-religious
monuments in Eyüp, İdris Bidlisi and his wife Zeyneb Hatun can also be remarked. As I
briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, İdris Bidlisi (d. 1520) was an Ottoman official
487 Vardar, “Tarihsel süreçte Cezeri Kasım Paşa Camii,” 354.
488 Eyice, “Cezeri Kasım Paşa Camii,” 507; Özsayıner, “Eyüp Cezrikasım Paşa Camii ve Kabe tasvirli
pano.”
489 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 36; Vardar, “Tarihsel süreçte Cezeri Kasım Paşa Camii,” 352.
490 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 299-300; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 35-36; Haskan, Eyüp
tarihi (Vol. 2), 124-25.
491 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7. As İnalcık asserts, the neighborhood names in the eighteenth-century
registers have been used until the twentieth century. Probably after this date, because of the name changes
of neighborhoods, today the mosque is located in Nişanca Neighborhood rather than Cezeri Kasım Pasha.
127
and historian. He was born in the mid-fifteenth century in Bitlis located in the
southeastern part of Anatolia as a son of a scholar called Hüsameddin Ali, who served in
the Aq Qoyunlu court in Diyarbakır and Tabriz.492 İdris Bidlisi was also appointed to the
important positions by the Aq Qoyunlu ruler Yaqub (r. 1478-1490) and his successors;
for instance, since he was very good at calligraphy, he was employed in the office of
secretary of the divan and became the inscriber of the royal seals.493 In 1501, the Safavid
leader Shah Ismail (r. 1501-1524) defeated the Aq Qoyunlu and İdris Bidlisi was invited
to stay in the Safavid court in Tabriz; however, he did not accept the invitation and took
refuge in the Ottoman state.494 According to Sehi Bey, Bayezid II had appreciated the
talents of İdris Bidlisi a lot, therefore, brought him from the Persian land to the Ottoman
court and made him prosper.495 Upon the order of Bayezid II, İdris Bidlisi wrote his
famous Heşt Bihişt, meaning the eight paradises in Persian, which is a history of the
Ottoman dynasty covering the reigns of eight sultans from Osman to Bayezid II.
Even though there are no remains from the building, it is known that İdris Bidlisi
owned a kiosk close to today’s Piyer Loti Coffeehouse.496 Ayvansarayi tells that he also
built a fountain next to his house, and after his death, he was buried in the embankment
at the side of this sweet-water fountain overlooking the Bülbül Deresi.497 Hence, it can
be said that the tomb of İdris Bidlisi marks the site of his kiosk. A primary school, which
is still standing on the İdris Köşkü Street, is also thought to have been erected by İdris
Bidlisi.498 On the other hand, since the tombs of Ali Ağa, who was the horse master of
492 Özcan, “İdris-i Bitlisi,” 485.
493 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 284.
494 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 284; Özcan, “İdris-i Bitlisi,” 485-86.
495 Sehi Bey, Tezkire, 46.
496 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 73; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 122.
497 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 285.
498 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 19-20.
128
Murad IV (r. 1623-1640), and his family are located in the backyard of this primary
school, it is argued that Ali Ağa might be the patron of this foundation.499
İdrisi Bidlisi’s wife, Zeyneb Hatun, built a mosque that is still extant today
between the Kerim Ağa Street and the İdris Köşkü Street.500 The construction date is not
exactly known, but it is estimated as 1520s, probably after İdris Bidlisi’s death.501 The
mosque is situated on a small plot, and apparently its architectural plan was arranged
according to the position of streets. Its minaret erected separately from the mosque in the
direction of the mihrab also supports this observation. In this context, Haskan argues that
the mosque was most likely built after the streets of the neighborhood were formed.502
Ashlar was used in the construction and its roof was made of wood.503 Two epitaphs
placed in the porch indicate that it was restored two times in 1788 and 1842.504 Since it
was plastered with cement in 1985, today it is not possible to see its original building
materials.505 As in the abovementioned case of Cezeri Kasım Pasha's complex, the
neighborhood that emerged around this mosque was called Zeyneb Hatun in the
eighteenth-century registers.506
Besides the mosque, Zeyneb Hatun is also said to have built an open-air praying
platform along with a fountain close to the Gümüşsuyu Street.507 According to Haskan,
special water called Silver Spring (gümüş suyu) was flowing from this fountain, and it
499 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 19-20. Ironically, although he was the first master of the sultan’s horses
(mirahur-ı evvel), Ali Ağa died because of falling off a horse. In relation to that, Haskan indicates that
local people of Eyüp also call this building ‘the school of Ali Ağa who fell of the horse’ (Attan Düşen Ali
Ağa Mektebi).
500 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 284-86; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 106-7.
501 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 107; Artan, “Eyüp,” 4.
502 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 106.
503 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 106.
504 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 106-7.
505 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 106.
506 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7.
507 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 148.
129
was carried to the Topkapı Palace for the sultans.508 Similarly, Ayvansarayi recounts that
in earlier times, there was a corps of servants, called ‘silver water carriers’ (gümüş
sakalar), charged with bringing water from the Silver Spring in Eyüp to the imperial
palace for the sultan’s coffee.509 According to him, close to this vanished fountain in the
Zeyneb Hatun Neighborhood, there was a wishing well in a house, and a lot of people
visited it for making their wishes come true.510 Ayvansarayi also describes that a great
many people were buried in the surrounding cemeteries. This depiction conforms to
what Evliya Çelebi writes about a wishing well in a house located in the cemeteries on
the northern side of Eyüp.511
1.3 Defterdar Masjid
Built by Süleyman Ağa, who was an official responsible for the sultan’s finances
(defterdar) during the reign of Bayezid II, Defterdar Mosque, also known as Tahta
Minare Masjid and Kara Süleyman Mosque, was another early sixteenth-century
religious monument in Eyüp.512 It had an upper-storey, and beneath it, there was a
fountain. Next to the mosque was Süleyman Ağa’s house that was entrusted to the imam
of the mosque. It was located at the intersection of the Tahta Minare Street and the Tahta
Minare Bostan Street in the İslambey Neighborhood. However, because of its poor
condition, it was torn down around 1910, and the site today is occupied by apartment
508 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 148.
509 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 285.
510 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 285.
511 Evliya Çelebi describes this place as a promenade called Can Kuyusu Mesiresi. On the other hand, he
does not say a word about an open-air praying platform or fountain. Based on that, it can be thought that
Zeyneb Hatun’s open-air praying platform and fountain had been demolished in time. See Evliya Çelebi,
Seyahatname, 169-70.
512 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 287; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 43-44.
130
buildings.513 In Ayvansarayi’s work, it is explained that the sweet-water fountain of the
mosque, which was for a long time in ruins, was restored by the Grand Vizier Alemdar
Mustafa Pasha in the middle of 1808.514 But any renovation activity for the main
building is not mentioned. Similar to the mosques of Cezeri Kasım Paşa and Zeyneb
Hatun, Süleyman Ağa’s mosque also became the nucleus of a settlement, which was
indicated in the eighteenth-century registers as Defterdar Kara Süleyman
Neighborhood.515
1.4 İslam Bey Masjid
İslam Bey Mosque, which is located on the İslam Bey Street near the intersection with
İslam Bey Çeşmesi Street, was built in 1521 by one of the commanders of Sultan
Süleyman I.516 İslam Bey, who was from the city of Kırşehir in Central Anatolia, was
buried next to his mosque in the direction of qibla.517
The mosque was constructed with rubble masonry and was covered with a
wooden roof. The base of its minaret was built of ashlar. In the first half of the
seventeenth century, the mosque was turned into a grand lodge belonging to Bedevi
order (Bedevi Asitanesi).518 Ayvansarayi asserts that the mosque had a neighborhood.519
On the other hand, its name was not indicated in the eighteenth-century registers.520
513 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 43.
514 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 287. To prevent any confusion, I should note that
Ayvansarayi died in 1786, but after his death, his work was reorganized and expanded by Ali Satı Efendi
(d. 1842/ 1843), the son of the judge Mahmud Esad Efendi (d. 1813), and grandson of Zileli al-Hac
Seyyid Osman Efendi (d. 1782), the imam of Sultan Mahmud I. Because of that, it is possible to find
information on the building activities in Istanbul in the nineteenth century.
515 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7.
516 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 287; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 56-58.
517 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 56.
518 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 57; Artan, “Eyüp,” 5.
519 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 287.
520 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7.
131
According to the statistical records of 1885, among 28 neighborhoods in Eyüp, one of
them was called İslam Bey.521 Haskan states that İslam Bey also founded a primary
school, which was located in the same area on a high hill between the İslam Bey
Mektebi Street and the Ayten Street.522
1.5 Kızıl (Süleyman Çelebi) Masjid
Süleyman Çelebi, a tile maker (kiremitçi), who built a mosque in Eyüp in the early
sixteenth century, was a good example to see that not only state officials but also
wealthy merchants and craftsmen were the founders of charitable institutions. The
masjid, which still exists at the intersection of the Zal Paşa Street and Kızıl Değirmen
Street, is thought to have been built in 1531 based on the date in its waqfiyya.523
The walls were built as a combination of brick and ashlar, and the roof was made
of wood. Its minaret was composed of red thin bricks; therefore, it has been called Red
Masjid.524 The mosque had a neighborhood named Kiremitçi Süleyman that was listed in
the eighteenth-century registers.525 The patron was buried next to his mosque; however,
around fifty years after his death, in 1586, a primary school was built by Ramazan Ağa,
a deputy of commander of janissaries (sekbanbaşı), on the site of Süleyman Ağa’s
grave.526 Still standing today, the upper-storey school was built with one layer of brick
and one layer of ashlar. Beneath it, the tomb of Ramazan Ağa was situated. The author
of its epitaph was Sai Mustafa Çelebi (d. 1595), a renowned Istanbulite poet and painter,
521 Artan, “Eyüp,” 2-3.
522 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 20-21.
523 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 297-98; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 61-62.
524 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 61.
525 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7.
526 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 297-98; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 61; Haskan, Eyüp
tarihi (Vol. 2), 23-24.
132
who is famous for his works entitled Tezkiretü’l-ebniye and Tezkiret’ül-bünyan,
autobiographies of the chief architect Sinan, which were composed in collaboration with
him.527
1.6 Saçlı Abdülkadir Efendi Masjid (Yahyazade Dervish Lodge)
Abdülkadir Efendi Masjid is located on the Kalenderhane Street in the Merkez Quarter
close to Abu Ayyub’s complex.528 It was built in 1537-38 by the grand mufti Abdülkadir
Efendi for the honor of his father Sheikh Abdürrahim Efendi, who was the head of
Sivasi order, after his death.529 The sheikh was buried beneath the upper-storey mosque.
The ground floor was designed as a place for tombs, and the grave of the patron
Abdülkadir Efendi (d. 1594) was also located there. The masjid was located on the top
floor. This building has fallen into ruin in time and in 1957, its roof and some parts were
demolished because of the great risk of collapse.530 The remains of it can still be seen.
Today another monument, which was originally constructed as a school for
teaching the reading of Quran (darülkurra) by Hoca Sadeddin around 1585s, is known
as Saçlı Abdülkadir Efendi Mosque.531 It was first turned into a dervish lodge called
Yahyazade Tekkesi by the grand mufti Esad Mehmed Efendi, son of Hoca Sadeddin.532
At the left side of the lodge was a burial area reserved for special people like sheikhs,
thus, it is possible to investigate who took a role in the lodge and when. According to the
527 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 24; Saatçi, “Sai Mustafa Çelebi,” 539-40.
528 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 291; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 15-16.
529 Abdülkadir Efendi studied with and married the daughter of his maternal uncle, Ebussuud Efendi
(1490-1574), who was one of most distinguished and celebrated Hanafi scholars served as teacher, judge,
military judge, and shaykh al-Islam during the reign of Süleyman I. For more information about the life of
Abdülkadir Efendi, see Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 291.
530 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 15.
531 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 15. These two buildings, the original structure of Abdülkadir Efendi
Masjid and the Quran School are next to each other.
532 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 15, 144-46; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 292.
133
inscriptions on the gravestones, it seems that the last Sufi sheikh of the lodge died in
1911, which implies that it was an active center from the sixteenth to the twentieth
century.533 After the religious orders were completely banned in 1925 as a part of the
secularization process in the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the newly founded
Republic of Turkey, probably this dervish lodge was also emptied. From the midtwentieth
century onwards, instead of the old building of Abdülkadir Efendi Masjid, it
has been used as a mosque.
The building, which was once Quran school and dervish lodge and now is
mosque, is a two-storey structure without minaret. It was built of ashlar on a square plan
and was covered with a leaded dome supported by ten piers. It has eight windows on the
drum of its dome and nine windows at the bottom. According to Tülay Artan, it partly
reflects the Ottoman architectural features of the classical age.534
2. Works of the great architect Sinan
2.1 Emir Buhari Mosque and Dervish Lodge
Emir Buhari Mosque-Convent, which is thought to have been built around 1525, is listed
as being among the works of Mimar Sinan.535 Although its construction date is before
Sinan was appointed as chief architect, he is indicated as the designer of the building.
Ayvansarayi claims that Sultan Süleyman was the builder of this mosque.536 However,
Tanman indicates that in the endowment deed dated 1530, Hace Mahmud Efendi, also
533 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 16-20, 146.
534 Artan, “Eyüp,” 5.
535 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 92, 105; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 315;
Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 47-49; Kuran, Sinan, 255. The mosque was situated on a plot which is today
at the intersection of the Münzevi Street and the Değirmen Street in the Nişanca Quarter around Otakçılar.
536 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 315.
134
known as Şeyh Mahmud Çelebi, who was the son-in-law of and the successor of Emir
Buhari, was recorded as the patron.537
Emir Buhari (d. 1516), also known as Emir Ahmed-i Buhari, who was born in
Bukhara located in today's Uzbekistan, was the founder of Naqshbandi Sufi order in
Istanbul.538 There were three dervish lodges attributed to Emir Buhari in Fatih,
Ayvansaray, and Eyüp. The first one was established by Sultan Bayezid II, who felt
sympathy to the Naqshbandi teaching, in Fatih; and it has remained the oldest and the
most important Naqshbandi center in Istanbul throughout the centuries.539 The second
convent, which was founded by Emir Buhari himself in Ayvansaray in 1512-13, was
situated on a structure from the Byzantine period.540 Emir Buhari Convent-Mosque in
Eyüp was chronologically the third one. It was built with rubble masonry, and its
minaret located at the right side was made of thin brick.541 Ayvansarayi indicates that it
had the appearance of a dervish lodge and had hospice rooms;542 however, its layout is
not clearly known.
The convent changed hands between different orders including Khalwati in 1675
and Qadiriyya in 1731, but in 1824 it was again in use by members of Naqshbandi
order.543 The sheikh Seyyid Abdülhalim Efendi (d. 1854) completely reconstructed the
building.544 During the First World War, a Ramadan cannon, which was fired in front of
the Metris Barracks to announce the breaking of the fast, accidentally hit the Emir
537 Tanman, “Emir Buhari Tekkesi,” 127.
538 Kara, “Emir Buhari,” 125.
539 Tanman, “Emir Buhari Tekkesi,” 126.
540 Tanman, “Emir Buhari Tekkesi,” 127.
541 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 49.
542 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 315.
543 Tanman, “Emir Buhari Tekkesi,” 128.
544 Tanman, “Emir Buhari Tekkesi,” 128.
135
Buhari Mosque-Convent and heavily damaged it.545 Consequently, its remains were
completely demolished in 1942 and were sold to a scrap dealer.
The mosque-convent had a neighborhood named Emir Buhari that was included
in the eighteenth-century registers.546
2.2 Defterdar Mahmud Efendi Masjid
Defterdar Masjid was commissioned to the architect Sinan by Nazlı Mahmud Efendi,
finance minister, in 1541-42.547 Besides being the official responsible for the sultan’s
finances, Nazlı Mahmud Efendi was also a talented calligrapher educated by Sheikh
Hamdullah (1436-1520), the famous master of Islamic calligraphy; thus, he was the
artist of the Arabic chronogram situated on the arch of his masjid’s gate. Moreover, he
placed an inkpot and a pen on the pinnacle of the minaret; however, both pen and inkpot
were lost in time.548
According to Evliya Çelebi, the masjid that was located near the Defterdar Pier
was an old and small building with a short minaret, but a large congregation was
gathering there.549 It was a rectangular structure of ashlar masonry with a wooden roof,
and with a portico supported by four marble columns.550 The masjid was seriously
545 Tanman, “Emir Buhari Tekkesi,” 128.
546 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7.
547 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 167; Artan, “Eyüp,” 4; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 41; Kuran, Sinan,
255. It is today located between the Defterdar Street and the Çömlekçiler Arkası Street. Semavi Eyice
correctly points out that in Sinan’s autobiographies, this monument was not listed among his works. He
also claims that Kuran did not include this monument in his book about Sinan. However, in this regard,
Eyice is not right because Kuran recorded Defterdar Mosque as a work of Sinan but noted that it is located
in Defterdar rather than Eyüp. See Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97.
548 Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 305; Haskan, Eyüp
tarihi (Vol. 1), 41.
549 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 167.
550 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 41; Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97. Tahsin Öz claims that the
mosque had a dome; however, according to Eyice, since it has a rectangular plan, it is not likely that it was
covered with a dome. See Öz, İstanbul camileri (Vol. 1), 46.
136
damaged during the earthquake of 1766, and its portico was most probably demolished
as a result of this disaster.551 Then, it was restored, a new wooden portico was
constructed, and in the meantime, the marble columns of the old portico remained in the
wall.552 According to Eyice, although it has survived until today, its original sixteenthcentury
architectural features have not been kept well.553
In addition to the masjid, a madrasa, which was a timber structure, and an upperstorey
stone primary school were also built in the courtyard.554 Moreover, at the right
side of the courtyard’s gate facing the street, the fountain, whose chronogram shows the
date of 1543-44, was built of ashlar with a pointed arch in the classical style.555
Nazlı Mahmud Efendi, who died in 1546, was buried in a separate, domed tomb
in the garden of his masjid.556 An open tomb with a square plan, it mainly consists four
pointed arches supported by four marble columns with diamond-shaped capitals. The
four sides between columns were surrounded by nicely decorated marble balustrades
whose height is 0.80 meters, and a beautiful marble frame was placed on one side as
door. Eyice states that it is one of the most elegant examples among open tombs built in
this period.557
According to the registers of the end of the nineteenth century, a neighborhood
called Defterdar Mahmud Efendi existed around this complex.558
551 Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97.
552 Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97.
553 Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97.
554 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 305; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 8, 12.
555 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 305; Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97; Haskan, Eyüp
tarihi (Vol. 2), 101.
556 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 305; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 175-76.
557 Eyice, “Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi,” 97.
558 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 9.
137
2.3 Nişancılar (Nişancı Mustafa) Mosque
Nişancılar Mosque, also known as Nişancı Mustafa Mosque, which is located at the
intersection of Eyüp Nişanca Street and Nimet Street in the Düğmeciler Quarter, is listed
as among the works of Sinan in Eyüp.559 The construction date of the mosque is not
exactly known, yet it is estimated to have been built around 1543 in many sources.560 Its
patron was Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi (d. 1567), also known as Koca Nişancı, Ottoman
official and historian of the sixteenth century.561 He was the most famous chancellor
(nişancı) of Süleyman I’s reign and held this position for almost twenty-three years;
however, he never rose to the vizierate.562 The most ambitious historical work that he
prepared was a projected description of the Ottoman state and government in thirty
books, entitled Tabakat al-Mesalik fi Derecat al-Memalik, only the last volume of which
survives.563 Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi was recognized as a generous, compassionate, and
kind person, and his mansion in Eyüp became one of the meeting places frequented by
intellectuals, scholars, and poets.564
Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi commissioned Sinan to build a Friday mosque along
the shore of Eyüp next to his residence.565 Built of rubble masonry with two rows of
windows, it is now covered by a wooden hipped roof with terracotta tiles. However,
Evliya Çelebi’s description of it as “elaborate and perfect like royal mosque” implies
that it might originally have a small dome.566 The mosque, which gave the quarter its
name (Nişanca), was completely rebuilt on old foundations after a fire in 1780, and
559 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 68, 80, 92, 105; Kuran, Sinan, 260.
560 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 76; Artan, “Eyüp,” 4.
561 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 313.
562 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 313; Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 482.
563 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 313.
564 Kerslake, “Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi,” 261.
565 Kerslake, “Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi,” 261; Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 482.
566 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 482; Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 127.
138
nothing of the original fabric except for the base of the brick minaret has been
preserved.567
Along with the mosque, there were also a bathhouse, which was also designed by
Sinan,568 and a convent for Khalwati dervishes, but both of them are no longer extant.569
Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi was buried in the cemetery behind the qibla wall in the
courtyard of the mosque, and the tomb of his younger brother, Salih Efendi (d. 1565),
who also held the position of chancellor, was situated there.570
2.4 Münzevi Süleyman (Müzevvir) Masjid
Müzevvir (Karcı Süleyman, Süleyman Subaşı, or Münzevi) Masjid, which is still extant
at the intersection of Süleyman Subaşı Türbesi Street, Eyüp Mescidi Street, and
Münzevi Street in the Nişanca Quarter, is listed among the works of Mimar Sinan.571 Its
founder, Süleyman Subaşı, also known as Karcı Süleyman, was one of the high officials
of Sultan Süleyman I and also became chief of the ice sellers (karcıbaşı).572
Built in 1545, the masjid was a masonry structure with a timber roof. Its short
minaret is located at the right side, and in the direction of qibla, there is a fountain
without epitaph that is thought to have been as a part of the masjid.573 Süleyman Subaşı
was buried nearby his masjid.574 As both Ayvansarayi indicates and the nineteenth-
567 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 482.
568 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 54, 57, 73, 85, 99, 111; Kuran, Sinan, 260; Haskan, Eyüp
tarihi (Vol. 2), 87.
569 Kerslake, “Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi,” 261.
570 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 313; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 76.
571 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 69, 95; Kuran, Sinan, 266.
572 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 202, 262, 313; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 73-74.
Süleyman Subaşı was also called ‘Trickster’ (Müzevvir), but it is not explained how and why this
nickname was given to him.
573 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 74.
574 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 313.
139
century registers show, a neighborhood called Süleyman Subaşı emerged around the
foundation.575
2.5 Davud Ağa Masjid
Davud Ağa (Kapıağası) Masjid is as another monument designed and built by the
architect Sinan in Eyüp.576 The chief white eunuch Davud Ağa established it in 1554-55,
just before his death in the same year, and he was also buried there.577
The square-plan mosque, which is located on the Davud Ağa Caddesi in the
Nişanca Quarter, was built of rubble masonry, but both its roof and its portico were built
of wood. Its short minaret was made of stone and covered by a lead cone.
The tomb of Davud Ağa is situated in front of the minaret. Ayvansarayi claims
that a primary school was also erected next to the masjid; however, today there is no
architectural evidence of it.578 According to the eighteenth-century registers, one of the
neighborhoods of Eyüp in this period was called Davud Ağa because of this
establishment.579
2.6 Şah Sultan Mosque and Dervish Lodge
Şah Sultan, who was the daughter of Selim I and the half-sister of Süleyman I, was a
prolific patron of pious foundations and the arts of the book.580 Like many other
Ottoman princesses, she was also among the patrons of Sinan. Her Friday mosque and
575 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 313; İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 9.
576 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 69, 81; Kuran, Sinan, 255.
577 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 310; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 39-40.
578 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 310.
579 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7.
580 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 293.
140
convent, which is located on the Silahtarağa Caddesi in the Merkez Quarter of Eyüp, are
both listed as the works of Sinan.581
Around 1523, Şah Sultan married the Albanian-born Lutfi Pasha (d. 1563), who
was a high state official and became grand vizier in 1539 after the death of Ayas
Pasha.582 Lutfi Pasha was also an important character for the career of Sinan. He
introduced Sinan to Sultan Süleyman I for the first time during the campaign against
Moldavia as a talented architect who would be able to build a bridge for the army to
cross over the River Pruth.583 Then, in 1539, on the recommendation of Lutfi Pasha,
Sinan was appointed to the post of chief imperial architect following the death of Acem
Ali.584
Before his grand vizierate, Lutfi Pasha was posted as provincial governor of
Ioannina (Yanya). In this period, Şah Sultan, who was accompanying her husband,
became a disciple of Sheikh Yakub from the Sünbüli branch of Khalwati order. When
Lutfi Pasha was summoned back to Istanbul as a vizier in 1534-35, Şah Sultan with her
former sheikh’s recommendation joined the Khalwati-Sünbüli circle of Merkez
Efendi.585
The architectural patronage of Şah Sultan in Istanbul, including the conventmosque
complex in Eyüp, was shaped by her devotion to her sheikh.586 Merkez Efendi
581 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 66, 79, 92, 105; Kuran, Sinan, 266.
582 Uluçay, Padişahların kadınları ve kızları, 32-33; İpşirli, “Lutfi Paşa,” 234.
583 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 116.
584 For more information about Sinan’s predecessor, Acem Ali, see Ertuğrul, “Acem Ali.”
585 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 293. After the death of the master Sünbül Sinan in 1529, Merkez Efendi
succeeded him as the head of the largest and most important Sünbüli convent, located in Koca Mustafa
Paşa in Istanbul. Merkez Efendi also built another convent complex on his own name outside of the city
walls around Topkapı and was buried in a mausoleum in this complex in 1552. For more information, see
Yücer, “Sünbül Sinan,” 135-36; Öngören, “Merkez Efendi,” 200-2; Eyice, “Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii ve
Külliyesi,” 133-36; Tanman, “Merkez Efendi Külliyesi,” 202-5.
586 Gülru Necipoğlu architecturally and symbolically investigates the three pious foundations of Şah
Sultan sited in Davudpaşa, Eyüp, and outside the Yenikapı gate. See Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 293-96.
141
was also esteemed by Süleyman I and other members of the imperial court. The close
relationship between the sultan and the sheikh was established in Manisa in the period
when the prince Süleyman had been a governor of the city and Merkez Efendi had been
serving in the complex of Süleyman’s mother, Hafsa Sultan.587 In 1537, Merkez Efendi
was appointed as army sheikh during the military campaign of Corfu commanded by
Lutfi Pasha and attended by Sinan.588 Şah Sultan also accompanied this campaign, and
on her way back, she was attacked by a band of robbers and fell into a state of great
distress.589 The miraculous apparition of Merkez Efendi drove away the bandits and
rescued her.590 Because of the miracle that she had witnessed and the joy and
consolation that she had obtained, she became an even more passionate disciple of
Merkez Efendi, and following her return to Istanbul, she built a mosque and a dervish
lodge in Eyüp for the sheikh.591 Şah Sultan chose to divorce his husband after a serious
dispute between them due to a cruel punishment that Lutfi Pasha had given to a female
prostitute.592 Therefore, Lutfi Pasha was dismissed from grand vizierate in 1541 and
spent the rest of his life in his farm in Didymoteicho (Dimetoka).593 Şah Sultan did not
marry again and preferred instead to devote herself to her sheikh Merkez Efendi.
Şah Sultan’s masjid and convent complex was built in 1537 in Eyüp on a plot of
land taken from her seaside palace, which was previously owned by Hançerli Fatma
587 Öngören, “Merkez Efendi,” 201.
588 Öngören, “Merkez Efendi,” 201; İpşirli, “Lutfi Paşa,” 234.
589 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 280.
590 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 293.
591 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 280.
592 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 293-94; İpşirli, “Lutfi Paşa,” 234.
593 Gülru Necipoğlu examines the power relations between royal couples such as Lutfi Pasha-Şah Sultan
and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha-İsmihan Sultan. Accordingly, she points out the subordination of viziers and
pashas to their royal wives. For instance, Lutfi Pasha remarks in the preface of his Asafname that leisurely
seclusion at his farm in Didymoteicho was preferable to being subject to subordination by women. See
Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 43-44; Kütükoğlu, “Lütfi Paşa Asafnamesi,” 61.
142
Sultan.594 The complex seems an early work of Sinan before he became chief imperial
architect.595 On the other hand, because the masjid was converted into a Friday mosque
with a royal permit obtained in 1555, the construction date of the complex is generally
known as 1555.
Evliya Çelebi describes that Şah Sultan’s single-minaret mosque, located in a
lush garden was built of stone and brick and was covered with a four-hipped lead roof
having indigo-blue color.596 It was seriously damaged by the earthquake of 1766 and
was extensively restored during the reign of Mustafa III (r. 1757-1774).597 Prior to this
renovation, a chronogram, which points out the dedication of Şah Sultan to the path of
God, was written on the arch of the gate.598 It yields the date of 1555-56, namely the
year the masjid became a Friday mosque. At the left side of the courtyard gate on the
street was a fountain.599 Restored several times during the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the complex lost many of its original features particularly after it was
remodeled in 1953.600
Located along the Golden Horn, the convent included fifteen rooms for
dervishes, a house for the sheikh, and a refectory where food was cooked and served
daily.601 There was also a wooden primary school over the courtyard gate along with
individual rooms reserved for the teacher and his assistant.602 The mausoleum of Şah
594 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 294.
595 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 294.
596 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169. He also indicates that it was a work of Sinan.
597 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 280; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 87.
598 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 280; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 86.
599 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 2), 144.
600 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 295; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 87.
601 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 295.
602 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 295; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 280; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi
(Vol. 2), 27.
143
Sultan overlooking the main road to Eyüp was another significant part of the complex,
however, it fell into ruin and was demolished in 1953.603
According to Necipoğlu, the architectural simplicity of Şah Sultan’s complex
located at a suburb of the city conformed to codes of decorum observed in the domeless,
single-minaret mosques that Sinan designed for other princesses who did not belong to
Süleyman’s nuclear family.604 Even though she was a member of the royal household,
she was relatively a less important princess as a reigning sultan’s half-sister born from a
different mother. Necipoğlu therefore discusses that the formal modesty of Şah Sultan’s
complex was not a factor of gender but of social stature.605
2.7 Dökmeciler Masjid
Dökmeciler (Düğmeciler) Masjid, which is located at the intersection of Düğmeciler
Street and Oluklubayır Street in the Düğmeciler Quarter, was built by Dökmecizade
Mehmed Bakır Efendi (d. 1589-90).606 The patron, who held significant official
positions such as judge of Istanbul and military judge of Anatolia, commissioned the
architect Sinan for his masjid in Eyüp that was later turned into a Friday mosque.607 The
date of the construction is not exactly known. On the other hand, considering that the
earliest gravestone in its burial area, where the tomb of Mehmed Bakır Efendi was also
situated, belongs to the year of 1567, it was most likely erected around 1565.608
603 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 295; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 148; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi
(Vol. 1), 263-65.
604 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 296.
605 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 296.
606 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 287-88; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 44-46. The mosque is
also called Düğmeciler, Dökmecibaşı, or Düğmecibaşı. According to Haskan, its correct name is
Dökmeciler (The Mosque of Foundry Workers).
607 Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies, 69, 94, 107; Kuran, Sinan, 255.
608 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 46.
144
The square-plan structure was made of ashlar and was covered with a wooden
roof. The base of its minaret is also ashlar, but the rest of it is thin brick. Apart from the
previous simple restorations, Lalezar Kalfa, the second treasurer of Mahmud II (r. 1808-
1839), and Ali Satı, who compiled Ayvansarayi’s work Hadikat-ül Cevami, conducted
an extensive renovation at the mosque, repaired the waterways, and brought water to its
fountain.609 It was damaged by the earthquake of 1894, and according to the inscription
on its wall, it was restored by two women called Emine and Fatma one year later.610 In
the eighteenth century register, the Düğmeciler Neighborhood, which took its name from
the mosque, was listed.611
2.8 Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque
The complex of Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha designed by the great architect Sinan
is one of the most significant monuments of Eyüp; it also has a quite distinctive
character among other works of Sinan.
Şah Sultan, one of the three daughters of Selim II, was born in 1545 when his
father was a prince in Manisa. In 1562, she was married the janissary agha Çakırcıbaşı
Hasan Pasha.612 After this marriage, Çakırcıbaşı Hasan Pasha was promoted to the
governorship of Bosnia in 1563-64 and in 1570-71 was appointed governor-general of
Rumelia in 1570-71; however, he died very soon after, in 1574. In the same year, Şah
609 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 45; Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 288.
610 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 45. Only the names of the women were indicated in the inscription, so it
is not known who they were.
611 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 7.
612 Uluçay, Padişahların kadınları ve kızları, 41. It was actually a triple wedding. The three daughters of
Selim II married high-ranking statesmen in the same ceremony organized in 1562. The ‘old sultana’,
İsmihan, was given to the second vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pasha; the ‘second sultana’, Gevherhan, to the
grand admiral Piyale Pasha, and the ‘third sultana’, Şah Sultan, to the janissary agha Çakırcıbaşı Hasan.
Necipoğlu points out that 1562 was the year that Selim II became heir apparent to the throne. See
Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 368.
145
Sultan, a twenty-nine-year-old princess, was married to the Bosnian-born Zal Mahmud
Pasha, who served as governor-general of Aleppo and Anatolia and rose to the rank of
vizier.613 Mahmud Pasha was famous for his strength as a wrestler and showed his
immense power when he had strangled Prince Mustafa in 1553; therefore, the title ‘Zal’,
a mythical Persian hero recognized as one of the greatest warriors, was given to him.614
Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha loved each other a lot, but their happy marriage,
which was recounted in historical sources like Peçevi’s work, lasted only three years.
According to the waqfiyya of the complex, Zal Mahmud Pasha died on 22 October
1577, and only thirteen days later, his devoted wife, Şah Sultan, also passed away.615
Upon their last will, they were buried together in the tomb of their complex.616
There is no foundation inscription on the Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha
Mosque’s portal. The chronogram on the public fountain at the gate of the tomb’s
courtyard yields the date 1589-90.617 On the other hand, compared to this chronogram,
more useful and reliable source regarding the construction process of the complex is its
endowment deed dated on 23 November 1577.618 According to that, Şah Sultan and Zal
Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex, which consists of a mosque, two madrasas, a
mausoleum, and a fountain, was built after the demise of the couple in 1577.619
613 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 277.
614 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 368-69. For more information about Prince Mustafa (Mustafa Çelebi),
son of Süleyman, and the conflict which caused his execution, see Turan, “Mustafa Çelebi.”
615 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 369-70. Some studies wrongly date their death to 1580; see Uluçay,
Padişahların kadınları ve kızları, 41.
616 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 368. Stephan Gerlach witnessed the successive funeral processions of Zal
Mahmud Pasha and Şah Sultan. For his impressions written on his diary, see Gerlach, Türkiye günlüğü,
654, 668.
617 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 372.
618 Eyice, “Eyüp’de Zal Mahmud Paşa Camii,” 18. There are two studies on the waqfiyya of the complex
prepared by Mustafa Güler in 2001 and Gülru Necipoğlu in 2005. See Güler, “Şahsultan ile Zal Mahmud
Paşa Vakfiyesi”; Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 368-76.
619 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 370.
146
The pasha and the princess had each prepared a written will, donating one-third
of their inheritance for the construction of a joint mosque and madrasa complex.620 Şah
Sultan chose her mother Nurbanu Sultan (d. 1583) as executor of her will and Hüseyin
Agha, chief finance minister, as administrator of the waqf. Moreover, the grand vizier,
who was Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (d. 1579) at that time, was responsible for overseeing
the endowment.621 First of all, the mausoleum was erected. Then, Hüseyin Agha
constructed income-producing structures such as a caravanserai and mills in Plovdiv,
where both Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha had had some properties. Subsequently,
he laid the foundations of the mosque and its two madrasas, probably around 1578-79.622
In this period, Hüseyin Agha was sent to the Safavid campaign that took more than ten
years between 1578 and 1590; therefore, to prevent delays in the project, the couple’s
former household steward Mustafa Kethüda was appointed in his stead. He completed
the mosque and its twin madrasas, together with a water channel. Furthermore, he built
commercial structures such as rental rooms, shops, candle factory, and bakery as source
of income.623 However, today there are no remains from these buildings.
Until 1585-86, Şah Sultan’s and Zal Mahmud Pasha’s endowments were
administered separately; on the other hand, after this date these two accounts were
merged because the revenues from the pasha’s properties were less than the princess.624
Building the complex took more than a decade, with delays caused by administrative
changes and economic reasons. According to the waqfiyya, in April 1590, the mosque,
620 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 370.
621 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 370-71.
622 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 371.
623 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 371; Eyice, “Eyüp’de Zal Mahmud Paşa Camii,” 18; Orman, “Zal
Mahmud Paşa Külliyesi,” 109.
624 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 371.
147
two madrasas, mausoleum, and commercial facilities had been completed.625 The
chronogram of the fountain also precisely coincides with this completion date.
Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Complex is located on a sharply sloping
terrain between the Defterdar and Zal Paşa Streets in the Nişanca Quarter. Because of
the irregularity of the site, the buildings were organized around two courtyards at two
different levels which were connected by an open stone staircase. Therefore, entering
into the complex through the upper and lower arched portals present different visual
experiences to the visitor. The mosque and Şah Sultan’s U-shaped madrasa occupy the
four-sides of the upper courtyard with the ablution fountain, and the octagonal
mausoleum with a cemetery garden and the pasha’s L-shaped madrasa share a less
formal courtyard below.626
Only the double-domed monumental mausoleum stands out as the ashlar
masonry building of the complex. The other structures were built with courses of stone
alternating brick or cheaper materials. According to Necipoğlu, in this way, the
importance of the mausoleum as the focal point of the funerary complex has been
highlighted.627
The madrasas were arranged asymmetrically. Their unorthodox layout, off-center
classrooms, unevenly spaced arcades, and non-matching columns have caused many
scholarly discussions regarding whether they were really built by Sinan or not.628
625 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 371-72. Except the fountain and the commercial structures, other
buildings are listed as being among the works of Sinan; see Mustafa Sai Çelebi, Sinan’s autobiographies,
67, 92, 96; Kuran, Sinan, 267.
626 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 368-69, 373; Kuran, Sinan, 202-3.
627 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 373. As a reason of cheaper materials used in the complex, Necipoğlu
points out the adverse effects of the inflation of 1584-85, see Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 372.
628 Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 373; Goodwin, A history of Ottoman architecture, 257-58.
148
The single-minaret mosque, which visually dominates the waterfront and the
processional upper avenue between Divan Yolu and Eyüp, is quite impressive with its
prismatic form, two colored horizontal courses of stone and brick, and massive
elevation. From its east and west façades, it looks like a four-storey building because of
its windows arrangements. In front of the north façade, which faces the paved courtyard
with the ablution fountain, is a five-bay portico supported by marble columns with
muqarnas capitals. The mosque is comprised of a simple central space with galleries at
three sides, east, west, and north. The 12.40 meters diameter main dome of the mosque
is 21.80 meters height from the ground.629 The weight towers were marked by onion
domes on the four corners; thus, the main dome has been visually emphasized. The
minaret situated at the northwest corner of the mosque is in the classical style; however,
it is not original as it was rebuilt after the earthquake of 1894.630 The tomb and the
mosque were repaired during the reign of Sultan Mahmud II. Then, between 1955 and
1963, an extensive restoration was conducted in the complex.631
All in all, Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex has caused lots
of debates with many distinctive architectural features in its layout and design compared
to the previous works of the great architect Sinan.632 Moreover, after Abu Ayyub’s
shrine complex, it has been one of the most prominent structures in the urban landscape
of Eyüp.
629 Kuran, Sinan, 203.
630 Kuran, Sinan, 203.
631 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 105.
632 For more detailed architectural analyses of the complex, see Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 368-76;
Kuran, Sinan, 202-13; Goodwin, A history of Ottoman architecture, 257-59; Günay; Sinan, 41-43; Eyice,
“Eyüp’de Zal Mahmud Paşa Camii.” It should also be noted that although it is a collaborative monument,
it has been recognized as Zal Mahmud Pasha’s work in many sources. Because of that, as Necipoğlu does,
I prefer to identify the complex with the names of its two patrons.
149
3. The seventeenth-century buildings
3.1 Tahta Minare Masjid (Tımışvar Dervish Lodge)
İbrahim Peçevi (d. 1649-50), famous Ottoman historian and state official, was the patron
of a masjid called Tahta Minare, also known as Tımışvar Tekkesi.633 In 1638, he was
appointed as finance minister to Tımışvar, which is today a city in Western Romania,
and this position is known as his last mission before his death.634 It is very likely that he
built the masjid when he was on this duty; therefore, the masjid was also recognized
with this name. The building, which is located between the Baba Haydar Street and the
Baba Haydar Kuyu Street in the Düğmeciler Quarter, was transformed into a dervish
lodge about 1779.635 However, it is no longer extant.
3.2 Arakiyeci Masjid
Another masjid, which is still standing at the intersection of the Abdurrahman Şerif Bey
Street and the Arakiyeci Camii Street in the Nişanca Quarter, was constructed by Cafer
Çelebi, maker of the felt caps. The Takyeci Masjid, also known as Takkeci or Arakiyeci
is a square-plan rubble masonry structure with a wooden roof. In the nineteenth-century
registers, a neighborhood called Takyeci in Eyüp is listed.636
633 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 303; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 97-98.
634 Hancz, “Peçuylu İbrahim,” 217.
635 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 97.
636 İnalcık, “Eyüp Projesi,” 9.
150
3.3 Murad Buhari Convent
Murad Buhari Convent, located at the intersection of Davud Ağa Street and Nişancı
Mustafa Paşa Street in the Nişanca Quarter, was originally built as a madrasa.637 Its
patron Kangırılı (Çankırılı) Mustafa Efendi was the son-in-law of the grand mufti
Minkarizade Yahya Efendi (d. 1678). The son of the founder, Ebülhayr Ahmed Efendi,
transformed the madrasa into a lodge belonging to Naqshbandi Sufi order in the honor of
his sheikh Murad Efendi. Behind the madrasa’s domed rooms in U-shaped plan, there
was a three-storey mansion with a big garden, which was reserved for the sheikhs of the
convent.638 In 1983, the structure was extensively restored and the mansion, which was
in very bad condition, was completely demolished.
3.4 Nakkaş Hasan Pasha Mausoleum
Among the tombs built in Eyüp in the seventeenth century, Nakkaş Hasan Paşa’s
mausoleum, located on the Zal Mahmud Pasha Street, is a particularly striking
example.639 Ayvansarayi indicates that it was built in a very elaborate and embellished
style.640 Nakkaş Hasan Paşa (d. 1623) was raised in the imperial palace and received
education in the court's painting workshop (nakkaşhane). He was famous for his talent in
book painting and illumination; moreover, he was appointed to official positions such as
637 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 310-13; Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 89-92.
638 Haskan, Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 90-91.
639 Although he does not indicate his supporting arguments clearly, Haskan asserts that the mausoleum
was designed by Dalgıç Ahmed Ağa, who served as chief imperial architect between 1598 and 1605.
Dalgıç Ahmed Ağa died in 1607 near Bursa during a military campaign commanded by Nakkaş Hasan
Paşa against a group of rebels. Because of that, Haskan argues that the tomb was built about 1605-6. On
the other hand, not every author agrees with Haskan regarding that Dalgıç Ahmed Ağa was the architect of
the mausoleum. For instance, Ahmed Vefa Çobanoğlu does not provide such information; see Haskan,
Eyüp tarihi (Vol. 1), 239-41; Çobanoğlu, “Nakkaş Hasan Paşa Türbesi.”
640 Ayvansarayi, The garden of the mosques, 279.
151
janissary agha and provincial governor.641 Nakkaş Hasan Paşa’s square-plan mausoleum
in classical style was built of ashlar masonry and was covered with a lead-covered dome.
There is a portico on four marble columns in front of its gate, which faces the courtyard.
Four windows lined in two rows are situated on each of its three façades. There is a nice
small fountain between lower windows on its wall facing the street.
641 Tanındı, “Nakkaş Hasan Paşa.”
152
APPENDIX B
MAPS, PHOTOS AND DRAWINGS
Figure 1. The location of Eyüp on a map showing Istanbul and environs, ca. 1900
(Çelik, The remaking of Istanbul, frontispiece)
153
Figure 2. The topographic map of Eyüp
(Özaslan, “Historic urban fabric,” 232)
154
Figure 3. Map of Constantinople in Cristoforo Buondelmonti’s Liber Insularum
Archipelagi, ink drawing, ca. 1481
(Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, xxiv)
Abu Ayyub
Mosque Complex
155
Figure 4. Locations of the fifteenth-century mosques and masjids
(Blue markers with labels)
MOSQUES and MASJIDS
Blue markers: 15th century
156
Figure 5. The fifteenth-century Eyüp neighborhoods developed around the mosques and
masjids
FIFTEENTH-CENTURY
NEIGHBORHOODS
IN EYÜP
157
Figure 6. Locations of the fifteenth-century dervish lodges
(Blue markers with labels; red line indicates dervish lodges that were also used as
masjids or mosques)
DERVISH LODGES
Blue markers: 15th century
158
Figure 7. Locations of the early sixteenth-century mosques and masjids
(Orange markers with labels; the ones indicated with star had neighborhoods)
MOSQUES and MASJIDS
Blue markers: 15th century
Orange markers: 16th century,
before the 1530s
Abu Ayyub Mosque
159
Figure 8. Locations of the sixteenth-century mosques and masjids built by the architect
Sinan
(Yellow markers with labels; the ones indicated with star had neighborhoods)
MOSQUES and MASJIDS
Blue markers: 15th century
Orange markers: 16th century,
before the 1530s
Yellow markers: 16th century,
works of the architect Sinan
Abu Ayyub Mosque
160
Figure 9. Isometric projection of Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex
(drawn by Arben N. Arapi)
(Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan; https://archnet.org/sites/2031/media_contents/42980)
161
Figure 10. Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/zal-mahmut-pasa-camii-ve-kulliyesi/957)
Figure 11. General view of Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex seen
in the left middleground (photo by Reha Günay)
The twin minarets of Abu Ayyub Mosque are seen in the foreground, while Mihrimah
Sultan Mosque of Edirnekapı appears in the right background
(Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan; https://archnet.org/sites/2031/media_contents/42980)
162
Figure 12. Defterdar Masjid
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/nazli-defterdar-mahmut-efendi-camii/950)
Figure 13. Şah Sultan Mosque
(https://www.mimarsinan.gen.tr/sah-sultan-camii/)
163
Figure 14. Locations of other mosques and masjids built after the 1530s
(Dark orange markers with labels; the ones indicated with star had neighborhoods)
Kaptan Pasha Mosque
Dede (Dere) Masjid
MOSQUES and MASJIDS
Blue markers: 15th century
Orange markers: 16th century,
before the 1530s
Yellow markers: 16th century,
works of the architect Sinan
Dark orange markers: 16th
century, after the 1530s
164
Figure 15. Locations of the sixteenth-century dervish lodges
(Dark orange and yellow markers with labels; yellow ones show the works of the
architect Sinan; red line indicates convents that were also used as masjids or mosques)
Molla Çelebi Convent
Yahyazade Convent
Abu Ayyub Mosque
DERVISH LODGES
Blue markers: 15th century
Yellow markers: 16th century,
works of the architect Sinan
Dark orange markers: 16th
century, after the 1530s
165
Figure 16. Cafer Pasha Tomb’s standing walls and his madrasa and convent complex
seen in the background
(https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/cafer-pasa-tekkesi)
Figure 17. Cafer Pasha Madrasa
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/cafer-pasa-medresesi/1004)
166
Figure 18. Location of Surp Yeghia Apostolic Armenian Church
Figure 19. Surp Yeghia Church’s entrance from the street, courtyard, eastern façade and
bell tower
(Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri.”)
Abu Ayyub Mosque
167
Figure 20. Locations of the seventeenth-century mosques and masjids
(Green markers with labels; the ones indicated with star had neighborhoods)
MOSQUES and MASJIDS
Blue markers: 15th century
Orange markers: 16th century,
before the 1530s
Yellow markers: 16th century,
works of the architect Sinan
Dark orange markers: 16th
century, after the 1530s
Green markers: 17th century
168
Figure 21. Locations of the seventeenth-century dervish lodges
(Green markers with labels)
DERVISH LODGES
Blue markers: 15th century
Yellow markers: 16th century,
works of the architect Sinan
Dark orange markers: 16th
century, after the 1530s
Green markers: 17th century
169
Figure 22. Location of Surp Asdvadzadzin Apostolic Armenian Church
Figure 23. Surp Asdvadzadzin Church’s interior as seen from the west, apse and altar
table, and interior as seen from the east
(Hançer, “Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri.”)
Abu Ayyub Mosque
170
Figure 24. Major cemeteries of Istanbul indicated on Hellert’s 1836 map of the city
(Eldem, Death in Istanbul, 16-17)
EYÜP
171
Figure 25. Tombs of grandees and complexes
1. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari 2. Ayas Mehmed Pasha 3. Lala Mustafa Pasha 4. Pertev
Mehmed Pasha 5. Feridun Ahmed Beg 6. Ebussuud Efendi 7. Siyavuş Pasha 8. Sokollu
Mehmed Pasha 9. Mirmiran Ahmed Agha 10. Ferhad Pasha 11. Cafer Pasha 12. Hubbi
Hatun 13. Molla Çelebi 14. Nakkaş Hasan Pasha 15. Şah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha
16. Defterdar Mahmud Çelebi
(Necipoğlu, The age of Sinan, 577)
172
Figure 26. The tomb of Siyavuş Pasha
(https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/siyavus-pasa-turbesi)
173
Figure 27. The tomb of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha
(https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/sokullu-mehmed-pasa-kulliyesi--eyup)
174
Figure 28. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and İsmihan Sultan Quran School
(https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/sokullu-mehmed-pasa-kulliyesi--eyup)
Figure 29. The tomb complex of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and İsmihan Sultan containing
a madrasa and a Quran school
Abu Ayyub Mosque with its twin minarets can also be seen in the background
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/sokollu-mehmet-pasa-medresesi/1011)
175
Figure 30. Ebussuud Efendi Tomb and Primary School Complex
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/ebussuud-efendi-sibyan-mektebi/1005)
Figure 31. Plak (Bulak) Mustafa Pasha Tomb and Abu Ayyub Mosque
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/bulak-mustafa-pasa-turbesi/962)
176
Figure 32. Mirmiran Mehmed Agha Tomb
(http://www.ottomaninscriptions.com/photo/photo_m_1228_1.jpg)
Figure 33. Feridun Ahmed Pasha Tomb
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/feridun-pasa-turbesi/969)
177
Figure 34. A view of graveyards on a road towards Abu Ayyub Mosque, 1992 (photo
by Nuray Özaslan)
(Özaslan, “Historic urban fabric,” 259)
Figure 35. A view of the Golden Horn from the Eyüp Cemetery, 19th century (drawn by
William H. Bartlett)
(Pardoe, The beauties of the Bosphorus, 12; https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/eyupmezarligi)
178
Figure 36. A view of the Golden Horn from the Eyüp Cemetery (photo by Engin
Özendeş)
(SALT Research, Engin Özendeş Archive, EOZH0052)
179
Figure 37. Estimated locations of piers (iskeles) in Eyüp
180
Figure 38. Nakkaş Hasan Pasha Tomb and Abu Ayyub Mosque Complex, a view
looking from roof of Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque, 1933 (photo by Ali Saim Ülgen)
(SALT Research, Ali Saim Ülgen Archive, TASUH0717)
Figure 39. Overturned and dismantled graves in graveyard between Kızıl Masjid and
Zal Mahmud Pasha Mosque, 1950s (photo by Ali Saim Ülgen)
(SALT Research, Ali Saim Ülgen Archive, TASUH3269001)
181
Figure 40. Wooden houses in Eyüp, 1989 (photo by Marc Eginard)
(SALT Research, IFEA / Marc Eginard / Istanbul Collection, IFEAEGIIST109)
Figure 41. A vegetable garden (bostan) in Eyüp, behind the Şah Sultan and Zal
Mahmud Pasha Mosque Complex, wooden houses seen in the background, 1992 (photo
by Nuray Özaslan)
(Özaslan, “Historic urban fabric,” 258)
182
Figure 42. Dervish lodges built in Eyüp between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries
DERVISH LODGES
Blue markers: 15th century
Yellow markers: 16th century,
works of the architect Sinan
Dark orange markers: 16th
century, after the 1530s
Green markers: 17th century
Sivasi Convent
Lagari Convent
Molla Çelebi Convent
Yahyazade Convent
Abu Ayyub Mosque
183
Figure 43. Şeyhülislam Dervish Lodge
(https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/seyhulislam-mustafa-efendi-tekkesi)
Figure 44. The courtyard of the Şeyhülislam Dervish Lodge
(The courtyard has been very recently covered with this roof.)
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/seyhulislam-tekkesi/1001)
184
Figure 45. Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge (drawing by Nezih)
(Koçu, “Babahaydar mescidi,” İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 4), 1742)
185
Figure 46. Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge, wooden northern façade
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/baba-haydar-camii/938)
186
Figure 47. Baba Haydar Masjid-Dervish Lodge, rubble masonry facades
(https://www.eyupsultan.bel.tr/tr/main/pages/baba-haydar-camii/938)
187
Figure 48. The interior of Savaklar (Cemalizade) Dervish Lodge, the mihrab wall and
the tomb of Sheikh Cemaleddin (drawing by Nezih)
(Koçu, “Ahmedpaşa mescidi,” İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 1), 440;
https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/cemalizade-tekkesi)
188
Figure 49. Karyağdı Dervish Lodge
(http://www.habereyup.com/yazarlar/coskun-sen/eyupteki-gizemli-bektasi-tekkesi/93)
Figure 50. Ümmi Sinan Dervish Lodge
(https://sites.google.com/site/ummisinan/dergah.JPG)
189
Figure 51. The ritual space (tevhidhane) of Ümmi Sinan Dervish Lodge, the windows at
two sides of the mihrab opening to the tomb of the sheikh
(https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/ummi-sinan-tekkesi)
190
Figure 52. The Istanbul map, 1537-38, Matrakçı Nasuh, Mecmu’-i Menazil
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Matrak%C3%A7%C4%B1_Nas
uh_-_%C4%B0stanbul.jpg)
191
Figure 53. The detail of Eyüp from the panorama of Istanbul, Melchior Lorichs, 1559
(Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 45)
192
Figure 54. The map of Kırkçeşme waterways, 1579, Süleymanname
(Çeçen, Taksim ve Hamidiye suları, 28-29)
193
Figure 55. View of Istanbul, 1584-85, Lokman Bin Seyyid Hüseyin, Hünername
(Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis / Istanbul, 168)
194
Figure 56. “Nuruosmaniye-2990”; Istanbul map, Kitab-ı Bahriye (short version, copied
1645 by Ahmed bin Mustafa)
(Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 479)
195
Figure 57. “London-4131”; Istanbul map, ca. 1620, Kitab-ı Bahriye (short version)
(Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 477)
196
Figure 58. “University-123”; Istanbul map, ca. 1600, Kitab-ı Bahriye (short version)
(Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 478)
197
Figure 59. “Paris-956”; Istanbul map, ca. 1650, Kitab-ı Bahriye (long version)
(Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 486)
198
Figure 60. “Topkapı-1633”; Istanbul map, ca. 1680s, Kitab-ı Bahriye (long version)
(Orbay, “Istanbul viewed,” 493)
199
Figure 61. Map of Constantinople, produced by the Hydrographic Service of the Navy
of France, late 17th century
(Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55010152b)
200
Figure 62. Detail of Eyüp from the map of Constantinople given above
(I have inverted the map to show Eyüp better and noted down monument names that I
can identify in red color)
(Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55010152b)
201
REFERENCES
Abdülaziz Bey. (1995). Osmanlı adet, merasim ve tabirleri. K. Arısan & D. A. Günay
(Eds.). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Açık, T., & Düzenli, H. İ. (2015). XVI-XVII. yüzyıl Istanbul evlerine dair. In C. Yılmaz
(Ed.), Antik çağdan XXI. yüzyıla büyük Istanbul tarihi (Vol. 8). Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür A.Ş., Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları
Merkezi.
Akdal, A. N. (2016). Provisioning the Ottoman capital: Istanbul’s market gardens
between the seventeenth and nineteeth centuries (MA thesis). Boğaziçi
University, Turkey.
Algül, H. (1994). Ebû Eyyûb el-Ensârî. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 10, pp. 123-125). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Algül, H., & Azamat, M. (1995). Emir Sultan. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 11, pp. 146-148). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Harawi. (2004). A lonely wayfarers guide to pilgrimage: ʻAlī Ibn
Abī Bakr al-Harawī’s kitāb al-ishārāt ilā maʻrifat al-ziyārāt (J. W. Meri, Trans.).
Princeton: The Darwin Press.
Alpak, C. (1989). Eyüp Sultan ve türbesi. Istanbul: Refioğlu Yayınları.
Altınay, A. R. (1987). Onuncu asr-ı hicride İstanbul hayatı. A. Uysal (Ed.). Ankara:
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Altınay, A. R. (1998). Eski Istanbul Manzaraları (1553-1839). D. Gürlek (Ed.). Istanbul:
Timaş Yayınları.
Arseven, C. E. (1989). Eski Istanbul. Istanbul: Çelik Gülersoy Vakfı Istanbul
Kütüphanesi Yayınları.
Artan, T. (1993). Bahariye. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 1, pp. 535-
536). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Artan, T. (1993). Bahariye Kasrı. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 1, p.
537). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Artan, T. (1993). Mahremiyet: mahrumiyetin resmi. Defter, 20, 91-115.
202
Artan, T. (1994). Esma Sultan Sahilsarayı. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 3, pp. 208-210). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Artan, T. (1994). Eyüp’ün bir diğer çehresi: sayfiye ve sahilsaraylar. In T. Artan (Ed.),
Eyüp: Dün/Bugün: sempozyum, 11-12 Aralık 1993 (pp. 106-114). Beşiktaş,
Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Artan, T. (1995). Eyüp. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 12, pp. 1-6).
Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Artan, T. (2012). Forms and forums of expression: Istanbul and beyond 1600-1800. In
C. Woodhead (Ed.), The Ottoman world (pp. 378-405). Milton Park, Abingdon,
Oxon; New York: Routledge.
Aşık Çelebi. (2010). Meşâʻirüʼş-şuʻarâ: İnceleme, metin (Vols. 1-3). F. Kılıç (Ed.).
Istanbul: Istanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
Aşıkpaşazâde. (2003). Tevarih-i Al-i Osman (Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi) (K. Yavuz &
M. A. Y. Saraç, Trans.). Istanbul: K Kitaplığı.
Atasoy, N. (2007). Matrakçı Nasuh and Evliya Çelebi: perspectives on Ottoman gardens
(1534-1682). In M. Conan (Ed.), Middle East garden traditions: unity and
diversity; questions, methods and resources in a multicultural perspective (pp.
197-218). Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Atasoy, N. (2015). Silahşör, tarihçi, matematikçi, nakkaş, hattat Matrakçı Nasuh ve
Menazilname’si: Beyan-ı menazil-i sefer-i Irakeyn-i Sultan Süleyman Han.
Istanbul: MASA Yayınevi.
Ateş, A. (1953). İstanbul’un fethine dair sultan Mehmed tarafından gönderilen
mektuplar ve bunlara gelen cevaplar. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi
Tarih Dergisi, 4(7), 11-50.
Ayvansarayi, H. H. (2000). The garden of the mosques: Hafız Hüseyin al-Ayvansarayi’s
guide to the Muslim monuments of Ottoman Istanbul (H. Crane, Trans.). Leiden:
Brill.
Ayvansarayi, H. H. (2001). Hadîkatu’l-Cevami: İstanbul camileri ve diğer dini-sivil
mi’mari yapılar. A. N. Galitekin (Ed.). Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları.
Ayverdi, E. H. (1958). Fatih devri sonlarında İstanbul mahalleleri, şehrin iskanı ve
nüfusu. Ankara: Vakıflar Umum Müdürlüğü.
Ayverdi, E. H. (1973). Osmanlı mimarisinde Fatih devri 855-886 (1451-1481) (Vols.
3-4). Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti/ Istanbul Enstitüsü.
203
Babinger, F. (1992). Mehmed the Conqueror and his time (R. Manheim, Trans.).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1953).
Bacque-Grammont, J. L. (1994). Eyüp mezarlıklarının incelenmesi üzerine düşünceler.
In T. Artan (Ed.), Eyüp: Dün/Bugün: sempozyum, 11-12 Aralık 1993 (pp. 62-
105). Beşiktaş, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey. (2001). Eski zamanlarda İstanbul hayatı. A. Ş. Çoruk
(Ed.). Istanbul: Kitabevi.
Barkan, Ö. L. (1963). Ayasofya Cami‘i ve Eyüp Türbesinin 1489-1491 yıllarına ait
muhasebe bilançoları. Istanbul Universitesi Iktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 23(1-2),
342-379.
Başak, Z. (1952). Silahtarağa kazısı/ The Silahdarağa excavations. In İstanbul Arkeoloji
Müzeleri yıllığı (Vol. 5) (pp. 51-55). Istanbul: Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzesi
Yayınları.
Berktay, H. (1994). Azizler, cismani kalıntılar, haclar, yatırlar: tektanrıcılık içinde
özümlenmiş paganizm. In T. Artan (Ed.), Eyüp: Dün/Bugün: sempozyum, 11-12
Aralık 1993 (pp. 24-49). Beşiktaş, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
5 numaralı mühimme defteri (973/1565-1566): özet ve indeks. (1994). Ankara:
T.C Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Osmanlı Arşivi Daire
Başbakanlığı.
Bilgin, H. B. (1965). Eyüp Sultan ve civarını tanıyalım. Istanbul: Baha Matbaası.
Boyar, E., & Fleet, K. (2010). A social history of Ottoman Istanbul. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bradford, E. (1967). The great betrayal: Constantinople 1204. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Cantay, G. (2002). Cezeri Kasım Paşa Külliyesi. In V. Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu:
Tebliğler 11-13 Mayıs 2001 (pp. 116-121). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür
Yayınları.
Cerasi, M. (1999). Osmanlı kenti: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda 18. ve 19. yüzyıllarda
kent uygarlığı ve mimarisi (A. Ataöv, Trans.). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Cezar, M. (1983). Typical commercial buildings of the Ottoman classical period and the
Ottoman construction system (A. E. Uysal, Trans.). Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası
Cultural Publications.
Chronicon Paschale 284-628 (M. Whitby & M. Whitby, Trans.). (2007). Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press.
204
Clavijo, R. G. (2009). Narrative of the embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo to the court
of Timour at Samarcand, A.D. 1403-6 (C. R. Markham, Trans.). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Coşkun, F. (2015). Osmanlı İstanbul’unda müstesna bir ziyaretgah: Eyüp Sultan
Türbesi. In F. M. Emecen & A. Akyıldız & E. S. Gürkan (Eds.), III. Uluslararası
Osmanlı Istanbulu Sempozyumu Bildirileri 25-26 Mayıs 2015, Istanbul 29 Mayıs
Universitesi (pp. 547-566). Istanbul: Istanbul 29 Mayıs Universitesi Yayınları.
Çeçen, K. (1988). Mimar Sinan ve Kırkçeşme tesisleri. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyükşehir
Belediyesi, Su ve Kanalizasyon Genel Müdürlüğü.
Çeçen, K. (1994) Eğrikapı maksemi. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 3,
pp. 144-145). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Çeçen, K. (1994) Kırkçeşme tesisleri. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 5,
pp. 1-4). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Çelik, Z. (1986). The remaking of Istanbul: portrait of an Ottoman city in the nineteenth
century. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Çobanoğlu, A. V. (2006). Nakkaş Hasan Paşa Türbesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 32, pp. 330-331). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Demiriz, Y. (1989). Eyüp’de türbeler. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Dwight, H. G. (1915). Constantinople old and new. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
Retrieved from https://archive.org/
Ebu’l-Hayr-i Rumi. (1987-1990). Ṣalṭuḳ-nāme (Vols. 1-3). Ş. H. Akalın (Ed.). Ankara:
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Eldem, E. (2005). Death in Istanbul: death and rituals in Ottoman-Islamic culture.
Istanbul: Ottoman Bank Archives and Research Centre.
Enîsî, E. H. (2011). Menâkıb-ı Akşemseddin. B. Aktan & M. Güneş (Eds.). Istanbul: H
Yayınları.
Ertuğrul, Ö. (1988). Acem Ali. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 1, p.
322). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Erünsal, İ. E. (2001). Kasım Paşa, Cezeri. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 24, pp. 545-546). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
205
Evliya Çelebi. (2011). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat
304 numaralı yazmanın transkripsiyonu-dizini, 1. Kitap: Istanbul. R. Dankoff &
S. A. Kahraman & Y. Dağlı (Eds.). Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Eyice, S. (1991). Ayas Paşa Türbesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol.
4, pp. 204-205). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Eyice, S. (1993). Cezeri Kasım Paşa Camii. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 7, pp. 507-508). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Eyice, S. (1994). Defterdar Camii ve Türbesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 9, p. 97). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Eyice, S. (1995). Eyüp Sultan Külliyesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 12, pp. 9-12). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Eyice, S. (1998). Eyüp Sultan semtinde tarih ve sanat tarihi. In II. Eyüp Sultan
Sempozyumu: Tebliğler 8-10 Mayıs 1998 (pp. 12-37). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi
Kültür Yayınları.
Eyice, S. (2001). Eyüp’de Zal Mahmud Paşa Camii. In V. Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu:
Tebliğler 11-13 Mayıs 2001 (pp. 12-21). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür
Yayınları.
Eyice, S. (2002). Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii ve Külliyesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 26, pp. 133-136). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Eyice, S. (2006). Tarih boyunca Istanbul. Istanbul: Etkileşim Yayınları.
Faroqhi, S. (1987). Men of modest substance: house owners and house property in
seventeenth-century Ankara and Kayseri. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Faroqhi, S. (1998). Eyüp kadı sicillerine yansıdığı şekliyle 18. yüzyıl ‘büyük
İstanbul’una göç. In T. Artan (Ed.), 18. yüzyıl kadı sicilleri ışığında Eyüp’te
sosyal yaşam (pp. 33-48). Beşiktaş, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
206
Faroqhi, S. (2012). What happened in Istanbul gardens and beauty spots? Evliya Çelebi
on religion, domination and entertainment. In Y. Köse (Ed.), Şehrâyîn: die Welt
der Osmanen, die Osmanen in der Welt: Wahrnehmungen, Begegnungen und
Abgrenzungen: Festschrift Hans Georg Majer / llluminating the Ottoman world:
perceptions, encounters and boundaries (pp. 121-132). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
Verlag.
Fatih Mehmed II vakfiyeleri. (1938) Ankara: Vakıflar Umum Müdürlüğü.
Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali. (1997). Meva‘idu’n-nefais fi-kava‘ıdi’l-mecalis. M. Şeker (Ed.).
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali. (2003). Künhü’l-Ahbar C. II: Fatih sultan Mehmed Devri 1451-
1481. M. H. Şentürk (Ed.). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali. (2003). The Ottoman gentleman of the sixteenth century:
Mustafa Ali’s Meva‘idu’n-nefais fi-kava‘ıdi’l-mecalis “Tables of delicacies
concerning the rules of social gatherings” (D. S. Brookes, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard
University.
Genim, S. (1997). XV. ve XVI. yüzyıllarda seyreyle gözüm Eyüp’ü. In I. Eyüp Sultan
Sempozyumu: Tebliğler (pp. 142-147). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür
Yayınları.
Gerlach, S. (2007). Türkiye günlüğü 1573-1576, 1577-1578 (Vols. 1-2) (T. Noyan,
Trans.). Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Goodwin, G. (1971). A history of Ottoman architecture. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
Press.
Göncüoğlu, S. F. (2000). Saya ocağı. In III. Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu: Tebliğler (pp.
122-129). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
Guillaume, A. (1955). The life of Muhammad: A translation of Ishaq’s Sirat rasul Allah.
London: Oxford University Press.
Güler, M. (2002). Şahsultan ile Zal Mahmud Paşa Vakfiyesi. In V. Eyüp Sultan
Sempozyumu: Tebliğler 11-13 Mayıs 2001 (pp. 210-217). Istanbul: Eyüp
Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
Günay, R. (2002). Sinan the architect and his works (A. Ottoman, Trans.). Istanbul:
Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları.
Hamadeh, S. (2008). The city’s pleasures: Istanbul in the eighteenth century. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
207
Hammer-Purgstall, J. (1835). Histoire de l'Empire ottoman: depuis son origine jusqu'à
nos jours (Vol. 2) (J. J. Hellert, Trans.). Paris: Bellizard, Barthès, Dufour, and
Lowell.
Hancz, E. (2007). Peçuylu İbrahim. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol.
34, pp. 216-218). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Hançer, E. (2004). Eyüp Ermeni kiliseleri. In VIII. Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu: Tebliğler
(pp. 164-175). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
Haskan, M. N. (1993). Eyüp tarihi (Vols. 1-2). Istanbul: Türk Turing Turizm
İşletmeciliği Vakfı.
Hasluck, F. W. (1929). Christianity and Islam under the sultans. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Hathaway, J. (2005). Beshir Agha, chief eunuch of the Ottoman Imperial Harem.
Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
Hattox, R. S. (1988). Coffee and coffeehouses: the origins of a social beverage in the
medieval Near East. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Hovhannesyan, S. S. (1996). Payitaht İstanbul’un tarihçesi (E. Hançer, Trans.).
Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Ibn Battuta. (2004). Ibn Battuta Seyahatnamesi (Vol. 1) (A. S. Aykut, Trans.). Istanbul:
Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık.
İdris Bidlisi. (2008). Heşt-Bihişt. M. Karataş (Ed.). Ankara: Bitlis Eğitim ve Tanıtma
Vakfı.
İnalcık, H. (1969/1970). The policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek population of
Istanbul and the Byzantine buildings of the city. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 23/24,
229-249. doi:10.2307/1291293
İnalcık, H. (1990). Istanbul: An Islamic city. Journal of Islamic Studies, 1, 1–23.
İnalcık, H. (1993). State and ideology under Sultan Süleyman I. In The Middle East and
the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire: Essays on economy and society (pp. 70-
94). Bloomington: Indiana University Turkish Studies.
İnalcık, H. (1994). Eyüp Projesi. In T. Artan (Ed.), Eyüp: Dün/Bugün: sempozyum, 11-
12 Aralık 1993 (pp. 1-23). Beşiktaş, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
208
İnalcık, H. (2001). Istanbul (Tarih/ Türk devri). In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 23, pp. 220-239). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
İnalcık, H. (2012). Istanbul. In P. Bearman & T. Bianquis & C.E. Bosworth & E. van
Donzel & W.P. Heinrichs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0393
İnciciyan, P. Ğ. (1976). XVIII. asırda İstanbul (H. D. Andreasyan, Trans.). Istanbul:
Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Istanbul Enstitüsü Yayınları.
İpşirli, M. (2000). İlmiye. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 20, pp.
141-145). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
İpşirli, M. (2003). Lutfi Paşa. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 27, pp.
234-236). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Bab mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil (H. 1077/ M. 1666-1667). (2011).
Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved from
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil (H. 993-995/
M. 1585-1587). (2011). Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved from
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 19 numaralı sicil (H. 1028-
1030/ M. 1619-1620). (2011). Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved
from http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 37 numaralı sicil (H. 1047/ M.
1637-1638). (2011). Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved from
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 49 numaralı sicil (H. 1054/ M.
1644). (2011). Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved from
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 61 numaralı sicil (H. 1081/ M.
1670-1671). (2011) Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved from
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 74 numaralı sicil (H. 1072-
1073/ M. 1661-1662). (2011) Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved
from http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
209
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 82 numaralı sicil (H. 1081/ M.
1670-1671). (2011) Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved from
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia) mahkemesi 90 numaralı sicil (H. 1090-
1091/ M. 1679-1680). (2011) Istanbul: Islam Araştırmaları Merkezi. Retrieved
from http://www.kadisicilleri.org/yayin.php
Kafadar, C. (1994). Eyüp’te kılıç kuşanma törenleri. In T. Artan (Ed.), Eyüp:
Dün/Bugün: sempozyum, 11-12 Aralık 1993 (pp. 50-61). Beşiktaş, Istanbul:
Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Kafadar, C. (1995). Between two worlds: The construction of the Ottoman state.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kafadar, C. (2014). How dark is the history of the night, how black the story of coffee,
how bitter the tale of love: the changing measure of leisure and pleasure in early
modern Istanbul. In A. Öztürkmen & E. B. Vitz (Eds.), Medieval and early
modern performance in the Eastern Mediterranean (pp. 243-269). Turnhout,
Belgium: Brepols Publishers.
Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2009). Constantinopolis / Istanbul: Cultural encounter, imperial vision,
and the construction of the Ottoman capital. University Park: The Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2013). The visual arts. In S. N. Faroqhi & K. Fleet (Eds.), The
Cambridge history of Turkey, volume 2, The Ottoman Empire as a world power,
1453-1603 (pp. 457-547). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2016). Eyüp. In K. Fleet, G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas & E.
Rowson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam three. Retrieved from
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/
Kara, F. H. (1994). Eyüp. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 3, pp. 245-
250). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Kara, M. (1995). Emir Buhari. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 11,
pp. 125-126). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Karagöz, Ş. Silahtarağa sculptures. In From Byzantium to Istanbul: 8000 years of a
capital (pp. 60-65). Istanbul: Sabancı University Sakıp Sabancı Musum.
Katip Çelebi. (1957). The balance of truth (G. L. Lewis, Trans.). London: George Allen
and Unwin Ltd.
210
Kerslake, C. J. (1993). Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 7, pp. 260-262). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Kılıç, F. (1994). Eyüp oyuncakçılığı. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 3,
pp. 252-253). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Koçu, R. E. (1958). İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vols. 1-11). Istanbul: Tan Matbaası.
Konan, M. M. (1986). Eyüp Sultan Loti Kahvesi ve çevresi. Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve
Otomobil Kurumu.
Kömürciyan, E. Ç. (1988). Istanbul tarihi: XVII. asırda Istanbul. H. D. Andreasyan
(Ed.). Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık.
Kritovoulos. (1954). History of Mehmed the Conqueror (C.T. Riggs, Trans.). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kuban, D. (2010). Istanbul, an urban history: Byzantion, Constantinopolis, Istanbul.
Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
Kuran, A. (1987). Sinan: the grand old master of Ottoman architecture. Washington,
D.C.: Institute of Turkish Studies.
Kuran, A. (1994). Eyüp Külliyesi. In T. Artan (Ed.), Eyüp: Dün/Bugün: sempozyum, 11-
12 Aralık 1993 (pp. 129-135). Beşiktaş, Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Kuran, A. (1996). A spatial study of three Ottoman capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and
Istanbul. Muqarnas, 13, 114-131. doi:10.2307/1523255
Kütükoğlu, M. S. (1991). Lütfi Paşa Asafnamesi. In Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na
Armağan (pp. 49-99). Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi.
Lâtifî. (1977). Evsâf-ı Istanbul. N. Suner (Ed.). Istanbul: Baha Matbaası.
Lecker, M. (2013). Abū Ayyūb al-Anṣārī. In K. Fleet, G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas
& E. Rowson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam three. Retrieved from
http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/
Majeska, G. P. (1984). Russian travelers to Constantinople in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Mango, C. (1993). The Fourteenth region of Constantinople. In Studies on
Constantinople (pp. 1-5). Hampshire, Great Britain: Variorum.
211
Mazlum, D. (2011). 1766 Istanbul depremi: belgeler ışığında yapı onarımları. Istanbul:
Istanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
Mustafa Safi. (2003). Mustafa Safi’nin Zübdetü’t-Tevarih’i (Vols. 1-2). İ. H. Çuhadar
(Ed.). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Mustafa Sai Çelebi (2006). Sinan’s autobiographies: five sixteenth-century texts. H.
Crane & E. Akın (Eds.). Leiden: Brill.
Nasuh’üs-Silahi el-Matraki. (1976). Beyān-ı menāzil-i sefer-i ʻIrāḳeyn-i Sulṭān
Süleymān Ḫān. H. G. Yurdaydın (Ed.). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Necipoğlu, G. (1992). The life of an imperial monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium.
In R. Mark & A. Ş. Çakmak (Eds.), Hagia Sophia from the ages of Justinian to
the present (pp. 195-225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Necipoğlu, G. (1996). Dynastic imprints on the cityscape: the collective message of
funerary imperial mosque complexes in Istanbul. In J. L. Bacqué-Grammont &
A. Tibet (Eds.), Colloque Internationale: Cimetières et traditions funéraires
dans le monde islamique 1991 (pp. 23-36). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Yayınları.
Necipoğlu, G. (1997). Suburban landscape of sixteenth-century Istanbul as a mirror of
classical Ottoman garden culture. In A. Petruccioli (Ed.), Gardens in the time of
the great Muslim empires: theory and design (pp. 32-71). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Necipoğlu, G. (2005). The age of Sinan: architectural culture in the Ottoman Empire,
1539-1588. London: Reaktion Books.
Necipoğlu, G. (2012). Visual cosmopolitanism and creative translation: artistic
conversations with Renaissance Italy in Mehmed II’s Constantinople. Muqarnas,
29, 1-81. doi:10.1163/22118993-90000183
Nidayi, S. (2010). Medeniyetimizin sessiz tanıkları: Eyüp Sultan'da Osmanlı mezar
taşları ve ebedi Eyüp Sultan'lılar. Istanbul: Kitapdostu Yayınları.
Odo de Deuil. (1948). De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem (V. G. Berry, Trans.).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Orbay, İ. (2001). Istanbul viewed: the representation of the city in Ottoman maps of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Unpublished PhD thesis). Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Orman, İ. (2013). Zal Mahmud Paşa Külliyesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 44, pp. 109-111). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
212
Öğüt, C. H. (1988). Eyyub Sultan: Hz. Halid Ebu Eyyub el-Ensari. Istanbul: Eyüp
Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
Öngören, R. (2004). Merkez Efendi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol.
29, pp. 200-202). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Öz, T. (1962). İstanbul camileri (Vols. 1-2). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Özaslan, N. (1995). Historic urban fabric: source of inspiration for contemporary city
form (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of York, United Kingdom. Retrieved
from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/
Özaslan, N. (1999). From the shrine of Cosmidion to the shrine of Eyüp Ensari. Greek,
Roman and Byzantine Studies, 40(4), 379-399.
Özcan, A. (2000). İdris-i Bitlisi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 21,
pp. 485-488). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Özkoçak, S. A. (2003). Two urban districts in early modern Istanbul: Edirnekapı and
Yedikule. Urban History, 30(1), 26-43. doi: 10.1017/ S0963926803001020
Özsayıner, Z. C. (2004). Eyüp Cezrikasım Paşa Camii ve Kabe tasvirli pano. In VIII.
Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu: Tebliğler 7-9 Mayıs 2004 (pp. 90-93). Istanbul: Eyüp
Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
Öztürk, S. (1998). Eyüb Camii, Türbesi ve İmareti Vakfı’nın 1575 yılı bütçesi. In V.
Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu: Tebliğler (pp. 50-57). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi
Kültür Yayınları.
Pardoe, J. (1838). The beauties of the Bosphorus. London: Published for the proprietors,
by George Virtue.
Parlak, S. (2009). Sokollu Mehmed Paşa Külliyesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 37, pp. 358-359). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Parlar, G. (2016). Haskan, Mehmet Nermi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. Ek-1, pp. 541-542). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Procopius. (1914). Buildings (Vol. 7) (H. B. Dewing, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Psellus, M. (1953). The Chronographia of Michael Psellus (E.R.A. Sewter, Trans.).
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
213
Ramberti, Benedetto. (1913). The second book of the affairs of the Turks. In A. H.
Lybyer, The government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the
Magnificent (pp. 239-261). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Retrieved from https://archive.org/
Russell, T. J. (2017). Byzantium and the Bosporus: A historical study, from the seventh
century BC until the foundation of Constantinople. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Saatçi, S. (2008). Sai Mustafa Çelebi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 35, pp. 539-541). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Sarazin, J. Y. (n. d.). Service hydrographique de la Marine. Retrieved from
http://comitehistoire.bnf.fr/dictionnaire-fonds/service-hydrographique-marine
Sariyannis, M. (2007). Law and morality in Ottoman society: the case of narcotic
substances. In E. Kolovos & P. Kotzageorgis & S. Laiou & M. Sariyannis (Eds.),
The Ottoman Empire, the Balkans, the Greek lands: toward a social and
economic history: studies in honor of John C. Alexander (pp. 308-321). Istanbul:
Isis Press.
Sehi Bey. (1980). Tezkire Heşt Behişt. Istanbul: Tercüman.
Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa. (1962). Nusretname (Vols. 1-2). İ. Parmaksızoğlu
(Ed.). Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Solakzâde Mehmed Hemdemi Çelebi (1989). Solak-zâde Tarihi (Vols. 1-2). V. Çabuk
(Ed.). Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı.
Stratos, A. N. (1968). Byzantium in the seventh century (M. Ogilvie-Grant, Trans.).
Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Tâcî-zâde Cafer Çelebi. (2006), Heves-nâme: Inceleme-Tenkitli Metin. N. Sungur (Ed.).
Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
Tafur, P. (1926). Travels and adventures 1435-39 (M. Letts, Trans). London: Harpers &
Brothers.
Talbot, A. M. (1993). The restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII.
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 47, 243-261. doi:10.2307/1291680
Talbot, A. M. (1998). Women’s space in Byzantine monasteries. Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 52, 113-127. doi:10.2307/1291779
214
Tanındı, Z. (2006). Nakkaş Hasan Paşa. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 32, pp. 329-330). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Tanman, B. (1990). İstanbul tekkelerinin mimari ve süsleme özellikleri: tipoloji
denemeleri (Vols. 1-2) (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Istanbul University, Istanbul,
Turkey.
Tanman, B. (1994). Eyüb Sultan Külliyesi. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 3, pp. 237-243). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Tanman, B. (1994). Tekkeler. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol. 7, pp. 236-
240). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Tanman, B. (1995). Emir Buhari Tekkesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 11, pp. 126-128). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Tanman, B. (1995). Emir Sultan Külliyesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi
(Vol. 11, pp. 148-151). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Tanman, B. (1997). Eyüpsultan’da tarikat yapıları. In I. Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu:
Tebliğler (pp. 102-120). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
Tanman, B. (1998). Kılıç kuşanma törenlerinin Eyüp Sultan Külliyesi ile yakın
çevresine yansıması. In II. Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu: Tebliğler 8-10 Mayıs 1998
(pp. 76-93). Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
Tanman, B. (2004). Merkez Efendi Külliyesi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam
Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 29, pp. 202-205). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Tapié, V. L. (n. d.). Jean-Baptiste Colbert. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Baptiste-Colbert
Terzioğlu, D. (2012). Sufis in the age of state-building and confessionalization. In C.
Woodhead (Ed.), The Ottoman world (pp. 86-102). London: Routledge.
Theophanes. (1982). The chronicle of Theophanes: An English translation of anni mundi
6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813) (H. Turtledove, Trans.). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Turan, Ş. (2006). Mustafa Çelebi. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol. 31,
pp. 290-292). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
215
Tursun Bey. (1977). Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth. A. M. Tulum (Ed.). Istanbul: Baha Matbaası.
Uluçay, M. Ç. (1980). Padişahların kadınları ve kızları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Basımevi.
Ünver, A. S. (1948). İlim ve sanat bakımından Fatih devri notları. Istanbul: Istanbul
Belediyesi.
Ünver, A. S. (1953). İstanbul'da sahabe kabirleri. Istanbul: Istanbul Fethi Derneği
Yayınları.
Van Millingen, A. (1899). Byzantine Constantinople: the walls of the city and adjoining
historical sites. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street. Retrieved from
https://archive.org/
Vardar, K. F. (2017). Tarihsel süreçte Cezeri Kasım Paşa Camii’nin mimari ve süsleme
özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesi. FSM İlmi Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum
Bilimleri Dergisi, 10, 349-373. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/
Varlık, N. (2015). Plague and empire in the early modern Mediterranean world: the
Ottoman experience, 1347-1600. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Villehardouin, & Joinville. (1963). Chronicles of the crusades (M. R. B. Shaw, Trans.).
London: Penguin Books.
Yaşar, A. (2003). The coffeehouses in early modern Istanbul: public space, sociability
and surveillance (Unpublished MA thesis). Boğaziçi University, Turkey.
7 numaralı mühimme defteri (975-976/1567-1569): özet, transkripsiyon, indeks (Vols. 1-
4). (1997-2000). Ankara: T.C Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü
Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başbakanlığı.
Yenişehirlioğlu, F. (1994). Eyüp çarşısı. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol.
3, p. 251). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Yerasimos, S. (1988). Giovan Maria Angiolello ve Istanbul'un fethinden sonraki ilk
tasviri. Tarih ve Toplum, 58, 34-41.
Yerasimos, S. (1993). Türk metinlerinde Konstantiniye ve Ayasofya efsaneleri (Ş.
Tekeli, Trans.). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları. (Original work published 1990)
Yerasimos, S. (1994). Ebu’l-Hasan Ali. In Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Vol.
3, p. 122). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı.
Yerasimos, S. (1998). 16. yy’da Eyyüb Vakfı muhasebelerinde Eyüp kasabası. In II.
Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu: Tebliğler 8-10 Mayıs 1998 (pp. 140-149). Istanbul:
Eyüp Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları.
216
Yerasimos, S. (1999). Osmanlı İstanbul’unun kuruluşu. In N. Akın & A. Batur & S.
Batur (Eds.), Osmanlı mimarlığının 7 yüzyılı: uluslarüstü bir miras (pp. 195-
212). Istanbul: Yapı Endüstri Merkezi.
Yücer, H. M. (2010). Sünbüli Sinan. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Vol.
38, pp. 135-136). Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from
http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
Yürekli, Z. (2003). A Building between the public and private realms of the Ottoman
elite: The Sufi Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Istanbul. Muqarnas, 20,
159-185.
Yürekli, Z. (2012). Architecture and hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The politics
of Bektashi shrines in the classical age. Farnham: Ashgate.
Zilfi. C. M. (2010). Women and slavery in the late Ottoman Empire: The design of
difference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder