3 Ağustos 2024 Cumartesi

343

 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