431

 URBAN BORDERS AND SOCIO-SPATIAL DYNAMICS IN 16TH CENTURY ISTANBUL: THE KOCA MUSTAFA PASHA DISTRICT

ABSTRACT
Urban Borders and Socio-Spatial Dynamics in 16th Century Istanbul: the Koca Mustafa Pasha District
This thesis deals with the concept of the urban border in the context of the early modern Ottoman capital city of Constantinople. First defining the terms like city and nahiye, the research moves on to its case study, Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi, which is a border district. To understand what a border district means in a better sense, first the physical borders, city’s land walls, Theodosian walls, and its adjoint monuments of Yedikule Citadel and Golden Gate are examined with their inhabitants like captives, and to highlight its industrial characteristic, the butchers and tanners, etc. Later the study continues to inside the walls and the district by evaluating its social makeup through sources like the Survey of Istanbul 1455, 1546 tarihli Istanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, and 1600 tarihli Istanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri (the pious endowment registers) with the help of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This thesis finally concludes with one particular group of people who were active at this part of the city, the Khalwati order and its dervishes.
v
ÖZET
16. Yüzyıl İstanbul’unda Şehir Sınırları ve Sosyal-Mekansal Dinamikler:
Koca Mustafa Paşa Nahiyesi
Bu tez on altıncı yüzyılda Osmanlı başkenti olan erken modern dönem İstanbul’u bağlamında şehir sınırları meselesi ele almaktadır. Öncelikle şehir ve onun önemli unsurlarından nahiye gibi temel terimleri tanımladıktan sonra, araştırmanın örnek çalışması olan İstanbul’un şehir merkezine en uzak, dolayısıyla sınıra en yakın nahiyelerinden olan Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi ile devam eder. Sınır nahiyesinin ne anlama geldiğini anlamak adına, öncelikle şehrin kara surları olan Theodosian surları, ve ona bitişik olarak inşa edilmiş Yedikule ve Yaldızlı Kapı, ve oralarda yaşayan tutuklular, ayrıca bu bölgenin endüstriyel üretim bölgesi karakteristiğini ortaya çıkarmak adına kasaplar ve dericiler gibi çeşitli gruplar incelenmiştir. Sonrasında sur içine devam edilerek Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesini oluşturan sosyal yapı, the Survey of Istanbul 1455, 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri ve 1600 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri’nden yararlanılarak ve Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (CBS) kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Tez bölgede aktif olan bir sosyal grubun, Halveti tarikatı ve dervişlerinin daha ayrıntılı olarak incelenmesi ile son bulur.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The idea of this study occurred to me in one of the seminar classes of Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, when I was merely an undergraduate student. Approximately one and a half years later, when I’ve asked her if she would like to be my advisor for this research, she generously accepted. Since then, she was there for me every time I’ve asked for help and guidance, and I am forever thankful for her being there for me in times like this.
In the very first year of my graduate studies, I was the luckiest to have Derin Terzioğlu’s classes for consecutive semesters. Her way of asking questions about dervish groups and their relations with power gave me a new light of thinking about socio-cultural aspects of unorthodox tasavvufi groups in Ottoman Empire. I am indebted to her for becoming a second mentor for me.
I also thank Yunus Uğur, for inviting me to his online classes during the pandemic and helping me with his comments to understand the digitalization side of my project better. All the discussions we had in his course and the help of Emine Çoban Şahin, whom I’ve met in his classes, were invaluable to me.
I couldn’t make this far without my comrades in Boğaziçi University for the last three years. Emine Esra Nalbant, who became my saving grace in my last years there, and one of my closest friends in this short time, I wish you great new adventures, you deserve the best, always. Burcu Arıkan, Halil İbrahim Binici, Özge Nur Yıldırım and Ekin Can Göksoy, thank you for all our library breaks, late night calls, mid-day talks without any reservations. Thank you all for being there every time I called, and for all your nuanced input in my thesis.
To my chosen family, Nihan Özcan, Şirin Alibaş and Irmak Sinal, I love you
vii
all. You became my strength and my safe space in this difficult time of my life. Thank you.
To my father Ekrem Tevfik Silahtar, my mother Mine Silahtar and my little sister, Sina. Thank you for being who you are, always wishing me the best and leading me to better, always made me feel cherished. You are the reason where I found the willpower to go till the end.
Lastly to Ömer Subaşı, you are my best friend the last I don’t know how many years, and now my husband. It was all thanks to you I didn’t lose my sanity in a year like this. You help me to become the best version of myself even when I don’t know it is possible. Thank you for being at my side, always.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………… …1
1.1 Primary sources and literature review…………………………………....4
1.2 Methodology……………………………………………………………..9
1.3 The outline of the thesis…………………………………………………13
CHAPTER 2: WHAT IS CITY? WHAT IS A NAHIYE? THE FLUIDITY OF THE BORDERS IN THE CASE OF KONSTANTINIYYE AND KOCA MUSTAFA PASA NAHIYESİ………………………………………………………………........15
2.1 What is a city? .........................................................................................15
2.2 The case of Constantinople……………………………………………..21
2.3 What is a nahiye?.....................................................................................26
2.4 The fluidity of the terms and borders in the case of Constantinople and Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi………………………………………………...29
2.5 Conclusion………….…………………………………………..............32
CHAPTER 3: WALLS, GATE, AND THE CITADEL: AN URBAN BORDER ZONE AND ITS INHABITANTS……………………………………………….. ...34
3.1 Land walls and the Golden Gate………………………………………..34
3.2 Yedikule Citadel………………………………………………………..40
3. 3 Yedikule as an industrial zone…………………………………………45
ix
3.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...53
CHAPTER 4: INHABITANTS OF THE KOCA MUSTAFA PAŞA DISTRICT....54
4.1 Human makeup of the district according to the Survey of Istanbul 1455…………………………………………………………………………55
4.2 Human makeup of the district according to sources dated later than 1455................................................................................................................59
4.3 The legal transactions in and between the neighbourhoods……………69
4.4 The daily life in the district and its neighbourhoods…………………...71
4.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...73
CHAPTER 5: A NETWORK IN THE CITY WITH A CENTER IN KOCA MUSTAFA PASA NAHİYESİ: KHALWATİYA ORDER ………………………..74
5.1 Khalwatiya’s arrival to the capital city…………………………………74
5.2 The two lodges…………….……………………………………………79
5.3 Dervishes and the monetary network ………………………………..91
5.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...96
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...97
APPENDIX: DATA SAMPLES…………………………………………………..101
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….103
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The chosen basemap of Constantinople, Stambool (1840)………............12
Figure 2. View of Istanbul, Piri Reis’s Kitāb-ı Baḥriye……………………………25
Figure 3a&b. The very first page of original 1546 waqf registers from COA
& Hierarchical organization in the waqf registers in transliterated text (1600)…….26
Figure 4. Districts of Istanbul around 1500 A.D, from Inalcık (edited by the author)……………………………………………………………………………….27
Figure 5. Castle of the Seven Towers by Francesco Scarella, ca. 1685; with the Golden Gate present at the front-center……………………………………………..37
Figure 6. The walls and gates of Constantinople in Greek in 19th century………….39
Figure 7. A close up to Yedikule Citadel in Piri Reis’ Kitāb-ı Baḥriye…………….41
Figure 8. Distribution of butchers, slaughterhouses, tanners, candle-workshop soap- workshops and bashanes based on the map pub. in Müller-Wiener (1977), produced by Özkoçak………………………………………………………………………….45
Figure 9. The quarters of Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi in The Survey of Istanbul 1445…...…………………………………………………………..………………...56
Figure 10. Vacant and houses with people who are living in (1455)…………….....56
Figure 11. Numbers of total houses of the quarters (1455)………………………...57
Figure 12. Ethnicity of the inhabitants (1455)………………………………………58
Figure 13a&b. Stores in 1546 registers (total), 1600 registers (total) and 1600 registers (the new ones since 1546)…………………………………………………61
xi
Figure 14a&b. Quarters of people represented in pious endowment registers 1546 & 1600……………………………..…………………………………………………...63
Figure 15. Comparison of records of mulk-owners between the 1600 and 1546 registers…………..………………………………………………………………….65
Figure 16a&b. Gender distribution of the mulk holders according to 1546 & 1600 pious endowment registers…………………………………………………………..66
Figure 17. The religion of the mulk holders according to 1600 pious endowment registers……………………………………………………………………………...67
Figure 18. Khalwati lodges in Constantinople in the 16th century………………….75
Figure 19. Khalwatiya lodges in Constantinople with their foundation dates………77
Figure 20. Lodge for one tariqa or more…………………………………………….79
Figure 21. The map of Constantinople, Byzantine Empire (1422) by Florentine cartographer, Cristoforo Buondelmonti……………………………………………..80
Figure 22. (a) Hagia Sophia and (b) Monastery of St. Stoudios…………………….81
Figure 23. Plan of St. Stoudios Monastery according to Ebersolt…………………..81
Figure 24. (a) Somaki marble columns and (b) pseudo-Ionic capitals from the sixth century………………………………………………………………………………84
Figure 25. Plan of restored version of Koca Mustafa Paşa mosque/convent, from Semavi Eyice (1963)………………………………………………………………...87
Figure 26. Lodges mentioned in Seyyid Hasan’s Sohbetname……………………...90
Figure 27. The waqfiya of Koca Mustafa Paşa……………………………………...91
Figure 28. a&b. Type of the endowee (1546 &1600 in order)……...………………92
xii
Figure 29. a&b. Type of the waqf (1546 & 1600 in orde)…………………………..93
Figure 30. a&b. Gender of the waqf endower (1546 & 1600 in order)………...…...94
Figure 31. Vakf-ı Ali Beğ b. Abdülkerim Reis'-ül-Mimarin in the 1600 register; locations of its (mulk) endowments…………………………………………………95
Figure 32. Cafer Ağa’s endowments to different masjids in the city according to 1546 register (all cash waqfs)……………………………………………………….95
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This thesis deals with the idea of the urban border, and its conceptualization and exemplification in sixteenth-century Ottoman Constantinople, and more exclusively in Koca Mustafa Paşa district through analysing various primary sources and tying them through a network that problematizes, and in certain cases, dismisses the notion of borders within the city.
One very moving idea that let this study gravitate towards the subject of borders was from Antoine Abdel-Nour’s book titled Introduction à l’histoire urbaine de la Syrie ottoman (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle), where he challenged the idea of the binary understanding of Islamicate societies upheld by Ira Lapidus, which was assumed a strict division between urban and rural. Abdel-Nour opted for another understanding of studying cities with their hinterlands, hence the city becomes a cultural metropole that transforms its surroundings in a natural and humanistic fashion1. The hinterland provides a unique space that works as a zone foreseen as not a part of the city, it becomes an essential part of it which shows the city’s limits at the sense of where it can reach to transform. So, one of the main ideas behind the thesis became to work with the idea of cities with their hinterlands. This way, a study would be more inclined to challenge the idea of borders.
The research on urban borders and boundaries brought up the different versions of them. Spiro Kostof, for example, discusses the customs boundaries in his book The City Assembled, in the context of city edges. “The customs boundary did
1 Abdel-Nour, Introduction à l’histoire urbaine de la Syrie ottomane (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle).
2
not always correspond to the city limits as defined by the walls, precisely because the walls did not remain true to the actual extent of the urban fabric,”2 he claims. Customs boundary or barrier means a limitation of sorts, which decides where the application for certain fees or taxes starts or ends for international trade. He also gives out statements about cities with the multiple edges, where the city may be with “the citadel at the city edge” or with a citadel “within the fabric”3 or in some cases the two would encounter with each other; which is also the case for Constantinople.
Throughout my thesis, I try to discuss the meaning of urban borders, in legal terms and practices first, and in their visibility and physicality second, and lastly, the ways in which they become invisible. This train of thought made me realize that the case study of this research would be best through work on a border district of the city, in order to develop a better understanding of what a border was, and how a border could be a division for the urban and rural if it really functioned in such a way. So I chose to study a district in very close proximity to the physical borders of the walled city. The district in question, which is Koca Mustafa Paşa4, is one of the thirteen districts of Istanbul and is located in the westernmost part of the city, right near the Theodosian walls with the inclusion of Seven Towers citadel and Golden Gate, which makes it one of the furthest ones to the city center.
After investigating the city borders and the exterior, it is easy to figure out that another border case was existing inside the city. Constantinople was divided into thirteen districts in pious endowment registers5, and into much greater numbers of
2 Kostof, The City Assembled, 12.
3 Kostof, The City Assembled, 16.
4 The district also has a significant characteristic in the sense of hosting both urban and rural areas in itself, albeit this aspect was not easy to follow in many of our primary sources. For further information, check Shopov, A. and Han, A. “Osmanlı Istanbul'unda Kent Içi Tarımsal Toprak Kullanımı ve Dönüşümleri: Yedikule Bostanları” in Toplumsal Tarih, Ağustos 2013.
5 İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defterleri in Turkish. There are two published registers from sixteenth century, one is dated 1546 and the second is dated 1600, and both are among the primary sources which were used in great detail in this research.
3
neighbourhoods (the number changed over time and according to sources, but it was around two hundred in the sixteenth century.) Looking for the borders brought up the question of their transcendence of them, and some networks which could go over these borders effortlessly. One primary aspect which works over the boundaries is capital, so one of the easiest ways to look over the borders was following the money flows around the city. So, a network that could forego the borders, the waqf system became an integral part of this study. The other way to cross borders is the mobility of people and distribution of products, and both were applicable for Koca Mustafa Paşa. Housing many of the slaughterhouses which provided the meat supply of Constantinople, the district delivered needed raw materials for many craftsmen as well as the meat needs of the city. In a similar fashion, the district also hosted Sümbül Efendi asitanesi, the central tekke for Sümbüliye branch of Khalwatiya tariqa, and even though it is not located at the center of the walled city, the district was a meeting point of many dervishes from all around the city which also showed great mobility and challenged the fixed borders understanding, albeit on a district level.
Overall, the main aim of this research will be to examine the issue of borders through a settlement at the very border of the city, yet a very well-connected one. With the two foci of the importance of Koca Mustafa Paşa’s location as an integral part of the city, along with its human connections, this will be an attempt to signify this district’s role as a border area and its connections with the city center, from an urban historian’s point of view. By including the networks within which the district’s people participated, I hope to bring to light the ways in which the functionality of these borders were varied and how they changed within different contexts.
4
To conclude, this research aims to be an urban study of an Ottoman border district of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Hopefully, in the end, this study shall bring something unique to Ottoman Urban Studies regarding Koca Mustafa Paşa district and its neighbourhoods.
Before going into the specifics of methodology and the sources used in this research, one more important remark should be made about the maps in the third chapter which were produced by the author. In our case, the spatial data is driven from the city surveys and waqf registers and is applied to historical maps. Just like a writer, the cartographer also has to make choices while mapping, so there can be no objectively or universally true maps. The cartographer has to choose what to map and how to map, which sections to include and exclude from their data. Since there is also no such thing as “raw data,6” there are still few layers of mistakes and the author’s choices. Unfortunately, they will be present in this study too.
1.1 Primary sources and literature review
A prominent reason that fuels my fascination for my research topic is the latent strength of my primary sources. I am utilizing The Survey of Istanbul 14557 in conjunction with the 1546 and 1600 Istanbul Tahrir Defterleri8 (registers of pious endowments, waqfs) to track and methodically compile nature, the income sources of the endowments, and the destinations where charities were directed.
Among the three major published primary sources of the study, the earliest, dating 1455, is the first survey of Istanbul after the conquest. The 1455 city survey,
6 Geoffrey C. Bowker, Memory Practices in the Sciences quoted in Gitelman and Jackson,“Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron, 1.
7 Inalcık, The Survey of Istanbul 1455: The Text, English Translation, Analysis of the Text, Documents.
8 Barkan and Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 953 (1546) Târîhli and Canatar, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 1009 (1600) Târîhli.
5
published by Halil Inalcık in 2012, includes a comprehensive list of the buildings in the city, categorized by neighborhood, albeit missing few districts, including Perama, Neorion, and Ayasofya.9 The 1546 and 1600 waqf registers postdate the city survey by a century and the combined utilization of these three sources can depict an encompassing picture of the changing socio-spatial fabric of Constantinople under the Ottoman rule. Waqf, which is “the act of founding a charitable trust, and hence, the trust itself”10, is a recurring element through the study. The waqfiyya foundations held economic, social, and urban significance in the city, as they were “both in the form of individually functioning units and as separate parts of a basic single institutional system,”11 such that the reflections of the transforming social and political structure would be potentially mirrored in the chronological progression of the records.
The literary meaning for a waqf in Arabic is to capture or to retain something in Arabic. In the Ottoman Empire waqf corresponds to a foundation, meaning “the act of founding a charitable trust, and hence, the trust itself.”12 In the Ottoman Empire, these foundations held economic, social and urban importance since they were “both in the form of individually functioning units and as separate parts of a basic single institutional system.”13 One of the very interesting aspect of waqf system is that it was pervasive at all levels of society. One may even encounter very small waqfs founded by ordinary people for the poor in Medina in the vicinity of great cash waqfs of wealthy pashas for their mosques in waqf registers.
The two published waqf registers of Istanbul are dated 1546 and 1600. In these registers, information regarding the endowers, the beneficiaries, and the type or
9 Inalcık, Halil, “Preface” in The Survey of Istanbul 1455, XI.
10 Peters, “Waqf” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill vol. 11, 59.
11 Deguilhem, “Waqf: In the Ottoman Empire” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill vol. 11, 88.
12 Peters, “Waqf” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill vol. 11, page 59.
13 Deguilhem, “Waqf: In the Ottoman Empire” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill vol. 11, page 88.
6
amount of the endowed property or cash are documented for each quarter of Constantinople. If one should give some broader information about the structure of the 1546 and 1600 surveys, these pious endowment registers consist of lists of endowments separated by their first district (nahiye), then quarter (mahalle) names14. Afterwards, the list continues with the endowments of inhabitants living in the said quarter. While these documents don’t provide the open address of the endower or the exact nature of the endowment, at least, the mahalles are listed, which helps us to get an approximate understanding of where the endowment was located. The list is organized by mahalle order, for each, a list of endowed properties or donated money is provided. The endowments usually connect two places: the endower’s mahalle and the pertaining endowments. The main idea in using waqf registers for drawing connections was because of this since they create this unique web of people who are linked to (at least) two places at once.
Other than the waqf registers and the city survey, several other primary sources also are needed in this research. The accounts like Nefahatü'l-Üns and Lemezât-ı Hulviyye Ez Lemezât-ı Ulviyye on dervish lives and menakıbs will be used to address the dervishes’ movements in the city. For the butchers and other inhabitants of the site, the travel log, Seyahatname written by Evliya Çelebi and İstanbul Tarihi written by Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan was benefitted from.
The archival material from BOA will also be searched in a detailed manner. To address the people other than the dervishes and butchers who had been living on these grounds, the court registers, kadı sicilleri, and imperial decrees, Mühimme defterleri will be used in addition to archives.
14 Here the terminology and the translations are borrowed from Stéphane Yérasimos’ “Dwellings in Sixteenth-Century Istanbul” article.
7
Some of the major themes in this research are, having a framework of an urban historian, and analyzing the several definitions of an “Islamic city” which were stated throughout centuries by the Muslim jurists. Many of the definitions will be discussed in this thesis will be derived from Baber Johansen’s “All-Embracing Towns and its Mosques: al-Misr al-Gami” article, where he provides both the different definitions of ulema of several centuries, and he gives an intensive bibliography on this study of what makes the city, a city, in the eyes of Muslim ulema. To understand where the city ends and its borders, one must understand what makes the city; so, his article carries the utmost importance. His later article “Urban Structures in the View of Muslim Jurists” also offers the case of nineteenth-century Damascus, which became a great application of his former work.
To understand Constantinople’s city walls, one has to look at its Byzantine history. Many of the studies which are benefitted in the third chapter are written by scholars like Cyril Mango, who are primarily Byzantinists. Other than the Byzantine studies literature, one important source this study uses is the account of Pierre Gilles. Some later works have been done about the architectural history of the site like Oya Koca-Eğrikavuk’s The History of Yedikule and Its Place in Military Architecture, which was used at a great expense. Çiğdem Kafescioğlu’s Constantinople/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital is also critical for showing the progression of the site under the Ottoman reign.
One very important research on human activities along Yedikule is made by Professor Antony Greenwood. His dissertation of Istanbul’s Meat Provisioning: a Study of the Celepkeşan System, mainly focuses on the meat providers for the capital, and the state’s approach to this provisioning through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. His overview of the meat provision of the city helps to navigate in the
8
economic system of the Ottoman Empire and he also put all his archival sources at the end of the dissertation and points out different state records, which are very useful to any researcher of the topic. However, his study did not give much about the part where the consumer meets the product. Whether there may be a route to be drawn from the slaughterhouse to the residential parts of the city, is still open to be questioned. Selma Akyazıcı Özkoçak also wrote a very interesting article on Yedikule’s place in the meat supply of the city, where she calls Yedikule as a “place of urban production”15 but beyond the city walls. She also notes how having the slaughterhouses there also paved the way to different workshops that shaped Yedikule like a “manufacturing area.”16 Her thesis on the subject, titled The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century17, is an amazing source that was used immensely in this study.
There are several studies had been done also about Khalwatiya and Koca Mustafa Paşa asitanesi alone. About the Khalwatiya order, John Curry’s The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The Rise of the Halveti Order, 1350-1650 is one of the most prolific researches, which includes the history of the order and how they shaped the Ottoman thought in the later centuries. About the asitane, one of the most interesting works is Nazif Velikahyaoğlu’s Sümbüliyye Tarikatı ve Koca Mustafa Paşa Külliyesi. This book covers many of the archival documents on the tekke and its waqf. Many of those documents belong to a private archive, owned by Kutbi Yücesümbül; who is the son of the last sheikh of the tekke. This book provides so much information on the waqf documents of the tekke. One other important work to understand the relationship between a city and the Khalwatiya order is Hasan Karataş’s dissertation of “The City as a Historical Actor:
15 Özkoçak, “Two urban districts in early modern Istanbul: Edirnekapi and Yedikule”, 34.
16 Özkoçak, “Two urban districts in early modern Istanbul”, 38.
17 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 1997.
9
The Urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries”. Being a great background of how Khalwatiya ends up in the capital, Karataş also talks about lodge building activities of the order, and how they helped to urbanize Amasya. His work is exemplary for me to see the connections between an order and its city.
1.2 Methodology
In this thesis, the main idea is first looking for the concept of boundaries and borders and then investigating the examples of how they are eliminated. The second and third chapters work in a fashion which prioritizes close reading of written primary sources, and correlates them with already established concepts and definitions. The greatest question this dissertation tries to answer is, how to evaluate the issue of the border in and out of a city when its boundaries are as physical as possible but also could be dismissed easily.
One main novelty this study will incorporate is the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) tool in analysing the data derived from the registers and the survey; which are used in the third and fourth chapters. Methodologically speaking, computing systems like GIS are recently being used in the field of history. Such digitalization methods are dominantly used by archaeologists since one of the most beneficial sides of the GIS is to conceive maps from the datasets input to the system. In the context of Ottoman studies, this approach is relatively new and has not yet been utilized in conjunction with the Istanbul waqf registers of 1546 and 1600. The aim will be to observe, contextualize, and analyse the people and general distribution of the waqfs of Koca Mustafa Paşa district.
10
Since the use of digital methods in Ottoman Studies is a fairly new trend, the literature is relatively limited and the field is fertile for exploration. Many of the studies chose other loci to investigate, like Yunus Uğur’s “Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City” on Edirne18, or Antonis Hadjikyriacou’s “Environmental history, Economic history, and Geographic Information Systems: An analysis of the 1572 Cyprus detailed fiscal survey” on Cyprus19. Some studies like “An Historical Geographic Information System for Ottoman Studies: The C. 1907 Ottoman Census and Armenian Settlement in Istanbul”20 focused on Istanbul but set in the twentieth century. So, this application of an early modern Constantinople could be a fresh addition to an already growing body of works. Similarly, works like “XIX. Century İstanbul Lodges and Their Spatial Positioning21” written on the locational distribution of tekkes of Constantinople, yet none did a study on the area this study aims to investigate in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
In this research, a cartographic digitalization strategy is devised for visualization of the endowment entries belonging to Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi in the 1546 and 1600 registers. The entries in written list form across numerous pages are condensed and consolidated into a single image plane, which is the extended Constantinople map (Fig. 1). Therefore, this spatialization technique, which can be defined as “the process of examining the locations, attributes, and relationships of features in spatial data through overlay and other analytical techniques in order to
18 Ugur, “Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City”, 1-12.
19 Hadjikyriacou, “Çevre Tarihi, İktisat Tarihi ve Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri: Kıbrıs’ın 1572 Yılı Mufassal Defterinin Analizi,” 44-49.
20 Ohanian, Başkurt, and Kabadayı, “An Historical Geographic Information System for Ottoman Studies,” 255-283.
21 Özcan, “XIX. Century İstanbul lodges and their spatial positioning”.
11
address a question or gain useful knowledge,”22 can illustrate the reach of the waqf network in an in-depth manner, and enable the researcher to create map-based comparisons between different years, which also provides an insight of the expansion of networks and changes in the borders. However, it must be noted that it is not possible to create an unbiased map, and, akin to an author, the cartographers must make choices through their production process while deciding on which locations to map and which to exclude. Since “raw data”23 is rarely used in the context of cartography, the intrinsic deficiency of the generated maps is that the individual register entries lacking pin-pointable addresses are tagged on the map to the best approximation of the author.
The chosen, largely blank, basemap, depicted in Fig. 1, is a copy of Kauffer’s map of Constantinople24, later published by Chapman and Hall’s as an engravement by B.R. Davies in 1840. While the creation date of the map is much later than the period of focus, the convenient geographical scope, encompassing the majority of Istanbul, from Edirnekapı to Uskudar, while excluding the northern side of the Bosporus25, rendered it highly suitable for tagging the 1455 survey’s and 1546&1600’s endowment entries.
22 “Spatial Analysis” in Esri Online Dictionary. Esri is the foundation which launched the different applications of Geographical Information System (abbreviated GIS). They are also the developer of the program that is used in this study, ArcGIS.
23 Bowker, 1.
24 François Kuaffer’s map of Constantinople (1776, revised in 1786) is considered as the first scientific map of the city. For further reference: Pedley, “Enlightenment Cartography at the Sublime Porte: François Kauffer and the Survey of Costantinople,” 29-53.
25 “One can still follow the route of procession from the ruins Pomegranate Gate to the Studion, for the oldest streets in Samatya have not changed their course since the days of Byzantium, except for the intrusion of a railway line in the nineteenth century.” says Freely and Çakmak, Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul. This suggests that the urban pattern remained unchanged.
12
Figure 1. The chosen basemap of Constantinople, Stambool (1840)
To segregate all the endowments concerning the assigned district from the remaining bulk of the registers, both the endowment entries that originate from and arrive at the quarter are first identified. The relevant entries from the two registers are then compiled on separate spreadsheets, and each entry’s important attributions are recorded; the endower’s gender, profession, royalty status, whether the waqf is cash or property-based, and whether waqf is granted to an individual or an organization are chosen as the key parameters to classify the endowments. The entries are then marked on the basemap using different indicators for each building (for the 1455 city survey) and each waqf (for the 1546 and 1600 registers) with the help of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software (ArcGIS). GIS also allows the designation of distinct symbols for tagging different characteristics of the waqfs that correspond to each attribute column on the spreadsheets.26 Unfortunately, the entries are quite superficial in terms of location indicators and do not contain coordinate-precise locations. The individual entries can at most be pinned with a confidence interval
26 The extracted datasets from different register books are attached to the Appendix.
13
corresponding to the indefinite boundaries of a mahalle. An additional list is also constructed to map out the Khalwatiyya tekkes in Constantinople that were established before 1600 to detect the magnitude of tariqa network growth.
1.3 The outline of the thesis
Moving on to the second chapter after this introduction, how to define the city and one of its main components, nahiye, will be questioned. The several different definitions given to “the Islamic city” by many fiqh ulema will be examined, and how they apply to this border district will be discussed. It should also be remembered that in the case of Konstantiniyye, the borders on the maps are more physical: the walls of the city play an enormous role in deciding the city borders, but how they can be re-considered with these definitions may challenge this role which will become the first issue discussed in the second chapter.
The third chapter of the thesis will focus on the physical boundaries of Constantinople, mainly the land walls, the Golden Gate, and the Seven Towers citadel. During the time of Mehmed II, the first tanneries and slaughterhouses were established here, and the place was imagined as a state-controlled center for the butchers of Istanbul (since Galata, Eyüp, and Üsküdar had their own slaughterhouses) at the fifteenth and the early sixteenth century, which was futile in the close future. This replacement of some artisan groups to the outside of the walls will be examined in the context of whether this would mean extending the city further or not. Their connection back to the city also will be considered.
The fourth chapter will be mostly focusing on the people of Koca Mustafa Paşa district. The society who had lived there will be examined through city surveys. The very first city survey of 1455 will be used here, as well as the pious endowment
14
registers. Later, a small scoop on the people’s lives through legal transactions and the reflection of their lives on primary sources will be given right before going into detail of Khalwatiya in the fourth and last chapter.
The last chapter of the thesis focus on the Khalwatiya order and how they played a tremendous role in shaping the Koca Mustafa Paşa district after 1453. The Khalwati order had come to the city in the last decades of the fifteenth century, and their network got greater in one hundred years. One of the ways to follow their network and spread around the city is through the pious endowment (or waqf) registers. These registers are the records of endowed goods or money of the people and show who endows what to where from where. The two are the registers of pious endowments, dated 1546 and 1600. Having two registers may also be useful to raise a few more questions about the changes that had happened between the two registers. The fourth chapter focuses on using these registers to show the human scale network of Khalwatiya and their pious endowments, which becomes the other connection of the district to other parts of the city, and most importantly shows a network that works over the borders and boundaries.
15
CHAPTER 2
WHAT IS CITY? WHAT IS A NAHIYE? THE FLUIDITY OF THE
BORDERS IN THE CASE OF KONSTANTINIYYE AND KOCA
MUSTAFA PASA NAHIYESİ
This chapter deals with the relationship between the concept of border and its meaning for the city. In order to do so, the research elaborates on the different definitions of “the city” provided by several Muslim ulema from the eighth to the twelfth century and looks for their applications on the sixteenth-century Ottoman capital of Konstantiniyye. After, the study moves one unique unit of an Ottoman city, nahiye, which is used with different connotations in different Ottoman primary sources. The chapter concludes with the presentation of the case study of this thesis, Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi.
2.1 What is a city?
“The decay of quarters and buildings oblige the jurists to constantly redefine the lines of the urban precinct, the inhabited and built-up area of their towns, and the degree to which villages and settlements are connected with the town.”27
Baber Johansen
In Ottoman Turkish, the correspondence of the word “town” generally takes its origin from Persian and Arabic. While in old Turkic languages, it is translated as balık, in the case of Ottoman documents, the word is not encountered much28. Its Persian translation, şehr, means the place where its inhabitants work in commerce, industry
27 Johansen, “Urban structures in the view of Muslim jurists”, 95.
28 Donuk, “Balık” in İslam Ansiklopedisi
16
and administration29. The borrowed words from Arabic, are generally bilad or mısr, where even though the first is in use in Ottoman state documents, the second one is more in use within the context of Islamic law, sharia, hence it also has greater baggage in the sense of carrying a terminological meaning. For example, the Arab geographer Al-Mukaddasi gives the juristic definition of a mısr as “any populous urban centre where an amir or governor resides and where the Kurʾanic penalties (hudûd) are applied.”30
In the introduction of the book, The Ottoman City Between the East and the West, Edhem Eldem, Daniel Goffman, and Bruce Masters summarize Max Weber’s understanding of a city by claiming that he “defines the "city" as a self-governing commune whose inhabitants possessed a distinct sense of collective identity, argues that such an entity evolved, and thus became meaningful, only in Christian Europe,” and then concludes by calling his view of Islamic cities as “monolithic and undifferentiated”31 across from Balkans to Bengal, so to speak. Rather than dwelling on modern (or later) descriptions and definitions that have been made about the Islamic city or an Ottoman city, it makes sense to look back to early modern times or even before, to see how the Ottomans saw the town or the city, and how they described it. To do so, it may be useful to look for earlier accounts where the town is described, and try to implement what they propose to the case of Constantinople.
According to Encyclopedia of Islam, the word mısr “is of ancient Semitic origin; in Akkadian, the noun misru, denotes “frontier, frontier marker, territory”32. Here the meaning of misr seems more of a border (hadd), yet “the classical Arabic
29 Küçükaşçı, “Şehir” in İslam Ansiklopedisi
30 Encyclopedia of Islam, “Mısr” in Encyclopedia of Islam. (Al-Mukaddisi quoted in Pellat, Le milieu baṣrien et la formation de Ǧāḥiẓ , Paris 1953, 2-3 n. 5).
31 “Mısr” in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed.
32 “Mısr” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
17
geographers (e.g. Ibn al-Fakih and al-Mukaddasi) stress its more developed usage as a large urban centre where a ruler or governor resides and which has located there the administrative organs, treasury, etc., of its province”33. Baber Johansen shortens this definition as “the all-embracing town”. In this study, in the use of the term al-misr al-gami, which can be translated roughly as “the city (or the town) of the mosque”, misr is considered with more of its second meaning. By putting the gami, the Friday mosque where the communal prayer takes place, into the centre of definition, it is clear that the misr or the city is defined by its mosque.
In this section, the emphasis will be put on the juristic definitions, and the descriptions told about “the Islamic city” by many fiqh ulema will be discoursed. This chapter provides nothing novel on these explanations and the claims Baber Johansen has presented in his 1981-dated article, “All-embracing town and its mosques”, but it provides utilization of these definitions in the context of sixteenth-century Ottoman capital. How these conceptual classifications apply to Konstantiniyye and therefore, one of its border-districts adjacent to the land walls, will be discussed starting from Abu Yusuf, an eighth-century Hanafi jurist, and Kasani, a twelfth-century Hanafi jurist, who transmits from Abu Hanifa of the eighth century. Here, by Islamic, the weight is on the giver of the definition. The attendance is on the Muslim jurists, and their definitions of “the city”. (Since in this study, most of the primary sources rely on judicial and governmental documents [from archives to court registers], the most appropriate way to discuss the town, the city, and their descriptions are through mostly judicial definitions.)
To start with Abu Yusuf’s definition, he states that "Every town having a minbar and a qadi [or kadı] to enforce the rules of the law (ahkam) and to execute
33 “Mısr” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
18
the hudûd is a al-misr al-gami, the people of which are obliged to perform the Friday prayer."34 This simply means that if the settlement has minbar, hence the mosque, a kadı, hence a body to dictate the law, that settlement is a town and its people have to practice their Friday prayers. This definition gives a vague explanation for a town while providing a definite description of the need for Friday prayer. In the context of Constantinople, this could be applied at the level of the neighbourhood masjids instead of the cities’ Friday mosques, since the town was expanded greatly in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. These masjids, however, usually did not include the minbar but provided a place for communal prayer. Johansen points out this shift as a change to “mosques of the quarters”, instead of the towns, which appeared in all of the major towns after the tenth century35. What is interesting here is, bringing up the town and the communal prayers together; which reminds Marçais’ view of Islam being an urban religion36, who was one of the very first Orientalists who dwelled on the notion of “Islamic city”37.
Three centuries later, Kasani brings up a more elaborate explanation:
It is transmitted on the authority of Abu Hanifa that it (i.e. the all-embracing town) is a large locality (balada) in which there are streets and markets, to which rural districts (rasatiq) belong, in which there is a governor (walin) who through is retinue (hasm) and his knowledge, or the knowledge of other, can obtain justice for the oppressed from the oppressor (yaqdiru ‘ala insâfî' l-mazlûmi mina’z- zâlim) and to whom people turn in (all) calamities (wa'n-nâsu yargiûna ilaihi fi'l- hawâdit)38.
It can be seen that there is an emphasis on the details of the settlements and their districts: the rural is explicitly stated, which indicates its connectedness to the town; hence the togetherness of the urban and rural in the settlement. The notion of markets
34 Abu Yusuf quoted in Johansen’s “The all-embracing town and its mosques,” 143.
35 Johansen, “Damascus”, 94.
36 Marçais, “L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine", 89.
37 Abu-Lughod, “the Islamic city”, 155-6.
38 Kasani quoted in Baber Johansen (1981), 142.
19
is also interesting, which reminds some of the city forms in which all states the presence of the marketplace39. However, the difference here is the wali, or the governor; instead of a body of law, the kadı, a representative of authority who acts as the judge40. In the case of the Ottoman Empire, the first recorded kadı was from around 1300 according to Aşıkpaşazade41. Later, instead of a wali, other statesmen existed with a kadı. While kadı was taking care of the juristic problems, şehremini dealt with the city’s physical financial needs for example42. Here, it seems like Abu Hanifa left all these responsibilities to wali. One other significant remark should be made about the absence of Friday prayers. Friday prayers in essence are communal, and it is known that in the Ottoman Empire (and later) the prayers and prayer places are used in a way to control and design the public attitude and space. Even though Kasani transmits him in the twelfth century, Abu Hanifa is too from the eighth century like Abu Yusuf. So, it is useful to read both definitions side by side.
In Gülru Necipoğlu’s book Age of Sinan too, she gives an example of fiqhi definition which decides the city borders from jurists. She quotes from Muhammed al-Halabi (d. 1549), who considers “the Friday prayer is required of all Muslims residing in a city or a place equivalent to a city, with the exception of travelers, slaves, children, invalids, the physically disabled, and women, who were exempt from this requirement because traditionally they stayed at home”43. This is rather interesting since it provides the statement that any place with a Friday mosque could be considered as a city; hence providing the same definition as Abu Yusuf. She also gives one last definition from
39 Weber’s “the City” and Ibn Khaldun in Marçais.
40 Tyan, “Kadı” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
41 Nagy, Gy. Káldy. Aşıkpaşazade quoted in “Kadi” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
42 According to French ambassador Count Andreossy, şehremini was the inspector of the palace of sultan, the city walls, and state’s buildings, which was referenced by Ali Akyıldız in “Şehremini” in Islam Ansiklopedisi.
43 El-Halebi, 1990, 1: 254-55, 260-61 quoted in Necipoğlu’s Sinan the great architect, 55.
20
Ottoman Hanafites, where they “define cities and towns (together with their outskirts from which the muezzin’s call to prayer was audible) as ‘places where the Friday prayers are performed and markets are held’”44, which draw a similar line with Kasani, from earlier examples.
Later in the fourteenth century, Zaila'ï one more time uses juridical properties to define the town: "It is any place in which there is every (type of) artisan and in which everything is found which people need for their living ma'âyisihim) and in which there is a mufti and a qadi [kadı] who inflicts the prescribed penalties (yuqim al-hudûd)”45. In his case, the town, in order to be considered one, also needs to have a mufti, which separates Zalia’s definition from his predecessors. According to Encyclopedia of Islam, mufti was responsible for giving fatwa, an “opinion on a point of law, the term “law” applying, in Islam, to all civil or religious matters.”46 Even though Zalia defends the mufti’s co-existence with the kadı, in the case of Ottoman Empire this structure was changed with the appointment of şeyhülislam (or sheikh-al-Islam) as the main fatwa-giver, in the reign of Murad 47 who was essentially the mufti of the capital city since in both Katip Çelebi and Hazerfan Hızır Bey (d. 863/1459) was recorded as “the first kadi of Istanbul, as the first Şeyhülislam”48. Muftis were educated in Islamic sciences in madrasas since even before madrasas were founded on Ottoman soil49 and becoming the chief mufti, şeyhülislam, would be the highest career point in the hierarchy a mufti could aim50.
44 El-Halebi, 1990, 1: 254-55, 260-61 quoted in Necipoğlu’s Sinan the great architect, 55.
45 Zalia quoted in Johansen 1982, 141.
46 Tyan, “Fatwa” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
47 Walsh, “Fatwa” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
48 Repp, the Mufti of Istanbul, 73.
49 Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650: the Structure of Power, 227. Before the establishment of Eight Madrasas in Istanbul by Mehmed II at 1470s, these scholars would get their education from the madrasas in other cities like Cairo or Damascus.
50 For further information on how they would have appointed as Şeyhülislam check Imber, 230.
21
2.2 The case of Constantinople
One of the earliest studies regarding urbanity of the Muslim realm is, as it was briefly mentioned before, belongs to twentieth-century Orientalist, William Marçais. In his article, Marçais dissolves Ibn Khaldun’s city with the inclusions of several geographers51. By doing this and defining the structure, William Marçais becomes the first person who uses the term “Islamic” with the city52. It is also quite interesting that the primarily important markers of a city for him (and later, for his brother George Marçais), are public spaces53. In the evolution of a city, places for people to get together show utmost importance. There the religious congregational mosque is coupled with a non-religious marketplace54. The other public space is hammams, which marks another non-religious space for the people of every ethnicity and religion to come together,55 even if it was not always in a homogeneous fashion. However, as Janet Abu-Lughod states in her article, taking his cue from Renan56 and his medieval Christian cities, William Marçais’ version of the city “poorly distinguishes it from cities in other religious/cultural contexts and one which has as yet no topography”,57 in contrast to his brother’s, where he “notes the differentiation between non-residential and residential quarters and the fact that residential quarters are often specialized by ethnicity” as well as the ethnical and subject-based hierarchy in the marketplace58. However, all of the cases used by Marçais brothers, as well as other 19th-20th century Orientalists, belong to North African and Arab-dominated cities, a point which is also marked by Abu-Lughod. It is evident that these descriptions are not to be taken with
51 Marçais, “L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine", 94-5.
52 Uğur, Yunus “The Historical Interaction Of the City with its Mahalles”, 35.
53 Abu-Lughod, “the Islamic City”, 156.
54 Marçais, “L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine," 96.
55 Marçais, “L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine," 97.
56 Marçais, “L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine," 91-2.
57 Abu-Lughod, “the Islamic City”, 156.
58 Abu-Lughod, “the Islamic City”, 156.
22
hundred percent trust and confidence, since they actually could not provide a general pattern that was applicable for all cities with Muslim populations. Abu-Lughod also adds a different characteristic to the cities with Muslim populations like gender segregation and again, the differentiated living quarters for different religious groups other than the marketplace59.
When we look for the sixteenth century Constantinople, this city structure with only three public spaces, namely the hamam, marketplace, and mosque is definitely not applicable since the city is too great in the area and population. Thus, the change in the characteristic of the public spaces of Constantinople, also marked the evolution of the city, here becomes a defining feature of the early modern Ottoman capital. The spread of the public spaces also shows a physical growth of the city in this case. Gülru Necipoğlu offers a process through the increase in the numbers of congretional mosques. She states that by the time of head- architect Sinan in the mid-sixteenth century, there was a mosque in every nahiye in Istanbul and at the end of Sinan’s professional life, very late sixteenth century, “many of these administrative regions had acquired more than one Friday mosque, and these were accompanied by others in the three townships and outlying suburbs”60. In addition, only during Sinan’s tenure as the chief architect, he was responsible for building “seventy-seven Friday mosques, of which thirty-nine were located in Istanbul intra muros”61. If we consider Istanbul to be made of thirteen nahiyes, this means roughly three Friday mosques existed in each.
In a similar fashion, Çiğdem Kafescioğlu’s approach to city development
59 This notion of the Islamic city of the 19th century Orientalists, is challenged and critized by many in the 20th century. Previously quoted articles by Baber Johansen and Abu-Lughod are exemplary work for them as well as the book by Eldem, Goofman and Masters, The Ottoman City Between the East and the West. These studies are a part of a larger body of work. (Other examples include The Islamic City: A Colloquium (1970), Oley Grabar’s “Cities and Citizens”(1976), Sami Zubaida’s “Max Weber's "The City" and the Islamic City”(2006))
60 Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, 57.
61 Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, 47.
23
through the transformation of imarets to central mosques is particularly important. Combined with the creation of public spaces and their significance in city transformation, these smaller units making up a greater building block through controlled and central mosques (which brings up the issue of administration and control of the palace over the city dwellers) is frankly monumental instance of this change in the city fabric. She also calls this process “sunnitization of architecture”62 due to changes in the patronage of the buildings, where they switch from gazis (for ‘imarets) to royal court63 (for congretional mosques). In line with the locating of the ‘imarets and mosques, Kafescioğlu stresses over the phenomenon of the shift of building place from city suburbs to centre64. Later, these t-type ‘imarets had turned to neighbourhood masjids and through a “methodical masjid construction” they increased in numbers. Kafescioğlu also underlines their significance as “Islamic urban markers in the developing cityscapes”65, and assigns these small buildings a symptomatic character. Necipoğlu adds not needing royal permission to the important features of neighbourhood (or mahalle) masjids. She states that “the construction of masjids did not require royal approval because the Friday prayers were not held in them”, unlike the Friday mosques66. This may be also another strong reason behind the fast spread of the masjid construction. Lastly, she too, claims this “masjid construction” is an important way of “transformation in urban administration that accorded a more prominent role to masjids in the lives of neighbourhood inhabitants.”67
One very important marker for the ending of a city is the legal and religious
62 Kafescioğlu, Çiğdem “Afterlives”, p.272. More discussion on sunnitization, check Derin Terzioğlu’s “How to conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: a historiographical discussion”.
63 Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, 47.
64 Kafescioğlu, “Afterlives”, 264.
65 Kafescioğlu, “Afterlives,” 272.
66 Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, 47.
67 Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, 47.
24
borders of a mosque and the court. When defining the city, Necipoğlu uses the phrase “cities and towns (together with their outskirts from which the muezzin’s call to prayer was audible)”68. In addition to her borrowing from Johansen, Baber Johansen himself clarifies the legal borders through the application of prayers and religious duties in general in his article. He states that
The town, the suburb and the villages connected with it enjoy the same legal status as far as religious ceremonies and ritual obligations are concerned. The same holds true for the urban precinct. Only beyond the urban precinct stretches the rural world, the sawadd or the world of the non-urban space, the mafaza, with its own legal status as far as the Friday service and its religious obligations are concerned.69
Johansen’s explanation, in addition to the general distribution of the Friday mosques of the sixteenth century Constantinople, draws the city borders in the clearest way possible.
In her book, Necipoğlu herself also refers to Johansen in the case of separating the urban from the rural. According to Hanafite ‘ulema, the city walls were not a strict line in naming the city borders, and they did not protest against building multiple mosques due to the increase in the population. This helped the growth of the mosques and settlements outside of the city walls, which was also the case for Constantinople which blurred the definitions, and “made the definition of town outskirts a matter of juristic dispute.”70 Baber Johansen provides more on about the subject in his article: “The inhabited and built-up area (‘imara or 'umran) of the town stretches far beyond its walls. The district “beyond the walls of the town” (zahir al-madina) is not — as far as prayer and ritual are concerned - separated from the town,”71 he claims. The term itself is interesting, since zahir means visible, which makes the wall as a mean of
68 Johansen is referred in Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, 55.
69 Johansen, 1982: 148 paraphrased in Johansen, 1990:95.
70 Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, pg. 57.
71 Johansen, “Urban structures in the view of muslin jurists”, 95.
25
separation from the visible part of the town in contrast to the invisible parts.
Figure 2. View of Istanbul, Piri Reis’s Kitāb-ı Baḥriye72
The walls discussed previously are the ones which are shown in Image 1. Taking their name after its builder, emperor Theodosius II (401-450), Theodosian walls go around the old city with having Seven Towers, Yedikule, the citadel which was used as a place to keep the captives, as a royal treasury and archives. In Image 2, the fortress can be seen at the top right of the page. The walls were used as a clean-cut between the urban settlements and the rural area with the exception of Yedikule whereabouts in the representative image, where a relatively dense settlement also exists at the other side of the wall close to Yedikule. This makes the case of Yedikule and its vicinity more interesting when the issue of borders is concerned; which is located inside the Koca Mustafa Paşa district. In this sense, the case of Konstantiniyye’s Koca Mustafa Paşa area in the sixteenth century is widely similar to the case of Damascus, whose nineteenth-century state was investigated by Baber Johansen73. In his case study too, while the city hosts a wall, it is not enough to separate
72 From the second half of the seventeenth century, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, Diez A. Foliant 57, fol. 28, quarter b.
73 Johansen, “Urban structures in the view of muslin jurists”.
26
the city from the countryside in the means of application of religion and governmental order.
2.3 What is a nahiye?
After detailing the discussion about the city and its definitions with its borders, the second part becomes the units of the city, and their descriptions and borders. The case study of the thesis, Koca Mustafa Paşa district, is referred to as a nahiye in the pious endowment (waqf) registers (vakıf tahrir defterleri) or tax registers in general (tahrir defterleri) so the next question becomes: What is a nahiye?
The word can be easily translated to English as “district”. However, it is not enough to contextualize its meaning. To understand the word’s connotation better, first one may check the primary sources which use this term. In the two surveys of pious endowment records (of 1546 and 1600), these registers are organized in such a way that the endowments are separated by their district (nahiye), then quarter (mahalle) names (Figure 3b)74.
Figure 3a&b. The very first page of the original 1546 waqf registers from COA75 & Hierarchical organization in the waqf registers in the transliterated text (1600)76
74 Here the terminology and the translations are borrowed from Stéphane Yérasimos’ “Dwellings in Sixteenth-Century Istanbul” article.
75 T.T.d. 251. Barkan, in 1546’s transliterated version, claims his whole book is combination of the evkaf defteri in Cumhurbaşkanlığı Osmanlı Arşivi in İstanbul (which is presented here), and Başvekalet Arşiv Umum Müdürlüğü in İstanbul and Tapu ve Kadastro Müdürlüğü in Ankara.
76 Canatar, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 1009-(1600), 601.
27
The capital city, Constantinople, consists of thirteen districts (nahiye) in these waqf registers. Koca Mustafa Paşa district is one of the far most districts to the city centre and the is a border-district, right near the Theodosian walls, or the land walls of the city. Therefore, while dealing with this site, one must remember to bring the physicality of the borders and how they show importance. This nahiye shows an interesting characteristic regarding its location as it can be seen in Figure 4 (marked with XI), as well as its physiology and social makeup, which will be evaluated in the upcoming chapters.
Figure 4. Districts of Istanbul around 1500 A.D, from Inalcık (edited by the author)77
However, the term nahiye is not used about the districts of the capital, Konstantiniyye, in any other primary source of the time. The only place they are used
77 Inalcık, İstanbul Tarihi Araştırmaları, Seçme Eseler XIII , 281-282.
28
regarding the capital is in these tahrir surveys. In the imperial decrees of the time (mühimme defterleri), the word nahiye is used, however in the context of other cities of the empire, such as Burusa nahiyesi78. The idea behind it seems that nahiye was in use for the districts is of the other parts of the empire, not the capital. The same usage can also be detected in the court records (kadı sicilleri). Some examples can be given as “Silistre sancağında Varna nâhiyesinde”79 or “Üsküdar kazâsına tâbi’ Karamürsel nâhiyesinin Kavak nâm mevzi‘de” 80. One other primary source can be Hatt-ı Hümayun volume of Su Külliyatı, in which another tahrir defteri can be found. However, here too, nahiye is in use for the places like İstinye nahiyesi81, which can be considered as a village outside of the Konstantiniyye city walls. The tax and waqf registers seem like the only exception among these sources82. One last addition is, while the pious endowment registers are categorized through the nahiyes, the word nahiye is also used to describe places out of the capital as the examples before; like nahiye-i İznık83, nahiye-i Ladik84 or nahiye-i Amasya85.
As it can be seen, the use of the term nahiye is not unique to pious endowment registers of Istanbul. In addition to all other usages, if one investigates the waqf or tax registers (tahrir defterleri) other than the ones from Istanbul, the term nahiye is frequent in them too. One example of this use is from the earliest registers of Trabzon 1486. In his book The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon, Heath Lowry utilizes these registers86. The district of Samsun also is
78 3 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 398.
79 Balat Mahkemesi 1 Numaralı Sicil Defteri, 175.
80 İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 Numaralı Sicil Defteri, 224.
81 Vakıf Su Defterleri: Hatt-ı Hümayun, 241.
82 It should be noted that only the primaries up to year 1600 were studied.
83 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 17.
84 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 24.
85 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 24.
86 Lowry, The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon, 27-30. Registers can be found in COA, Maliyeden Müdevver Defter no.828.
29
referred to as nahiye here. In another register from 1519, regarding Gelibolu, again utilized by Lowry, this time Limnos is referred as a nahiye, connected to Gelibolu87. So, this usage of nahiye, probably comes from the genre of registers.
In the case of Constantinople, nahiye works as a building unit of the city. However, it seems that it is strictly administrative and there are no reflections of this classification on any other documents concerning Constantinople other than the waqf records.
2.4 The fluidity of the terms and borders in the case of Constantinople and Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi
Since the definitions provided above are mainly judicial ones, I have also decided to examine the court registers, kadı sicilleri, in the city to bind the subjects of its smaller units and their juristic definitions. To begin with, several courts existed in Constantinople; the court register examples from Balat, Istanbul, Galata, Eyüp, Tophane, and Üsküdar courts will be used in this study. In the pious endowment records, all of these areas are described differently; mahruse-i Galata88, Nahiye-i Balat89, Havas-ı İstanbul90, Mevzi-i Tophane91, Kasabe-i Üsküdar92( which was also referred to as nefs-i Üsküdar). Other than Istanbul, der-saadet, Galata, Eyüp and Üsküdar (also called as bilad-ı selase) had their own courts, kadılık. It should be also noted that Balat naipliği was considered under Istanbul kadılığı, while Tophane naipliği was connected to Galata. According to Islam Ansiklopedisi, the high statue
87 Lowry, On Beşinci Yüzyıl Osmanlı Gerçekleri, 5. Register can be found in COA, Tapu-Tahrir Defter No. 75.
88 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 195,199,431,437,438. Also both Brusa and Edirne is marked as mahruse in the document.
89 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 482.
90 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 49 .
91 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri ,497.
92 1546 tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 436.
30
kadılıklar were categorized as mevleviyet as oppose to kaza kadılıkları93. In those, all three Galata, Eyub and Uskudar ranked among mevleviyet. Naiplik can be defined as a kind of deputy for the kadı, and in the case of Constantinople, Istanbul kadısı was responsible for deciding them94.
The nahiyes which were discussed before, are not visible in these court register records. However, the traces of localities can be sketched through their mahalles. It is possible to see an inhabitant of a mahalle which is located in Istanbul is mentioned in the court register of Uskudar or Galata. In the Uskudar court registers dated 1513-152195, most of the entries regarding the inhabitants of Istanbul or Galata are about the fugitive slaves. Many of them were captured in Uskudar when they tried to escape (and delivered to their Istanbulite owner), or in one case the fugitive who was given back to their owner was captured in Galata and delivered to their owner in Uskudar96. There are two unique events: one case is about a theft that happened in Ayasofya bazaar in Istanbul, there is no reference to any of the people’s mahalles, so, interestingly, this case was handled in Uskudar97. The other one is about a man who was caught with a woman in Istanbul; but again, his case was recorded in Uskudar even though his connection with Uskudar is not clear98. In the Balat registers dated 1557-899, there are direct references to inhabitants’ mahalles. In one of the cases, a deceased man’s debt is presented. The dead person was from Camii-i Kebir mahallesi in Galata and the others’ settlement place was not written, but their case was dealt with in Balat court100.
93 Unan, “Mevleviyet” in TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi.
94 Mehmet İpşirli, “Naib” in TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi. In reference to Evliya Çelebi, in the seventeenth century there were many naibs working under Eyüp, Galata and Üsküdar with very high salaries.
95 Üsküdar Mahkemesi 1 numaralı Sicil Defteri.
96 Üsküdar Mahkemesi 1 numaralı Sicil Defteri, 400.
97 Üsküdar Mahkemesi 1 numaralı Sicil Defteri, 180.
98 Üsküdar Mahkemesi 1 numaralı Sicil Defteri, 164.
99 Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı sicil defteri.
100 Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı sicil defteri, 71.
31
There are several cases where there a house from Karaköy mahallesi101 in Galata or a house from Kula mahallesi102 in Galata was sold, but again the records were on Balat court registers even though there was no mention of any other mahalles. Lastly, in one case recorded in Tophane registers, the complainant is from Gedik Ahmet Paşa mahallesi in İstanbul, where the defendant’s mahalle is not given103. So, through the registers, the mobility of inhabitants is visible. There may be some overlaps on the themes (like the repeated cases of fugitives in Uskudar) but it can also be said that the people who were living in the proximity of one court are not obliged to bring their cases to that court. However, there are also some studies highlighting the differentiation of case types according to the courts. For example, in her thesis, Leyla Kayhan Elbirlik shows that the cases related to marriages and divorces were many among the Davud Paşa court, or in Mahmud Paşa court, which is very close to Grand Bazaar, mainly the cases related to commercial problems held place104. Another example was from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in which according to Inalcık, the cases concerning water distribution in the city were dealt with at the Eyüp court105. This also works in parallel with the repeated fugitive slaves’ cases from Uskudar court. That’s said, it seems like the borders of the mahalles are not functioning as place deciders, but more like having a social meaning. The repeated use of people’s names referred with their mahalles shows their belonging within social circles, but they are not used for determining marks of the judgment areas of the courts. If one specifically looks for Koca Mustafa Paşa district, in the tahrir defteri dated 1600, there are twenty-eight mahalles. In the Galata records, there are two
101 Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı sicil defteri, 268.
102 Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı sicil defteri, 267.
103 Tophane 2 numaralı Sicil Defteri, 166.
104 Elbirlik, “Negotiating Matrimony”, 110.
105 Referenced to Inalcık’s article in Brill’s Encyclopedia of Islam at Leyla Kayhan Elbirlik, 110.
32
appearances of Koca Mustafa Paşa mahallesi and one appearance of Seyyid Ömer mahallesi from Koca Mustafa nahiyesi for example.
However, in contrast to these instances, Necipoğlu provides a very important fetwa of Ebussuud Efendi, the sheikh-al-Islam of Sultan Sulaiman. The question in the fetwa was asked in the following fashion: “If Zayd’s quarter has a noble Friday mosque and without a reason justifiable by the shari'a he does not perform the Friday prayer in that mosque but in another one, does this constitute a sin?” According to Necipoğlu, “Ebussuud considers it a sin if Zayd was motivated by the desire to listen to that mosque’s preacher or its Koran chanters”106. This fetwa shows the much stricter side of the walking around between the mahalles. The same sentiment also repeated in Izniki’s Mukaddime. Showing a parallel to Ebussuud’s fetwa, Kafescioğlu suggests that Izniki’s underlining of not leaving one’s mahalle masjid can be considered as a statement of “the socio-spatial integrity and stability of the urban neighborhood, and the religious authority’s desire to control intra-urban mobility to achieve such stability, were concerns already in the early 800s/1400s”107.
2.5 Conclusion
One should start with the main concepts and definitions before getting into case studies in detail. The meaning of “the city” and its components like nahiye hold utmost importance in order to understand what a border means for a city on legal and theoretical terms. The different definitions given for the city in this chapter were usually chosen from primary (and as much as closely dated) sources of Muslim authors, in order to locate Constantinople inside them. For the term nahiye, Ottoman sources that use this word are examined.
106 Necipoğlu, Sinan the great architect, 57.
107 Kafescioğlu, “Afterlives”, 273. Referenced to both İzniki’s Mukaddime and Necipoğlu’s Sinan.
33
After defining the terminology which will be beneficial to understand the mechanisms of an urban area, we should move forward to the case study of this research, as it was stated before, Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi. The district contained the Golden Gate, an important gate in the walls for the city’s Byzantine and Ottoman past; and The Seven Towers Citadel (Yedikule) which was built at the time of Sultan Mehmed II, and the greatest main tekke of Khalwatiya tariqa, the Koca Mustafa Paşa asitanesi, which was found at the end of the fifteenth century. The area of Yedikule was a prominent place for butchers and slaughterhouses, as well as the captives of the empire; while the asitane was an important place for Khalwati dervishes. Both aspects of the district will be evaluated in the upcoming chapters, starting from the outside of the walls, and will be continued with intromuros.
34
CHAPTER 3
WALLS, GATE, AND THE CITADEL: AN URBAN BORDER ZONE
AND ITS INHABITANTS
One remarkable aspect of Istanbul is, the great land walls of the city. Adjoined to them, the Koca Mustafa Paşa district also hosts the Golden Gate and Yedikule Citadel, which is a specialty for Constantinople. While acting as a physical border, the walls and the citadel also showcases the presence of the royal court and palace at this end of the city. In this chapter main aim is to recognize the site and its surroundings, and how they interact with the physical borders, as well as how they act as a border district. It later continues with the inhabitants of the district, mainly, the captives, butchers, tanneries, and other craftsmen. This chapter exclusively focuses on the extra muros area of Yedikule, the outside of the greatest physical border of the city, before getting into intramuros in the upcoming chapters.
3.1 Land walls and the Golden Gate
These Walls by Theodosius’ Royal Will,
And Constantinus Prefect of the East,
In sixty Days, surprizing Speed! were built.
Over the Gate of Xylocerum (Xylocercum or Xylocricum)108
In the 5th century, Theodosius II built the new set of land walls of Constantinople, with the need of enlargement of settlement area as well as a fortification of the city. The walls had a structure of “a triple line of defense: a substantial moat with a low first defensive wall (or proteichisma); an intermediate wall with towers (which even on its own would not have disgraced the city); and, finally, a much taller wall reinforced with huge towers, large enough to support powerful artillery pieces”109
108 Gilles, The Antiquities of Constantinople, 26.
109 Ward-Perkins, “Old and New Rome Compared”, 63.
35
and had gates in between the towers110. The triple line of Theodosian walls can also be seen in the Constantinople map of Piri Reis’ Kitab-ı Bahriye from the seventeenth century, as opposed to other walls surrounding the city in the previous chapter, Figure 2.
The previous set of walls, erected by Constantine was built in the fourth century and again named after its builder. Constantinian walls enclosed a smaller site and were consisted of a single wall line. Theodosian walls, without a doubt, strengthened the defense of the city as well as providing a new settlement area. This new zone between the Constantinian walls and Theodosian walls was called as “was neither truly urban nor truly suburban” by Mango111.
In Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, a fifth-century survey of the Byzantine city, the area of the Southwest end of Theodosian walls is referred to as the twelfth region. In the survey the region was described as a region which “is entirely level as it extends before those approaching the gate from inside the city, but on the left side it descends in gentle slopes and terminates at the sea.”112 According to the source, this part of the city had a total of 11 streets, 363 Houses, 5 private baths, 5 private bakeries, and nine steps (to distribute the products of the public bakeries).113
Conferring to Van Millingen there were ten gates, and several posterns among the Theodosian walls and they may have a military or public use114. At the southern extremity of the walls, Golden Gate is located (Fig.2&Fig.4), which was
110 The new set of walls and its gates also resembled Rome’s wall structure and its gates and castles. For further information on it, please check Oya Eğrikavuk’s “The History of Yedikule and its Place in Military Architecture” pg. 7-9, 19-23 and 40-44; Çiğdem Kafescioğlu’s Constantinople/Istanbul, pg.25-28; and Gülru Necipoğlu’s Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power pg. 4-15.
111 Mango, “Development”, 125.
112 Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, 94.
113 Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, 95.
114 Van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople, 59.
36
also called the Gilded Gate, as Porta Aurea in Latin, as Khrysal Pylal in Greek, or as Yaldızlı Kapı in Turkish. In Byzantine times, this gate was known as “the triumphal gate”, since it was used as a route to come back to the city (and to the palace) after a successful military campaign. The gate was made of marble, with two great marble towers at its sides, as it was also mentioned in Doukas. According to him, the towers were built by John V for refuge, however, destructed right after, with Bayazid’s threat of blinding his son, Manuel115.
Cyril Mango defines the gate as a double structured one. He describes “partly-reserved” outer gate as “two ancient columns of Carystus marble are surmounted by Theodosian capitals supporting an arch. Columns, pedestals, and capitals are all reused and have been added to a pre-existing gate structure behind them” with a wall of “fairly regular masonry”.116 The use of spolia is visible; with the will to rennervate a Roman triumphal arch, which the building was resembled of. Later in the fifteenth century, Kritovoulos describes this area of Golden Gate with the words “where there had been an imperial castle”117 when he talks about the new fortress built upon it. The tradition of recycling and reusing also takes presence in a sense of reclaiming the space of the old castle, with building a new one onto it. In the representation produced by Francesco Scarella in the seventeenth century, the double doors and the triple walls can be seen easily (Fig. 5). In the moat between the two walls, it was actually depicted as a courtyard like a garden with trees.
115 Doukas, Decline and fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, 81-2.
116 Mango, “the Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate”, 181.
117 Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 93. For more information on the imperial castle, check Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger ‘s article, “Zum Stadtteil Kynegion und seinem Hafen in spätbyzantinischer und osmanischer Zeit” in Die byzantinischen Häfen Konstantinopels.
37
Figure 5. Castle of the Seven Towers by Francesco Scarella, ca. 1685; with the Golden Gate present at the front-center118
The Golden Gate, overall, is a structure with a total of four towers at its gateways and with its moat, and with its citadel, it made a strong additional fortification for the walls.
3.1.1 City walls as a separator and a connector
Before discussing the role of Theodosian walls as a separator and possibly, as a connector, one must define what border and boundary mean, where the walls stand in these descriptions. While talking about the walls Simon O’Meara defines them by, “empirically it is a limit, or threshold: a frontier and liminal “space between” (Zwischenraum), between here and there. Simultaneously conjoined and divided at
118 From Mango, “the Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate”, 175 and Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 26.
38
the limit, here and there are turned about at their point of contact.”119 Here he defines the walls as both a limit, hence a border and a separator, and a threshold, hence a connector. The precise definition for a border may not be present but it can be said that as well as a boundary, the border is an imagined line with a dividing purpose; which is used for giving definite limitations for places.
In the case of Ottoman primary sources, one of the main ways to show the boundaries of a place is using other sites. For example, in the court registers (kadı sicilleri), the boundaries of people’s properties (mulk) are most of the time given with their borders. In order to decide those borders, generally the properties of other people, the natural boundaries like the sea, or human-made borders like roads (tarik)120 are used.
One unique example of a humanmade physical depiction of borders is the land walls of the city. In Fig. 6, a drawing of the walls and gates of Constantinople is present. This map was published and distributed by “Syllogos … in 1884, as part of its Archeology Supplement to Vol. 14 of the Syngramma Periodikon”121. Here, the wall is almost depicted as a physical boundary, and like a linear border on a map. In the example of Sahlins, while the commissioners used the words delimitation, in the end, they “resorted to ideas of "jurisdiction" and "dependency" when dividing up the villages of the Cerdanya”122, which was the discussed region between Spain and France.
In the case of Yedikule, too, it may be best to look at the limitations of jurisdiction and dependency, in addition to the physical boundaries and border lines.
119 O’Meara, Space and Muslim Urban Life, 19.
120 İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 61.
121 Sümertaş, From Antiquarianism to Urban Archaeology: Transformation of Research on ‘Old’ Istanbul throughout the Nineteenth Century, 295.
122 Sahlins, Boundaries, 4-5.
39
For example, in the case of Constantinople and Yedikule, in one of the court records, a slaughterhouse’s location is specified as “ a butcher shop right outside of Yedikule gate” 123. However, in another order directed to Istanbul kadısı this time refers Yedikule as taşra, which means it was not included in the city124. Yet, since the order is directed to Istanbul kadısı, the problem regarding this area was expected to be solved in the courts of Istanbul. In one archival document dated 926 hijri125, the area is called “a place away from the tower”, but might have been used to locate the direction. One last remark should be made in conjunction with Kömürciyan’s words on the site: “We arrived at Yedikule from the gate number 26. The graveyard of Karamanians is located here right in front of the city.”126 In addition, Kömürciyan’s perception of the graveyard’s location as “in front of the city” (şehrin karşısı), is also fascinating, since it underlines him not seeing the place as part of the city but in front of it.
Figure 6. The walls and gates of Constantinople in Greek in the 19th century (with cemeteries and gardens shown)127
123 “Yedikule kapısı hâricinde olan selhhânede” in Turkish, in Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı sicil defteri, 287.
124 Altınay, On altıncı asırda Istanbul hayatı, 29.
125 “kuladan taşra bir yer” in Turkish in BOA’s document, labelled as TS_MA_E_0759_0038_001_001.
126 “Yedikule’ye yirmialtıncı kapıya vardık. Karaman’lıların mezarlığı burada şehrin karşısındadır. ” in Turkish in Kömürciyan, İstanbul tarihi: Xvıı. asırda İstanbul, 25.
127 COA, HRT.h. 689- For more information on the map and it’s contextualization, check Melike
40
Here the wall has the characteristic of an edge, not necessarily acting as a boundary, but more or less captures its proprieties like its linearity128. The gates on the wall act as nodes for people to connect two sides, with their ability to be a “junction, or a place of a break in transportation,”129 where the gates usually become both.
A wall with a gate in the context of Constantinople is different from a straight line of the border on a map, but more like an entity for itself with its surroundings; which acts as a separator and a connector at the same time. Without the wall, the two sides of it cannot be separated, but with its gate, the walls are also the connector of the two sides. To me, the site of the Citadel and its gate seems like both the separator and the connector for Constantinople’s urban and suburban zones, by creating a hybrid area for themselves.
3.2 Yedikule Citadel
After 1453, the Golden Gate and its neighbourhood areas lost their importance as an entrance for militaristic glory ceremonies. Mehmed II ordered the reparations of the walls and building of the Seven Towers, or Yedikule, citadel right after he took over the city and before going to Edirne130. The citadel was built as a star-shaped fortress and was integrated into the city walls and the Golden Gate. Kafescioğlu also remarks that the location was where the sea met the land, so strategically speaking, the fortress was also “a point of defense in a case of assault or internal conflict”131 and
Firuzan Sümertaş’s From Antiquarianism to Urban Archaeology: Transformation of Research on ‘Old’ Istanbul throughout the Nineteenth Century, 293-297.
128 Lynch, The City Image and its Elements, 46.
129 Lynch, The City Image and its Elements, 46.
130 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 22, referenced Kritovoulos. According to Doukas, Decline and fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, 20 it was the winter of 1458.
131 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 24.
41
“housed the royal treasury and also included royal residential quarters for refuge in the event of attack”132.
Figure 7. A close up to Yedikule Citadel in Piri Reis’ Kitab-ı Bahriye133
In the two seventeenth-century depictions of the Yedikule citadel, the enclosed area was also portrayed as a small town, with houses (more in Scarella) and trees (more in Piri Reis). In Francesco Scarella’s artwork, the center of this small community holds a mosque with a minaret, while in Piri Reis’ the most remarkable building of the area has a basilica shape, with a shorter minaret still present aside (Fig.4 & Fig.6). The building with the minaret is probably the one which was featured in Evliya Çelebi as “And inside Seven Towers the mosque of the conquest: An ancient sanctuary.”134, which was built there around the time of the conquest.
132 Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi Palace, 10. In page 53, Necipoğlu also references to Angiolello, a courtier of Mehmed II, about the placement of grand treasury in the fortress. Lastly, Koca-Eğrikavuk references to Doctor in chief in the late 16th century about removal of the treasury at the reign of Murad III, The History of Yedikule and Its Place in Military Architecture, 53.
133 second half of the seventeenth century, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung, Diez A. Foliant 57, fol. 28, quarter b.
134 “Ve Yedikulle içinde Ebü‘l-feth câmi‘i: Ma‘bedgâh-ı kadîmdir.” in Turkish in Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 88a. For more on this masjid, check Semavi Eyice’s “Yedikule Hisarı ve Avlusundaki
42
In the old times, in winter, the needed amount of barley and wheat of the people of the city were put to the storehouses here. Now there are, in the separately built towers, pashas, princes and Tatar khans are kept. Sultan Osman was also murdered here. French lords [bey] and their generals, too, were jailed in Yedikule when they are withheld.135
In his city guide from the seventeenth century, Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan talks of different uses of the Seven Towers. According to him, the towers once served as a place of a warehouse for grains for the city’s people, but not anymore.
Oya Koca-Eğrikavuk also mentions the different functions these towers had hold through the writings and drawings of the contemporary. Seven Towers Citadel, in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, was a place for high profile captives like political figures like statesmen or pashas, as well as foreign captives. Koca-Eğrikavuk gives the example of an Italian prisoner from the seventeenth century, who had given detailed depictions of Yedikule. On his drawings, he marks all seven towers of the citadel with their purposes. In a supportive manner to Eremya’s words on the use of the citadel as a warehouse, this prisoner also refers to some of the towers with the names coming from what they store. According to Koca Eğrikavuk, the Ahmet III Tower was referred to in this depiction as bacon tower (Pastırma Kulesi) and Northeastern tower (A) was written as barley tower (Darı Kulesi). The tower which was inhabited by the prisoners was named ‘Kitabeli Kule’ and according to her, this was due to these kinds of carved marble plates136.
Moving back to the prisoners, one significant (and among the most famous) example Eremya Çelebi gives is Sultan Osman, who was murdered there when he was jailed. Citadel’s use as a prison is reflected on many accounts.
Fatih Mescidi,” in İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yıllığı 10, (1962).
135 “Eski zamanlarda, kışın, şehir halkına yetecek miktarda arpa ve buğday buradaki ambarlara konulurdu. Şimdi ise orada, ayrı ayrı yapılmış olan kulelerde paşalar, sadrazamlar ve Tatar hanları hapsedilir. Sultan Osman da burada katledilmiştir. Frenk beyleri ile generalleri, tevkif edildikleri vakit Yedikule’de hapsedilirler.” In Turkish in Kömürciyan, Istanbul Tarihi, 1-2.
136 Koca-Eğrikavuk, The History of Yedikule and Its Place in Military, 53-54.
43
3.2.1 People of the citadel: the captives and their surveillance
According to Oya Koca-Eğrikavuk, Mehmed II himself was the very first sultan to use the citadel as a prison, with the imprisonment of his grand vizier Mahmud Paşa where he was assassinated in 1474137. The history of the Yedikule citadel is full of fascinating prisoner stories.
In the sixteenth century, a Crimean khan, Mehmed Giray was also put there in prison. Evliya Çelebi tells his attempt to escape with the words of “The day of culus, at the riot, Mehemmed Giray who was jailed in Yedikule, ran away. Later he was found around the village called Pravadi in Rumeli and brought back to Yedikule to be jailed again.”138 in his seventeenth-century travelogue, Seyahatname, when he talks about Yedikule. According to him, Crimean khan had wanted to escape at the time of celebration of culus, a ceremony where money was given to yeniceri soldiers when a sultan gets the throne. He actually gets out in the ruckus, but is captured again and brought back to Yedikule.
In another excerpt from Kömürciyan, where he speaks of a no-name Tatar khan, this time who managed to run away.
At a time when a Tatar khan was imprisoned here, a friend of his bakes him borek to eat. This man puts a rope inside of the borek instead of the filling. After eating the outside of the borek, Tatar khan hides the rope and at night, he ties one side of the rope to the tower and lets the other side hang down. Khan, slides down through the rope and saves himself with the help of his friend, and goes to Khuns’ country.139
The khan escapes through borek, a type of pastry, within a rope hidden and goes
137 Oya Koca-Eğrikavuk, The History of Yedikule and Its Place in Military Architecture, 53.
138 “Tahta cülûs günü ol gulgulede Yedikulle’de mahpûs Mehemmed Geray firâr edüp Rûmelinde Pravadi nâm kasaba kurbünde kayd [ü] bend edüp yine Yedikulle’de habs etdikler” in Turkish in Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 61A.
139 “Vaktiyle bir Tatar hanı burada mahpus bulunduğu sırada, dostlarından birisi ona yemek olarak börek yapar. Bu adam, yaptığı böreğin içine bumbar yerine kâfi uzunlukta bir ip yerleştirir. Tatar han, böreğin dış kısmını yedikten sonra içindeki ipi saklar ve gece, bir ucunu burc’lara bağlayıp diğer ucunu aşağıya sarkıtır. Han, bu ipten aşağıya kayar ve kendisini bekleyen dostunun yardımı ile kurtularak Hun memleketine kapağı atar.” In Kömürciyan, Istanbul Tarihi, 2.
44
back to his country safely according to Kömürciyan. In addition to these escapees, there are some people who were set free by the Sultan. Mühimme defterleri, is a type of recording where the order (ferman) of the Sultan is written down. In one of the Mühimme defteri one captive, the son of another prisoner Mehmed Han, Gazi, is asked to be set free by the Sultan140. In other one, Şemsi Han was released and had sent to Acem vilayeti. The record is about him reaching safely to Kars and in his journey to there, having a guide, carriage horses, wardens, and enough food141.
When it comes to surveillance and the living conditions of the prison, there are a few instances that Yedikule was mentioned in contemporary sources. In Seyahatname, Evliya Çelebi also indicates one “Mahpûslara Yedikulle hammâmı”142 when he lists the bathhouses of the city; where Yedikule bathhouse is exclusive for the captives. Evliya also talks about Yedikule dizdarı, the commander of the Yedikule fortress, who has a special position where he can contact the Sultan without any intermediary.143 In some of the Mühimmes, there are direct orders to dizdar. In an example, there is a complaint about the assigned guards about uncompleted assignments where guards do not sit by the castle but wandering around. The ferman finishes with the removal of these guards and asks for new guards at the vacant places144. One other is about the protection of the rooms of ones assigned with garden work. In this one, these officers are asked to vacate their room in the castle, but their places were protected by this order to dizdar from the Sultan145.
140 3 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 314.
141 85 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 266.
142 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 96b.
143 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, [33B]
144 5 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 200.
145 6 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 224.
45
3.3 Yedikule as an industrial zone
“After the conquest
the conqueror brought all the tanneries and butcher shops here and constructed the site.”146
The extra muros area of Yedikule cannot be considered as a fully commercial area, can be usually called a residential region, but is most probably an industrial zone. The other particular characteristic the area adopted as being a place for slaughterhouses and butchers, with tanneries which are in close proximity to the first two as can be seen at Fig. 8. According to the Fatih vakıf, dated 901 hijri (1495 miladi) the very first slaughterhouses of the city was built here with the order of Mehmed II147.
Figure 8. Distribution of butchers, slaughterhouses, tanners, candle-workshop soap-workshops and bashanes based on the map pub. in Müller-Wiener (1977), produced by Özkoçak148
In many of the imperial decrees or court registers, there are references to these facilities. About the butchers’ shops data used here, Özkoçak uses the pious endowment registers. So, she explicitly states that these shops featured in the map
146 “Ba‘de’l-feth Ebü‘l-feth Gâzî cümle tabbâğları ve sallakhâneleri bunda koyup âbâdân ederler.” in Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 117a.
147 Fatih Mehmed II Vakfıyeleri, 211.
148 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 179.
46
were waqf shops, and there may be additional private shops that are not present here149. Along with the butcher shops and slaughterhouses, usually, tanneries, candle-workshops, soap workshops, tanneries, and oil makers are counted, since the latter group generally take some of their primary materials from slaughterhouses. Özkoçak also remarks a special addition for the tanners’ workshops, where they were “exclusively concentrated on the sea-side” as well as their need for an open area for “tanning yard, used for various treatments of the animal hides”.150 To confirm these facilities transfer to the site, we can look at the archival material. In an arzuhal dated 926 hijri (1520 miladi), the oil makers and candle makers give their complaints about how the butchers do not do their jobs at their assigned places of slaughterhouses but around the city, and how these acts harm their own work. Their assigned place was given to them by Sultan Mehmed II and in the arzuhal the slaughterhouses’ area was depicted as “put together at a place away from the tower” (kuladan taşra bir yere cem’ [idilmiş]).151 The said tower (kula) in discussion is, Yedikule, and the site is at a distance from the towers.
The village is located at the seaside. It has one mosque, seven masjids, one han, one bathhouse, seven public fountains, and three tekkes. There are also three hundred workshops belonging to tanners, fifty glue-workshops, and seventy stringer shops.”152
In his Seyahatname, while narrating the extra muros area of Yedikule, Evliya Çelebi talks about the buildings and other facilities this area has (he especially refers to this site as “neighborhood outside of Yedikule”, kasaba-i haric-i Yedikule). One of the most remarkable attributions about this district is the number of tanneries, which is
149 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 179.
150 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 171-2.
151 TS_MA_E_0759_0038_001_001
152 “Leb-i deryâda kasaba-i ma‘mûredir. Bir câmi‘i ve yedi mescidi ve bir hânı ve bir hammâmı ve yedi sebîli ve üç tekyesi vardır. Ve üç yüz aded Âh-i Evran kârhânesi ya‘nî tabbâğ dükkânı vardır ve elli aded dutkalcı kârhânesi vardır ve leb-i deryâda yetmiş aded kirişci kârhânesi vardır.” In Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 117a.
47
300 according to Evliya, as well as the present 50 glue-maker shops and 70 stringer shops in his time, seventeenth century. These numbers are most probably exaggerated, but it is obvious that the tanneries, glue-makers, and stringer shops were prominent at the site. One important note Özkoçak makes is about the need for water for tanning, which makes tanners’ workshops present around Yedikule, but not in Edirnekapı, which was the other important site for slaughterhouses153. She also mentions the numbers given in the Fatih Vakıf documents, which consisted of 27 tanners’ workshops and 32 butchers after the conquest; and the number of the shops (probably only for the tanners’) increased to 57 in the sixteenth century154.
3.3.1 Slaughterhouses and butchers
If one starts with how the livestock to come to Yedikule, they should start with provisioning officers, celepkeşan155. The officers, celeps, who engage with celepkeşan are particularly important actors in the functioning of slaughterhouses. Evliya presents them as following “Outside of the Yedikule gate, near to the moat, two officials [hisâr-pîçe mâbeyni] gathers all the cattle, sells them to the pasdırma emîni”156 This is significant since this group is one of the main actors in the mobility of the production happening in Yedikule. With the help of celepkeşan, the sheep and muttons had brought to these slaughterhouses. Until the mid-nineteenth century, the slaughterhouses in Constantinople included both state salhanes and private salhanes. In the first group the slaughtering was done by state-assigned butchers and in the
153 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 175.
154 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 172. She references to Fatih Vakfiyesi II, 211 and M. Cevdet 064, 76.
155 For further information on celebkeşan, see Antony Greenwood, Istanbul’s Meat Provisioning: AStudy of Celepkeşan System.
156 “Yedikullekapusunun taşrasında handak kenârında iki hisâr-pîçe mâbeynine cümle sığırları doldurup fürûht edüp pasdırma emîni bâcın alur ve başka basdırma nâ’ibi da‘vâ dinler, kırk gün azîm bâzâr-ı sevr durur.” in Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 169b.
48
second one private butchers157.
For the winter preparation for the people, the cattle and cows are sold here. Bacon is made out of these animals’ meat. The sausage that is made by Armenians is delicious. Greeks do a small amount of it. Especially tongue, which makes great meze to wine. Far away, there are slaughterhouses. Butchers slaughter the animals there at night and distribute them to people in the morning. In the city, there are more than 100 shops which sell beef. Greeks too sell meat in more than 300 shops. The yeniceris are the exempt for this. They have their own butchers, and their part is distributed to them every day at Etmeydanı. The butchers who work for the two palaces are all separated. The wool and leather gathered from slaughtered animals are sent to Frenkistan.158
In Evliya Çelebi’s contemporary, Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan’s İstanbul Tarihi, he gives city-wide numbers for butcher shops and their particularities, like how Rums were included in this shopkeeping business or how yeniçeri soldiers had their own butchers159. He also mentions that the area is not only for production, but people come here to buy meat, too. Eremya Çelebi gives the variety of meats produced here, from bacon, pastırma160, to Armenians’ sausage, sucuk or Rum’s tongue, dil. One very important addition he makes is about international commerce: the wool and leather gathered in these slaughterhouses (and tanneries, probably) are moved to Frenkistan, the country of Frenks or France, according to him.
Evliya also talks about different craftsmen groups including the butchers and gives a detailed narration of their appearance, “There are seventy workshops, two hundred workers, who have their knives in their hands and tilsimans at their belts,
157 Uzun, Istanbul’un Et İhtiyacının Sağlanması: Ondalık Ağnam Uygulaması, 141.
158 “Yedikule’ye yirmi altıncı kapıya vardık. ... Halkın kış ihtiyacı için sığır ve inekler burada satılır. Bu hayvanların etinden pastırma yapılır. Ermenilerin yaptıkları sucuk çok leziz olur. Rumlar bundan az miktarda yaparlar. Hele dil, şaraba ne güzel bir meze’dir. Daha ilerde, salhane’ler vardır. Kasap’lar, hayvanları burada geceleyin keserler ve sabah dükkânlara tevzi ederler. Şehirde, sığır eti satan yüzden fazla dükkân vardır. Rumlar da üçyüz dükkânda koyun eti satarlar. Yeniçeri tayinleri bundan hariçtir. Onların hususî kasap’ları vardır ve tayinleri her gün Etmeydanı’nda kendilerine tevzi edilir. Her iki saray için çalışan kasap’lar ayrıdır. Kesilen hayvanların yünü ve derileri, sayısız balyalarla Frenkistan’a sevkedilir.” Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi 25. About the distribution of the meat produced here, Evliya Çelebi mentions Etmeydanı at 168a too.
159 In 279 numbered register in 82 numaralı Mühimme Defteri an issue regarding a butcher is present. Butcher Şiro is called as hassa kasabı and him selling meat to Matbah-ı Amire (the royal kitchen) and yeniçeri soldiers is exclusively mentioned.
160 “Ve Yedikulle’de pasdırmahâne” also mentioned in Evliya Çelebi’s Seyahatname 153a.
49
with ropes and great silver knives…”.161
The issue about butchers is particularly interesting since the number of butchers is never enough for the city’s meat consumption162. According to the material in the archives, there is always a search or a need for butchers. On many occasions, asking for some butcher to come back to the city is ordered via state’s commands. One example is from Edirne, 1558-1560: It is asked for Edirne kadısı to send back Kaftancı İlyas, who were a butcher in Istanbul163. One other is from 1570-2; this time assigned to be a butcher is used as a punishment. The person in discussion is Türk Osman from Eğirdir, and the order is directed to Eğirdir kadısı. In the order, it is said that Türk Osman is known as a cruel and rich man, so that’s why he was expected to serve as a butcher in Istanbul164.
When it comes to slaughterhouses, their existence around Yedikule is shown, however, the importance of the area, among the slaughterhouse sites around the city is worth underlining. In a state document dated 975 hijri (1568 miladi), there are the sheep numbers that were slaughtered in the several salhanes, slaughterhouses, around the city. The document starts as “These are the sheep slaughtered in the slaughterhouses at Yedikule and Edirnekapısı, and Galata, Kasımpaşa and Uskudar, for the royal kitchens.” (Yedikule’de ve Edirnekapısı salhanelerinde ve Galata’da ve Kasımpaşa’da ve Üsküdar’da ve matbah-ı âmire içün boğazlanan koyundur) and continues with the numbers per year and per month; then separates the amounts for palace kitchen and other places165. It is particularly worth highlighting that, Yedikule
161 “Kârhâne yetmiş, neferât iki yüz, bunlar dahi pür-silâh ellerinde sâtûrları, bellerinde koyun yüzecek tilsimânları ve kemendleri ve iri gümüşlü bıçakları ile arabalar üzre dükkânların yüzülmüş semiz koyunların vücûdların za‘ferânlar ile kınalayup ve koyunların boynuzların varaklayup pür-silâh ubûr ederler,” in Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 168a.
162 For more information on meat consumption in Istanbul, see Antony Greenwood’s Istanbul’s Meat Provisioning: AStudy of Celepkeşan System.
163 3 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 707.
164 12 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 323.
165 D_05638_0001_00_001
50
was recorded as the first salhane, and the only one located in Istanbul of the time with Edirnekapısı. These two salhanes are quite similar in the terms of their locations, where both are located just outside the Theodosian walls. This is actually an occurring occasion since another order regarding a similar situation was issued in 1019 hijri.
In 1019 too, Sultan specifically orders the sheep and cattle not to be slaughtered in the city but at the hisar kapıları. This order is for Yeniçeri ağası and not the kadi this time, so this slaughtering might have been also going on between the yeniçeri butchers and this may be a warning for them too166.
In many sources, they are presented as close to the walls or around the walls. However, in one of the court records, one salhane’s location is specified as “Yedikule kapısı hâricinde olan selhhânede”167; so, evidently these facilities had been located close to the walls but being just outside of them (which can also be observed in Fig.4 and Fig.5). Also, in one register in Mühimme Defteri dated mid-sixteenth century, an order to demolish slaughterhouses other than the ones in Edirnekapı and Yedikule is present, which are both included in Ayasofya-i Kebir Vakfı. This order also includes the candle shops around the slaughterhouses, and according to the order, the reason behind the demolishment is the slowing down of the business in Yedikule and Edirnekapı due to these new shops168.
In another register (973 hijri, 1565-6 miladi), there is an order about providing a salhane exclusive for Jewish population in order to end their slaughtering sheep and cattle in the city169. This is not the only example regarding them; about the Jewish butchers, another order is issued in 1001 hijri directed to
166 Altınay, On altıncı asırda Istanbul hayatı, 45-6.
167 İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı Sicil, 287.
168 82 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 56.
169 5 numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 152.
51
Istanbul kadısı170. In that order, Sultan states that Jewish people of the Empire were exempt from working as a butcher since the time of Mehmed II, which was confirmed with a Muafname. The existing two butchers, who are selling meat to the Jewish population, are one Armenian and one is from Karaman. These two butchers are presumably Christian, and the rules of slaughtering for Christians and Jewish are different from each other171. In line with this thought, and according to the order, Jewish people were asking for Jewish butchers for themselves. It seems like approximately 30 years before the last one Jewish people had their own slaughterhouse but their butchers were not from their society.
3.3.2 Tanners’ shops, soap-makers and candle-makers
There are also other craftsmen occurring on the state documents other than butchers, who also had featured in Fig. 7. Tanners, soap-makers, and candle-makers all use primarily animal products in manufacturing, like leather or animal fat. So, their workshops’ close proximity to slaughterhouses is actually not coincidental.
The three candle-workshops around the slaughterhouse outside of Yedikule gate and one garden and a soap workshop which is located at the same site and which have its limitations with the sea at one side, with the road at another and with the mulk owned by Hacı Mustafa at another and with the mulk owned by Küçük Hasan at the other side.172
In one of the previously mentioned court registers regarding a salhane located outside of the city walls, the register is about a debt trial between a butcher, Kasab Muharrem b. Yunus and his son Hasan with Hızır b. Recep; and at the register, Hızır renounces the debt. The facilities in the talk are much more than only one salhane.
170 Altınay, On altıncı asırda Istanbul hayatı, 11-2.
171 Muslim slaughtering practices show more parallels to Jewish than Christians. So, it is also interesting that they were assigned with Christian butchers and not Muslim ones.
172 “Yedikule kapısı hâricinde olan selhhânede üç mumhâneyi ve bir çayırı ve mevzi‘-i mezkûrda bir tarafı sâhil-i bahr ile ve bir tarafı tarîk-i âm ile ve bir tarafı Hacı Mustafa ve bir tarafı Küçük Hasan mülkü ile mahdûd olan sabunhâne” in İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı sicil, 287.
52
According to the full register, the salhane is also located at the seaside and has three candle-workshop along with it, as well as a soap-workshop nearby. In an order issued in 1013 hijri directed to Istanbul kadısı, reminds the old ferman of Sultan Mehmed II which was issued at the origin of the site.173 This order, likewise the previous ones, couples the candle-workshops and oil workshops with the slaughterhouses in the area. In the order, it says the oils which are in use for making candles, should be given to the candle-makers, and no one else. One interesting point about this decree is, talking about the places candle-makers located as taşra. While in practice, the city seems to overflow to the outside of the walls, in the eyes of the state this area is not part of it but its periphery. In a parallel with this thought, Özkoçak reminds that ordinary people did not do their candle or soap shopping at Yedikule, but only unprocessed and processed beeswax was sold there. According to her, people had probably purchased the end products from their local markets174.
Tanners’ workshops are also in need of other materials for tanning other than the leather gathered from the sheep. Özkoçak states that oak bark, palamud, was one of those materials175. As she also points out, Tahrir Defterleri provides an excellent source for the shops and workshops located at Yedikule, and oak-bark shops are not the exception. In an entry under the waqfiye of Mescid-i Hacı Teberrük, there is one “dükkan-ı palamud der nezd-i Debbağhane der kurb-ı Salhhane176”. While its location is not specified, since the debbağhanes, tanners’ workshops, are exclusively located at Yedikule, it is safe to assume that this shop was around there, too.
These workshops (probably tanneries and oil-makers most) are also infamous
173 Altınay, On altıncı asırda Istanbul hayatı, 29.
174 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 176-7.
175 Özkoçak, The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, 173. According to her notes, oak-bark was usually imported from outside of the city like Rumelia villages or Aegean coastline (about the later she references to Faroqhi 1984a).
176 1546 tarihli İstanbul Tahrir Defteri, entry 1103.
53
for the bad odour they have. According to Evliya Çelebi the smell is affected the whole site: “Ammâ bu kasabanın bed-râyihasından gayrı kimesne bir ân dursa âdem helâk olur. Ammâ anlara ol bed-râyiha müşk [ü] amber gibi kokar.”177 he says, claiming the people of the zone are used to the odour and happy with it, but it was troublesome for the strangers.
3.4 Conclusion
The area of Yedikule is defined by both its physical and social elements. The limitations of the extra muros site are defined by physical separators and connectors like the sea, and the land walls. This surrounded area made it what it was, a place for the city’s prison and a space for its meat supplies. Both of the communities can be considered as connections to the city’s other districts, and even for the Empire’s. The prisoners in the citadel were brought there from even outside of the Empire, making the place an intersection point. In addition, this is also true for the livestock brought here from the Balkans and Anatolia, which was slaughtered in this area, and distributed to various local markets and butcher shops around the city. This way the extra muros site of Koca Mustafa Paşa played and vital role in connecting the capital city to the Empire’s other places; and the slaughterhouses and butchers there played the role of main actors, who had bind Yedikule back to capital city’s other districts.
To conclude, the outside of the walled area was a point of surveillance and security for the palace with its citadel, as well as an industrial hub for many craftsmen and butchers. With this chapter, the thesis concludes the extra muros area of Yedikule and Koca Mustafa Paşa district and moves into intramuros, the residential part of the district, and its inhabitants.
177 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 117a.
54
CHAPTER 4
INHABITANTS OF THE KOCA MUSTAFA PAŞA NAHİYESİ
Ottoman capital of Konstantiniyye consisted of thirteen districts (which was shown in Fig.3 of the second chapter). According to the districts’ order in pious endowment registers (İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defterleri) dated 1546 and 1600, the very first district of Ayasofya included the Topkapı Palace as well as the Hagia Sophia. Following the Divanyolu, the next district is Ali Paşa, then Mahmud Paşa district, Sultan Bayezid district and İbrahim Paşa district. With the Vefa district, these six made up “part of Istanbul’s urban core.”178 The pious foundations donated by Sultan Mehmed II would be located very close to the district of Sultan Selim; these three districts named after the grand viziers were highly populated by commerce people and artisans. While “the highest concentration of settlement throughout the first decades of Ottoman rule in the Constantinople was in the northeastern part of the peninsula,”179 corresponding to the aforementioned districts and much of them including commercial centers, “residential areas were found also along the city’s main arteries and around city gates”180.
The district named after Kapucubaşı Koca Mustafa Pasha is one of those residential districts, located in the southwestern part of the peninsula and closer to the main artier, Divan Yolu. Kapucubaşı Koca Mustafa Pasha was the grand vizier of Sultan Bayezid, and he was the sponsor of the convent and mosque of the namesake of the district.
178 Yérasimos, “Dwellings in Sixteenth-Century Istanbul”, 281.
179 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 184
180 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 184.
55
Inside the walls, Koca Mustafa Paşa district shows an interesting human makeup. In this chapter, this makeup is examined according to first, the Survey of Istanbul 1455; and later previously-mentioned pious endowment records of 1546 and 1600, with complementary information gathered from different contemporary sources like court registers and Muhimme Defterleri, as well as some seventeenth-century sources like Seyahatname of Evliya Çelebi and Istanbul Tarihi of Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan.
4.1 Human makeup of the district according to the Survey of Istanbul 1455
The Survey of Istanbul 1455, which was conducted by Cebe Ali bey with the help of his cousin Tursun Beg, and commissioned by Sultan Mehmet II depicts the exact situation of the city lists of buildings (for Istanbul) and people (for Galata)181. It was listed by quarters, and few of them made up the later Koca Mustafa Paşa district. There may be more but since not all quarters can be matched with later centuries’ names, the safest way is to look for indisputably correct ones: Bab-ı Silivri quarter, Kızlar Manastırı quarter, Kastel Hirise quarter, and Ipsomethya quarter182 are the three which were definitely considered in the Koca Mustafa Paşa district (Fig. 9). In order to get an understanding of the human makeup of the district, these three quarters can be discussed in a more detailed manner.
181 İnalcık, The Survey of Istanbul 1455, 4-9
182 Some of the quarters’ places are marked as incognito terra by İbrahim Canbulat in his article “Fetih Sonrası İstanbul'un İskânı Değişen Şehirli ve Evini 1455-1471 Kaynakları Üzerinden Okumak”, He was also kind enough to share his dataset with me regarding the Survey of Istanbul 1455. However, these two are definitely located around the district later called Koca Mustafa Paşa, due to the listed names of present churches and monasteries.
56
Figure 9. The quarters of Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi in the Survey of Istanbul 1455
If one looks for the general distribution of the population through quarters in figure 10, the distribution is actually not balanced: For example, in Eski Balat quarter, 15 out of 16 houses are empty. However, in Balat II, only 11 of 71 houses were marked as empty. Another quarter, Lips, which is located quite central (geographically) has only 9 out of 25 houses are full. The other one, which is close to the commercial centers, Azeban quarter has also 9 houses full, this time out of 19. Generally speaking, as a whole, the survey depicts an unbalanced portrayal of the city, however without a doubt, the summarized picture is still quite vacant.
Figure 10. Vacant and houses with people who are living in (1455)
57
If we look back to Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi, there is the quarter of Kızlar Manastırı, where the namesake of later district was built onto. This quarter is the smallest one among the three, with only eight houses recorded. Four of them are empty, and among the others, there is one Yorgi, one Pir Katip, and one Ahmed.
Located very close to quarter of Kızlar Manastırı, quarter of Bab-ı Silivri takes its name from the gate. It is a generally deserted area, out of 52 houses only 10 were occupied (Figure 10 and 11). There were one Melek, one Selçuk and one Papa Dhibadhu were listed among the inhabitants, all women and widowed.
Figure 11. Numbers of total houses of the quarters (1455)
Then there is Kastel Hirise quarter; in which 20 houses were recorded, where 12 of them marked as empty which makes more than half of the quarter was deserted. 5 of the owners are called with their names, which shows their ethnicity, Turkish. However, when looked in detail, it can be seen that many of the counted people were marked as “gone away” or “left with permit”. The most permanent figure of the quarter, Çakırcıbaşı Hamza Beg, is given with most of the area, including one of the
58
two churches which were hosted in the quarter. Written in the document as Monastery Istudhyo, St. Stoudios Monastery, the oldest monastery in the Byzantine city, later would become Imrahor mosque and convent is also listed in this quarter. The area of the monastery is recorded as hosting 87 houses (in figure 11 it is shown with the light green polygon) which were all given to Hamza Beg and recorded with no living inhabitants.
Figure 12. Ethnicity of the inhabitants (1455)
Lastly, the case of Ipsomethya is somewhat different: 30 out of 99 houses are empty which are shown in green color in Figure 10. Out of 69 inhabited houses, 53 of the habitants were recorded with their names, so it is possible to look at the quarter’s community’s ethnic fabric or their religious affiliations Fig. 12). 28 of them are Jewish, while 9 of them are Rum. One of the inhabitants was underlined as a priest (papaz) named Çinçar, whose ethnicity is shown with a question mark above since there was no indication of whether he was a Rum or Armenian or Karamanian. The population of the quarter is Jewish-dominated, even though there were some Muslims among
59
them. One very important aspect is, most of these Jewish people were indicated as “came from İzdin”, so it is possible that they were located here. This thought is strengthened with the knowledge of the quarter’s listed buildings have 7 churches and no synagogues, where all of them are marked as unoccupied.
Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi was built upon these three quarters a few decades later.
4.2 Human makeup of the district according to sources dated later than 1455
The 1546 and 1600 waqf registers postdate the city survey. The waqfiyya foundations held economic, social, and urban significance in the city, as they were “both in the form of individually functioning units and as separate parts of a basic single institutional system,”183 such that the reflections of the transforming social and political structure would be potentially mirrored in the chronological progression of the records. Such documents hold utmost importance in investigating the district and simultaneously the Khalwati network since the waqf documents are also an important part of the lodges and mosques’ income (which will the focus of the next chapter).
In the pious endowment registers, Constantinople is divided into thirteen districts (nahiyes) and 226 neighborhoods (mahalles). A comprehensive study184 made in Japan from 2008 to 2012 by Masashi Marito shows the general characteristics of the documents and the city’s evolution in a detailed manner. With an umbrella title of “Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty,” he discusses the records of the pious endowment registers in four (continuous) articles. The series gives an overview of the registers in the terms of their main properties, and the donations’ evolution in the city from 1546 to 1600 in the
183 Deguilhem, “Waqf: In the Ottoman Empire” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill vol. 11, 88.
184 Masashi, “Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty”.
60
categories of religious, residential, and commercial facilities. Masashi and Shiro note that in the Waqf system that has been widely practiced in the Islamic world, donation of “movables”, especially cash, as a waqf has been pointed out as a phenomenon peculiar to the Ottoman dynasty185 (This phenomenon of cash waqf is a high debated topic in the sixteenth century and it will be discussed in detail in next chapter.) According to registers, in the register dated 1546, movable waqf accounts for about half of the total. However, at the end of the 16th century, it decreased immensely. Later, Masashi and Shiro break down their data into nahiyes and show the increased rate of the donation numbers. The rates underline the huge bloom in Nahiye-i Cami’-i Davud Paşa and Nahiye-i Cami’-i Mustafa Paşa el-Merhum. Both of these two nahiyes are very close to city walls and evolved in numbers much greater than any other “central” ones. Nahiye-i Cami’-i Sultan Bayezid Han and Nahiye-i Cami’-i Hazret-i Ebü’l-Vefâ, for example, mark the commercial areas of the city, and already hosted a great number of waqfs in 1546, yet did not witness a similar expansion like the ones closer to outer walls.
It is known that while “the highest concentration of settlement throughout the first decades of Ottoman rule in Constantinople was in the northeastern part of the peninsula”, corresponding to the districts like the Ayasofya, which included the palace and the commercial center, “residential areas were found also along the city’s main arteries and around city gates”186. Masashi’s study supports this thesis, by mapping out the change in the stores and residential areas from 1546 and 1600.
185 Masashi, Shiro “Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty II”, 481.
186 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 184.
61
Figure 13a. Stores in 1546 registers (total), 1600 registers (total) and 1600 registers (the new ones since 1546)187
Figure 13b. Residential facilities in 1546 registers, 1600 registers (total) and 1600 registers (the new ones since 1546)188
The nahiye of our interest as it was mentioned before, named after Kapucubaşı Koca Mustafa Pasha, has characteristics of a residential district and is situated at the peninsula’s southwestern corner which can be seen in Fig. 13a&b. It is less dense than the other districts in comparison, both for residences and stores.
187 Masashi and Shiro “Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty II”, 483
188 Masashi and Shiro “Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty II,” 483.
62
Table 1. The Waqf Registers’ Numbers of Koca Mustafa Paşa District Presented in 1546 & 1600 Registers, Names Are Written According to Register Dated 1600189
If we analyze the neighborhoods of the Koca Mustafa Paşa district one by one, there is no consistency at increase or decrease of the waqf donations. While neighborhoods like Mescid-i Sancaktar Hayreddin or Abdî Çelebi had a great increase in donation numbers, Yedikule or Mescid-i Canbaz Mustafa beg neighborhoods showed a decrease. If we cross-reference these numbers with residential maps, this increase can be explained by new settlements in some of the neighborhoods, but the decreases are less easy to explain.
189 Since there was no record belong to “Mescid-i Kapucı Karagöz der kurb-i Bâb-ı Silivri” in 1600, the name
is written according to 1546.
Name of the neighbourhood# of waqf (1546)# of waqf (1600)Cami'-i el-merhûm Mustafa Paşa el-mağfûr815Mescid-i Hâcı Hatun49Mescid-i Cânbâz Mustafa Beg 1210Mescid-i Kavak917Mescid-i Gülciyân nâm-ı diğer Çerâkcı ve Hasan Paşa 817Cami'-i el-merhûm İlyâs Beg bin 'Abdullâh eş-şehîr bi-Koca Emîr-i âhûr88Mescid-i Ahmed Dede el-Ma'rûf bi-Mahalle-i Hâcı Hüseyin414Arab Tâsceddîn103Mescid-i Mirzâ Baba??Mescid-i Muslihuddin-i Kâtib-i Bevvâbîn22Mescid-i Sancakdâr Hayreddîn323Mescid-i 'Arabacı Bâyezîd411Mescid-i Kapucı Karagöz der kurb-i Bâb-ı Silivri 1?Zincci Kemâl31Mescid-i Aydın Kethüdâ [bin 'Abdullâh] 43Mescid-i Hâce Muhyiddîn [bin el-Hâc Bayram]511Mescid-i Üstad 'Ali eş-şehîr bi-'Acem 'Alisi54Mescid-i Tersîsli56Mescid-i Hâcı Evliyâ 86Yazıcı Murâd37Melek Hatun 31Mescid-i Simkeş Hâcı37Mescid-i Yûsuf Fakîh74Mescid-i Çavuş Hâcı İbrâhîm 23Mescid-i Koruk Mahmûd 25Cami'-i Seyyid 'Ömer 113Abdî Çelebi118Bab-ı İstemad22Yedikule107137227total #
63
As it was stated, in the maps of this chapter, not only the endowment givers are mapped out, but also their neighbors, which makes the map a collection of mulk holders who were present in 1546 and 1600 registers.
Figure 14a. quarters of people represented in 1546 pious endowment registers190
Figure 14b. Quarters of people represented in 1600 pious endowment registers191
190 The locations of the quarters are decided according to their namesake buildings, with references to Barkan’s notes on his translation of 1546 İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri. The borders of the quarters can not be decided, so they are not specified. The locations placed on the map are definite or true, but merely there to give a vague idea of the quarters’ placement in the district. There are three quarters which their placement should be detailed: For Mahalle-i Mescid-i Muslihuddin Katib-i Bevvabin, Barkan says it was located between Silivrikapı and Davud paşa (379), so an approximate placement was made here. For, Mahalle-i Mescid-i Zehgirci Kemal, Çiğdem Gürsoy states that the masjid was transformed to Uzun Yusuf Mescidi, so it was used as a place-signifier for the quarter (180). Lastly, for Mahalle-i Gülciyan, Barkan states that there is a small possibility that the masjid in question may be Lalezar Mescidi, so that possibility is taken in this study (374).
There are still some quarters which are not present in the maps since there is no clue of knowledge of their places. These quarters are; Mahalle-i Arab Tacüddin, Mahalle-i Mescid-i Hace Muhyiddin Bin'ül-Hac Bayram and Mahalle-i Bab-ı İstemad. So, the people of those quarters were not included in the map, yet they will be referenced in the paper if needed.
191 See the previous reference.
64
The first remark which can be made by just looking at two maps, is the increase of the markings, people. (These markings are not sensitive to the locations of waqfs, but only categorize the mulk holders according to the quarters they are presented in.) As it was stated before, the number of waqfs already increased from 1546 to 1600; from 137 waqfs in total to 227 waqfs. However, the maps show a greater increase. This is due to the change in the nature of the endowed goods. In 1546, the cash waqfs, nakdiye, seem to dominate the registers (which will be shown explicitly in the next chapter). This type of endowment does not require to specify a location, and hence any neighbor. However, in 1600 registers, the cash waqfs are all gone and left their places to mulks. Those mulks are usually narrated with their neighbor’s mulks which act as borders of endowments and adds a lot of new people to the registers. The reason behind taking this kind of an approach is, to be able to convey a picture that is closer to reality.
Just like the Survey of Istanbul 1455, the pious endowment records of 1546 and 1600 too, give more than just endowment lists. Since they are organized in a way that includes the waqf owners, they can be used to pursue a human makeup of the parts of the city in 1546 and 1600. As a rule of waqf system, these endowments live on after their endower’s death, so many of 1546 endowers may also appear in 1600 (but not all of them, is shown in Fig.15). In order to look at this makeup in detail, in addition to the endowers, the names of the border neighbors of the waqf (i.e. mahdud Kadem ve Mahmud el-Mimar mülkleri192) mulks will be included.
192 İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 1009-(1600), 605.
65
Figure 15. Comparison of records of mulk-owners between the 1600 and 1546 registers193
In 1546 (figure 16a), it can be observed that, other than the quarters located at the northmost of the district (mahalle-i mescid-i Melek Hatun and mahalle-i mescid-i Hacı Evliya), all quarters were dominated by male representatives. However, in 1600 (figure 16b), many of the quarters seem divided evenly in the terms of male and female mulk owners, and surprisingly, the previously female-dominated quarters became male-dominated.
193 All the locations used in these maps are coincidental. While the places of some quarters are known (and they are placed accordingly), there is no way to know exact locations of people’s mulk.
66
Figure 16a. Gender distribution of the mulk holders according to 1546 pious endowment registers
Figure 16b. Gender distribution of the mulk holders according to 1600 pious endowment registers
There is one specific reason behind including the neighbor mulk holders; to make sure that whether the non-Muslim population can be pursued through these
67
documents. In the register from 1600, this is a little bit observable as it can be seen
in Fig. 17.
Figure 17. the religion of the mulk holders according to 1600 pious endowment registers
In the register, there are a couple of Nasrani people, which are specified with their religion. However, some non-Muslim names without references to their ethnicity or religious identity are also present. One outlier case is “Daği Bulgar”, with no other information about them, so their religious identity is up to interpretation. The distribution of non-Muslims and Nasranis are sometimes localized, like the two non-Muslims from Mahalle-i Camii-i Mirahur İlyas Beğ, or two Nasranis which were located in Mahalle-i Mescid-i Seyyid Omer. The examples are very precise, yet they exist.
One specific example can be made about these kinds of neighbors. Almost all
68
the hanes have muhavvata, (which too cannot be observed from the maps, since the types of mulks are not presented). Muhavvata is a courtyard or a garden of sorts, whose approximate borders are described or narrated with respect to the neighboring houses and gardens. This reveals further illuminating information about the community living in the quarter, as it was mentioned before. “Bordered with the properties of Sinan Beg and the properties of Yanko veled-i Isteban and part of the street,”194 the borders of a muhavvata of Devlethan bin Hacı Bali, in one entry is defined, showing the proximity of the properties of the son of a hadji, a respected beg and a non-Muslim. Therefore, while these registers consist of pious endowment records of the Muslim population, the information they contain regarding properties that bordered the endowments also provide some insights about non-Muslim inhabitants of the quarter, even though they are very small in numbers and the registers are highly dominated by the Muslim population since it is a pious endowment register. There is also one last remark that should be made about this issue. In the registers, even though some people had mulks in quarters that are dominated by non-Muslims, like Sulu Manastır, those quarters are not visible in the titles or list headings but can be followed only from mulk locations195.
In other sources regarding Istanbul in the next (seventeenth) century, to this area was highlighted as a place popular among non-Muslims. In Kömürciyan’s İstanbul Tarihi, as an Armenian he evaluates the churches in the area as the following:
There are six-seven churches of Greeks [Rum] in Samatya. Since it appears on the great route of the city, there are many beautiful places with gardens. There are also Armenians with more than a thousand houses present. The great Surp Kevork Church which is also called Sulumanastır and Balıklı holy spring is located here. Its mihrab with golden tinted portrayals is still catching the eyes of the visitors. The Armenian Patriarchate which was surrounded by a garden and located near to the sea was once here. This church was taken from the Greeks and given to us by the great Sultan Suleyman.196
194 “mahdud tarafeynden Sinan Beg mülki ve Yanko veled Isteban mülki ve tarik-i ‘alime” is stated Canatar, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 1009-(1600), 617.
195 Barkan, 1546 Tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 366.
196 “Samatya’da Rumların altı yedi kilisesi vardır’. Şehrin büyük güzergâhı üzerinde bulunduğundan
69
About the Rum population of the city, Mantran states that they mostly lived around the area between Kumkapanı and Samatya (and Balat-Cibali area, close to their patriarchate in the seventeenth century). He claims that the number of Orthodox churches in the area was six or seven out of total thirty in the city, and for him, even this is enough to prove their density in these areas, as well as the inclusion of Sulu Manastır in this area, which hosted the patriarchate ‘till 1641197.
One last remark should be made about what does not appear in the registers, thus cannot be observed in the presented maps; information about the marital status of the many. According to seventeenth century’s Evliya Çelebi, the area of Yedikule, which is included in the district of Koca Mustafa Paşa was usually inhabited by the single people: “Ammâ müteehhil mahallesi azdır, cümle mücerredân bâzârıdır. Hîn-i ma‘rekede beş bin tüvânâ tabbâğ bekârı şehbâzları çıkar kim her biri birer Ahi Evran’a benzerdir.”198
4.3 The legal transactions in and between the neighbourhoods
In the court records from sixteenth-century Istanbul, the visibility of the community living in Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi is notable. For the court records, two instances from Mirahur mahallesi can be exemplified. The first one is about an owed payment of a dead inhabitant and how the payees, Kaliyo v. Yorgi199 and Tanrivermiş v. İlya200, got their money from the guardian of Yani v. Dimenako’s daughter, Fotoni. In the more curious second instance, the wife of Yani v. Dimenako, İstemade bt.
dolayı Samatya’da pek güzel bahçeli mevkiler mevcuttur. Bu taraflarda bin haneden fazla Ermeni bulunmaktadır. Sulumanastır denilen muhteşem Surp Kevork Kilisesi ve Balıklı ayazması buradadır. Onun yaldızlı resimleri ile mihrabı hâlâ göze çarpmaktadır. Denize nazır bahçelerle çevrili Ermeni Piskoposluk makamı önce burada idi. Bu kilise, hünkâr Sultan Süleyman tarafından Rumların elinden alınıp bize verilmiştir”. In Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi, 2.
197 Mantran, Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du xviie siècle, 49-53.
198 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 117a.
199 İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 75.
200 İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 76.
70
Karagöz201 is the payee, and she gets her money from the guardian of her daughter. While there are no indications about what the debts are for, it seems like Yani was indebted to Kaliyo and Tanrivermiş three thousand akçe each, and one thousand to his wife İstemade. The other register is about Todorov v. Nikola’s renunciation (tefviz) of an endowed field (which was under his use) to Hacı Seydi b. Yusuf202. In this one, Todorov is from Mirahur but Hacı Seydi b. Yusuf is from Arabacı Bayezid quarter. In exchange for the field, Todorov obtains two thousand seven hundred forty akçe for rayiç. In the first entry, the transaction takes place between people subscribed to the same religion. Papa Konstantiniyoz v. Kiryakoz acts as Fotoni’s guardian, and they all deal with their problem without any other witnesses. In the second one, the exchange of the field happens between a Christian and a Muslim, and there are five other witnesses, who are all Muslim. Here, both men’s living quarters are stated clearly, in contrast to the first one, where the payees’ neighborhood affiliations were not mentioned. However, in the second case, the instance of a legal exchange between two nearby but disparate quarters is witnessed.
The quarters of Koca Mustafa Paşa district are detectable in the state archives too. Many house sellings in the district, like in mahalle-i mescid-i Aydın Kethüda203 or mahalle-i mescid-i Hacı Evhad204. The ethnicity and gender of the mulks’ owners would also vary like Ümmi bint-i Hüseyin from El-Hac Ilyas mahallesi205, or Kaya ve Ellez veledi Hazarbali from Mirahur mahallesi206.
201 İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 76.
202 “Todoro v. Nikola’nın tasarrufundaki vakıf tarlayı Hacı Seydî b. Yusuf’a tefvîz ettiği” in İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 171.
203 TS_MA_E_1238_0066_001_001
204 TS_MA_E_1274_0106_001_001
205 TS_MA_E_1257_0077_001_001.
206 TS_MA_E_1251_0005_001_001.
71
4.4 The daily life in the district and its neighbourhoods
Other than legal transactions, the court registers and mühimmes may also shed light on daily life in Koca Mustafa Paşa district. For example, in one of the registers, the main object of a disagreement (which ends with sides coming to an agreement to sell the shop to a waqf207) about the ownership of a sütçü dükkanı, a shop which sells milk208. In another example, we see an exchange of ownership of a house which described as “ great house of two rooms, there is also a stable, two selamlık, a well, a furnace and a courtyard with trees with and without fruits” (fevkānî iki bâb ev, evlerin altında ahır, iki selâmlık, su kuyusu, fırın ve içinde meyveli ve meyvesiz ağaçlar bulunan avluyu hâvî).209 This description underlines the adjoint facilities and other mulk that comes with the two-roomed house, which includes a staple, a well, a stove, and a courtyard with trees of sorts. Another similar example shows a different kind of a house, “on side has the sea and three other sides are limited by the roads, the house has four floors and a stable, a furnace, cüneyne and a toilet apart from the house” (bir tarafı deryâya ve üç tarafı tarîk-i âma müntehî olup üç beyt-i süflîyi ve bir gurfeyi altında ahırı ile ve bir fırını ve cüneyneyi ve kenîfi müştemil olan mülk)210, in which the borders of the four-storied house is defined by the sea and the roads.
There are also references to the people of the district in these documents. One register is dedicated to two people, who are co-owners of a milk-shop in the Mustafa Paşa Çarşısı211. There is another record which mentions a butcher who is a member of again Mustafa Paşa Çarşısı, the central-local market of the quarter, for example212.
207 İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 429.
208 İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 419.
209 İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 459.
210 İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 61.
211 İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 419.
212 İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil, 402.
72
In the contemporary sources like Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan, Koca Mustafa Paşa district comes into the front a couple of times. One of them is about the local bazaars:
In the great cities too, in various bazaars and two bedestans and small local bazaars in different neighborhoods, there is commerce. I am listing the places these bazaars are set: On Friday, in addition to the bazaar set here, the second one is present in Edirnekapı. The third bazaar set on the same day is at Mustafapaşa located close to Sulumanastır.213
Local bazaars show importance as places which allow gathering of different people, as well as providing a center of shopping for neighborhood inhabitants. According to Kömürciyan, the bazaar of Koca Mustafa Paşa was happening on Fridays. Fridays host two other local markets too, yet all three are at the very different sides of the city, and probably did not interfere with the other two’s clients.
About the different groups living in the district, there are some whom Evliya Çelebi is not very fond of:
Jugglers, musicians, comedians / / sixth, the Zümürrüd branch: 300 drunk gathered with children out of wedlock from Yedikulle, Nârlıkapu and Sulu Manastır Greeks and Armenians and the slaves of the city to establish this branch. However, gum [sakız] lover Dimitraki with fair hair and eyes like gazelle from the dancers and Lefteraki and Yanaki and Mihaylaki called Greeks who had took over the properties of many people. They are talented in demonstrating simitci and harâccı and yuvacı and silver-seeking imitations and reciting Greek poems.214
This time he does not only discuss the inhabitants of Yedikule, but other neighboring quarters in Koca Mustafa district, like Sulu Manastır. When he talks about the
213 “Büyük şehirde de, çeşitli çarşılarla iki bezestan’dan maada muhtelif semtlerde kurulan pazarlarda alım-satım yapılır. Bu pazarların, kuruldukları mıntakaları ile sıralıyorum; Cuma günleri kurulan pazarların birincisini buradakini sayarsak, İkincisi Edirnekapıdakidir. Aynı günde kurulan üçüncü pazar, Sulumanastır’ın yakınında Mustafapaşa’da, altıncısı da Kasımpaşa’da kurulur.” Kömürciyan, İstanbul Tarihi, 48.
214 “Esnâf-ı lu‘bedebâzân [u] sâzendegân [u] mudhikân / / Altıncı, Zümürrüd kolu: 300 nebtîz, Yedikulle ve Nârlıkapu ve Sulu Manastır veled-i zinâ Urumları ve Ermenîleri ve şehir gulâmları cem‘ olup bir kol olmuşlardır. Ammâ rakkâslarından Sakız mahbûbu, kırma saçlı çeşm-i gazâli mükehhal Dimitraki ve Lefteraki ve Yanaki ve Mihaylaki nâm Urum muğpîçeleridir kim şehr-i İslâmbol içre velvele-âra olup niçe âdemin mâl [u] menâlin yiyüp bir bûryâ üzre komuşlardır. Bunlar Urumlara müte‘allik simitci ve harâccı ve yuvacı ve gümüş arayıcı taklîdlerinde ve Urum murabba‘âtları okumada mâhirlerdir.” in Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 209a.
73
musicians and other performers other than the ones related to the military, his tone changes. Unlike the previous, this group consists of non-Muslims; Rums, Armenian and city slaves; rather a heterodox group, one can observe. About Rums of the district, other than being musician and performer, he also claims that there were people among them who are good at making simid, a kind of bread with sesame; at hunting and worked in bringing wild birds to the palace (yuvacı), some who seeks silver.
4.5 Conclusion
In the fourth chapter, the main focus becomes the intramuros area of Koca Mustafa Paşa district. This part of the study is dedicated to the human makeup of the district, and the glimpses of those people’s lives which were followed from both state-authored documents and personal recordings. The human makeup was evaluated from the sources of 1455 City Survey, 1546 Tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri and 1600 Tarihli İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri. In order to utilize them as much as possible, the tools of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were used. The outcomes of those sources are tried to be supported by other contemporary documents. One very important group who features in this part of the city, Khalwati dervishes, were not discussed at all, since they will be studied in a detailed manner at the next and last chapter of this research, again with references to Tahrir Defterleri, this time with the inclusion of endowments.
74
CHAPTER 5
A NETWORK IN THE CITY WITH A CENTER IN KOCA
MUSTAFA PASA NAHİYESİ: KHALWATİYA ORDER
This last chapter of the thesis is focusing on the Khalwati dervishes and their actions in the Koca Mustafa Paşa district. Choosing this tariqa was decided through their strong presence in the sixteenth century capital, and of course because of the district’s namesake mosque Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque, and convent was given to one wide spread branch of Khalwatis, Sumbuliye. By using the Khalwati tariqa, which has a grand web around the city, the main aim was to show a network which could easily overcome all the borders which was discussed in the earlier chapters. In order to do so, this network is paralleled by the waqf network, which worked as a great monetary network. These two networks had their intersections, which brought out even a better picture of joints and connections over the boundaries.
5.1 Khalwatiya’s arrival to the capital city
In the last decades of the fifteenth century, with the crowning of Sultan Bayezid II after the death of his father Sultan Mehmed II, Çelebi Halife from Amasya was one of the moving powers who supported Bayezid II in his rivalry with his brother Cem. When Bayezid II got to the capital, he was invited to the city by the new Sultan. With their settlement in the city, the monastery of St. Andrea in Krisei was converted to a mosque and convent, founded by Bayezid II’s grand vizier Koca Mustafa Paşa, and given to Çelebi Halife, which became the central lodge (asitane) of the Sumbuliya
75
branch of the Khalwati tariqa in Constantinople.215
Figure 18. Khalwati lodges in Constantinople in the 16th century
Also known as Çelebi Halife, Cemaleddin el-Halveti was born in Aksaray. His pir was Monla Pir-i Ahmed-i Erzincani.216 Before coming to Istanbul, he was a
215Karataş. “The Ottomanization of the Halveti Sufi Order”. 1-2. For further information on tariqa’s history before Istanbul, consult: Karataş, H. The City as a Historical Actor: The Urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, 2011.
216 Mustafa Ali, Künhü'l-Ahbar, 245-248.
76
sheikh in Amasya. His support to Prince Bayezid at the time of conflict brought him the ticket to Istanbul. It was obvious that he knew the politics; according to Curry, his family was one of the influential families of Anatolia and included the future sheikh al-Islam Zenbilli Ali Efendi and Sultan Selim I’s vizier Piri Pasa. John Curry also suggests that Cemaleddin el-Halveti too, “might have been pursuing a career in jurisprudence in the earlier stages of his life.”217 One way or other, after their meeting in Amasya, when he became Sultan, Bayezid asked him to come to the capital as a spiritual guide.
This marks the commencement of the transformation of the Ottoman Khalwatiyya into a network centered in Istanbul. The crucial step in the process of the institutionalization of a Sufi order was the propagation of a sheikh’s teaching to a larger community of his disciples. Convents were thus connected by spiritual kinship and shared ritual; they were considered akin to each other in the sense that, at some point in their spiritual lineage, their current or previous shaykhs were pir-daş, or disciples of the same sheikh. In sixteenth-century Istanbul and the Balkans, the network of Khalwati convents, attached to each other by their sheikhs’ spiritual lineage reaching back to Çelebi Halife, was particularly influential.218 This was the beginning of the flourishing of their lodges in the city, as well as their city- and empire-wide influence.
After their establishment in Constantinople, Khalwatiyya expanded their network city-wide. From the end of the fifteenth century till 1600, they established themselves in thirty-four lodges. Cemal el-Halveti’s lodge, Sünbül Efendi Tekkesi, was the earliest of them, founded in 1486. It is apparent from Figure 19 that the earliest Khalwati convents were founded almost parallel to the main arteries of the
217 Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought, 66.
218 Yürekli. “A Building Between the Public and Private Realms of Ottoman Elite,” 170.
77
city.219 Even though there were exceptions, usually, the ones that are farther from the commercial and residential centers are built later.220 After Cemal el-Halveti and his followers settled in the city, first they were given a mosque and convent.
Figure 19. Khalwatiyya lodges in Constantinople with their foundation dates221
The Khalwati convent built into the mosque of Koca Mustafa Paşa, which was converted from the Byzantine monastery of St. Andrea in Krisei, became the asitane of the Khalwati tariqa in the capital. Kapucıbaşı Koca Mustafa Pasha who also became the grand vizier of Sultan Bayezid II, was the “founder” of the mosque, and him being a patron in the conquered city also showed how the patronage web
219 Some of these buildings were converted to convents before than the initiated date, however the dates present in the map is their conversion to specifically a Khalwati convent.
220 One convent that could not fit into this map was Durmuş Dede Tekkesi, which is located at Rumelihisarı, seaside. Since the map did not cover that part of the city, it was not visible but worth to mention; it was founded in 1528 according to Fatih Köse in İstanbul Halveti Tekkeleri.
221 Data used in creating the map is extracted from three different sources: Istanbul Hankahları Meşayihi (1995), İstanbul Halveti Tekkeleri (2012), and XVI. Yüzyılda İstanbul’daki Halveti Tekkeleri (2015). To minimize the mistakes, the lodge lists from the three sources are cross-referenced with each other. If the lodge is listed in at least two of them, they are included in the map. The lodges only referred in one, Hacı Kadın Halveti Tekkesi (Mihrişah Hatun Zaviyesi), Akbıyık Muhyiddin Efendi Halveti Dergahı and Aydınoğlu (Saçlı Emir) Tekkesi were excluded. A more detailed map with names of the lodges is also attached to Appendix.
78
was widening after the time of Mehmed II, as well as the tariqa’s close links to the court. The convent gained its well-known name of Sünbül Efendi after its second sheikh222, Seyh Yusuf Sinan Efendi, is recognised as Sünbül Efendi. After him, his branch of the Khalwatiya was named Sümbüliye.
In order for one to endow a piece of land or a building as a waqf, one must first own that land or building. After the conquest of Constantinople, with the words “The stones and the land of the city and its appurtenances belongs to me” Mehmed II had claimed any piece of land and any building on it as state property.223 This would mean that any land that must have been given to any man to build onto, was given with the permission of the Sultan. While this occurred less in the reign of Mehmed II, it seems that land grants were happening more often during the reign of Bayezid II. One of these examples was the permissions given to Hacı Muslihüddin, who acted as the overseer of the Koca Mustafa Paşa foundation. He was given permission “to build a double bath and a sheep’s-head shop in the vicinity of İsa Kapu ‘wherever he may choose”224 in addition to “build shops, as many as he wanted, on his property as well as state-owned land.”225
222 “Seccade-i irşad, Sünbül Efendi’ye teslim olınmak buyrıldı.” Says Gelibolulu, in his book Künhü’l Ahbar, pp. 245-248
223 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 188. The quote was taken from Tacizade Ca’fer Çelebi and quoted also by Halil Inalcık in his article “The Policy of Mehmed II”.
224 The sheep-head shop is worth to underline, since it becomes a repeating theme regarding this district and Khalweti sheikhs there.
225 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 190.
79
5.2 The two lodges
Figure 20. lodge for one tariqa or more
Most of the lodges which are shown in Figure 18 were hosted the Khalwati dervishes from their foundation till they stop all together acting as a lodge. However, as it can be seen in Figure 20, there are a couple of them which were actively Khalwati lodges in our intended time frame (till the year 1600), yet later were changed to host different orders.
In order to understand the order’s presence in the city, and more importantly to see Khalwati dervishes’ attendance in Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi, we shall look into their places and their activities in the nahiye. The chosen two Khalwati lodges in this chapter, Koca Mustafa Paşa convent (or Sümbül Efendi tekkesi) and Mirahur (İmrahor) zaviyesi, are among the earlier conversions from monasteries to mosques with convents, located in Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi. Both of these lodges were active for many centuries, and it was recorded there were thirty seven dervishes living in the previous and twenty five in the later226.
5.2.1 St. Stoudios to İmrahor İlyas Beg convent
Before becoming Yedikule, this area hosted the oldest Byzantine monastery, St.
226 Özcan, XIX. Yüzyıl İstanbul Tekkeleri ve Mekânsal Konumlanışları, 144-145.
80
Stoudios. St. Stoudios Monastery, whose church was dedicated to St. John the Baptist, is located at the southwestern corner of the peninsula, near to the Golden Gate and Narlıkapı, by the Theodosian walls. While the foundation date of the monastery is not exactly known, it was quoted in Van Millingen’s Byzantine Churches in Constantinople that, “according to the historian Theophanes, the church [St. Studious] was erected in the year 463 by the patrician Studius, after whom the church and the monastery attached to it were named.” The lands of the monastery were first occupied by the Akoimeti, 'the sleepless monks’, but it seems like this tradition was left later. 227 This was narrated in Pierre Gilles book as followed:
The following Account is given of Studius by Nicephorus, in his 15ᵗʰ Book, Chap. 25ᵗʰ of his Eccles. Hist. An eminent Citizen of Rome, says he, nam’d Studius, came from thence to Constantinople, where he built a Church to the Memory of St. John Baptist, and that divine Service might be celebrated there with more Decency and Solemnity, he took some Monks out of the Monastery of the Ἀκοίμητοι, who were so call’d, because some of them were always waking to attend divine Worship. The heavenly-minded Marcellinus built them a Monastery, in which they continually sang Hymns to God, their Society being divided into three Tribes for that Purpose.228
According to Nicephorus, the church was first built for St. John the Baptist and then the monastery was founded later.
Figure 21. The map of Constantinople, Byzantine Empire (1422) by Florentine cartographer, Cristoforo Buondelmonti229
227 Van Millingen et. al, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: their History and Architecture, 36-37.
228 Gilles, Antiquities, 60-61.
229 From University of Michigan, Special Collections Library, retrieved from https://www.lib.umich.edu/online-exhibits/exhibits/show/translating-homer--from-papyri/homer-and-constantinople
81
Figure 22. (a) Hagia Sophia and (b) Monastery of St. Stoudios cropped from Fig 21
In the fifteenth century, Cristoforao Buondelmonti created the map in Figure 21 to describe Constantinople in his book, Liber insularum Archipielagi. In this map of Constantinople, it can be seen that the church of the monastery is depicted as a basilica, and not as a domed building, which was usually a feature of the church architecture of Constantinople, as the church of Holy Apostles and the church of St. Sophia. Even though the exact date is not known, the monastery was built in the fifth century. Thus, the basilica structure may reflect the earlier features of the buildings in the city, since it is known that St. Sophia too was once built as a basilica but had to be rebuilt with a dome later.230
Figure 23. Plan of St. Stoudios Monastery according to Ebersolt231
230 It is known that the very first form of St. Sophia was also a basilica, a timber-rooted one (according to John Freely and Ahmet Çakmak, Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul, Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge: 2004), pp, 37) and was built in 4th century. It was rebuilt (after the fires) as a domed building under Justinian’s reign in 6th century.
231 Matthews, Byzantine Churches of Istanbul, 146.
82
After the Latin invasion of the city, in 1261, when the city was recaptured, Micheal 8th Palaiologan entered the city from the Golden Gate and stopped at the Stoudios monastery; restoring the monastery could have been in his future plans. According to Gregoras the roof of the monastery had fallen, the cells of the monks had disappeared, and sheep grazed undisturbed on the grass which covered the grounds232. The monastery of St. Stoudios, later, had to be repaired in the year 1290, under the reign of Andronicus II., by Constantine Porphyrogenitus233. As a result, by the end of the fourteenth century, St. Studios was once again the most honored monastery in the city.234 The new roof of the church was described by Stephen of Novgorod, a Russian pilgrim who had visited the monastery in 1350. Stephen had stated that “the church is very large and high, covered with a slanted roof. The icons in it are highly decorated with gold and shine like the sun.”235
Like the other monasteries in the city in its functioning times, St. Stoudios monastery was used by both the monks and the society. In fact, it was a very important place as a sanctuary and as a stop on the pilgrimage route.
The monastery of St. Stoudios was tried to be used by a former Byzantine emperor, Michael the 5th in the eleventh century (1041) as a sanctuary. It was probably thought of as a safe space for the former emperor and his uncle; however, they were captured in the end. According to Gilles, Cedrimus narrates this occurrence as follows: “They dragged, says he, Michael the Emperor in his Monks Habit, by the Heels, out of the Monastery of Studius, through the Market, and leading him beyond the Monastery called Periblepton, in a Place called Sigma, they put out both his
232 Gregoras was referenced in Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches, 38)
233 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches, 38.
234 Thomas and Constantinides, Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, 69.
235 Stephen of Novgorod, pg 123 in Majeska’s Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fortheenth and Fifteenth Centuries. (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1984)
83
Eyes.”236 The event was, without a doubt, memorable in the eyes of society and its historians.
One other aspect of the monastery was that it had an important collection of relics. The body of Theodore was preserved in the lands of the monastery (which was moved here from his first burial place in Prinkipo237, today’s Büyükada) as well as the head of John the Baptist, until the fourth crusade238. According to Majeska, in the account of the Russian Anthony, there are eight relics listed.239 But even after the fourth crusade, in the 14th century, the monastery was still a place to visit, as it was present in various Russian pilgrims’ accounts.
St. Stoudios Monastery was famous among the Russians; the monastery itself even housed a Russian community according to Ignatius, other than just pilgrims.240 Also according to Majeska’s research, after the Latin occupation, (and recapturing the city) Stoudios monastery was mentioned in all of the accounts of later Russian pilgrims, so it was probably on the route of the pilgrimage241.
After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the monastery became more of a vacant place. Mehmed II granted the monastery area of St. Stoudius (or Istudhyo as it was referred as in 1455) to one of his officers, Çakırcıbaşı Hamza Beg. According to the survey, there were “seventy-three houses, four store houses, a kitchen, two stables, two wineries, a hospital, a gigantic church and five pavilions”242 around this area with many of these houses were marked as mevkuf, meaning endowed (to state) and many of them were deserted. Therefore, this portrayal of Stoudios monastery
236 Cedrimus quoted in Gilles, Antiquities, 125
237 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches, 40.
238 Majeska references to Anthony in his book Russian Travellers, 286.
239 Majeska, Russian Travellers, 95.
240 Majeska, Russian Travellers, 284. Also, about the same topic, Melvani references to M. Hinterberger’s “Les relations diplomatiques entre Constantinople et la Russie du XIV siècle.”
241 Majeska, Russian Travellers, 102.
242 Inalcık, The City of Istanbul 1455, 490.
84
shows a small ghost town, which had enough room to have a small community, yet deserted (then). The main church of the monastery would become a mosque and a convent for Khalwati tariqa in the later decades, with a new name after İmrahor (or Mirahur) İlyas Beg.
Mirahur Zaviyesi looks very interesting on the map of Khalwati lodges (Figure 19) since it was also one of the first convents founded in the city, despite its not being located near main roads. It is quite close to a greater convent, asitane of Sumbuliye, Sünbül Efendi Tekkesi (or Koca Mustafa Paşa Asitanesi, which will be evaluated in detail later).
In addition, the excerpt below is taken from Lemezat-ı Hulviyye, a biographical narrative of sheikhs from different Khalwatiyya branches:
After he comes back from his Egypt expedition, Sultan Selim Han decides to build a palace for the summer at the seaside in Sarayburnu, his head architect informs him about the two precious porphyry [somaki] marble columns [in Koca Mustafa Paşa Asitanesi] and tells him they are very appropriate and needed for the new palace. After the Sultan sent two men to get these columns, he sent two more men in order to tell them that he changed his mind and they should retrieve the columns from Mirahur Mosque in Yedikule. In a conversation when he was asked about the reason for his decision, after a pause Sultan Selim Han says: When I gave this order of demolition, Sünbül Efendi appeared in front of me and told me “Selim Han! Don’t hurt us, if you need columns take the columns in Mirahur Mosque.” That’s why I sent another order to you.243
Figure 24. (a) Somaki marble columns and (b) pseudo-Ionic capitals from the sixth century244
243 el-Hulvi, Lemezat-ı Hulviyye, 452. Translated from Turkish by the author of the essay.
244 Freely and Çakmak, Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul, 260.
a)
b)
85
Eventually, the coveted columns in this story were stripped from the Mirahur Ilyas Beg Mosque instead of Sünbül Efendi.
The zaviye of Mirahur İlyas Beg could also be traced in the personal narratives of Khalwatis. In Lemezat-ı Hulviyye a sheikh called Mehmed Efendi, who was referred to under the section dedicated to his son, Sheikh Hasan Efendi, was mentioned. According to el-Hulvi, Sheikh Mehmed Efendi inhabited a cell in “Mirahur Zaviyesi” until his death. He fasted all the time, and he was always eager to learn more.245 Another person who was narrated connected to Mirahur Zaviyesi was Sheikh Nefayisi Hasan Efendi. He was a sheikh in Mirahur Zaviyesi for a long time, who also worked as a müfessir in Yagel Camii. He also became the bani of Canfeda Hatun Camii, where he had preached to his people until his death in 1606-7246. A customarily mobile lifestyle was not reserved for the sheikhs; in one of the registers from State Archives, it is stated that the muezzin from Mirahur mosque had been appointed to Hagia Sophia, but after a new person was assigned in replacement, the muezzin went back to his old quarter.247
5.2.2 Hagias Andreas in Krisei to Koca Mustafa Paşa Asitanesi
Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi took its name after its central complex. Koca Mustafa Paşa was the grand vizier of Bayezid II, and his mosque and convent were built onto an old Byzantine church. The church in discussion is the church of Hagias Anderas te Krisei and it was located on the seventh hill of the city, before being turned to a Muslim
245 El-Hulvi, Lemezat-ı Hulviyye, 491.
246 El-Hulvi, Lemezat-ı Hulviyye, 617.
247 Dated 7-07-963 hijri, the summary of register says “Mirahur camii müezzini iken Ayasofya'ya verilen Mehmed'e bu işe başkası geldiğinden evvekli hizmetinin iadesi”. (this register was not available online, so unfortunately the dossier number and other information cannot be provided in this study’s bibliography.)
86
convent, was a part of a female monastery. It was first written about in the eighth century248, the place’s history before that time is still pretty much unknown. What is known about it is, it had hosted the relics of Saint Andrew, which was visited later by many travellers such as Stephen Novgorod249 in the fourteenth century. It also had a hospice, where the travellers could stay at night, as it was noted in an anonymous description of a Russian traveller, where he talks about when he “returned again to St. Andrew’s, my[his] own monastery.”250 After the Latin invasions in the city, around the year 1284, the church went through a grand rebuilding by Theodora Raolina. Later at the end of the fifteenth century, the Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque was built upon this monastery’s church, which the monastery also was referred to as Kızlar Manastırı.
In his text Tezkiretü’l-Müteahhirin, Enfi Hasa Hulus Halveti, a late seventeenth-century dervish, calls the event of changing the church of St. Andrew in Crisis to a mosque and convent with the words “sahib’ül hayrat Koca Mustafa Paşa Kızlar Kilisesi olan mahalle cami'-i şerif ve hangah bina etdiğinde”251. The same use also exists in the mülkname of Bayezid II as “kendi bina etdiğin mescidin”252. This depiction also calls it as if a re-building process, rather than making small changes. In a sense, it was; since the whole program was finalized with a complex rather than only a convent, mosque or masjid. In the waqf records dated 1546, it is stated that the whole complex consisted of a mosque, a madrasa, a school, an imaret; in addition to the double baths.253 Different than the others, Hulvi also talked about the addition of forty hucre, rooms, which was also noted in Ayvansarayi254.
248 Eyice. Son Devir Bizans Mimarisi, 5.
249 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fortheenth and Fifteenth Centuries, 40.
250 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fortheenth and Fifteenth Centuries, 152. From the Dialogue which is narrated in the notes on the page.
251 Enfi Hasa Hulus Halveti, Tezkiretü’l-Müteahhirin, 187. Can be translated “when the owner of the pious act, Koca Mustafa Paşa built the Kızlar Kilisesi as a neighbour mosque and convent”.
252 VGMA 654: 122. Can be translated as “the one you had built”
253 Barkan, Istanbul Vakıfları tahrîr Defteri: 953 (1546) târîhli.
254 Hulvi, Lemezat-ı Hulviyye, 433 and Ayvansarayi pg. 221.
87
As it was narrated in Ayvansarayi, later Defterdar Ekmekcizade Ahmed Paşa built a place as large as the mosque itself and added a door and a gathering place. With his additions, the minaret would be then-located in the middle of the buildings255. One other addition was built by the Sheikh al-Islam of his time Veliyyüddin Efendi, who added where he built a muvakkit odası, where the official would check for the time of prayers according to the movements of the sun.256 Also, in the water records, dated 1757, it can be seen that the fountain in the courtyard of the complex was written as built by el-Hacc Beşir Ağa, where 1 mansura water would be given257.
Figure 25. Plan of the restored version of Koca Mustafa Paşa mosque/convent, from Semavi Eyice (1963)
When the church was turned into a mosque, the building’s whole structure had been changed. The old church had a structure with a central dome and a narthex, and its entrance was from the west, in the place of a now-window258. In its original form, the central dome was surrounded by an ‘ambulatory’ of one story formed by the aisles
255 Ayvansarayi, Hadikat’ül Cevami, 221. According to İ. Aydın Yüksel the additional building did not survive today, in Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid Yavuz Selim Devri, 277.
256 Ayvansarayi, Hadikat’ül Cevami, 221.
257 İstanbul Su Külliyatı, 289.
258 Eyice, “İstanbulʾda Koca Mustafa Paşa Camiʿi ve onun Osmanlı-Türk mimarisindeki yeri,” 161.
88
and ‘inner narthex’, according to Van Millingen.259
With the conversion, the former church’s main axis has been changed to a north-south direction with a “ninety-degree change of the building’s orientation”; and with this, “its superstructure too was altered.”260 Mihrab and minbar were put to the south wall of the mosque and with these additions, the general structure got its final form, in the sense of turning to a north-south rectangular. Now, the building was supported with two half domes in addition to the central dome. Eyice claims that this a central dome and two half-dome structure was the first application of this architectural design in Ottoman architecture.261 The north façade of the building now built as a narthex, son cemaat yeri, also covered with five domes.
One other change that had been done was covering the narthex with domes and vaults262. The corridors were covered with half-domes, which would make the interior of the building a much grander and spacious look263. It should be also remembered that this building was used as a tekke, so the dervishes were most probably used these gathering spaces as places to do their dhikr and devran.264
Inside the now-mosque, four great arches form a square, which “tower over on the ambulatory zone on the three sides.”265 The somaki marble columns inside, as well as their pseudo-Ionic type capitals, which are from the sixth century266, remained stayed still and can be seen even today which became the central subject of the anecdote, told by Mahmud Cemaleddin el-Hulvi, in his Lemezat-ı Hulviyye, which was narrated under Mirahur Zaviyesi: Even though Mirahur Ilyas Bey Mosque was also a
259 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches, 117.
260 Kafescioğlu, Constantinople/Istanbul, 219.
261 Eyice, “İstanbul’da Kiliseden Çevrilmiş Cami ve Mescidler ve Bunların Restorasyonu”, 285.
262 Eyice, “İstanbulʾda Koca Mustafa Paşa Camiʿi ve onun Osmanlı-Türk mimarisindeki yeri,” 161.
263 Eyice, “İstanbulʾda Koca Mustafa Paşa Camiʿi ve onun Osmanlı-Türk mimarisindeki yeri, 161.
264 Kaplan, Women’s Participation in Dervish Lodges: Koca Mustafa Pasha, Merkez Efendi and the Şah Sultan Complexes, 52.
265 Matthews, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul, pg. 3
266 Freely and Çakmak, Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul, 260.
89
convent of Khalwatiya tariqa, which was in the same district with Koca Mustafa Paşa mosque, the story on the spiritual hierarchy between the Khalwati convents reveals that Sünbül Efendi Tekkesi is superior. Another remark must be made here about the Sultan in the story, Sultan Selim. Narrating him seeing this dream is especially important, because of the state’s rivalry with the Safavids during Selim’s reign since the “eastern” branches of Khalwatiya were closely associated with Safavids and Shi’ism267. This story of Sheikh Sünbül Efendi also might have been written just with this purpose, in order to show Ottoman Khalwatis’ legitimacy in the court’s eyes.
One other occasion narrated in the same narrative is also about the kandil celebrations, which are religiously important nights for Muslims:
Since his first days as Sheikh, the gracious Master [Sheikh Hasan Efendi] had lit up an oil lamb at Koca Mustafa Paşa Asitanesi, on every twelfth of Rebi’ü’l-evvel, since that night is Mevlid-i Nebi (the birthday of the Prophet). One time, Sultan Murad Han was near “Yenikapı”, in his mother Valide Sultan’s palace. When he was watching Istanbul at night, from the balcony of the palace, he saw the lights on a minaret and wanted to learn the reason behind this. He sent his servants there. He was very pleased with the sheikh’s answer of “Twelfth of Rebi’ü’l-evvel is the night of the birth of Resul-u Ekrem (sas). We have burned the oil lamp to enliven and to cheer him”, and he ordered this practice to be adopted in all Istanbul mosques. That night, all minarets were adorned with lights and enlivened. Suddenly, the sky of Istanbul had lightened and gleamed with radiance. This tradition still continues to the present day.268
Here, one may also remember this tradition still lives, remarking the impact Sünbül Efendi Tekkesi has on representations of Ottoman and Turkish Muslim pious traditions. This tekke was visible in many of the sheikhs’ lives since it was the central lodge. Many well-known lodge founders were qualified to complete their süluk there and went to found their own lodge in another location.
The convent also appears in Sohbetname, written by a Khalwati dervish Seyyid
267 Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought, 31-32.
268 Mahmud Cemaleddin el-Hulvi, from “Şeyh Hasan Efendi Azizim Hazretlerini Beyan Eder” in Lemezat-ı Hulviyye, 498. Translated from Turkish by the author of the essay.
90
Hasan, in the seventeenth century, where he narrated his daily life in a form quite like a diary. “Sümme Sünbül Efendi muvâcehesinde Abdülbâkî Dede ve Yorganî ile muâmele idüp hücreye dâhil oldum.”269says Hasan, as well as noting his visit of the Sünbül Efendi’s turbe another day;270 showing that in the seventeenth century, the mosque and the zaviye were still frequently visited by the dervishes since it was the main asitane of the tariqa. In his diary, Seyyid Hasan notes many of the lodges he had visited which can be seen in Figure 26.
Figure 26. Lodges mentioned in Seyyid Hasan’s Sohbetname
The marks in yellow are for two Şah Sultan lodges, which appears in Sohbetname. However, since there are two of them in the city, one in Eyüp and the other in Fatih, we can not be sure about which one he had been talking about. The other one is Bezirgan, whether it is the house or the lodge is can not be determined. As a dervish who frequented in the different lodges in the city, and later who acted as the sheikh of Ferruh Kethüda lodge in Balat, he shows a good example of the mobility of
269 Can, Sohbetnâme, 76, 112a.
270Can, Sohbetnâme, 22, 17b.
91
the Khalwati dervishes in Constantinople.
5.3 Dervishes and the monetary network
One other way to look into the networking, other than following particular people, is the endowments. While the pious endowment registers were used in the previous chapter in order to show a glimpse of human make up of the district, their main use is to keep records of pious endowments of people. The list of a quarter starts with the waqfiya of its namesake mosque or masjid, so the foundation money network of the mosque (and their lodge, if they host one) is pursuable. Also, if they have any other income coming from other parts of Istanbul, those also can be detected.
Figure 27. The waqfiya of Koca Mustafa Paşa
To start with, the namesake of the district, Koca Mustafa Paşa had an enormous waqfiya, which extended way outside of the city of Constantinople. To understand its magnitude better, this waqfiya is examined by itself and not with the other waqf registers of the city. Koca Mustafa Paşa had endowed mulks from various parts of the empire to his mosques and imarets, which were located in Konstantiniyye, Nevrekob, and Yenice-Karasu (as in Fig. 27). Through that, it can be seen that the waqf
92
was connected to Anatolia and Balkans. One important remark to make about the pious endowment registers and the data regarding Koca Mustafa Paşa asitanesi is, in almost all registers (other than the foundation registers of the mosque and convent) the word zaviye, tekke, or hankah do not appear. All of the properties and money endowed to the foundation was through its mosque and the people there, namely imam, muezzin, and sheikh, whom had given endowments from many waqfs and not only Koca Mustafa Paşa.
It is also significant to see that some people preferred to endow their waqfs to people, rather than those people’s institutions, which also can be observed outside the context of Koca Mustafa Paşa, or Sümbül Efendi Mosque or lodge (present in Fig. 28a &b).
Figure 28 a&b. Type of the endowee (1546 &1600 in order)
93
The most striking change over time is the switch in the type of endowments (Fig.29 a&b). There is a district-wide decrease in cash waqfs when there is an increase in the property endowments. This is not a coincidence either. Even though the endowed material number rises, the tendency is turning to properties as endowments, rather than cash waqfs. In some cases, even though the founding waqfiya of a masjid was preserved, the nakdiye (cash) waqf was removed.
Figure 29 a&b - Type of the waqf (1546 & 1600 in order)
To understand this change, we should look into the concept of cash waqfs, and how it
94
was challenged at the time these two pious endowment registers were made. At the time of Çivicizade, who served as a sheik-al-Islam between 1539-1542, the cash waqfs were forbidden by his fetwa. However, this was highly criticized by then kazasker, later the next sheik-al-Islam, Ebussuud Efendi. Ebussuud had allowed this practice at his time, and it was rooted in the Ottoman Empire271. In the court registers of Balat Mahkemesi dated 1557-8 too, there are instances of newly founded cash waqfs272. However, it seems like Çivizade’s views were stuck with the people of Constantinople, since it is clear that there was a switch to mulk waqfs.
One other information that can be gathered from these waqf registers is about the gender of the endower. As it can be seen in Figure 30 a&b, there was an increase in the numbers of women endowers from 1546 to 1600.
Figure 30a&b. Gender of the waqf endower (1546 & 1600 in order)
271 Necipoğlu, Sinan, 90. She references to 148 Aydemir, 1968, s. 2 1-36; Recep, 1986, s. 254-55.
272 Balat mahkemesi Kadı sicili (1557-8), s. 66, 72, 78.
95
Before concluding this chapter, one important remark should be made about the limits of these maps and their presentations of the data. The next and last two maps show different aspects of the waqfs. In Figure 31 only one waqf’s endowments from various sites of the city are present. This kind of web is difficult to see when multiple waqfs’ endowment registers are mapped out.
Figure 31. Vakf-ı Ali Beğ b. Abdülkerim Reis'-ül-Mimarin in the 1600 register; locations of its (mulk) endowments
In Figure 32, an opposite of Figure 31 is portrayed. There is only one person’s waqfiya is present, all endowed to different parts of the city.
Figure 32. Cafer Ağa’s endowments to different masjids in the city according to 1546 register (all cash waqfs)
96
Putting these two maps together, the real map of “what is endowed from where, to where” would be probably more complex if it was also shown with direction lines, than what is presented here even though this is only a map of one district among total thirteen.
5.4 Conclusion
In this chapter, without conducting a deep analysis on the historical background of Khalwatiya tariqa, their journey in Istanbul and especially in Koca Mustafa Paşa district, as a network is discussed. It must be noted that not a complete history of this tariqa is provided since the scope and geography were limited to Istanbul, and the time frame was restricted from the end of the fifteenth century to the very beginning of the seventeenth century. Khalwati tariqa provides a great example of a network that overcomes all the borders which have been discussed throughout this thesis. While the pious endowment registers show examples of both invisible borders in a district and in the city, they also provided us a magnificent example that is able to fly over all the borders, both district and the city’s and provided great maps. One remark should be made once again is, about the locations of the markings in the maps, which were all put randomly, since they were not given with directions in the registers. In addition to registers, the biographical narratives also delivered valuable information regarding the instances of Khalwati dervishes. One question which was asked, and was tried to visualize, but could not be answered fully was the issue of cash waqfs. To a greater extent, the immense network of Khalwatiya, both the people network and monetary network was tried to evaluated in this scope and in their relation to other parts of the city.
97
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The starting point of this thesis was the issue of borders and how they would be defined in the context of early modern Ottoman Istanbul. The main aim was, after providing the necessary layout, to evaluate this subject through a case study from Istanbul. In order to do so, Koca Mustafa Paşa district, at the southwestern corner of the walled city and flanking the land walls was chosen.
To comprehend what a border means to a city in a better sense, first the legal and administrative definitions for the city were discussed, and I tried to understand the role of legal definitions of borders in defining a city. For the case of Ottoman Istanbul, one other term was presented, which is nahiye, which basically has the meaning of a district. In order to explain the term, examples from primary sources like court registers, pious endowment registers, and water registers were taken from.
After laying out this background information, the case study of Koca Mustafa Paşa nahiyesi is presented. Since the site is a border district near the land walls of Istanbul (which itself is acted as the border), the district was evaluated in two parts; extra muros and intramuros.
In the third chapter, the extra muros area of the district is discussed. Starting with presenting important sites like the Theodosian walls and Yedikule, the chapter detailed how they acted as a physical border, and how this physical border played an important role to shape the area. Adjoined to the walls Yedikule citadel hosts the Byzantine Golden Gate, as well as many other places. In this chapter, the site of Yedikule is detailed, and the social elements of the zone are presented. First, the
98
citadel itself was put forward, and its different uses were highlighted, like its roles as a storehouse, treasury, and a jail. All these three aspects were significant since they all meant to collect and preserve different kinds of things and people from all around the empire and even beyond.
The extra muros area also held utmost importance as an industrial site. Since the slaughterhouses and all related workshops (like tanneries, glue makers, etc) were moved to extra muros area of Koca Mustafa Paşa district after city’s conquest in 1453 under the reign of Mehmed II, the ongoing production on this part of the city and distribution of those products back to the city was an important way to examine the borders.
In the next chapter, the intramuros area was presented. First, the human fabric of the district from 1455 till 1600 is examined. The City Survey of Istanbul 1455 was used extensively and visualized with the help of Geographic Information Systems. For the later period, two pious endowment registers (vakıf tahrir defterleri) dated 1546 and 1600 were utilized, and data regarding the inhabitants of the area as well as those connected to it in various ways was utilized. In order to get a better picture of the sixteenth century, all the property owners in the district were recorded. To illuminate the living conditions of the people of Koca Mustafa Paşa district, the travelogues from Evliya Çelebi and Eremya Çelebi Kömürciyan were used with the addition to state-authored court registers and registers of important affairs (mühimme defterleri).
In the last chapter, in order to find other ways to look beyond these borders and boundaries on a greater scale, but from an intramuros perspective two networks were chosen. One of them is the Khalwati network, which is one of the greatest tariqa in the capital city. This tariqa had around thirty-five convents in the city and
99
had a great political impact on the palace in the sixteenth century. Due to that, they had a great number of dervishes connected to them, in the nineteenth century it was recorded that they had thirty-seven people living in the Sümbül Efendi asitanesi, and twenty-five in Mirahur zaviyesi273. Since it was a grand tariqa in dervish numbers, it made sense to use them as a human network. One other important reason was that the dervishes show great mobility in the city. The example of Seyyid Hasan, a seventeenth-century Khalwati dervish, showed how mobile they could be in his diary, where he listed all his visits in different lodges in the city.
The other of the two networks is the waqf network, which is based on money transactions between from a person to an institution of another people, and recorded in pious endowment registers. This network provided the study the needed connection between the district, the other parts of the city, and beyond Istanbul, some other parts of the empire and showcased a great web that was able to overcome the borders. The visualization of the shape and extent of the Halveti network, centered in the Koca Mustafa Pasha lodge, within the city and in central lands of the Empire, was one of the outcomes of this study.
An important finding of this thesis was that the waqf network was profoundly a monetary network and produced different visualizations. One very significant part of working with these registers and trying to visualize them is to find out how the size of the dataset had a great impact on the outcome. Since this was mainly a study focusing on one district, all of the pious endowments are visualized. However, the most remarking outcomes are usually gathered from smaller-sized data like the waqfiye of one person, or the incomes of one mosque. In those kinds of instances, the aesthetics of the map would be easier to comprehend and would be able to show
273 Özcan, XIX. Yüzyıl İstanbul Tekkeleri ve Mekânsal Konumlanışları, 144-145.
100
all directions and links between endowed places, endowments, and endowers.
The main idea of the thesis was the concept of borders for a city like sixteenth-century Istanbul. In order to solidify the concept, a border district was chosen and exclusively investigated for one product, one social, and one monetary network. These different networks showed how it was connected to various parts of the city and the empire in general, and in some cases how important those borders could be, but also how small the borders might mean for the other instances.
This study is a preliminary attempt to investigate the issue of borders in the sixteenth-century Ottoman capital and one of its border-districts, Koca Mustafa Paşa. Due to the scope of a Master’s Thesis and linguistic limitations, there have been some deficiencies in the parts like the legal definitions and terminology, which could be stronger if the Arabic sources could be inspected in their original language. Sources in Greek would have revealed aspects of the Byzantine past of the district, to show how the walls acted as a border before 1453. A greater examination could also be done on the other tariqas which were also located in this area, which would lead to a better understanding of the history of religiosity in the city and interactions between different dervish groups. Another road this study could go is to do a total register mapping for all of the city of Istanbul. This would require a team of people in order to prepare the datasets for every each of the thirteen districts, and to pin down the waqf or people locations. There are many ways in which this research could evolve, which I hope to pursue in future endeavors.
101
APPENDIX
DATA SAMPLES
A.1. Sample Data from the Survey of Istanbul 1455
A.2. Sample Data from 1546 Registers
102
A.3. Sample Data from 1600 Registers
103
REFERENCES
Abdel-Nour, A. (1982). Introduction à l’histoire urbaine de la Syrie ottomane (XVIe- XVIIIe siècle) Beirut.
Abdurrahman Câmî (1998). Nefahatü'l-Üns, Evliya Menkıbeleri (Lâmî Çelebi, Çev.; S. Uludağ ve M. Kara, Haz.). İstanbul: Marifet Yayınları.
Abu-Lughod, J. (1987). The Islamic City—Historic Myth, Islamic Essence, and Contemporary Relevance.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 19: 155–76.
Asutay-Effenberger, N. (2016). Zum Stadtteil Kynegion und seinem Hafen in spätbyzantinischer und osmanischer Zeit. Die byzantinischen Häfen Konstantinopels. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. 109-118.
Altınay, A. R. (1988). On altıncı asırda Istanbul hayatı (1553–1591). Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi.
Ayvansarayi H. H., Ali S. E., Süleyman B. E., & A. N. Galitekin (2001). Hadîkatül- cevâmi: İstanbul câmileri Ve diğer dînî-Sivil mimârî Yapıları. İstanbul: İşaret Yayınları.
Ayverdi, E. H. (1972). Osmanlı mimarisinde Fâtih devri. İstanbul: Baha Matbaası.
Barkan, Ö. L. & Ayverdi, E. H. (1970). İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri:953 (1546) Târîhli. İstanbul: Baha Matbaası.
Bölükbaşı, A. (2015). XVI. Yüzyılda İstanbul’daki Halveti Tekkeleri. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation) İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
Can, A. (2015). Seyyid Hasan, Sohbetnâme, I. Cilt (1071-1072/1660-1661), (Inceleme- Metin). Master's thesis, Marmara University.
Canatar, M. (2004). İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 1009 (1600) Târîhli. İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti.
Cemaleddin Mahmud Hulvi and Mehmet Serhan Tayşi (1993). Lemezât-ı Hulviyye Ez Lemezât-I Ulviyye: Yüce Velilerin Tatlı Halleri. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi.
Clayer, N. (1994). Mystiques, Etat et Société. Brill Press: London.
Coşkun, Y. (Ed.). (2019). İstanbul kadı sicilleri Balat Mahkemesi 1 numaralı Sicil (H. 964-965 / M. 1557- 1558). İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM).
Coşkun, Y. (Ed.). (2011). İstanbul kadı sicilleri Balat Mahkemesi 2 numaralı Sicil (H. 970 - 971 / M. 1563). Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM).
104
Coşkun, Y. (Ed.). (2011). İstanbul kadı sicilleri Eyüb (Havâss-ı Refîa) Mahkemesi 3 numaralı sicil (H. 993 - 995 / M. 1585 - 1587). İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM).
Coşkun, Y. (Ed.). (2011). İstanbul kadı sicilleri Galata Mahkemesi 5 numaralı sicil (H. 983-984 / M. 1575- 1576). İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM).
Coşkun, Y. (Ed.). (2010). İstanbul kadı sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 3 numaralı Sicil (H. 1027 / M. 1618). İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM).
Coşkun, Y. (Ed.). (2008). İstanbul kadı sicilleri Üsküdar Mahkemesi 1 numaralı Sicil (H. 919 - 927 / 1513 - 1521). (2008). İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM).
Coşkun, Y. (Ed.). (2019). İstanbul kadı sicilleri Tophane Mahkemesi 2 numaralı Sicil (H. 966-967 / M. 1558- 1559). İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi (İSAM).
Curry, J. J. (2010). The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought in the Ottoman Empire: The Rise of the Halveti Order, 1350-1650. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Çam, N. (1990). İslamʾda Bazı Fikhî Meselelerin ve Mezheplerin Türk Cami Mimarisine Tesiri. Vakıflar dergisi 21: 376–94.
Deguilhem, R. “Waqf: In the Ottoman Empire” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill vol. 11.
Denny, W. (1970). A Sixteenth-Century Architectural Plan of Istanbul. Ars Orientalis 8 : 49–63.
Doğan, A. I. (1977). Osmanlı Mimarisinde Tarikat Yapıları Tekkeler, Zaviyeler ve Benzer Nitelikteki Fütüvvet Yapıları, İstanbul: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, 1977.
Donuk, A. “Balık” in İslam Ansiklopedisi.
Doukas [Ducas] (1975). Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. Edited and translated by Harry J. Margoulias. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Düzdağ, M. E. (1983). Şeyhülislam Ebussuud Efendi fetvalari ışığında 16. asır Türk hayatı. Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi.
Ebersolt, J., & Thiers, A. (1913). Les églises de Constantinople. Paris: E. Leroux.
Eldem, E., D. Goffman, and B. Masters (1999). The Ottoman City Between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
105
Evliya Çelebi. (2013). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol.1 of 2, ed. Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Eyice, S. (2010). “Bazı İslam yazarlarına göre fetihten önce İstanbul”, İstanbul Araştırmaları, 2. 7-28.
———. (1963). İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dini- İçtimai Bir Müessesesi Zaviyeler ve Zaviyeli Camiler. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 23/1-2:, 1-80.
———. (1990). İstanbul’da kiliseden çevrilmiş cami ve mescidler ve bunların restorasyonu.” Vakıf Haftası Dergisi, 7: 279-291.
———. (1953) İstanbulʾda Koca Mustafa Paşa Camiʿi ve onun Osmanlı-Türk mimarisindeki yeri.” Tarih dergisi 5: 153–82.
———. (2002) “Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii ve Külliyesi”. In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi 26: 133-136. Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı. Retrieved from http://www.islamansiklopedisi.info/
———. (1980) Son devir Bizans mimarisi: İstanbulʾda Palaiologosʾlar devri anıtları. 2nd, exp. ed. Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu.
———. (2017) Yabancıların gözüyle Bizans İstanbulu. İstanbul: Yeditepe.
Freely, J. and Çakmak, A. S (2004). Byzantine Monuments of Istanbul, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 2004.
Gilles, P. (1988). The Antiquities of Constantinople. Translated by John Ball. New York: Italica Press.
Gitelman, L. & Jackson, V. J. (2013). Introduction. “Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron, London: MIT Press.
Gokbilgin, T. (1952). İlyas Bey (emir-i ahur) vakfı. XV-XVI: Asirlarda Edirne Ve Pasa Livasi Vakiflar, Mulkler, Mukataalar. Istanbul: Ecler Basimevi.
Green, N. (2012). Making Space: Sufis and Settlers in Early Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Greenwood, A. (1988). Istanbul’s Meat Provisioning: a Study of the Celepkeşan System. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago.
Gündüz Polat, İ. (2016). Küçük Ayasofya and the foundation of Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin Ağa. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
Hatlie, P. (2007). The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople: Ca. 350-850. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Imber, C. (2002). the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: the Structure of Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Inalcık, H. (1994). The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600, London, Phoenix Press, 1994.
106
———. (2012). The Survey of Istanbul 1455: The Text, English Translation, Analysis of the Text, Documents. Istanbul, Turkey: Türkiye Iş Bankas Kültür Yayınları.
———. (2019). İstanbul Tarihi Araştırmaları, Seçme Eseler XIII. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası.
İpşirli, Mehmet. “Naib” in TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Johansen, B. (1999). Contingency in a sacred law: legal and ethical norms in the Muslim fiqh. Boston: Brill.
———. (1981). The all-embracing town and its mosques: al-misr al-gâmi'. Revue de l'Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée, n°32: 139-161. doi: 10.3406/remmm.1981.1925
———. (1990). Urban structures in the view of Muslim jurists. Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerrané. n°55-56: 94-100; doi: 10.3406/remmm.1990.2336
Kafadar, C. (1995). Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
———. (2017). Kendine Ait Bir Roma, Istanbul: Metis Yayınları.
———. (2010). Kim Var İmiş Biz Burada Yoğ İken: Dört Osmanlı: Yeniçeri, Tüccar, Derviş ve Hatun. 3th ed. İstanbul: Metis.
Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2010). Costantinopolis / Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
———. (2020). Lives and afterlives of an urban institution and its spaces: the early Ottoman ‘imāretas mosque. Tijana Krstic and Derin Terzioglu, (eds.) Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450-c. 1750, Leiden: Brill.
———. (2014). Viewing, Walking, Mapping Istanbul, CA. 1580.” Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz, Max-Planck-Institut 56, no.1: 16-35.
Kala, A. (Ed.) (1997). Vakıf Su Defterleri: Hatt-ı Hümayun. Istanbul: Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi.
Kaplan, M. (2016). Women’s Participation in Dervish Lodges: Koca Mustafa Pasha, Merkez Efendi and the Şah Sultan Complexes. Master's thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
Kara, M. (2004). Osmanlılarda Tasavvuf Ve Tarikatlar. Bursa: Sır Yay.
Karataş, H. (2011). The City as a Historical Actor: The Urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
107
———. (2014). “The Ottomanization of the Halveti Sufi Order: A Political Story Revisited”. In Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, Vol. 1, No. 1-2. Indiana University Press.
Kayhan Elbirlik, L. (2013). Negotiating Matrimony: Marriage, Divorce, and Property Allocation Practices in Istanbul, 1755-1840. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Koca-Eğrikavuk, O. (1987). The History of Yedikule and Its Place in Military Architecture. Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University.
Kotzageorgis, P. (2018). Ottoman tax registers and geo-history. in Ιστορικογεωγραφικά / Historicogeographica τ. 16-17.
Köse, F. (2012). İstanbul Halvetî Tekkeleri. İstanbul: M.Ü. İlâhiyat Fakültesi Vakfı.
———. (2012). “İmrahor İlyas Bey Camii ve Osmanlı Döneminde Geçirdiği Tamirler”, Vakıf Restorasyon Yıllığı 4: 32-39.
Kömürcüyan, Eremya Çelebi. (1988). İstanbul tarihi: Xvıı. asırda İstanbul. Edited by Hrand D. Andreasyan and Kevork Pamukciyan. Istanbul: Eren.
Kritovoulos (1954). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. Translated by Charles T. Riggs. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kuban, D. (1996). Istanbul, an Urban History: Byzantion, Constantinopolis, Istanbul, Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey, 1996.
———. (2010). Ottoman Architecture, trans. By Adair Mill, Woodbridge.
Kuran, A. (1987). Sinan: the Grand Old Master of Ottoman Architecture, Washington, D.C.: Institute of Turkish Studies; Istanbul: Ada Press Publishers.
———. (1996). A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul. Muqarnas, 13, 114-131.
Kurz, M. (2011). Ways to Heaven, Gates to Hell. Berlin: Ebverlag.
Küçükaşçı, M. Sabri, “Şehir” in İslam Ansiklopedisi.
Lifchez, R. (Ed.) (1992). The dervish lodge: Architecture, art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lowry, H. W. (2012). On Beşinci Yüzyıl Osmanlı Gerçekleri. İstanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Yayınları.
———. (2009). The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond) 1461-1583. İstanbul: The Isis Press.
Lynch, K. (1960). The City Image and its Elements. The Image of the City.
Majeska, G. P. (1984). Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
108
Mandaville, J. E. (1979). "Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire." International Journal of Middle East Studies 10, no. 3: 289-308. http://www.jstor.org/stable/162140.
Mango, C. (1993). The Development of Constantinople as an Urban Center. In Studies on Constantinople, i/117–35. Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum.
———. (2000). “The Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54: 174–88.
Mantran, Robert (1962). Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du xviie siècle. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.
Marçais, William (1928). L’Islamisme et la vie urbaine. In Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Letters: 89.
Martin, B.G. (1972). A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes. In N.R. Keddie (Ed.), Scholars, Saints, and Sufis: Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East since 1500. Caliornia and London: University of California Press.
Morita, M. (2011) “Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty 3”, in Journal of Architecture and Planning 659: 229 – 235.
———. (2012). “Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty 4”, in Journal of Architecture and Planning 677: 1791 - 1800.
Morita, M, & Sasano, S. (2008) Historical study of Islamic cities in the early Ottoman dynasty 2. Journal of Architecture and Planning 624: 476-486.
Mathews, T. F. (1976). The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Matthews, J. (2012). “The Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae” in Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity. Grig, L. & Kelly, G. (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. 81-115.
Miller, Timonthy (trans.) (2000). Theodore Studites: Testament of Theodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents vol.1, edited by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 67-84.
Mustafa Âli. (2003). Künhüʾ l-Aḥbār. Vol. 2. M. Hüdai Şentürk (Ed.). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Müller-Wiener, W. (1977) Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Wasmuth.
Nagy, Gy, “Káldy” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
109
Necipoğlu, Gülru. (1991). Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
———. (1996). "Dynastic Imprints in the Cityscape: The Collective Message of Imperial Funerary Mosque Complexes in Istanbul,” in Cimetières et Traditions Funéraires, vol.2, Ankara, 23-36.
———. (2005). The age of Sinan: Architectural culture in the Ottoman Empire.London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
———. (1991). Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991.
Nev‘izade Atâî. (1989). Hadaiku‟l- Hakaik fi Tekmileti’l-Şakaik (A. Özcan, Nşr.). İstanbul: Çağrı Yayınları.
Ohanian, D., Başkurt Z.M., Kabadayı M.E (2020). “An Historical Geographic Information System for Ottoman Studies” in Turcica, 51, 255-283.
O’Meara, S. (2007). Space and Muslim Urban Life. Oxon: Routledge.
12 numaralı mühimme defteri (978-979 / 1570–1572). (1996). Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
Ottoman State Archives of the Turkish Presidency, Istanbul, Turkey COA
COA. HR.SFR. / 1 – 4. 1 Aralık 1855 (December 1,1855)
COA. TS.MA.d /05638-. (October 12, 1558)
COA. HRT.h./ 689- . (January 1, 1884)
COA. TS.MA.e./0759-0038. (September 22, 1520)
COA. T.T.d./ 251-. (February 20, 1547)
Ousterhout, R. (2004). The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture. Gesta 43, no. 2: 167–78.
———. (1995). “Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Early Ottoman Architecture.” Muqarnas 12: 48–62.
———. (1999). Master Builders of Byzantium. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Öngören, R. (2012). Osmanlılarda tasavvuf: Anadolu’da Sûfiler, devlet ve ulemâ XVI yüzyıl. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık.
Özcan, Serpil (2020). XIX. Century İstanbul lodges and their spatial positioning. unpublished MA thesis, İstanbul Şehir University.
Özkoçak, S. (2005) The Evidence of Vakıf-Registers for Residential Dwelling in Sixteenth Century İstanbul. Afife Batur'a Armağan; Mimarlık ve Sanat Tarihi Yazıları. A. Ağır, G. Cephanecigil, D. Mazlum (Haz.), İstanbul.
110
———. (2003) Two Urban Districts in Early Modern Istanbul: Edirnekapı and Yedikule. Urban History 30, no. 1: 26–43.
———. (1997). The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in Sixteenth Century, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.
Öztürk, N. (2004). Koca Mustafa Paşa Vakıfları ve Külliyesi. Vakıflar Dergisi, 28: 8-76.
Pedley, M. (2012). Enlightenment Cartography at the Sublime Porte: François Kauffer and the Survey of Costantinople. The Journal of Ottoman Studies, 39: 29-53.
Peters, R. “Waqf” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill vol. 11.
Raymond, A. (1985). Grande Villes Arabes a L’époque Ottomane. Paris.
Repp, R. C. (1986). The Mufti of Istanbul: A Study in the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy. London: Ithaca Press.
Sahlins, P. (1991). Boundaries, University of California Press.
85 numaralı mühimme defteri (1040-1041(1042)/ 1630-1631 (1632)). (1993). Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1993.
82 numaralı mühimme defteri (1026-1027 / 1617-1618). (2000). Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2000.
Semiz, H. Nisa (2004). İstanbul Haliç ve Marmara Suları Belgeleme Çalışmaları, Tarihi vePeyzaj Değerlerinin Korunmasına Yönelik Öneriler. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
Tanman, M. B. (2005). Ottoman architecture and the Sufi orders: Dervish lodges. In A. Y. Ocak (Ed.), Sufis and Sufis in Ottoman society: Sources, 226 doctrine, rituals, turuq, architecture, literature, iconography, modernism. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu: 317-382.
———. (2002). “Tariqah Buildings/Tekkes in Ottoman Architecture.” In Ottoman Civilization, edited by Halil İnalcık and Günsel Renda, 288–307. Ankara: Ministry of Culture.
Tabibzâde Derviş Mehmed Şükri İbn İsmâil, T. Kut, and İ. Pala (1995). İstanbul Hânkâhları Meşâyihi = Sheikhs of the Istanbul Chapter Houses. Duxbury, MA: Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University.
Terzioğlu, D. (2012) Sufis in the age of state-building and confessionalization” in C. Woodhead (Ed.), The Ottoman World. New York, NY: Routlegde: 86- 99.
———. (2012-3) How to conceptualize Ottoman sunnitization: A historiographical discussion. in Turcica, 44: 301-338.
The Directorate General of Foundations, Ankara, Turkey (VGMA)
VGMA, Koca Mustafa Pasha Mevkufat Defteri, 654:121-123.
111
VGMA, İmrahor Vakfiyesi, 747: 215-6.
Tyan, E. “Kadı” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
———. “Fatwa” in Encyclopedia of Islam.
3 numaralı mühimme defteri (966–968/1558–1560). Nezihi Aykut et al (Eds.). Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1993.
Ugur, Yunus (2018). “Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City” in Social Sciences 7/59: 1-12.
———. (2014). The Historical Interaction of the City with its Mahalles, Unpublished Phd Thesis, Boğaziçi University.
Unan, Fahri “Mevleviyet” in TDV Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Uzun, A. (2011). Istanbul’un Et İhtiyacının Sağlanması: Ondalık Ağnam Uygulaması (1783- 1858), Unpublished PhD Thesis, Istanbul University.
Vakıflar Umum Müdürlüğü. (1938). Fatih Mehmed II Vakfiyeleri. Ankara: Vakıflar Umum Müdürlüğü.
Van Millingen, A., R. Traquair, W. S. George, A. E. Henderson (2009). Byzantine Churches in Constantinople: their History and Architecture. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg: 36-37.
Velikâhyaoğlu N. (1999). Sümbüliyye Tarikatı Ve Kocamustafapaşa Külliyesi. Sultanahmet, İstanbul: Çağrı Yayınları.
Walsh, J.R. “Fatwa” in Encyclopedia of Islam. Ward-Perkins. (2012). “Old and New Rome Compared”, in Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity. Grig, L. & Kelly, G. (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press: 53-78.
Wensinck, A.J., Bosworth, C.E., Becker, C.H., Christides, V., Kennedy, H., Halm, H., Haarmann, U., Holt, P.M. and Steppat, F. Miṣr. in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 15 November 2020.
Yazıcı, T. (1956). Fetihten Sonra İstanbul‟da İlk Halvetî Şeyhleri: Çelebi Muhammed Cemaleddin, Sünbül Sinan ve Merkez Efendi, İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti.
Yerasimos, S. (2003). Dwellings in Istanbul in Sixteenth Century. in The Illuminated Table, the Prosperous House: Food and Shelter in Ottoman Material Culture, Würzburg.
———. (2011). Konstantiniyye Kiliselerinden İstanbul Camilerine Bir Değişimin Tarihi. in Bizans: Yapılar, Meydanlar, Yaşamlar. Istanbul: Kitap Yayinevi.
112
Yüksel, İ. A. (1983). Osmanlı mimârîsinde II. Bâyezid, Yavuz Selim Devri. İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti.
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: 159–85.
Zubaida, S. (2006), Max Weber's "The City" and the Islamic City. in Weber and the Spirit of Modern Capitalism – 100 Years On 6.1: 1-118.GHFHXFVBX