435

THE WATERFRONT AND THE COSMOPOLITAN SETTLEMENT:
SPATIAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN SMYRNA BETWEEN THE 1688 EARTHQUAKE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUAYERSITY
2023
THE WATERFRONT AND THE COSMOPOLITAN SETTLEMENT:
SPATIAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN SMYRNA BETWEEN THE 1688
EARTHQUAKE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUAY
Thesis submitted to the
Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

The Waterfront and the Cosmopolitan Settlement: Spatial Transformations in
Smyrna Between the 1688 Earthquake and the Development of the Quay
This dissertation examines spatial transformations in the urban environment that took
place in nineteenth century Smyrna, with a special focus on the area on the
waterfront and the so-called Rue de Franque, the main artery of foreign, Levantine,
“cosmopolitan” settlement. Since the early-modern period, Smyrna played an
essential role in mercantile activities in the eastern Mediterranean and became a
commercial hub where diverse communities coexisted. Thus, these changes are
observed and assessed as landscape transformations, in the sense that special
attention is given to the subjective, perspectival aspects of representation, subject to
change over time and according to contexts and backgrounds. Nevertheless, the
transformations that took place in Smyrna’s urban landscape were a product of
gradual, complex, and contested processes. Several factors, such as geographical
features, natural disasters, changes in the global regime of commercial exchange,
international relations, and state/communal regulations, impacted this process.
Besides, in this remarkably diverse urban and social space, cross-cultural relations
and plural affiliations were important parts of the transformation process in which
individuals and communities became significant actors. In this regard, this thesis
investigates how, when, and why spatial transformations took place, how the
changing landscape was represented, how urban changes were affected by crosscultural
relations and communities, and to what extent these transformations
impacted a multicultural urban and social environment.
v
ÖZET
Rıhtım ve Kosmopolitan Yerleşim: Smyrna’da 1688 Depreminden Rıhtımın
Gelişimine Kadar Olan Süreçte Mekansal Dönüşümler
Bu tez, on dokuzuncu yüzyıl İzmir'inde kentsel çevrede meydana gelen mekânsal
dönüşümleri, özellikle rıhtım bölgesine ve yabancı, Levanten, "kozmopolit"
yerleşimin ana arteri olan Rue de Franque'a odaklanarak incelemektedir. Erken
modern dönemden itibaren İzmir, Doğu Akdeniz'deki ticari faaliyetlerde önemli bir
rol oynamış ve farklı toplulukların bir arada yaşadığı ticari bir merkez haline
gelmiştir. Dolayısıyla bu değişimler, zaman içinde bağlamlara ve arka planlara göre
değişime tabi olan temsilin öznel, perspektifsel yönlerine özel önem verilmesi
anlamında, peyzaj dönüşümleri olarak gözlemlenmekte ve değerlendirilmektedir.
Bununla birlikte, İzmir'in kentsel peyzajında meydana gelen dönüşümler kademeli,
karmaşık ve tartışmalı süreçlerin bir ürünüdür. Coğrafi özellikler, doğal afetler,
küresel ticari mübadele rejimindeki değişiklikler, uluslararası ilişkiler ve
devlet/toplum düzenlemeleri gibi birçok faktör bu süreci etkilemiştir. Ayrıca, bu son
derece çeşitli kentsel ve sosyal alanda, kültürler arası ilişkiler ve çoğul aidiyetler,
bireylerin ve toplulukların önemli aktörler haline geldiği dönüşüm sürecinin önemli
parçaları olmuştur. Bu bağlamda, bu tez, mekânsal dönüşümlerin nasıl, ne zaman ve
neden gerçekleştiğini, değişen peyzajın nasıl temsil edildiğini, kentsel değişimlerin
kültürler arası ilişkilerden ve topluluklardan nasıl etkilendiğini ve bu dönüşümlerin
çok kültürlü bir kentsel ve sosyal çevreyi ne ölçüde etkilediğini araştırmaktadır.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I extend my heartfelt appreciation to my supervisor, Prof. Paolo Girardelli,
whose unwavering support has been truly invaluable. His encouragement, insightful
suggestions, and corrections have guided me through challenging times, and I am
immensely grateful for his guidance. I want to express my gratitude to Assoc. Prof.
Ahmet Ersoy for his instrumental role in helping me refine my methodology and for
being a member of my thesis committee. I am indebted to Assoc. Prof. Shirine
Hamadeh for graciously agreeing to be part of my thesis committee and for
generously sharing her valuable insights. Many thanks to Prof. Çiğdem Kafescioğlu
for her kind guidance on how to evaluate primary sources meticulously. I am also
grateful to Asst. Prof. Yaşar Tolga Cora for inspiring me to explore Ottoman history
from diverse perspectives. Also, special thanks to Rijksmuseum curator Eveline Sint
Nicolaas for her guidance and contributions to the materials.
I want to express my gratitude to Ferhat for being a true friend and a constant
source of encouragement. I am also thankful to Kerem, Rafael, Mustafa, Yasemin,
Orhun, and others who have kindly assisted me in evaluating materials. Special
thanks to my friend Berke, who shared his knowledge, ideas, and motivation with me
throughout the writing process.
I wish to extend a special and sincere thanks to Dr. Barış Eroğlu for being a
constant source of motivational support and encouragement, which has been a
driving force behind my academic journey, and I am truly grateful for his guidance
all the way long.
Lastly, I express my gratitude to my family, Belgin, İdil, Turgay and İbrahim,
for their boundless love and unwavering encouragement.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Research, sources, and methodology ................................................................ 1
1.2 Literature review ............................................................................................... 5
1.3 Space, place, landscape ................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY AND LANDSCAPE BEFORE 1840 ........................ 15
2.1 Waterfront ....................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Frank street ...................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 3: URBAN CHANGE AND CROSS-CULTURAL RELATIONS
AFTER 1840 .............................................................................................................. 68
3.1 Waterfront ....................................................................................................... 68
3.2 New site of encounter: The railways and modern quay .................................. 94
3.3 New face of urban coexistence: Frank street ................................................. 112
CHAPTER 4: AFTER 1880 ..................................................................................... 128
4.1 Waterfront ..................................................................................................... 128
4.2 Frank street .................................................................................................... 161
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 171
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 178
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1 Luppazolo, F. (1638). View of Smyrna, 1638. [Engraving]. From Pınar, İ.
(2020). Osmanlı Dönemi İzmir Planları ve Haritaları ............................................... 17
Fig. 2 De Bruyn, C. (1714). Panorama of Smyrna, 1678. [Engraving]. Retrieved
from BNF Gallica ....................................................................................................... 19
Fig. 3 Neighborhoods in Smyrna according to ethnicity. Based on De Bruyn’s
Panorama .................................................................................................................... 21
Fig. 4 Closer view of the waterfront, detail from De Bruyn’s Panorama ................. 22
Fig. 5 The Genoese (6), Dutch (7), and Venetian (8) consulates in a waterfront detail
from De Bruyn’s panorama ........................................................................................ 23
Fig. 6 British (10) and French (11) consulates. Waterfront detail from De Bruyn’s
panorama .................................................................................................................... 24
Fig. 7 Luyken, J. (1695). The 1688 Earthquake in Smyrna [Engraving]. Retrieved
from the Rijksmuseum ............................................................................................... 26
Fig. 8 Tournefort, J. P. (1717). View of Smyrna [Engraving]. Retrieved from BNF
Gallica ........................................................................................................................ 32
Fig. 9 Anonymous Painter, (c.1709-1723). View of Smyrna (Izmir) and the
Reception Given to Consul de Hochepied (1657-1723) in the Council Chamber
[Painting]. Retrieved from Rijksmuseum .................................................................. 32
Fig. 10 The details of the consul’s wearing and the medallion ................................. 34
Fig. 11 The details of the waterfront area ................................................................. 35
Fig. 12 Andrew, E. (1730). The waterfront detail from the Chart of Smyrna [Map].
Retrieved from Stanford Libraries ............................................................................. 37
Fig. 13 Choiseul-Gouffier. M. G. A. (c.1780). View of Smyrna [Engraving].
Retrieved from BNF Gallica ...................................................................................... 38
Fig. 14 The waterfront detail in Tournefort’s engraving .......................................... 38
Fig. 15 Dutch flag detail in Choiseul-Gouffier’s engraving ..................................... 39
ix
Fig. 16 Dutch flag detail in the Rijksmuseum painting ............................................ 39
Fig. 17 Dutch flag detail in the Choiseul-Gouffier’s engraving ............................... 39
Fig. 18 Bocage, J. D. B., (c.1780). Plan of Smyrna [City Plan]. Retrieved from BNF
Gallica ........................................................................................................................ 44
Fig. 19 Missir, L. A., (c.1800). Plan of Smyrna [City Plan]. From Pınar, İ. (2020).
Osmanlı Dönemi İzmir Planları ve Haritaları ............................................................ 44
Fig. 20 Details of the waterfront from the plan of Jean-Denis Barbié du Bocage,
1780 ............................................................................................................................ 45
Fig. 21 Details of the waterfront from the plan of Livio Amademo Missir, c.1800 . 45
Fig. 22 Copeland, R. (1734). Smyrna Harbor [Map]. Retrieved from UWM Libraries
.................................................................................................................................... 48
Fig. 23 Graves, T. (1836-37). Plan of Smyrna [Map]. Retrieved from UWM
Libraries ..................................................................................................................... 49
Fig. 24 The waterfront detail from the map of T. Graves ......................................... 51
Fig. 25 Details of the waterfront from the map of R. Copeland ............................... 52
Fig. 26 Details of Rue de Franque in Luppazolo’s drawing ..................................... 57
Fig. 27 Grand Vizier Mustafa Pasha’s residential place in De Bruyn’s Panorama .. 58
Fig. 28 Anonymous. (c. 1766). Entry of Joseph de Bauffremont into Smyrne 28
September 1766 [Painting]. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons .......................... 60
Fig. 29 Madama Han in the city plan of Barbié du Bocage, c. 1780 ........................ 62
Fig. 30 Madama Han and Consulate of the Holy Roman Empire in the city plan of
Livio Amadeo Missir, c. 1800.................................................................................... 62
Fig. 31 Portraiture of “la Büyük Madama,” Clara Catherina de Hochepied-Colyer.
From Heylen, Kunst in de Levant .............................................................................. 63
Fig. 32 Details of the building techniques of Madama Han ..................................... 65
Fig. 33 Two Latin Parishes of Smyrna: Reformed Fathers (Yellow) and Capuchin
Fathers (Red). Retrieved from Pallini, Early 19th-century Smyrna ............................ 66
x
Fig. 34 Storari, L. (1854-56). Pianta Della Città de Smirne [City Plan]. Retrieved
from BNF Gallica ....................................................................................................... 73
Fig. 35 Details of the Armenian Quarter after the regularization of the urban fabric
.................................................................................................................................... 76
Fig. 36 Details of the newly developing district at Punta according to the urban
reforms introduced with the edict of Tanzimat .......................................................... 81
Fig. 37 The waterfront on the city plan of Luigi Storari ........................................... 84
Fig. 38 Details of frenkhâne properties. .................................................................... 85
Fig. 39 The Greek Orthodox Church of St. Giovanni (1) at Punta. .......................... 88
Fig. 40 Map showing the property ownership on the waterfront [Property Map].
(c.1865). Retrieved from BOA................................................................................... 91
Fig. 41 Map showing the property ownership on the waterfront [Property Map].
(c.1865). Retrieved from BOA................................................................................... 92
Fig. 42 Terminal Station at Punta [Photograph]. (c.1860). Retrieved from Levantine
Heritage Foundation ................................................................................................. 102
Fig. 43 Kivoto (or café de l’Arche) before the violent incident. From Le Monde
Illustré ...................................................................................................................... 106
Fig. 44 Lloyd Insurance Agency and Greek Casino on the waterfront. From Le
Monde Illustré .......................................................................................................... 106
Fig. 45 The drawing showing the view during/after the incident of Kivoto. From Le
Monde Illustré .......................................................................................................... 107
Fig. 46 The waterfront with wooden piers and properties extending to the sea.
(c.1860). From Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir ........................................................... 107
Fig. 47 A Street in Smyrna [Lithograph]. From Allom, T. (1838-40). Constantinople
and the scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor illustrated. .......................... 114
Fig. 48 Frank Street in Smyrna [Photograph]. (c.1890). Retrieved from SALT
Research ................................................................................................................... 118
Fig. 49 Rue de Franque or Mahmudiye Caddesi .................................................... 121
Fig. 50 Rue de Franque or Sultaniye Caddesi ........................................................ 121
xi
Fig. 51 Rue de Fasula or Teşrifiye Caddesi ............................................................ 122
Fig. 52 Rue de Fasula or Teşrifiye Caddesi ............................................................ 122
Fig. 53 Rue de Trassa or Mesudiye Caddesi ........................................................... 123
Fig. 54 Saad, L. (1876). Plan de Smyrne [City Plan]. Retrieved from BNF Gallica
.................................................................................................................................. 128
Fig. 55 The white area represents the waterfront after the quay construction was
completed (it was still in progress when Saad’s city plan was produced in 1876) .. 129
Fig. 56 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 1st photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute ..................................................................................................................... 131
Fig. 57 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 2nd photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute ..................................................................................................................... 132
Fig. 58 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 3rd photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute ..................................................................................................................... 132
Fig. 59 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 4th photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute ..................................................................................................................... 133
Fig. 60 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 5th photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute ..................................................................................................................... 133
Fig. 61 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 6th photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute ..................................................................................................................... 134
Fig. 62 Details from the 1889 property map showing the properties of Balouzoglu
and Maksoudian. [Property Map]. Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime
Minister’s Office ...................................................................................................... 135
Fig. 63 Details from the 1889 property map showing the properties of the Aliotti
Family and Quay Company. [Property Map]. Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives
of the Prime Minister’s Office ................................................................................. 136
Fig. 64 Details from the early 20th century property map showing the new owners of
the properties once belonging to the Aliotti Family and Quay Company. [Property
Map]. Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office ......... 136
Fig. 65 Hotel Alexandria and Hotel Elphiniki [Postcard]. (c.1900). Retrieved from
the Digital Commonwealth ...................................................................................... 137
xii
Fig. 66 Grand Hotel Huck [Postcard]. (c.1900). Retrieved from the Digital
Commonwealth ........................................................................................................ 138
Fig. 67 Italian School for Girls [Photograph]. (c.1905). Retrieved from Levantine
Heritage Foundation ................................................................................................. 143
Fig. 68 British Consulate (32) in Charles E. Goad’s insurance map, no 3. [Insurance
Map]. (1905). Retrieved from SALT Research ....................................................... 145
Fig. 69 Spanish Consulate (69) in Charles E. Goad’s insurance map, no 4.
[Insurance Map]. (1905). Retrieved from SALT Research...................................... 146
Fig. 70 Greek Consulate (85) in Charles E. Goad’s insurance map, no 5. [Insurance
Map]. (1905). Retrieved from SALT Research ....................................................... 147
Fig. 71 Elie Guiffray’s property and French Consulate in the 20th century property
map. (c.1900). Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office
.................................................................................................................................. 149
Fig. 72 Old French Kiosk before 1905 [Photograph]. (c.1900). Retrieved from the
digital archives of George Poulimenos .................................................................... 150
Fig. 73 New French Consulate after 1905 [Postcard]. (c.1910). Retrieved from the
digital archives of George Poulimenos .................................................................... 150
Fig. 74 Banco di Roma on the waterfront. (c.1910). Retrieved from the digital
archives of George Poulimenos ............................................................................... 153
Fig. 75 The Quay of Smyrna and the Waterfront [Postcard]. (c.1910). Retrieved
from SALT Research ............................................................................................... 156
Fig. 76 The Quay of Smyrna [Postcard]. (c.1905). Retrieved from SALT Research
.................................................................................................................................. 156
Fig. 77 One Part of the Quay [Postcard]. (c. 1900). Retrieved from SALT Research
.................................................................................................................................. 159
Fig. 78 Grand Hotel Kraemer Place [Postcard]. (c. 1900). Retrieved from SALT
Research. .................................................................................................................. 160
Fig. 79 Detail from Goad’s insurance map, no 5. Gioya Han, Verhane
Terdjimanoglou, and Verhane Spartali with offices, warehouses, bureaus of various
professions [Insurance Map]. Retrieved from SALT Research ............................... 165
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research, sources, and methodology
The history of art, according to German author Peter Weiss (1916–1982), is the
history of social contracts and human life.1 This assertion might be slightly modified
to argue that the history of art and architecture is the history of social affiliations and
spatial relations. In this context, my research discusses how Smyrna's urban and
social landscape altered over a long process that started with the reconstruction after
the 1688 earthquake, and produces a rather homogeneous urban form with the
construction of the new quays in 1880. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a
complicated and protracted process of social interactions, governmental initiatives,
and local actors' interventions shaping the environment of Smyrna. The elements of
the landscape transformation in Smyrna include commercial relations, demographic
changes, natural disasters, legal regulations, cultural shifts, modernization,
industrialization, and the movement of people, ideas, and materials in a multicultural
environment.
It is crucial to understand the developments in the city from the late 17th
century onwards in order to comprehend how Smyrna's urban fabric changed to
become the landscape of the early 20th century. Accordingly, the study begins by
analyzing Smyrna’s environment from the 17th century onward and concludes by
studying the urban landscape of the early 20th century, assessing a long historical
process of continuity and change. Primary sources in Ottoman, French, and Italian,
as well as the writings of individuals and historical figures, official documents,
1 Weiss, The Aesthetics of Resistance, 300.
2
newspapers, maps, plans, postcards, engravings, and photographs, were all examined
and compared while evaluating the successive periods and transformations. The
Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office (BOA), BNF Gallica, Digital
Commonwealth, Archive.org, SALT Research, LocGov, and the Levantine Heritage
Foundation are just among the many database and archival sources used. The thesis
evaluates both visual and textual primary sources attempting to understand their
connections and relationships. Secondary sources were used during the research in
order to contextualize visual and textual evidence from primary sources and
historical events. To assess the transformation more comprehensively in the urban
landscape of Smyrna, the thesis core is articulated into three main chapters (2, 3, 4)
corresponding to major turning points in the spatial history of the city.
Chapter Two – Community and Landscape Before 1840 – is divided into two
sections examining the waterfront and Frank Street. This chapter explores the
development of the urban landscape up until the early 19th century, starting with the
major elements of Smyrna's landscape in the mid-17th century. The city is observed
and described by both foreign and local visitors in the first waterfront subsection.
The factors that led to the formation and alteration of the city landscape are among
the research topics of this chapter based on these accounts. The expansion of the
city's commercial ties, the rise in the diplomatic significance of the city, and
population growth as a result of migration were some of the factors that led to the
change in the urban and social landscape. Of course, the city's local actors had a
significant role in this transition phase. Members of diverse communities became
agents of change who contributed to the urban change in Smyrna, producing a space
with plural characteristics, according to its multicultural inhabitants. In this eastern
Mediterranean port city, cosmopolitanism was and remains a problematic concept,
3
but certainly, rigid borders separating communities were not a constant feature of
urban society. In the section on Frank Street, the city's multicultural life and social
fabric are analyzed, and these changing boundaries, the plural affiliations they
implied, and the connected issue of cosmopolitanism are examined.
Chapter Three – Urban Change and Cross-Cultural Relations After 1840 –
contains three different sub-chapters discussing the waterfront, the construction of
modern infrastructures like the railroads and quay, and, again, Frank Street. During
the second half of the 19th century, the state's modernization efforts were intensified,
legal regulations were issued, and efforts toward industrialization increased. The
population and volume of trade in Smyrna both significantly rose at the same time.
Prior to the major infrastructural changes, Smyrna's waterfront underwent a
distinctive evolution that included the expansion of the frenkhâne properties, which
were located on the shore and used as residential places, religious spaces, consulates,
and commercial areas. Private individuals owned these properties, and their
development as a result of the coastline's extension due to shoreline filling over time,
created a unique fabric of narrow and elongated plots flanking each other. This local
typology of building corresponded to the prominence of commerce and exchange in
the local economy, but also favored smuggling and other criminal activities. The
increase in trade volume and private ownership of warehouses and piers located on
the shore necessitated legal intervention at both the central and local government
levels. Once more, the city's industrialization and modernization initiatives were
encouraged by the increase in trade volume but could not be controlled by a single
agency or homogeneous group of stakeholders. Railroads were constructed to
transport raw materials from the countryside of Smyrna to the port, or to distribute
goods arriving in the city by sea to other regions. A modern quay and new factories
4
were built in addition to the railroads. All these actions, in which local actors played
a significant role, had a remarkable effect on the city's urban fabric.
Chapter Four – After 1880 – is divided into two subsections dealing with the
waterfront and Frank Street after 1880. Since 1880, when the quay was constructed,
construction activities were carried out on the waterfront part of the city. For this
reason, the first subchapter examines the waterfront in the making. It investigates
how these works happened and what kinds of places and spatial relations were
present. The first subchapter investigates which builders, architects, and engineers
were employed by the city when the waterfront was in the making. Diverse
communities and individual actors were involved in the spatial transformation
process on the waterfront. Besides, the migration of people with know-how and the
circulation of people, materials, and ideas played a role in the development of the
waterfront. Therefore, the first subchapter traces the impacts of cross-cultural
relations, diverse communities, and individual actors during the development of the
waterfront. The changes that occurred in the 19th century have also had a significant
impact on Frank Street. The street's social, cultural, and urban space has transformed.
Therefore, the second subchapter examines Frank Street in the late 19th to early 20th
centuries, a time of significant intellectual, material, and urban change. On Frank
Street, these changes were a consequence of the new flow of people and
commodities fostered by the new waterfront and the railway. In this regard, the final
section of this chapter explores how architectural and social elements developed in
synergy during this period. A special attention is devoted to the changing functions
and ownership in this environment.
5
1.2 Literature review
In this regard, the thesis examines the spatial transformation of Smyrna in the longue
durée, from the 1688 earthquake to the development of the quay in the 19th century.
However, it is natural to encounter differences in the availability and amount of
primary sources for different historical phases when examining almost 200 years. In
some periods, the number and diversity of sources is greater. For example, while
finding sources other than engravings in the 17th century was more difficult, it was
easier to find official documents, correspondence, travelogues and maps produced
from the 18th century onwards. One of the reasons for this is undoubtedly the loss of
existing materials due to earthquakes and fires. In periods when the central
government began to increase its control, and modernization accelerated, in addition
to the maps produced by travelers, we began to find cadastral maps and scientifically
drawn city plans. The late 19th century insurance maps are also a product of
modernization. Of course, again in relation to technology, photographs also
proliferated after the mid-19th century.
Over time, the structural and material components that would have provided
us with insight into Smyrna's past have either vanished or been destroyed. The
development of the city over time has resulted in the loss of structures, materials, and
landmarks in addition to incidents that significantly altered the appearance of the
city, such as the war or the fire of 1922. As a result, it is conceivable to think of the
urban landscape's evolution as a palimpsest with layers that were only partly erased,
and fragments of different epochs evoking the complex processes we have analyzed.
Although some traces have been lost, imprints of transformation, materials, and
historical landmarks from Ottoman Smyrna can still be traced in modern-day Izmir
thanks to the peculiar nature of this palimpsest. Besides, due to ideological and
6
political motives, landmarks, documents, materials, and places of Ottoman,
“cosmopolitan” Smyrna may have been erased in the decades following the fire.
Still, it is possible to discover materials, records, and documents in the archives that
will broaden our understanding of the complex historical layers of Smyrna. However,
it is required to conduct personal research considering these records have not been
digitalized, and some of them are in private archives or cannot yet be accessed.
Ottoman Izmir (Smyrna) has been the subject of various academic studies in
modern historiography. Researchers and scholars from various disciplines have
studied the city’s development in history, its urban structure, its social structure. The
majority of the studies produced after the republican era until the 1990s analyzed the
history of Izmir in line with the ongoing trends in Turkish historiography, which
stresses the role of the Ottoman state and the impact of the foreign states during the
times of so-called “decline.”2 For instance, Tuncer Baykara examined the history of
Izmir, examining its prehistoric roots, historical turning points, urban growth,
architectural heritage, and cultural elements in his study, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi.
Although Baykara's work on history Izmir is a very comprehensive work, it explores
the historical developments from a perspective that stresses the Turkish identity of
the Ottoman Empire and emphasizes the role of the Ottoman state while excluding
the involvement of minorities, diverse communities, and foreigners into the process
of historical development. Likewise, scholars such as Çınar Atay and Rauf Beyru
followed the trend in 20th century Turkish historiography, emphasized the role of the
states and foreign powers, and excluded the role of diverse communities, individual
actors, cultural exchange, and cross-cultural relations in the development of the city.
2 Ersanlı, “The Ottoman Empire in the Historiography.”
7
Perhaps, a turning point in the historiography of Izmir corresponds to the
period that increased in globalization at the end of the 20th century, in which the
mobility and diversity of people, ideas, and materials began to be a part of history
writing in the world. In 1990, Daniel Goffman published his work, Izmir and the
Levantine World, 1550-1650, in which he examines the transformation of a small
port town into a cosmopolitan trade hub. In his study, Goffman evaluates Izmir’s
position in the eastern Mediterranean as a developing vibrant port city and a
commercial hub by giving special emphasis to the role of trade and cultural
exchange. A study exploring the development of the city in the 17th and 18th
centuries was published by Necmi Ülker in 1994. In his book, XVII. ve XVIII.
Yüzyıllarda İzmir Şehri Tarihi, Ülker examines the development of the city and the
important role that trade played in this development that took place in the 17th and
18th centuries from a perspective that stresses the significance of mercantile activities
and the economic importance of the city in the eastern Mediterranean. However,
even though the emphasis on the Ottoman state’s and foreign powers' role was lesser
in the study of Ülker, the role of cross-cultural relations and the involvement of
actors from diverse communities were limited since the emphasis was given to the
trade and economic determinants.
In this regard, the involvement of individual actors and the role of diverse
communities in the development of Izmir were emphasized in the studies of Elena
Frangakis-Syrett and Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis. Frangakis-Syrett published her
study, The Commerce of Smyrna in the Eighteenth Century (1700-1820), in 1992, in
which she examines the economic history of Izmir in the 18th and early 19th
centuries. In the study, the economic and mercantile activities in Izmir were
examined with particular attention devoted to the role of the diverse communities
8
and individual actors. Therefore, the study constitutes an important example of how
diverse communities of Izmir contributed to the economic developments instead of
only stressing the role of the Ottoman state and international relations in the trade
activities of Smyrna.
The multicultural characteristics of Smyrna and cross-cultural relations were
examined by Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis in the early 2000s. In her studies, Une ville
ottomane plurielle: Smyrne aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles and Une société hors de soi :
identités et relations sociales à Smyrne au XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, Smyrnelis analyzes
the cross-cultural relations and plural identities in the 18th and 19th century Smyrna.
She examines the complex relations of diverse communities, Levantines, and
foreigners and their everyday practices, their jurisdictions, and their coexistence with
other communities in the commercial hub of the eastern Mediterranean. In her
studies, Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis challenges the historiography of Smyrna that
approached the history of Smyrna from a state-deterministic perspective and did not
include the cross-cultural relations, plural affiliations, and role of individual actors.
Following this line of analysis, communities of Izmir were studied by various
scholars, such as Henri Nahum, who examined the history of Jews of Izmir, and
Anahide Ter Minassian, who studied the history of Izmir’s Armenians. In addition,
Sibel Zandi-Sayek’s work emphasizes the cosmopolitan character of Izmir and
examines its historical development and spatial transformations during the late
Ottoman period between 1840-1880. Zandi-Sayek analyzes the social, economic, and
cultural factors that contributed to the rise of Izmir as an eastern Mediterranean port
city. While doing so, the interactions between different ethnic and religious groups,
such as Ottoman Muslims, Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and Levantine communities,
9
and how their coexistence shaped the city's social life, urban space, and architectural
fabric was examined by Zandi-Sayek.
In the historiography of Izmir, several sources, such as works of Çınar Atay
and İlhan Pınar, brought together the visual materials, maps, plans, engravings, and
postcards for the use of researchers. For example, Atay published his study in 1998,
Osmanlı'dan Cumhuriyet'e İzmir Planları, which brings together a collection of maps
and plans representing Izmir from the early-modern era up until the early republican
period in the 1930s. Recently, Pınar’s Osmanlı Dönemi İzmir Plan ve Haritaları was
published, and it includes certain visual materials that did not appear in the book of
Atay. In addition to the works that collect maps and visual materials, Pınar also
translated and published the writings of foreign travelers who visited Izmir in the 18th
and 19th centuries in his book series of Gezginlerin Gözüyle İzmir. Thanks to these
studies that collected maps, visuals, and travelogues together, researchers can access
the materials easier than before.
In a more strictly architectural perspective, various scholars studied the
physical landmarks of the city, such as commercial buildings, residential places,
governmental buildings, and religious spaces. For instance, Bozkurt Ersoy’s study
from 1991, İzmir Hanları, examines the plan types of commercial places built up
from the early-modern era up to the early 20th century. In 2003, Çınar Atay also
published his study on the architecture of commercial areas, Kapanan Kapılar (İzmir
Hanları). The architectural characteristics of residential places owned by Levantines
and the public/governmental buildings in Izmir were studied by İnci Kuyulu Ersoy.
İnci Kuyulu Ersoy also studied the impacts of the Westernization period on the
architectural elements constructed in Izmir. Also, she worked the orientalist
architecture, and early republican buildings in Izmir, alongside her interests in wall
10
paintings produced in Western Anatolia. The characteristics of the residential places
known as Smyrna houses, a building typology that emerged in the second half of the
19th century, were studied by Şeniz Çıkış. In her study on Smyrna houses, Çıkış
stresses the importance of modernization in the formation of the building typology,
as well as emphasizing the role of local actors and materials that contributed to the
emergence of the modern residential places. Besides, Cenk Berkant published studies
on the activities of foreign and Levantine architects in Izmir, giving a special
emphasis on the cultural exchange between locals, Levantines, and foreigners. In his
studies, Berkant examined the life and works of Italian engineer Luigi Storari, and
architects Stefano Molli, and Giulio Mongeri. Thanks to these studies made by
scholars, architects, builders, engineers, architectural practices, materials, and styles
in Izmir are known today.
1.3 Space, place, landscape
My master’s thesis focuses on the urban landscape and spatial transformations that
took place in Izmir from the earthquake of 1688 up until the development of the
modern quay, with a special focus on the area on the waterfront and the so-called
Rue de Franque, which was the main artery of foreign, Levantine, “cosmopolitan”
settlement. In my dissertation, I examine the landscape transformations and
representation of Izmir from the early-modern period onward and study the spatial
transformations that took place on the waterfront and in Rue de Franque in order to
compare the reality in the place with the representation of the space. These changes
that took place in the landscape of Izmir are observed and assessed as landscape
transformations, in the sense that special attention is given to the subjective,
perspectival aspects of representation, subject to change over time and according to
11
contexts and backgrounds. Therefore, the originality of my thesis and distinctive
aspects are related to the study of landscape and spatial transformations in the longue
durée on a specific area, the waterfront, and Rue de Franque, with a closer
examination. During my research, I examine how the space was constructed through
cross-cultural relations, state/community regulations, international affairs,
transformation in the global regime of exchange, and individual agencies.
The Oxford American Dictionary defines the landscape as “a scenery of an
inland area, or a picture of this.”3 The simple definition of the landscape was
perceived as a territorial place and space, with or without human intervention. A
space or scenery of an inland area, as a person sees it, stands there. The emotions,
feelings, and meanings were attached to it by the observer. The representation of
space in history, urban or natural, goes back to ancient times. Homer described the
view of Troy, Mount Olympus, or Ithaca, the home of Odysseus, poetically and
epically. Afterward, in his Histories, Herodotus portrayed the cities and places he
encountered during his travels. Their perception and the environment surrounding
them shaped their representation of the world. In the medieval era, Mappa Mundi
represented the world known by the medieval people. It was the world of Christians,
positioning Christ on the top of the map and the world view of Christianity at the
center. Soon after, the scholars of the Enlightenment challenged with this world, and
they replaced the Christian world the secular one, created through scientific
observations.4
In 15th century Europe, landscape painting became a genre of its own. The
development of landscape painting as a genre was related to the evolution following
the main cultural transformation of the 15th-century Western world, such as a relative
3 Ehrlich et al, “Landscape,” in American Oxford Dictionary, 371.
4 Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 6-8.
12
secularization of values, geographical explorations, the so-called scientific
revolution, Enlightenment and flourishing in culture and art. In the Renaissance
period, the representation of the space and the landscape became the subject of
painting.5 The idea behind landscape painting was the control of space and the
idealization of it.6 These became a tool for controlling space, such as maps became
the tool of conquest and territorial domination.7 Landscape painting at the time
allowed for the manipulation of both the visual perception of space and the human
actions taking place within it. The invention of perspective played a significant role
in visual control over space. Thanks to the usage of perspective, the artist could
determine how the landscape would be seen by the observer. Therefore, even though
the landscape paintings were seen as realistic, this claim was merely ideological, and
the pictorial rules determined the realism of the painting.8
The concept of landscape was defined by the active involvement of the
actors, and the meaning changed according to their subjective feelings and ideas.
Visual materials such as engravings, paintings, postcards, and photographs became
the mediators for making distant places visible. The accessible image and landscape
became the subject of various people who consider and comment differently on the
same view. In fact, one person could interpret the same landscape differently, even
with contradicting emotions. Those who represent the landscape or observe the
landscape reflect their own emotions and the influence of the environment in which
they live.9 It is, therefore, inevitable to see the influence of actors in the landscapes
represented or observed.
5 Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 21.
6 Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 19.
7 Harley, “Map, Knowledge, Power,” 282. Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 20.
8 Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 21. Cosgrove “Prospect, Prespective, and the
Evolution of the Landscape Idea,” 47-51.
9 Bender, “Place and Landscape,” 303-305.
13
To understand the landscape, the role of the actors within it is also essential.
According to Bourdieu, people live in a habitus imposed and made experienced by
the external world. Although habitus is important in explaining social relations, the
external world seems more determinant, whereas the individual is an attentive
participant.10 On the other hand, some theories suggest that individuals are more
active agents in forming social structures. For instance, Giddens suggests that
humans create the social and economic structures they live in with their behaviors
and thoughts.11 In addition to these suggestions, Cosgrove argues that landscape can
be defined through “human use of the earth, the relationships between society and
the land.” For him, material conditions of the world, such as the mode of production,
structural changes, such as the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and human
actions and society’s interactions with the physical environment play an essential
role.12
In contrast to the dictionary explanation, Cosgrove points out that “landscape
is not merely the world we see, it is a construction, a composition of that world. The
landscape is a way of seeing the world.”13 The construction of the landscape was a
product of means of production, the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and
human intervention to nature. These aspects played an equal role, and natural,
economic, cultural, and social structures cannot construct the landscape apart from
each other. Neglecting the role of individuals and societies alongside economic and
social developments makes it difficult to understand landscape change. Besides,
individuals and communities can have particular tensions and conflicts related to
10 Bender, “Place and Landscape,” 306.
11 Bender, “Place and Landscape,” 306.
12 Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 1-6.
13 Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 13.
14
social, religious, or political reasons. These tensions and conflicts can arise at any
time and any place, and imprints of these conflicts can be seen in the landscape.14
Therefore, individual, social, and cultural relations reflect on the landscape.
However, the representation of the space can be misleading due to its subjective,
conceptual, and contextual nature of it. In this regard, spatial relations and crosscultural
relations cannot understand from the perspective of the landscape, but it is
necessary to study the spatial transformations that took place in a given place in
order to compare and understand the reality that existed behind the landscape.
Besides, examination of the spatial transformations helps us to study continuities and
changes in the urban fabric. Hence, my dissertation examines the spatial
transformations from the 1688 earthquake onward up to the late 19th century Smyrna
and compares these changes with the landscapes in the textual and visual documents.
14 Cosgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape, 56-68.
15
CHAPTER 2
COMMUNITY AND LANDSCAPE BEFORE 1840
2.1 Waterfront
Smyrna, a small city on the Aegean coast, included a multicultural population and
established commercial ties with the other eastern Mediterranean port cities in the
16th century, however, the early 17th century became a turning point in its urban
history.15 The town started to develop its commercial ties with ports of other cities
and began to develop among neighboring ports such as Chios and Çeşme.16 The
growth in Smyrna’s trade volume and improvement of its commercial ties with the
other markets paved the way for infrastructural developments, such as the building
campaign of the castle of Sancakkale in 1650.17 The castle was built by order of
grand vizier Köprülü Mehmet Pasha (1578-1661) in order to protect the entrance of
the city on the seaway and get the smuggling under control because “infidel ships
anchor away and flee without notifying the custom.”18 Thus, the central and local
governments took precautions to protect the city from losing its revenues and
smuggling. The castle also offered a certain level of protection for the merchants, and
it was also a significant reason why Smyrna’s port was preferred among other ports
of the Ottoman Empire. Besides, grand vizier Fazıl Ahmet Pasha (1635-1676) also
ordered the construction of the Vezir Han in 1685, which became an important
15 When the Ottomans conquered Smyrna, it was a small town. It started to develop as an important
port-city under the Ottoman city. See further for historical progress of a small town into an eastern
Mediterranean port city of the 17th century: Goffman, Izmir and Levantine World, 1550-1650 and
Goffman, “Izmir: from village to colonial port city.”
16 Goffman, Izmir and Levantine World, 61.
17 Baykara, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, 39.
18 Çelebi, Seyahatname, 52-53.
16
component of the city’s landscape and its commercial life.19 Hence, more protection,
revenue, and trade attracted new people from different geographies. For instance,
some accounts indicate that the population rose from 3.000 to approximately 10.000
people in the early 17th century.20 Thus, the mid-17h century marks the period that
Smyrna began to develop and become a significant port city in the eastern
Mediterranean, a period the circulation of people, ideas, and materials started to
accelerate.
Some visitors who traveled in the city in the 17th century produced
travelogues and illuminated manuscripts about early modern Smyrna. For instance,
Francesco Luppazolo (1570-1702), an agent of the missionary Catholic organization
Propaganda Fide,21 depicted the view of Smyrna in his manuscript, Isolario
dell’Arcipelago et altri luoghi particolari, in 1638. The drawing (Fig. 1) of
Luppazolo represents the early-modern view of the city, with its symbolic landmarks
such as Kadifekale castle at the top, ruins of the tomb of St. Polycarp, the protector
saint of Smyrna, wharves at the waterfront, the port castle (St. Peter or Genoese
Castle), and customs. Besides, ships and boats of various sizes emphasize Smyrna’s
connections with the eastern Mediterranean and Western trade. Alongside the larger
port protected by the Genoese castle, small wharves were attached to the buildings
located on the left side of the castle. The horseshoe-shaped harbor, which was filled
up in the 18th century, was also indicated on the right side of Genoese castle in the
port. While religious or public buildings such as churches, mosques, or castles were
indicated with their unique architectural styles, ordinary buildings were depicted
19 The construction order was given in the year 1675 by Fazıl Ahmet Pasha, son of Köprülü Mehmet
Pasha. However, the building was completed by grand vizier Kara Mustafa Pasha (1634- 1683) in
1677. See further: Ersoy, İzmir Hanları, 120-121.
20 Pınar, İzmir Planları ve Haritaları, 15.
21 Wilson, “Francesco Lupazzolo’s Isolario,” 189. Hasluck, “Depopulation in the Aegean Islands,”
153. Tolias, “Shaping the Levant,” 423.
17
schematically. The residential places represented on the seashore, which most of the
foreigners and consuls believed to inhabit, were depicted with small boats and
wharves attached to them. Frank Street, or so-called Rue de Franque, was
represented right behind the buildings on the waterfront. The street was depicted as a
scattered line, referring to the street’s fragmented urban fabric. However,
Luppazolo’s drawing does not reveal the city’s urban fabric in extreme detail. Still, it
demonstrates a remarkable representation of the area on the waterfront and Rue de
Franque in early-modern Smyrna.
Fig. 1 Luppazolo, F. (1638). View of Smyrna, 1638 [Engraving]. From Pınar, İ.
(2020). Osmanlı Dönemi İzmir Planları ve Haritaları
18
The development of the city as an important port city in the eastern
Mediterranean caused an increase in the flow of people and materials to the city, and
regarding the increase in circulation, the number of commercial places and
accommodation places (inns) began to increase. In 1671, the number of inns
increased to 82,22 whereas there were only 60 inns in 1648.23 A Dutch traveler,
Cornelis De Bruyn (1652-1727), who visited the city in 1678, produced both textual
and visual documents about the earl-modern urban space of Smyrna. De Bruyn’s
panorama shows similarities with the drawing of Luppazolo from 1638: a fragmented
shoreline, the Kadifekale castle at the top, Genoese castle in the port, and the
Ottoman custom, and horseshoe-shaped harbor, wharves at the waterfront.24
However, there were also several differences with the drawing of 1638. The urban
layout of the city was represented in more detail. There were consulate flags
adorning the waterfront, and even the ordinary buildings in the city were depicted
more realistic, while the structures in Luppazolo’s drawing were depicted
schematically.
In the panorama (Fig. 2), number one points out to the castle on the top, and
number two refers to the old Chapel of St. Polycarp and the ruins of the tomb of St.
Polycarp, a disciple of St. John. Number three means the remains of an ancient
theater, and it is also where St. John’s tomb rested. From number four, De Bruyn
began to describe the houses and buildings located on the seashore and in the city.
According to his accounts, number four was the kiosk of Ahmet Agha, and a
caravansary belonging to the Ottoman Greek families was marked with number five.
Two or three houses at the northern part of the panorama with a flag representing the
22 Çelebi, Seyahatname, 51.
23 Ersoy, İzmir Hanları, 4.
24 De Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, 26.
19
Consul of Genoa were numbered six. The House of Dutch consul indicated seven,
and Venetian Consulate with eight (Fig. 5). The building with number nine
represents Grand Vizier Mustafa Pasha’s residential place, “which was the most
prominent house”25 on Frank Street. British Consulate numbered ten, and French
Consulate numbered eleven (Fig. 6). Number twelve represents the custom for
commercial activities. Bedesten, or covered market, 26 which was the primary space
for commercial activities in the city, was indicated by number thirteen, and Vezir
Han numbered fourteen. Number sixteen refers to the port for the galleys and for
small Turkish boats. Another custom for the vessels, which carries a large number of
foods that were consumed in the country, was marked by seventeen.27
Fig. 2 De Bruyn, C. (1714). Panorama of Smyrna, 1678 [Engraving]. Retrieved from
BNF Gallica
De Bruyn depicts the early-modern panorama of Smyrna, just before the 18th
century, when it was in making and developing due to increased trade and flow of
people. Besides trade and migration, the central government’s relationship with
foreigners and foreign countries in terms of commerce and diplomacy impacted the
25 De Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, 24.
26 “Bedesten” means Covered Turkish Bazaar. (March 20, 2023). Retrieved from Kubbealtı Lügatı,
http://lugatim.com/s/bedesten
27 De Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, 24.
20
landscape of Smyrna beyond measure. Moreover, the lack of city walls improved
Smyrna’s and Smyrniots’ relationship with the sea, and it cleared the way for new
trade opportunities. Smyrna’s waterfront and Rue de Franque became a commercial
hub for diverse communities in Smyrna, such as foreigners, Ottoman Christians,
Ottoman Jews, and Ottoman Muslims.
However, although Smyrna was a city where diverse communities coexisted,
it is possible to find traces of tensions among the communities in some accounts. For
instance, Evliya Çelebi (1611-1682), a Muslim traveler who visited Smyrna in 1671,
refers to the existence of eighteen consuls in this iştiharlı (famous) city and portraits
it as a Frengistan-misal (Western-like)28 city and he emphasizes the dominance of
foreigners and their privileges in the social life. In his account, he claims that
foreigners protected themselves well, and judges favored them in the judicial cases.
He says that if someone hits or hurts an infidel29, the person would be killed by
foreigners immediately, or the judges would sentence the person to death.30 Indeed,
although Smyrna was a cosmopolitan port city, the communities tended to reside in
separate neighborhoods in Smyrna, according to their ethno-religious affiliations
(Fig. 3). Foreigners were settled in the waterfront and the area known as Frank
Quarter; the Greeks inhabited the northern part of the city behind the Frank Quarter.
Armenian quarter was in between the Greek and the southern-east parts of the city
where Jewish and Muslim neighborhoods were located. The Muslims mostly lived in
28 “Frengistan-misal” means Western-like. Çelebi compares Smyrna with the cities in the western
countries and gives the example of Malta. See further: Çelebi, Seyahatname, 52.
29 “Kefere” means infidel in plural. (March 20, 2023) Retrieved from Kubbealtı Lügatı.
http://lugatim.com/s/kefere
30 Çelebi, Seyahatname, 52. Although this statement may sound exaggerated, many writers have
written about the freedom and prosperity of foreigners in the city. For instance, Michaud,
Correspondance D’Orient 1830-1831, 216.
21
the hills of Mount Kadifekale, while Armenians and Jews settled in the plains closer
to the shore.31
Fig. 3 Neighborhoods in Smyrna according to ethnicity. Based on De Bruyn’s
Panorama
Nevertheless, the neighborhoods according to ethnicity did not constitute
sharp boundaries between diverse communities. In contrast, there were small units of
ethnic or religious neighborhoods located in or close to areas that other communities
inhabited.32 These small units of neighborhoods created an urban fabric that diverse
actors encountered instead of distinctly separated communal neighborhoods. Besides
the neighborhoods, public places, commercial areas like Frank Street, and the bazaar
area near Vezir Han were important sites of encounter for diverse communities.
However, these encounters did not necessarily create a public space where different
actors and communities happily coexist and encounter each other. For instance,
Cornelis de Bruyn visited the city during the great plague epidemic, when the city
was “under the reign of plague and disorder caused by the illness.”33 According to
his accounts, the plague had already killed thirty thousand people in Smyrna, and “he
even could not go for a walk in the city because Turks were walking together without
precautions during the epidemic.”34 Hence, De Bruyn stayed in Smyrna’s Dutch
31 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 11-14.
32 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 11.
33 De Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, 23.
34 De Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, 23.
22
consul Jacob van Dam’s (1629-1709) residential place which was located on the
waterfront in order to protect himself from the epidemic.
In fact, the travelogue of De Bruyn’s enlightens us about the behaviors of the
communities during the epidemic. For instance, while Turks were pacing up and
down without any precautions, foreigners and consuls locked themselves into their
properties. These properties were known as frenkhâne, ferhane, or verhane, and they
were located in between the waterfront and Frank Street. During the epidemic,
foreigners were closing the doors of their frenkhâne properties, and they would not
let anybody in until the plague was gone and kept the doors closed unless there was a
rightful reason.35
2.1.1 The frenkhânes and the waterfront
These properties, which were named “kefere hâne” (infidels’ house) by Evliya
Çelebi in his Seyahatname, were large and strong buildings with multifold structures
in which "whenever ships approached their wharves, they would fire a cannonball."36
Fig. 4 Closer view of the waterfront, detail from De Bruyn’s Panorama
These residential places located on the shore, frenkhâne properties, became a
distinct urban component of early-modern Smyrna. Both drawings of 1638 and 1678
demonstrate the imprints of frenkhânes on the shore: it was an irregular settlement,
and the shore did not present a straight alignment of properties. The reason behind
this lack of regularity lies in the historical development of the place: the shore was
35 De Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, 23.
36 Çelebi, Seyahatnâme, 52.
23
not subject to a conscious initiative of urban planning, but it was instead a palimpsest
resulting from successive layers and phases of private construction led by individual
investment. The shore did not keep the same layout over time, and it was in a state of
constant change. Especially between the 17th and the late 19th centuries the spatial
transformation was remarkable for its sudden and rapid phases of evolution: The
seashore filled up, and the buildings were extended over time by building up new
wooden piers and new structures. Property holders built up piers in those sea lots
when the areas first filled up. After a while, they had to fill up the sea lots in front of
their properties again, so they removed piers, built new structures instead, and
constructed new docks in the newly filled-up sea lots.37 These expansion practices
towards the sea were carried over for years by people and local government, and it
took a long time for the frenkhânes to complete their development and reach the state
they were in before the modern quay was built in the second half of the 19th century.
However, although the early accounts and drawings introduce us to the landscape of
Smyrna and its shore, neither the drawing of Luppazola nor the panorama of De
Bruyn represent frenkhâne properties as longitudinal, narrow, and tall buildings.
Nevertheless, both De Bruyn and Çelebi give us a common perspective about them:
frenkhâne properties were located on the shore and functioned as both storage and
residential places owned by wealthy foreigners and consuls.
Fig. 5 The Genoese (6), Dutch (7), and Venetian (8) consulates in a waterfront detail
from De Bruyn’s panorama
37 Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti. 183.
24
Fig. 6 British (10) and French (11) consulates. Waterfront detail from De Bruyn’s
panorama
According to travelogues from the 18th and 19th centuries, the upper floors of
the frenkhâne properties were used as residential places, while the ground floors
were used as warehouses,38 and they created passages between the shore and Frank
Street that travelers and people could use.39 However, in this regard, we should note
that the drawings of Luppazolo and De Bruyn, and the itinerary of Çelebi refer to the
view of Smyrna before the devastating earthquake took place on July 10, 1688,
whereas the accounts of the 18th and 19th centuries refer to the post-earthquake period
when the urban fabric of Smyrna was largely reconstructed. It was generally assumed
that these places continuously belonged to wealthy foreigners and consuls and were
used as passages, warehouses, and residential places for centuries. In this regard, I
argue that the social, cultural, economic, and legal dynamics that existed before and
after the 1688 earthquake must be examined in order to determine the differences,
continuities, and spatial transformations that took place on the waterfront.
38 Ülker, XVII, ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda İzmir, 15.
39 Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 159.
25
2.1.2 Before and after 1688
The 1688 earthquake was extremely violent, and it damaged Smyrna harshly, caused
loss of lives and properties, and destroyed buildings in the city (Fig. 7).40 The
earthquake was followed by a fire, which was also devastating. The earthquake and
fire damaged the city to a greater extent, causing the demolishment of most of the
structures and streets; among structures damaged, there were inns, bazaars, public
places, commercial buildings, residential places, and historical structures such as
Kadifekale and St. Peter castles. Besides, the Armenian neighborhood also suffered
from the fire and was almost entirely damaged because the houses in the quarter
were made of wood and mudbricks. The earthquake caused a loss of population in
Smyrna, according to some estimates between 15.000 and 16.000, it affected Turks
more severely, and Europeans to a lesser extent, as most of them were in villages or
their residences in the countryside.41 The damage of the earthquake and fire, in fact,
troubled the trade in the city and caused a cutback.42 Thus, after 1688, Smyrna went
into a process of recovering itself from the loss of population, decline in trade
volume, and the rubbish caused by the earthquake in the urban fabric.
40 Ülker, XVII, ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda İzmir, 18.
41 Iconomos, Etudé sur Smyrne, 128. Ülker, XVII, ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda İzmir, 18.
42 Ülker, XVII, ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda İzmir, 18-19.
26
Fig. 7 Luyken, J. (1695). The 1688 Earthquake in Smyrna [Engraving]. Retrieved
from the Rijksmuseum
The recovery of the population, trade volume, and urban fabric in Smyrna
progressed in correlation with each other. As the report above indicates, the
population decreased significantly after the earthquake. Before the 1688 earthquake,
27
the population estimates measured between 55.000 and 90.000.43 For instance, one
decade before the earthquake, De Bruyn measured the population as 80.000.44
However, the estimations after the 1688 earthquake made by French travelers are
quite below those given by De Bruyn. Aubry de La Motraye (1674-1743) measured
the population as 24.100, while Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656-1708) estimated it
as 27.200 at the beginning of the 18th century. According to Motraye, Smyrna’s
population of 24.100 in 1699 included 14.000 Turks, 8,000 Greeks, 400 Armenians,
1.500 Jews, and 200 foreigners.45 Similarly, Tournefort estimates the city’s
population as 27.200 in 1702, and there were 15.000 Turks, 10.000 Greeks, 200
Armenians, 1.800 Jews, and 200 foreigners.46 Hence, the estimations of Motraye and
Tournefort show the earthquake’s impact on the city’s population.
Although an increase in population and fluctuations in numbers were
apparent in the accounts about Smyrna, the estimated populations by travelers are
debatable, and there is no consensus among scholars due to a lack of official
documents. Still, a comparison of population figures for Smyrna by travelers from
the early 18th century and late 18th century suggests that the population of Smyrna
increased a few decades after the earthquake. According to measurements made by
travelers in the years between 1714 and 1737, the Turkish population reached
between 80,000 and 50,000, Greeks rose between 20,000 and 8.000, Armenians
between 600 and 8,000, and Jews between 2,000 and 6,000. In terms of foreign
population, British merchant and traveler Charles Thompson gives an estimation of
43 Baykara, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, 55-61.
44 De Bruyn, Voyage au Levant, 27.
45 Motraye, Voyages du Sr. A. de La Motraye, 179. About the population of Turks, Motraye was not
sure. According to his book, Turkish population was in between 12.000-14.000. The highest number
was taken into consideration in my thesis.
46 Tournefort, Relation d'un voyage du Levant, 495.
28
400 people.47 The differences between population assessments in the first half of the
century must have been caused by migration and natural disasters such as
earthquakes, fires, or plagues. However, the estimations from the second half of the
century show more consistency among each other and estimate a population between
100,000 and 150,000.48 The estimations from the second half of the 18th century
show a noticeable increase in Turks, Greeks, Jews, and foreigners. In contrast, the
increase in the Armenian population was gradual and measured closer to the numbers
from the first half of the century. To illustrate, in 1778, while the Greek population
rose to 30,000, the foreign population approached 3,000, but the Armenian
population was estimated between 6.000 and 8.000.49 The fluctuations in numbers
were a reflection of the lack of sufficient methods of population census, and some
estimations are still debatable. Nevertheless, the estimates show that the population
decreased due to the earthquake recovered over time and reached approximately
150.000 in the second half of the century.
The 1688 earthquake generated a stagnation in the city’s economic activities
and trade volume due to damage to the commercial buildings and perish of trade
goods. Thankfully, raw materials and agricultural products in Smyrna’s countryside
helped the merchants to continue their trade activities and relaxed the economic
situation in the city.50 The city recovered from the earthquake, and the increase in
economic activities and growth in trade volume before the earthquake was followed
up during the 18th century. Especially after 1740, Smyrna’s port started to gain
importance in the eastern Mediterranean region.51 There were several reasons behind
47 Baykara, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, 55-61. Thompson, Travels through Turkey, 10-24.
48 Baykara, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, 55-61.
49 Baykara, İzmir Şehri ve Tarihi, 55-61.
50 Ülker, XVII, ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda İzmir, 18-19.
51 Frangakis, “The Ottoman Port Izmir,” 149.
29
the city’s economic development in the 18th century. Commercial ties between the
West and Ottomans were strengthened through the port of Smyrna, and Western
products penetrated the Anatolian and Iranian markets thanks to the city’s
geographical position.52 Also, food and raw materials were exported to the West
market via Smyrna’s port. For instance, 55% to 97% of the shipped goods were raw
materials used in Western Europe manufacturing. In return, most of Smyrna’s
imports constituted cloths.53
Given the destructiveness of the earthquake, it was necessary to rebuild the
commercial buildings, warehouses, and inns destroyed in the 1688 earthquake to
sustain economic development. The accommodation of merchants and storage goods
were essential necessities for the continuation of commercial life.54 There is no doubt
that reconstruction works had to be carried out in order to revitalize the destroyed
city. The rebuilding of Smyrna should have impacted on urban space. In fact,
Motraye describes the city he encountered in 1699 as "new Smyrna" and claims that
the old Smyrna was utterly destroyed in the earthquake of 1688.55 Although the term
“new Smyrna” seems like an exaggeration, we can think that the urban fabric of the
city changed when it was redeveloped. For instance, one suggestion assumes that the
earthquake created an enormous disaster because buildings in the city were made of
stone before the earthquake. Thus, stone was used only in the foundation of
structures built after the earthquake, while wood and brick were preferred in the
remaining parts.56
52 Frangakis, “The Ottoman Port Izmir,” 150.
53 Frangakis, “The Ottoman Port Izmir,” 151.
54 Ülker, XVII, ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda İzmir, 18-19.
55 Motraye, Voyages du Sr. A. de La Motraye, 182.
56 See the notes in Stiros, “Archaeological evidence,” 735.
30
In his accounts, Paul Lucas (1664-1737), a French merchant and traveler who
visited Smyrna in 1714, indeed resonates with this opinion. According to Lucas, the
bases of the houses were made of stone up to ten or fifteen feet high, and the upper
parts were made of timber and mudbrick. He also stated that this was a precaution for
the earthquakes, and even though there were severe earthquakes after 1688, only a
few buildings were demolished.57 Another traveler, British churchman Richard
Pockocke (1704-1765), who visited Smyrna around 1740, also makes a parallel
observation and states that the upper floors of the buildings were constructed of
mudbrick.58 After the devastation caused by the earthquake, as a precaution against
future earthquakes, the construction of buildings using wood and mudbrick instead of
stone is an important indicator. This shows that the earthquake affected the city’s
landscape, and that different materials and techniques were used in the buildings
constructed after the earthquake.
Moreover, Pockocke’s memoirs refer to the long structures stretching from
the seashore to Frank Street. These structures, frenkhânes, had galleries between the
street and the seashore for the passages and were built as two floors. The lower floors
were used as shops and the upper floors as residential places. The structures with
gardens and courtyards, which serve as a gateway between the street and the coastal
part, have piers on the seashore where merchants load and unload their goods.59 In
fact, these buildings fundamentally correspond to the structures mentioned by De
Bruyn and Evliya Çelebi before the earthquake of 1688. However, an important
question is how widespread these properties became after the disaster and what role
these structures, which were said to have belonged to consuls and wealthy
57 Lucas, Voyage du Sieur Paul Lucas, 150.
58 Pockocke, Voyages de Richard Pockocke, 17.
59 Pockocke, Voyages de Richard Pockocke, 17-18.
31
individuals before the earthquake, began to play in the commercial life of the city
after 1688. It is also crucial to how these structures, which existed before the
earthquake and continued to be built after, affect the urban fabric of the city.
To answer these questions, comparing visual and written documents before
and after the earthquake is necessary. Two visual materials, one was engraved by
Tournefort (Fig. 8), and the other is in the Rijksmuseum today, but the painter is
unknown, representing Smyrna’s urban landscape in the early 18th century (Fig. 9).
Both images represent the panorama of Smyrna. However, unlike Tournefort's
panorama, the image from Rijksmuseum also includes a representation of an official
encounter between the kadi of Smyrna and the Dutch consul. Tournefort's panorama
was made in 1717. The image was reminiscent of previous examples in its style. It
gives a view of the city from the sea. The waterfront had tall, slender buildings, flags
adorning the waterfront, and significant landmarks such as Kadifekale castle, ruins of
St. Polycarp’s tomb, and Genoese castle on the horseshoe-shaped harbor. In contrast,
the image in the Rijksmuseum, while similar in style to the older examples, provides
a different view of the waterfront and the buildings on the shore. The painting shows
common elements depicting Smyrna’s view from the shore such as ships, camels
carrying cargo, consulate elements at Smyrna’s waterfront, and historical and
religious landmarks, such as Kadifekale and Genoese castles. However, the most
noticeable difference in the city view was the representation of the buildings,
frenkhânes, on the waterfront. According to the view, the number of frenkhâne
properties had increased considerably, and they share a common plan type: they were
narrow, longitudinal, and tall structures. In this regard, the image represents the view
of urban fabric developed after the 1688 earthquake.
32
Fig. 8 Tournefort, J. P. (1717). View of Smyrna [Engraving]. Retrieved from BNF
Gallica
Fig. 9 Anonymous Painter, (c.1709-1723). View of Smyrna (Izmir) and the
Reception Given to Consul de Hochepied (1657-1723) in the Council Chamber
[Painting]. Retrieved from Rijksmuseum
33
However, there were contradictions about the date of the Rijksmuseum
painting, and it was assumed to have been painted between 1687 and 1723. In this
respect, whether the painting shows the pre-earthquake or post-earthquake view of
Smyrna was debatable. Nevertheless, it is possible to get an idea about the painting’s
date from the reception between the Dutch consul and the kadi.60 It is believed that
the consul who visited the kadi was a member of the de Hochepied family, who were
Dutch consuls in Smyrna for a long period61 and the image was considered a
representation of Dutch consul Daniel Jean de Hochepied’s (1657-1723) first visit to
Smyrna’s kadi in 1687 when he was appointed as the consul of Smyrna. In fact, an
interesting detail makes this assumption dubious. According to a recent study, it has
been suggested that the consul in the painting could be Daniel Jean de Hochepied or
his son Daniel Alexander De Hochepied (1689-1759). In the painting, the consul
wears a medallion around his neck, which was given to Daniel Jean de Hochepied in
1709 as an award by Joseph I (1678-1711), Holy Roman Emperor and the ruler of
the Austrian Habsburg monarchy (Fig. 10).62 However, it was also assumed that the
painting represents Daniel Alexander de Hochepied with his father’s medallion
during the reception with the kadi in 1723 when he succeeded to the duty of consul
in Smyrna.63 Thanks to the wearing and medallion of the consul depicted in the
painting, we know that it must be painted after the 1688 earthquake, between the
years 1709 and 1723. Therefore, the panorama in the Rijksmuseum painting
represents the urban landscape of early 18th century Smyrna. In fact, I assume that
the representation of the urban landscape in the painting was more accurate than
most of the sources produced in similar periods, especially when it was compared
60 Heylen, “Kunst in de Levant,” 53-57.
61 Vanneste, Intra-European Litigation, 52-53.
62 Heylen, “Kunst in de Levant,” 54-55.
63 Heylen, “Kunst in de Levant” 55.
34
with other visual materials representing the urban landscape of the city after the 1688
earthquake.
Fig. 10 The details of the consul’s wearing and the medallion
The image, which shows that Smyrna was a city of diplomatic and
commercial importance, is one of the most remarkable sources showing the urban
layout of Smyrna after the 1688 earthquake. On the waterfront, there were frenkhâne
properties, similar to Pockocke’s description, extending from the shore to Frank
Street. These properties were represented: narrow, longitudinal, and tall (Fig. 11). In
order to know to what extent this image represents the landscape after the 1688
earthquake, it is necessary to compare it with visual and textual materials produced
after the earthquake. However, unfortunately except for the Rijksmuseum painting, a
35
few panoramas and drawings represent these properties on the waterfront and depict
their structures in detail (Fig. 12 and Fig. 13). Besides, we should also note that
images depicting the landscape of Smyrna could be a reproduction of available
materials to artists of the time rather than a production of an eye witnessing. Still, the
urban changes can be examined through maps and plans drawn from a bird's eye
view, and those showing parcels. In this regard, the painting from the Rijksmuseum
depicts a different urban fabric than other materials produced in the same period. The
image represents the spatial transformations in Smyrna that took place after the 1688
earthquake.
Fig. 11 The details of the waterfront area
Visual materials depicting the urban layout of Smyrna represent the city from
a subjective, perceptual, perspectival, contextual, and contested dimension. The
drawings of Luppazolo, De Bruyn, Tournefort, and the Rijksmuseum painting were
produced for the viewers probably unfamiliar with the urban layout of Smyrna, and
they usually represented the urban landscape with the city’s political, historical, and
religious landmarks, such as consulate flags, St. Polycarp’s tomb, and Genoese and
Kadifekale castles. The consulate flags adorning the shore, marking the place as a
familiar space for the viewers, was one of the common elements that we encounter in
almost all representations, and the ships emphasized the city’s importance in the
eastern Mediterranean trade. Even though these representations were subjective and
36
contested, they give us hints about the spatial transformations and urban changes that
took place in Smyrna. For instance, a city map prepared by an English merchant,
Captain Andrew Elton, in 1730 depicts the urban view of Smyrna from a parallel
perspective and emphasizes significant landmarks in his map (Fig. 12). However,
like in the paintings and drawings produced after the earthquake, the map shows
frenkhânes on the waterfront as narrow, longitudinal, and tall structures. The
emphasis was given to the length of the side facades of the buildings located on the
seashore, and there was not a promenade space on the shoreline. Elton’s drawing
demonstrates approximately thirteen buildings located on the shore parallel to the
drawings of Luppazolo and De Bruyn, which illustrate thirteen piers. However, the
textual and visual sources produced before and after the 1688 earthquake shows that
frenkhâne properties became tall, longitudinal, and narrow after the earthquake.
Thus, the sources produced after the 1688 earthquake emphasize the longitudinal,
narrow, and tall frenkhânes on the waterfront, whereas the emphasis was given to the
wharves and individual ownership of the wealthy foreigners in the sources produced
before the earthquake.
Likewise, a city view was engraved by French writer and diplomat Chouisel-
Gouffier (1752-1817), who arrived at Smyrna in 1782. In contrast to Smyrna's views
depicting the city from the gulf, Choisel-Goiffier’s drawing represents Smyrna’s
landscape from a different angle, from the endpoint of Smyrna on the north where
the mill was located (Fig. 13). The mill was also visible in the drawing of De Bruyn,
both did not appear in the drawings of Luppazolo, Tournefort, Elton, and the
Rijksmuseum painting. In the city view, people in traditional Ottoman costumes were
playing games, singing music, riding horses, and herding camels. Behind the people,
Smyrna was visible with Kadifekale castle on the mountain and possibly the ruins of
37
St. Polycarp’s tomb. The waterfront was once more depicted with the consulate flags
adorning it, but this time the perspective of the image allows us to see the waterfront
from the northern part of the city. Besides, the perspective of the engraving
demonstrates the frenkhânes from the side. Parallel to other visual and textual
sources, frenkhâne properties located on the waterfront were depicted as
longitudinal, narrow, and tall. Although the customs and wharves were not visible
from the side view, small boats between ships and buildings represent the movement
of people and materials from ships into the city. Chouisel-Gouffier’s engraving, on
the other hand, offers an orientalist view of the people and city through the
representation of people and remarkable flags adorning its waterfront.
Fig. 12 Andrew, E. (1730). The waterfront detail from the Chart of Smyrna [Map].
Retrieved from Stanford Libraries
38
Fig. 13 Choiseul-Gouffier. M. G. A. (c.1780). View of Smyrna [Engraving].
Retrieved from BNF Gallica
Fig. 14 The waterfront detail in Tournefort’s engraving
39
Fig. 15 Dutch flag detail in Choiseul-Gouffier’s engraving
Fig. 16 Dutch flag detail in the Rijksmuseum painting
Fig. 17 Dutch flag detail in the Choiseul-Gouffier’s engraving
40
2.1.3 The waterfront in late 18th and early 19th century maps
The earliest projective and iconographic city plans were prepared by a French
geographer and cartographer Jean-Denis Barbié du Bocage, in 178064 and Livio
Amadeo Missir, a Levantine who inhabited Smyrna, around the year 1800.65 While
Barbié du Bocage’s plan shows the city and its surroundings (Fig. 18), Missir’s plan
focuses on the area on the waterfront and Frank Street (Fig. 19). Barbié du Bocage’s
plan shows the parcels on the waterfront and represents an overall city plan with an
emphasis by color difference, pink in ordinary places, blue in important places such
as religious, historical places and commercial areas such as Vezir Han, the Church of
St. Polycarp, the Church of St. Photini, Hisar mosque. Also, some places on the map
were named, like the waterfront was indicated as Quai des Francs (Quay of the
Europeans), Frank Street was marked as Rue de Franque, and the area at the northern
end of Frank Street was named Plate de Fasula. The map shows that the area known
as the horseshoe-shaped harbor was already filled up in 1780, and the place was
indicated as Place de l’ancien port by Barbié du Bocage. A few properties on the
waterfront were indicated with symbols and names. For instance, one property was
marked by the sign of a cross (+), indicating that it was a religious place,
accompanied by the writing “Zoccolanti” or “Les Recollets.”66 Another property was
marked with a star (*) accompanied by a writing “Maison du M. Caravali acheté par
le Consul” indicating that it was a residential place of a consul bought from another
person. One property was defined as “Maison Giraud, ancien temple Cybele.”
64 Yılmaz, “XVI. Lui’nin Coğrafyacısından Kemeraltı,” 65.
65 Pınar, İzmir Planları ve Haritaları, 16-19.
66 According to Serap Yılmaz, it was “J. Zaccolanti, les Recellets.” See in Yılmaz, “XVI. Lui’nin
Coğrafyacısından Kemeraltı,” 70. In Serap Yılmaz’s article, the name Zoccolanti or Le Recollets were
erroneously considered as family names. These were in fact the Italian and French names given to the
Franciscan order of Reformed Observantines, based in Istanbul at Santa Maria Draperis, and in Izmir
at Santa Maria. Both institutions were protected by the Habsburg. I gratefully thank my advisor Prof.
Paolo Girardelli for this clarification.
41
Moreover, the property in the end of the northern part of the waterfront was indicated
as “Han…” (inn), but the writing below is unreadable.67
On the other hand, Missir’s city plan, which was adorned with flags and ships
on the waterfront area, and produced around 1800, includes an indicator of streets,
commercial areas, consulates, churches, hospitals, cemeteries, inns, religious spaces,
and historical areas. For instance, British Consulate, Dutch Consulate, Holy
Roman/German Empire Consulate, and Swedish-Denmark Consulate were listed in
the indicator. The religious spaces of Capuchin, Dominican, Lazarists, Armenians,
and Greeks were listed, however, any Jewish and Muslim religious spaces were not
indicated in the plan. Frank Street was shown as “Strada Franca.” In addition to
Frank Street, there were also other streets listed such as “Strada di S. Demetrio”,
“Nuovo Strada di S. Demetrio,” “Strada di S. Giorgio,” “Strada de Giardini”, “Strada
dell’impurità,” “Strada delle Caravanes,” and “Rue de Roses.”68 Besides, even
though only a few places on the waterfront were indicated in the list, three places
indicated were referred as “Chani di Bortolo,” “Chani di Bottaio,” and “Balikchi”
Inn.69 Similar to Barbié du Bocage, Missir also located the religious space of
Catholic order Dominicans, “Casa de’ P.P. Domenicani,” on the shore.
The two city plans show the development of the waterfront area after the
1688 earthquake, and they demonstrate that there were frenkhâne properties on the
waterfront functioning for different purposes, such as residential places, religious
spaces, consulates, and commercial areas. Both plans indicate the city had developed,
and spatial transformations took place since the visit of De Bruyn in 1678. Indeed,
the development of the city can also be seen in two maps, the city expanded to the
67 It could be Barbaris Han. See in Yılmaz, “XVI. Lui’nin Coğrafyacısından Kemeraltı,” 70.
68 The names were written as they were in the indicator, see the list in Pınar, İzmir Planları ve
Haritaları, 19.
69 The property was “Balikchi Han” according to Pınar, İzmir Planları ve Haritaları, 19.
42
northern part, known as “Fasula” Street, in the twenty years that Barbié du Bocage
and Missir produced their city plans. During the development of the city from the
earthquake until the end of the 17th century, the number of frenkhâne properties on
the waterfront also increased. The city expanded towards the north, and new
properties on the shore were constructed. Therefore, when the travelogues of
Motraye and Pockocke were also taken into consideration alongside visual materials,
the Rijksmuseum painting representing Daniel Jean de Hochepied’s encounter with
kadi between 1709 and 1723 demonstrates the urban fabric of Smyrna after the 1688
earthquake.
However, we should not consider the image as an exact representation of the
urban space of Smyrna that developed after the earthquake, but only an accurate one
in contrast to others since the representations were shaped by subjective, perceptual,
contextual, and contested dimensions. The visual materials produced by Tournefort,
Gouffier, Barbié du Bocage, and Missir represent places according to their
perspective. Tournefort and Gouffier emphasized the religious and historical
landmarks familiar to their viewers and depicted the waterfront as a space adorned by
consulate flags in great sizes, indicating that an Oriental place of their days, but
which was Christian and Westerner initially, was still dominated by Westerners.
Although Barbié du Bocage and Missir produced city plans rather than panoramas,
their plans still carry the imprints of subjectivity and their perspectives. For instance,
Barbié du Bocage marked the waterfront as “Quai des francs” and mostly
represented historically, religiously, and politically important places for Westerners,
such as ruins of temples, churches, consul houses, and castles in his plan. Besides,
property ownerships were shown under the name foreigners, like the residential place
of Giraud, although foreigners could not legally freehold properties. In the early43
modern era, foreigners could not obtain property, but only Ottoman subjects and
Levantine women. Hence, properties were registered under the name of foreigners’
mothers-in-law or their wives in the Ottoman courts.70
Perhaps, the city plan of Missir can be seen as a counter-example due to its
remarkable inclusion of important streets, commercial areas, religious spaces, and
historical places. Still, it did not include religious spaces of Muslims and Jews in the
city. Therefore, the visual materials represent the landscape from the perspective of
its author, and it could contradict with the reality in the space. In fact, Smyrna’s
urban space was transformed by various factors, such as geographical characteristics,
transformations in global economic conditions, international relations, and
state/communal regulations. Individual actors, diverse communities, plural
affiliations and played significant roles in these spatial transformations taking place,
therefore it is not possible to assume that space belonged to one group. On the
contrary, the plural society in Smyrna constructed the urban space and they became
the active agents of spatial transformation.
70 The foreigners were not allowed to freehold properties before the reformations took place in the
second half of the 19th century. Thanks to the edict of 1856, all Ottoman subjects were equally
allowed to obtain properties. However, foreigners in the Empire should have asked permission from
the central government in order to grant the property right. Collas, La Turquie en 1864, 126-127.
44
Fig. 18 Bocage, J. D. B., (c.1780). Plan of Smyrna [City Plan]. Retrieved from BNF
Gallica
Fig. 19 Missir, L. A., (c.1800). Plan of Smyrna [City Plan]. From Pınar, İ. (2020).
Osmanlı Dönemi İzmir Planları ve Haritaları
45
Fig. 20 Details of the waterfront from the plan of Jean-Denis Barbié du Bocage,
1780
Fig. 21 Details of the waterfront from the plan of Livio Amademo Missir, c.1800
Indeed, the development of Smyrna’s multicultural environment was also
related to the developments taking place at the state level, such as international
affairs and agreements. Smyrna’s commercial ties with the West and eastern
Mediterranean developed in the decades following the 1688 earthquake due to
privileges, via ahdnames or capitulations, to the merchants from foreign nations. For
instance, in 1740, Ottoman and French rulers signed an ahdname giving privileges
about taxation and guaranteeing their religious freedom to the French merchants who
involve in commercial activities in the Ottoman Empire.71 Following the
capitulations given in 1740, Smyrna started to be the most important port city in the
eastern Mediterranean due to the enormous increase in its trade volume. Smyrna
surpassed its rivalries, such as the Egyptian and Syrian ports of the empire, and it
became the most significant trade route between the Ottoman Empire and the West.72
71 Aliotti, Des Français en Turquie, 38-40.
72 Frangakis, “The Ottoman Port Izmir,” 151.
46
Raw materials such as cotton, cotton yarn, mohair yarn, wool, and silk, alongside
agricultural products such as wheat, raisin, opium, and figs were exported to the
West through Smyrna’s port.73 However, even though Smyrna’s trade was mainly
import oriented in the first half of the 18th century, the city’s import volume also
remarkably increased after the second half of the 18th century, and manufactured
goods such as cloth flowed from Western markets.74 Until the French Revolution in
1789, France was the most notable country in terms of cloth imports, both in terms of
popularity and sales. After the French Revolution, trade relations between the
Ottoman Empire and France weakened, and British trade gained prominence in the
Ottoman lands from the 19th century onwards.75
Of course, the capitulations did not only cause a rise in the trade volume but
also increased the cultural exchange through migration of merchants and foreigners
from Western countries.76 Thanks to international affairs, regulations, agreements,
migrations, and mobility, the flow of individual actors, communities, and institutions
accelerated, and encounters between them shaped the urban space of Smyrna.
Although the urban landscape of Smyrna was represented with national flags, or as in
the case of Barbié du Bocage, spaces were marked as territorial places of certain
groups, like “Quai des Francs,” the reality in the urban space contradicts these kinds
of representations. The plural environment of Smyrna created encounters between
diverse communities. In fact, textual documents, visual materials, and scientific maps
that were produced in the first half of the 19th century allow us to trace spatial
73 See further in Peyssonnel, Traité sur Le Commerce, 87-94. For the history of the French
Revolution, see Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 53-76.
74 Frangakis, “The Ottoman Port Izmir,” 151.
75 Keyder et al, “The Trade of Cotton and Cloth in Izmir,” 181.
76 Caputilations or ahdnames were long-term practices, and these agreements were made between
Ottomans and Western powers such as Venetians, Genoese, and Florentines in different periods, see
Goffman, “Negotiation with the Renaissance State.”
47
transformations and encounters between different parties. In this regard, the earliest
nautical charts representing the geography of Smyrna were produced by British
Royal Navy officers Thomas Graves (1802-1856) and Richard Copeland in the early
19th century. Graves’ map was drawn in 1836-37 for the British Admiralty, but it was
edited in 1876 to demonstrate changes in the urban space, such as the construction of
a modern quay (Fig. 22).77 Likewise, Richard Copeland’s map of Smyrna for the
British Admiralty was prepared only three years before Graves’ map, in 1834.78 But
again, Copeland’s map was also edited in 1860 and 1887 to include the borders of
the modern quay and railway lines. However, since the question of modern quay and
custom will be the matter of the third chapter, the initial plans will be examined in
order to trace the imprints of spatial transformations in the first half of the 19th
century (Fig. 23).
2.1.4 Diplomacy and property
To start with, Graves’ map shows Smyrna’s urban setting as parcels, both the
waterfront and inner city. Consequently, the map lets us trace the imprints of possible
changes from the 18th century onwards. The waterfront shown in Graves’ map
resembles the waterfront visible in the maps of Barbié du Bocage and Missir. The
properties in the waterfront were narrow and longitudinal. In the map of Graves, a
few properties were numbered in order to show ownership. The map of Graves
indicates new consulates on the waterfront that we did not encounter before, such as
Swedish, Austrian, Russian, Prussian, Sardinian, American, and Danish. However,
the increase in the number of consulates alone does not explain the increase in the
number of properties on the waterfront. Similarly, Graves' map, like the maps of
77 Pınar, İzmir Planları ve Haritaları, 16.
78 Pınar, İzmir Planları ve Haritaları, 16.
48
Bocage and Missir, shows more than thirty properties located on the shore. Graves’
map also indicates the properties on the waterfront extended towards the sea in
comparison to earlier plans prepared by Barbié du Bocage and Missir (Fig. 24).
Although similar extensions were also indicated on Copeland’s map (Fig. 25),
Graves’ map shows more expansion towards the sea in comparison to Copeland’s
map. The expansion level into the sea between the two maps is noteworthy.
According to maps, only a few frenkhânes were extended in 1834, whereas almost all
frenkhâne owners extended their places into the sea in 1837 (Fig. 24). Besides, the
Sardinian consulate (9) was placed in the filled-up area, just in front of the American
and Danish Consulates, and it partly blocks the Danish Consulate’s (11) access to the
shore.
Fig. 22 Copeland, R. (1734). Smyrna Harbor [Map]. Retrieved from UWM Libraries
49
Fig. 23 Graves, T. (1836-37). Plan of Smyrna [Map]. Retrieved from UWM
Libraries
Frenkhânes’ extensions into the sea were notable on the maps of Thomas
Graves and Copeland. Indeed, frenkhânes stretched out as the sea was filled in over
time, with new structures being built in the areas in the sea lots.79 Even though the
practice of filling up the sea lots was old, and it was carried over for decades, the
reorganization of land legislation and the formation of the Ministry of Evkaf in 1826
opened the doors for a new era on the waterfront. Before the land legislation in 1826,
lands belonged to the waqf of Bezm-i Alem Sultan, and all the property rights
belonged to the waqfs. However, new legislation enabled the Ministry of Evkaf to
raise its revenues by selling, transferring, and auctioning lots on the shore.80 The
highest bidder could acquire the land on the shore from the ministry and build new
79 Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 183.
80 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggle Over the Shore,” 59-60.
50
facilities over the sea by filling it up. Indeed, some reports from travelers also
confirm the sale of lots by waqf and acquisitions by various actors. For instance,
Joseph-Francois Michaud, who visited Smyrna in 1830, complained about the
behaviors of the local government. According to him, a quay would be a wise option
for the city habitants; however, local governors do not prefer to build a quay but raise
their revenues by giving the lots for a certain amount of money and letting them erect
new buildings on the shore.81 Besides, Elliott argues that lot selling was a way to
avoid sea regression,82 while Hamilton says that the governor found a way to raise
money by “selling the sea” and asking purchasers to fill up the sea soon as possible.
In some cases, the purchaser must have bought the lot one more time when it was
relisted for sale in some cases, such as if the sea was not filled up in a proper time.
Lastly, he points out that when the lot was for sale, the property owner in front of the
listed lot should buy it in order to prevent others from buying the lot and building
structures in front of theirs.83 Perhaps, this was a case of Sardinian Consulate (9)
blocking the access of the Danish Consulate (11) into the sea.
81 Michaud, Correspondance D’Orient 1830-1831, 206.
82 Elliott, Travels in the Three Great Empires, 35.
83 Hamilton, Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia, 3
51
Fig. 24 The waterfront detail from the map of T. Graves
52
Fig. 25 Details of the waterfront from the map of R. Copeland
Maps and visuals did not show any detailed property ownership until the
second half of the 19th century, and there are only a few written documents about
frenkhânes before the second half of the 19th century. However, it is still possible to
learn about the property ownership patterns on the shore by looking at the Ottoman
Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office (BOA). For instance, one document
indicates the ownership of a person instead of a consulate. According to the
document, Petro, son of Matyo, was the owner of the frenkhâne until his death in
1795. Following his death, various actors claim ownership of the property in the
53
waqf land. However, even though beneficiaries claimed some rights, the waqf did not
give any rights to the beneficiaries.84 Another document is dated back to 1782 and
tackles the issue regarding the frenkhâne land owned by Evkaf-ı Hamereyn.
According to the document, an inn was built upon a frenkhâne property by Hacı
Sinan, son of Hacı Ahmed from Algeria. The inn was built on Kasap Hızır Street.85
Of course, the structure was an inn rather than a frenkhâne. But what the document
shows us is noteworthy: firstly, it demonstrates that new actors came into sight
during the boom of trade and economy in the region. That is to say, not only
foreigners but all Ottoman subjects have begun to become a part of Smyrna’s newly
growing trade world. Secondly, while trade grew, new property and ownership
problems arose. In both documents, the issue of inheritance became a matter of
discussion.86 The issues regarding inheritance and property rights and the
involvement of new actors in the process of spatial transformation generated
problems that needed to be legally and solved. I assume that, instead of “imported
Westernization” and “the wish of ruling elites,”87 the individual actors and diverse
communities in the Ottoman Empire and their involvement in the spatial
transformations became a driving force behind the changes in the Ottoman
reformations regarding the equality, property rights, and modernization policies that
took place in the second half of the 19th century; since the individual actors, diverse
84 BOA, AE. SSLM, III., 170/10116, 5 Safer 1210 (August 21, 1795).
85 Unfortunately, the street’s location is not precisely known today. Atay, Kapanan Kapılar, 95.
86 BOA, AE.SABH.I.., 220/14527, 12 Şevval 1197 (September 10, 1783).
87 The so-called Westernization period in the Ottoman Empire was usually considered as something
imported from the West or as the sole product of the wish of the ruling elites or the enforcement of the
Great Powers to heal the “sick man of Europe.” Nevertheless, the involvement of diverse communities
and actors in the reformation process was long neglected. In contrast, I argue that the modernization
and reformation policies that took place in the Ottoman Empire cannot be fully understood without the
contributions and participation of individuals, institutions, and diverse communities. Such as in the
architecture, diverse communities and individual actors played an imported role in the modernization
of the Empire. See for the architectural pluralism in the Ottoman Empire, Çelik, The Remaking of
Istanbul, 127-153.
54
communities, institutions, local and central governments found the solutions for the
problems caused from the traditional laws in the modern regulations as we will
discuss in the third chapter.
The developments in the economic and social structures paved the way for
the transformation of the urban space of Smyrna. Also, since an increase in
population accompanied economic growth, these changes profoundly impacted the
seashore of Smyrna. During the early years of the 17th century, the shore was
occupied by wealthy Ottoman subjects, foreigners, and consulates. However, the
transformation in global regime of exchange in the 18th century was reflected in
Smyrna, and it became the most important port city in the eastern Mediterranean.
Consequently, new actors emerged on the shore, such as frenkhâne owners -
foreigners, consulates, or Ottoman subjects- due to their involvement in Ottoman
trade. The properties on the shore, frenkhânes, were also changed and transformed
during this period. The sea was filled, and frenkhâne properties were extended into
the sea by construction additional structures and wharves in the filled sea lots.
Although documents are not high in number, imprints of this transformation are
apparent in several maps and official documents from earlier periods. Moreover,
since the structures and plan types were different from inns, frenkhânes were a
particular feature of Smyrna’s urban landscape thanks to Smyrna’s important
position in the Ottoman trade and the lack of city walls that enabled expansion of
properties towards the sea. Since frenkhânes were not only places for storage and
business but also private residential structures, they differed from inns in several
ways. They were also used as residential places, religious spaces, consulates.
Frenkhâne properties were owned by individuals and had private wharves where
trade goods were exchanged. Although the local government sold sea lots in order to
55
raise its revenues and fill up the sea soon as possible, private wharves and frenkhânes
created the smuggling issue, which became a significant problem for the central and
local governments and triggered the modernization projects in the second half 19th
century.
2.2 Frank street
Behind the frenkhânes, which creates a peculiar landscape in the bay that looks
“even more beautiful like the bay of Naples,”88 there was Frank Street. The street,
also known as Rue de Franques, was one of the main arteries of cosmopolitan
Smyrna, and it was the most crowded and dynamic place. The street, sometimes
introduced as a European-looking part of the city, started from Vezir Han and St.
Peter’s castle towards the north of the city and stretched until Bella Vista. With the
growth of the city, the street expanded into the north, and the street also started to be
known as Rue de Verreries, Rue de Franque, Rue Fasula, and Rue Trassa.89 From
early-modern era onward, the street has been described by travelers as a crowded and
lively area where various goods were sold, and commercial activity was intense. For
many travelers, it was the most delightful street in Smyrna. Nevertheless, some
travelers were not very happy with the conditions of the street:
But if a first view be calculated to make a favorable impression, this is not
confirmed by an inspection of the interior of the city. The quarter occupied by
the Franks, called Frank Street, has a gutter running through its centre, and its
dirty, ill-paved, and narrow; in addition to which; it is rendered almost
impassable by long strings of camels and porters carrying huge bales of
cotton, who compel the pedestrian frequently to seek refuge under a gateway.
The houses are miserably built; the sides consist often of planks; and when of
bricks, the walls are too thin to keep out cold and damp. Neither windows nor
doors are made to shut close: none of former have weights attached, to allow
88 Elliott, Travels in the Three Great Empires, 32-33.
89 The street was named in aforementioned order from south to north. These streets also known as
Mahmudiye, Frenk, Sultaniye, Mecidiye, and Teşrifiye in Turkish. See further: Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda
İzmir Kenti, 213-214.
56
of their remaining open at any revelation; and if locks appear on the latter, it
is too much to expect that they should be serviceable.90
Although Frank Street once formed the coastal line of Smyrna, the street was
distanced from the sea due to expansions into sea lots over time.91 The buildings
constructed over the newly filled areas blocked the entrance from the sea into the
street. Nevertheless, the connection between the shore and the street was provided
through galleries and passages. The goods arriving in the city were stored in
warehouses located in frenkhâne properties and then sold in the shops, and people
arriving in the city by ship reached the street through the passages below the
frenkhânes.
One of the earliest visual materials representing Frank Street was the view of
Smyrna drawn by Luppazolo in 1638 (Fig. 26). The street was shown as a highly
curved and moving line just behind the frenkhânes with piers on the shore as if
emphasizing the irregular settlement. Besides highlighting the irregularity in the
street and city plan, Luppazolo drew human figures on the street, perhaps to
emphasize the street’s dynamism. It is known that Frank Street did not follow a
straight line due to the irregularity of the area facing the coast, where goods were
imported and exported from the frenkhânes.
90 Elliott, Travels in the Three Great Empires, 33-34.
91 Atay, İzmir Planları, 6.
57
Fig. 26 Details of Rue de Franque in Luppazolo’s drawing
De Bruyn's account is a valuable source of the early-modern urban fabric of
Frank Street, although he did not represent Frank Street in his panorama. He points
out that Franks inhabited the street, and they established their consulates there. There
were residential places of Ahmet Agha, and grand vizier Mustafa Pasha, and the
Dutch consul. Besides, a caravansary belonging to Greek families, and British,
French, and Venetian consuls were located on the street. According to De Bruyn,
grand vizier Mustafa Pasha owned the most prominent place on Frank Street (Fig.
58
27).92 The emphasis on the magnificence and prominence of Vizier Mustafa Pasha’s
residential place is noteworthy if we consider that this street was usually associated
with wealthy foreigners and foreign consuls. There could be several reasons behind
this fact; first, the residential place's location and prominence were significant in
reflecting the governors' relationship with the consuls and merchants. Thus, grand
vizier Mustafa Pasha could demonstrate his status and hierarchy among the street’s
inhabitants with his magnificent and grandiose residential place. Second, grand
Vizier Mustafa Pasha’s residential place, which distinguishes itself from others in its
size, may emphasize Smyrna’s belonging to the Ottoman Empire since contemporary
accounts compare Smyrna with other cities in the West and emphasize the
resemblance of Smyrna to Western towns because of the flags adorning the seashore.
Fig. 27 Grand Vizier Mustafa Pasha’s residential place in De Bruyn’s Panorama
92 De Bruyn, Voyages au Levant, 24-26.
59
2.2.1 Bauffremont’s visit: A prominent French visual source
The case of the grand vizier’s residential place points out a crucial point about the
street. Frank Street was mainly known as a commercial hub for diverse communities.
But it was also a religious, social, and political urban space. For instance, a painting
in the Musée National de la Marine de Paris that depicts an official parade on
September 28, 1766, provides us with valuable information about the street's
religious, social, and political significance in early-modern Smyrna The painting
depicts the arrival in Smyrna of Joseph de Bauffremont (1714–1781), the prince of
Listenois and the commander of the French naval forces assigned to protect the
merchant fleet in the Mediterranean during the 7-years’ war.93 The painting shows
Joseph de Bauffremont accompanied by the French consul, the consul’s wife, guards,
janissaries, customs officers, and dragomans. Besides, inhabitants of Frank Street,
dressed in traditional Ottoman and French clothes, watch the official parade from
their windows.
93 Courcelles, Histoire Généalogique., 30.
60
Fig. 28 Anonymous. (c. 1766). Entry of Joseph de Bauffremont into Smyrne 28
September 1766 [Painting]. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons
The painting depicts the procession of Bauffremont taking place on Frank
Street. The image also shows the Capuchin church of St. Polycarp, which was built
in 1630 by Louis XIII's wish and Consul Jean Dupuy's efforts.94 The church was
depicted in ruins due to the damage it took in the fire of 1763.95 Although the French
consul demanded permission from the kadi of Smyrna for the rebuilding of the
church in 1765, providing that it would not be more significant in size and more
pleasant in layout than the destroyed church, the painting suggests that the permit for
reconstruction had not yet been granted, or that the repair works could not be
undertaken.96 Nevertheless, the Capuchin church was reconstructed in a basilica plan
with three naves towards the end of the 18th century:
94 San Lorenzo, Saint Polycarpe et son tombeau, 263-265.
95 San Lorenzo, Saint Polycarpe et son tombeau, 341.
96 BOA, HAT, 1429/58495, 11 Rabiulevvel 1187 (June 9, 1773).
61
This church, which was built at the end of the 18th century, has three naves on
a basilica plan, with a flat chevet and no apse or apse aisle. The main nave,
divided into seven sections by columns supporting the main side aisles, is
covered by a barrel vault. The first section forms the narthex with its three
traditional doors and houses the organ loft. The seventh section forms the
sanctuary, crowned by a dome with twelve compartments on pendentives.97
Near the church, there is a long two-story building with bay windows. The
painting did not give any information about the structure, whereas the name of the
church was written in the painting. Still, the presence of the consul's wife and French
women at the larger door on the far-right side of the building suggests that the
building represents the French consulate. Yet, Thomas Grave’s map indicates that the
French consulate was located on the southern part of the shore and was at a distance
from the church of St. Polycarp in the second half of the 18th century. In this regard,
the building representing the French consulate could be an imaginary space, or
Madama Han (or Madame Han) located near St. Polycarp.98 In fact, Madama Han
had two windows that connected itself to the church.99 It was assumed that Madama
Han was constructed or bought by the Consul of the Netherlands, Daniel Jean de
Hochepied, in the 18th century for his wife Clara Catherina Colyer (1662–1733), who
was known as Madama.100 The Dutch consul himself could not be entitled to own
property as a foreign subject, and as it often happened, the property was registered in
the name of a Levantine woman who may have been an Ottoman subject. The
97 San Lorenzo, Saint Polycarpe et son tombeau, 331-332.
98 The map drawn by Barbié du Bocage is available on BNF Gallica. Both maps are also included in
the work of İlhan Pınar, Osmanlı Dönemi İzmir Plan ve Haritaları. A detailed redrawing of Barbié
Bocage map was made by Serap Yılmaz and published in İlhan Pınar's work. In the case of Madama
Han, since the two maps show two very close but different points, the identification of this building is
based on Serap Yılmaz's work. See: Pınar, İzmir Planları ve Haritaları, 17-23.
99 The two windows connecting the Madama Han and the Church of St. Polycarp was demolished in
1798. See: BOA, C..HR.., 67-3314, 23 Şaban 1212 (February 10, 1798).
100 Atay, Kapanan Kapılar, 434-435. In his study, Atay did not specify the names of the consul and
the wife. Names are based on family tree of de Hochepieds: Wife of Daniel Jean de Hochepied, Clara
Catherina Colyer was also known as Madama. Also, wife of Daniel Jan de Hochepied (1727-1796),
son of Daniel Alexander de Hochepied, Marie Dunant (1726-1811) was known as Madama. See
Family tree of de Hochepieds in Levantine Heritage Foundation, (April 15, 2023). Retrieved from
Levantine Heritage Foundation. http://www.levantineheritage.com/pdf/de-Hochepied_Dynasty.pdf
62
belonging of the building to a consul’s wife suggests that it could also have been
used for diplomatic affairs. Therefore, when we consider the fact that property
ownership changed frequently in the period, and the French consul’s wife was also
identified as Madame in the painting, it is possible that the structure in the image
represents Madama Han.
Fig. 29 Madama Han in the city plan of Barbié du Bocage, c.1780
Fig. 30 Madama Han and Consulate of the Holy Roman Empire in the city plan of
Livio Amadeo Missir, c.1800
63
Fig. 31 Portraiture of “la Büyük Madama,” Clara Catherina de Hochepied-Colyer.
From Heylen, Kunst in de Levant
Another possibility is that this structure represents the consulate building of
the Holy Roman Empire due to the House of Bauffremont’s relation with the Holy
Roman Empire. The Buffremont family was a part of the royal court and succession
lines of the Holy Roman Empire rulers.101 According to Missir’s map, the consulate
of the Holy Roman Empire was close to the old French consulate building given in
De Bruyn’s panorama. The Holy Roman Empire’s consulate was near the Church of
St. Polycarp and Madama Han. The monastery of St. Polycarp was thought to be
connected to the French consulate by a wooden gallery.102 However, the distance
between the monastery and the French consulate shown on maps and visuals makes
such a connection unlikely. The wooden gallery of the monastery could provide a
101 They were engaged in many wars with other rulers and some members of Bauffremont family were
titled as “Prince de Saint Empire”, such as Alexandre Emmanuel Louis de Bauffremont. See further:
Courcelles, Histoire Généalogique, 1825. and Duvergier, Mémorial Historique de la Noblesse, 1839.
102 Pallini, “Early Nineteenth-Century Smyrna,” 77.
64
passage between the 18th century Holy Roman Empire consulate, which was built in
a similar location to the property of the pre-earthquake French consulate that was
visible in De Bruyn’s panorama.
It is not possible to know which of these three probabilities was accurate
without further research, and the likeliest possibility was that the structure represents
an imaginary French consulate. However, there was a possibility that Madama Han
was used for diplomatic affairs and religious activities. In fact, in accordance with
the general spirit of the mid-18th century Frank Street in which the spaces served
various purposes, we can assume that Madama Han was not only used for
commercial activities but also for religious activities and political encounters as we
see in the parade of Bauffremont. Besides, Madama Han was near the Church of St.
Polycarp, and there were two windows from Madama Han to the church. Moreover,
the depiction of the building in the painting resembles the local architecture of
Smyrna developed after the 1688 earthquake, use of stone on the lower floors and
mudbrick in the upper floors, rather than the 18th century Western and French
architecture (Fig. 32). Thus, the structure in the painting was Madama Han instead of
being an imaginary representation of French consulate, and it demonstrates that
Madama Han was also used for diplomatic affairs.
65
Fig. 32 Details of the building techniques of Madama Han
The painting is an interesting representation of the social fabric of Frank
Street. In the painting, people watch the procession of Joseph de Bauffremont from
the windows. Blue and white flags adorned the windows, which may be associated
with the flag of the French royal family of the House of Bourbon and their royal
standard from 1643. The environment simultaneously contains local and Western
elements: a building with bay windows and round-arched doors,103 local people with
traditional costumes, and Ottoman and French officers with their official uniforms.
The encounter of diverse communities during the procession of Joseph de
Bauffremont, in fact, represents the plural affiliations that existed in the city. The
relationships between the Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Turks, and foreigners living in
Smyrna are remarkably dynamic. Although people’s identities were mostly based on
religion and ethnicity, there were examples where these identifications evolved into
plural affiliations. For instance, in 1833, there were 6354 Catholics in Smyrna;
103 Ottoman architecture developed as an encounter of different cultures, materials and ideas.
Therefore, it is not proper to assume that local architecture was purely Ottoman, but it was a
combination of different architectural ideas and cultures gradually composed. See Cerasi, “The
Formation of Ottoman House Types,” 116-156.
66
among them, 1990 people were Ottoman subjects (Fig. 33).104 The encounter
between the Ottomans and the French seems intriguing. A structure resembling local
architecture with its building technique and bay windows, and the church St.
Polycarp stand there, and officials in both Ottoman and French clothes trespass ahead
of these buildings. In this regard, the visual material depicts a view of Frank Street
with its local and foreign components, a hybrid environment rather than a Europeandominated
urban space as it was assumed in general.105 Therefore, we can think that
Frank Street was not only a place for commercial activities106 with a Western urban
fabric107 that other components only have passed to do business or shopping. Instead,
it was an urban space where different actors encountered and inhabited.
Fig. 33 Two Latin Parishes of Smyrna: Reformed Fathers (Yellow) and Capuchin
Fathers (Red). Retrieved from Pallini, Early 19th-century Smyrna
104 Hofmann, “L’arcivescovado di Smirne,” 459 and Pallini, “Early Nineteenth-Century Smyrna,” 78.
105 Grand Rue de Pera, for instance, another important sphere to examine hybrid identity in Ottoman
urban space and encounters between local and foreign components. See further: Girardelli, “Religious
imprints along the Grand Rue,” 117-136.
106 We should also note that other actors, besides foreigners, engaged in trade and commercial
activities such as Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and Jews.
107 Some accounts described Frank Street as “petit Paris.” This very adjective of “petit Paris” was also
applied to Smyrna in general. For instance, Schiffer, Oriental Panorama, 112.
67
Most materials from earlier periods consist of written documents rather than
images. That’s why it becomes harder to compare visuals about the landscape of
Frank Street for the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the parade of Bauffremont
reveals the urban layout of Frank Street, at least to a certain level. The written
documents about Frank Street usually emphasize its significance in commercial
activities and its vividness. Hence, the image shows us another aspect of the street,
political and formal. We can correlate De Bruyn’s accounts on the house of vizier
Mustafa Pasha and the image above and assume that the street’s importance relies
not only on its volume of commercial activities but is a space for encounters between
locals and foreigners. It is not purely an Ottoman urban space or an idealized
European urban layout. On the contrary, a hybrid landscape was born from many
sources: interactions between actors, new spatial relations, exchange of knowledge,
and use of materials. Besides, being local or foreign cannot be categorized as two
statical identities, but a variety of identities and plural affiliations between people
created a dynamic co-existence in Smyrna, like in other multicultural eastern
Mediterranean cities such as Istanbul, Alexandria, and Salonica.108 Last but not least,
as the maps and plans demonstrated, although the street’s urban layout would not be
changed dramatically until the 19th century, the images of Frank Street from the 19th
and 20th centuries illustrate a better perspective of everyday life on the street which
was characterized by Smyrna’s economic, cultural, and social realities.
108 Multicultural environment does not necessarily mean a cosmopolitan environment. Therefore, I
would intentionally use term “multicultural” instead of “cosmopolitan.” See further for the discussions
on cosmopolitanism and co-existence in a multicultural environment: Jasanoff, “Cosmopolitan,” 393-
409, Girardelli, “Architecture, Identity, and Liminality,” 233-264.
68
CHAPTER 3
URBAN CHANGE AND CROSS-CULTURAL RELATIONS AFTER 1840
3.1 Waterfront
The horizon stretches out once again. We see, from a certain distance, the
delicious sea where we sailed yesterday between Samos and Chios.109
On his tour to Egypt in 1863, Sultan Abdulaziz (1830-1876) visited Western
Anatolia and traveled through trains that a British company had constructed.
Construction of the railways was a significant development for Smyrna. The
railways’ impact on the urban space was also enormous; like many other imprints, it
came with the profound developments and novelties that took place in the second
half of the 19th century, such as constructing the quay, implementing modern
infrastructure, and implementing modern regulations.110 Nevertheless, the changes
did not take place suddenly. Instead, all these changes were the product of processes
that have developed over a long period of time. In the mid-19th century, Smyrna was
overgrowing in terms of population and volume of trade, and the cultural exchange
accelerated. The inhabitants started constructing buildings in empty districts,
infrastructural works were carried out, and modernization projects increased.111
Foreign investments in Smyrna increased in number, and the city started to integrate
109 Gardey, Voyage du Sultan Abd-Ul-Aziz de Stamboul au Caire, 223 (Fr. “L'horizon s'étend de
nouveau. Nous revoyons quelque distance, la délicieuse mer où nous voguions hier entre Samos et
Chio.”)
110 Sea routes were the preferred choice for transportation over land routes due to their advantageous
features. Nevertheless, the rise of railroads bolstered trade along the land routes. Braudel, The
Structures of Everyday Life, 415-430.
111 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 23. Melih Gürsoy states that the trading activities in Izmir were in
decline due to changing structures in the Mediterranean trade. For instance, Alexandria, Trabzon, and
Mersin ports started to increase their export and import capacities. The rise of Izmir port corresponds
to aftermath of the Crimean War. See further in Gürsoy, Our Izmir, 123-124.
69
international trade more densely.112 For instance, according to British railway
engineer Sir Macdonald Stephenson (1808-1895), the import amounts rose to
£2,2447,493, and the export amounts increased to £2,2397,342 in 1857.113 However,
the commercial activities were not the only income of the city, but agricultural
activities in the provinces played a prominent role in the development of its
economy.114 Thus, the city’s growth did not merely impact the center, but also the
exchange of agricultural products, raw materials, and workforce between Smyrna
and its peripheries started to be more frequent.115
Travel accounts and population estimates indicate that the city’s population
almost doubled in the second half of the nineteenth century, especially between the
1840s and 1880s. The population figures indicate that Smyrna’s population began to
increase in the second half of the 19th century, from 150.000 to 200.000.116 Some
accounts demonstrate that the Greek population of the city exceeded the Turkish
population of the town, and already before mid-century the population of foreigners
rose to 10,000 in some estimations. The British physician and zoologist George
Rolleston (1829-1881) gives numbers as follows: 45.000 Turks, 50.000 Greeks,
10.000 Armenians, 17.000 Jews, and 10.000 foreigners.117 Although some
researchers claim that the Greek population of the city was exaggerated purposely,
the increase in the Greek population of the city is visible on multiple accounts, while
the percentage of the Turkish population was decreasing.118 The increase in the city’s
population suggests that the city did not attract only people from the lands of the
112 Gürsoy, Our Izmir, 124-129.
113 Stephenson, Railways in Turkey, 9.
114 Georgiadès, Smyrne et l'Asie Mineure, 66.
115 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, p. 24
116 For detailed numbers please see Beyru, 19. Yüzyıl’da İzmir’de Yaşam, 49-66.
117 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 20-49.
118 See further for the increase rates in population, Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 17-27.
70
empire, but also welcomed a migration wave from outside of the Ottoman borders.
The foreign population, over time acquiring the hybrid identity of the so-called
Levantines, migrated from the West to find better economic and social opportunities.
Moreover, some foreigners relocated due to the political instability of Europe,
especially after the revolutions of 1848, and sought asylum from Ottoman Empire.119
The growth in population and economy progressed parallel to the
developments in the Empire, which was trying to modernize and regulate itself
according to the needs of the age in order to compete with the rest of the world and
the Great Powers. Since the Ottoman Empire’s population was composed of diverse
communities from different ethnic and religious backgrounds, legal regulations were
made to protect the rights of different parties or new legal rights were given. For
instance, Gülhane Hatt-ı Humayunu, widely known as Tanzimat reforms, was
declared in 1839 and it is generally assumed that it lasted until the succession of
Abdulhamid II (1842-1918) to the throne in 1876.120 Tanzimat reforms aimed to
generate equality among different groups in the Empire, such as Greeks, Armenians,
Jews, and Muslims, which were defined according to the Millet system in a religious
framework. Reform policies in the empire started with Selim III (1761-1808), when
he formed a military force known as Nizam-ı Cedid, meaning new order. The early
reform policies of Selim III mostly focused on the military aspects rather than social
policies. However, the inability of Ottomans to defeat Great Powers on the battlefield
forced them to give importance to diplomacy. The reformation policies of the
Sublime Porte were the reflections of changing global conjectures. The Ottoman
119 Findley, “The Tanzimat,” 15. Besides, the digital humanities project coordinated by Prof. Paolo
Girardelli “ Talents in Transition: Italian-Ottoman Networks, Migration and Mobility in the
Architecture and Construction Sector” focuses on exploring the movement of individuals from
Western countries, aiming to investigate the reasons behind their migration and the living conditions
they encountered after relocating.
120 Findley, “The Tanzimat,” 13.
71
Empire wanted to adapt itself to the world market, and create an order based on
modern regulations instead of the traditional Ottoman laws, which was based on the
juridical autonomy of the communities regarding their individual/communal cases.121
Foreigners or Levantines were subject to the jurisdiction of consulates, but this
became also a matter of contention.
The territorial jurisdiction and courts handled several matters related to
inheritance, property, taxation, security, governance, and inter-communal disputes.
The court cases between Muslims and non-Muslims were conducted at the kadi
courts, which were at the top hieratically in the Ottoman juridical system. If non-
Muslim complainants wanted to handle the matter in the kadi court, the court would
also be responsible for the case. The kadi court was also responsible in terms of
resolving disputes among parties that arose due to a diverse understanding of the
laws of different religious institutions and consuls. The different understanding of
laws and separated religious jurisdictions for diverse communities, indeed, generated
problems that Ottoman courts must have dealt with. Therefore, the traditional
Ottoman juridical system and its courts were not only dependent on Islamic laws but
also customs and sultanic degrees were taken into account in the cases. Besides,
fatwas and intermediacy of the other parties to protect communal harmony played
important roles in Ottoman law, therefore it was dynamic and flexible.122
Nevertheless, although traditional Ottoman courts and laws were flexible, the central
government implied new regulations in the juridical system that aimed to establish a
standard law application in the territories of the empire in order to enforce its rule
over all the subjects and foreigners on a modern basis. As an outcome of this aim,
Nizamiye courts were founded in 1860. In theory, these new courts would apply
121 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 47-75.
122 Zandi Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 52.
72
equal juridical decisions throughout the empire, and they would serve independently
from sharia courts.123
Long before the introduction of Nizamiye courts, the central government was
aiming to regulate the social, juridical, and economic life of the empire. In order to
achieve this, a series of reforms were carried out, such as the Tanzimat reforms in
1839, the 1858 Penal Code, and the 1858 Land Code. Although these reforms
brought up many novelties, foreigners in the empire were prohibited from owning
property according to Ottoman laws until 1867. In contrast, the Ottoman subjects
could acquire property for themselves freely. Hence, foreigners in the multinational
territories of the empire, such as Smyrna, Alexandria, and Istanbul, found gaps in the
existing system to acquire properties in the Ottoman lands. In order to purchase
properties, foreigners married local Ottoman subjects, and Ottoman subjects, often
their mothers-in-law or wives, were proclaimed as beneficiaries. Indeed, the central
and local governments were aware of these kinds of activities and practices, but these
day-to-day practices were beneficial for all parties.124
However, property ownership through Ottoman subjects also created legal
issues between Ottoman courts and consulates because the beneficiaries were
registered differently in two places. The foreign consulates registered the foreigners
as beneficiaries, whereas the courts recognized only Ottoman subjects as legal
owners. This difference caused severe problems in legal matters that are difficult to
resolve. For instance, in the case of a bankruptcy of foreigners, the wife or motherin-
law of the person was not considered responsible for the debt and payments.125
Problems caused by the duality between Ottoman courts and consulates issues mostly
123 However, ulema class and traditional Ottoman laws were still influential in Nizamiye Courts. See:
Akiba, “Sharī‘a Judges,” 209. Ayoub, “The Mecelle, Sharia, and the Ottoman State,” 121-146.
124 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 53.
125 Smyrnelis, Une société hors de soi, 292.
73
resolved in kadi courts. In such cases, there was often a negotiation between the kadi
court and the consulates, impacted by bribery, corruption, and favoring a party.126
Therefore, Sublime Porte wanted to create more systematic law codes to apply in its
lands and enforce its rule on different parties throughout the Empire. In the second
half of the 19th century, the Sublime Porte established new regulations and codified
the existing laws in order to modernize itself.
Fig. 34 Storari, L. (1854-56). Pianta Della Città de Smirne [City Plan]. Retrieved
from BNF Gallica
Of course, the judicial system and the legal order were not the only aspects
affected by the reforms and modernization taking place within the Ottoman Empire.
Some of the works carried out in this period also led to the emergence of a new
understanding of municipalism and the city. Modern urbanization and modern
126 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 51-52.
74
infrastructure works gained momentum. The spatial transformations in the age of
regulations can be observed through the plans and maps of the city produced in the
second half of the 19th century. In this regard, an earlier city plan was prepared after
the nautical map of Graves between 1854 and 1856 by an Italian engineer, Luigi
Storari (1821-1894).127 In addition to the city plan of Smyrna, Storari drew a plan for
Kemeraltı district in 1852128 and published a guide about the city in 1857.129 The
plan was dedicated to Sultan Abdulmecid (1823-1861), which indicates that the
plan’s preparation was requested officially. The plan, prepared nearly two decades
after the maps drawn by Graves and Copeland, shows the city’s waterfront before its
transformation between 1865 and 1875. Storari’s plan illustrates the inner city and
the seashore, and it allows us to compare it with earlier plans and maps since it is a
very detailed and reliable plan. A comparison of city plans produced by Storari and
Graves indicates that several changes occurred in Smyrna’s urban fabric in two
decades. On the Storari’s city plan, the territorial expansion of the city towards the
northern part is apparent. Still, another intriguing difference also reveals itself in the
Armenian quarter and at the Steam Mills located at the end of the seashore.
According to the plan of Luigi Storari, while the urban fabric of the city and
waterfront were still fragmented in general, the effects of modern urbanization were
noticeable in certain districts, such as the Armenian quarter and the area around
Steam Mills. The regulation of streets was also observed by George Rolleston in
1856. According to his report, the Armenian quarter was renewed after the
devastating fire of 1845:
The streets strike the attention by their great regularity and straightness, and
the houses by the large size of their doors and windows. These are conditions
127 To find further information about Luigi Storari, please see Berkant, “L'Impero Ottomano e l'Italia,”
119-133.
128 Berkant, L'Impero Ottomano e l'Italia,” 125.
129 Storari, Guida con Cenni Storici di Smirne.
75
rarely to be seen in an Asiatic town, and, though realized in the quarter
allotted to an Asiatic race, show clearly that foreign models were followed in
the reconstruction of this part of Smyrna.130
3.1.1 The Armenian district after the 1845 fire, and the development of Punta
The renovation of the Armenian quarter presents an interesting example in order to
demonstrate the relationship between the different actors. Like the social and
economic transformations, Smyrna’s urban form was impacted by cross-cultural
relations. The Sublime Porte was criticized by newspapers of the time, such as The
Times, Echo de l’Orient, Courrier de Constantinople, due to their insufficient
support for the reconstruction works. In response to these criticisms, the central
government took action by providing funding for the reconstruction project and
actively promoting modern urban construction.131 The particularity of the newly built
space rests in its modern urban layout. Storari’s map and Rolleston’s account
illustrate that the new neighborhood plan was implemented according to the new
regulations born from the modern understanding of urban planning. Although
another fire hit the Jewish and Turkish quarters in 1841, as Storari’s plan and
Rolleston’s report demonstrates, these areas were built up in their layout existing
before the fire. Compared to the Armenian quarter, the streets of other
neighborhoods continued to look irregular. However, rebuilding the Armenian
quarter in a different urban layout than the Jewish and Turkish quarters raise an
important question: why was the Armenian quarter rebuilt according to modern
urban planning regulations introduced in the 19th century? One possible answer to
this question lies in the existing communal relationships and those in the making.
The burnt district was built according to the new urban regulations introduced with
130 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 10.
131 Bilsel, “The Ottoman Port City,” 230.
76
the Tanzimat reforms in 1839. With the declaration of Tanzimat reforms, the central
government also wanted to implement new rules regarding the urban fabric,
architecture, and construction sector and encouraged the building of large
boulevards, squares, and modern quays.132 All these regulations aimed to modernize
and regulate the empire, not only in aesthetic terms but also in its veins: it
emphasized hygiene to prevent diseases and natural disasters, regulating the seashore
to stop smuggling, and controlling migration in its new urban regulations.
Fig. 35 Details of the Armenian Quarter after the regularization of the urban fabric
The Armenian quarter on Storari’s map has a regulated grid and orthogonal
plan according to the urban regulations introduced by the Tanzimat reforms. The
132 Yerasimos, “A propos des réformes urbaines,” 20-21.
77
dead-end streets damaged in the 1845 fire incident were eliminated and regulated,
and well-connected streets and roads were constructed in the neighborhood. Besides,
the new regulations on the width of the roads were followed during the construction
of the streets in the quarter. These regulations ordered that the old streets with 5-12.5
feet width must have been rebuilt as 15-20 feet width.133 Even though fire incidents
damaged the neighborhoods, they paved the way for negotiations between the local
people and central and local governments to rebuild the area and renovate it. For
instance, the old regulations forbade Christians and Jews to build new religious
buildings, and they had to ask Sublime Porte’s permission to restore their religious
buildings in their neighborhoods. However, it was easier for non-Muslim
communities to grant permission to rebuild or renovate their religious buildings in
such cases.134
The fire of 1845 damaged the Catholic hospital of St. Antoine and the Greek
hospital alongside the churches in the neighborhood, such as the Armenian Church of
St. Stephen and the Orthodox Church of St. George. During the reconstruction
process, the Armenian community and other non-Muslim communities had a chance
to rebuild their community buildings damaged due to fire incidents, and their
hospitals and churches more prestigiously. The rebuilding process enabled non-
Muslim communities to show their prosperity and visually more elegant buildings.
However, the renovation of the buildings in a more prestigious way was not only
afforded by the central government's funds but also wealthy community members
contributed to the construction process.135 Rolleston also noted that the growing trade
volume and population increase created new financial opportunities for Smyrna’s
133 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 79.
134 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 79.
135 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 79.
78
population. The Armenian community engaged in trade and controlled the
steamships traveling between Liverpool, Constantinople, Smyrna, and Alexandria;
some Armenians even became the wealthiest members of the empire.136 In fact,
documents from the nineteenth century demonstrated that the Jewish and Armenian
were in the majority in the list of sarrafs (bankers) and controlled the banking sector
of the commercial business.137
Besides, after the Greek War of Independence, the Armenian community of
the Empire was favored by the central government, and they started to occupy
critical positions on. From 1821 onwards, Ottoman Greeks who occupied critical
positions were replaced with the members of the Armenian community due to the
growing untrust of the central government towards the Greek community as a result
of the war. While the community's prosperity was growing, its overall economic,
social, administrative if not political influence was also increasing. Besides, the
Armenian community, like other communities in the Ottoman Empire, established
and founded relationships with foreigners. Although most Armenians were subjected
to their national church, there were also Catholic and Protestant Armenians. Besides,
the Armenian community had a stronger relationship with Russia, where the head of
the Armenian national church was located, in comparison to the other
communities.138 The existing ties between foreigners and the Armenian community
were also influential in urging the central government to enforce the application of
the urban regulation introduced in 1839. In this case, newspapers became negotiation
tools. Some community members spoke to the European newspapers in 1845, such as
The Times, to get the attention of the Great Powers, their representatives, and the
136 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 1856, 44-45.
137 Cezar, “The Role of the Sarrafs,” 64-65 and Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 44-45.
138 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 45-46.
79
Ottoman government.139 Ultimately, both sides, the Armenian community, and the
Ottoman government, benefited from this situation: the Ottoman government showed
its commitment to modernity by building the neighborhood according to new
regulations, since Smyrna was one of the regions where the empire communicated
most with the international community and markets; while the Armenian community
built up their neighborhood, residential places, churches, and hospitals according to
new standards of hygiene, decorum and functionality. Unfortunately, the identities
and nationalities of engineers and architects summoned by the central government to
rebuild the Armenian district were unknown, hence, we do not know which local or
foreign builders worked in the construction project of the district.140 Nevertheless,
the rebuilding of the neighborhood still indicates the importance and impact of the
existing cross-cultural relations since the central government, wealthy members of
the Armenian community, and foreigners contributed to the reconstruction process of
the urban space altogether.
A difference between Storari’s and Graves’ maps can also be seen in the area
known as Punta, around the Steam Mill. Storari depicted the site in a regulated grid
plan, but the area was not completely built yet. Lands in Punta were marked with
dotted lines, indicating that the area would be built up in the upcoming years.141 The
plan demonstrates that only several buildings were erected around 1856. Industrial
plants and empty lots constituted the majority. Punta was a vital intersection point
between the seashore and the railways, and it was chosen as the terminal station of
the Smyrna-Aidin Railways. Consequently, in the upcoming years, the lands in Punta
became an investment tool for Smyrniots and local elites. Most of the parcels in
139 Bilsel, “The Ottoman Port City,” 231.
140 Beyru, 19. Yüzyıl’da İzmir Kenti, 64.
141 Bilsel, “The Ottoman Port City,” 231-232.
80
Punta were freehold by the Aliotti family, and a German railroad engineer,
Mölhaussen, owned houses and properties in Punta, as consulate records
demonstrated.142 Besides, when an issue arose, these actors participated in the boards
established by the local government and tried to solve problems regarding the
properties with other actors, including local Ottomans.143 Hence, it is possible to
argue that even though it was not legal, properties were obtained by foreigners
thanks to day-to-day practices such as registering the name of their wives or mothersin-
law, and foreign property holders became important actors behind the spatial
transformations.
3.1.2 The evolution of the frenkhânes
In Storari map, change cannot be reduced to the city’s expansion towards the east,
north, and south or the modernized reconstruction of demolished areas. The
waterfront was also considerably transformed in two decades due to the expansion of
the coastline towards the sea, probably by following the earliest practices: filling up
the seashore. Storari's map was more detailed than the previous maps, better
illustrating the architectural plans and enabling us to see the extent to which the
structures along the seashore were haphazardly constructed. Buildings randomly
extend to the left, right, or front with no regulated pattern. The buildings between
Frank Street and the coastline formed a fragmented urban fabric. Beyond these
buildings, a street was formed reaching up to English Pier, and beyond that street,
extensions of frenkhânes were visible on the map. There are also yellow-colored
dotted lines on this part, indicating that the sea lots would be filled up and
constructed. The map also demonstrates that St. Peter’s Castle and Vezir Han were
142 Bilsel, “The Ottoman Port City,” 232-233.
143 Smyrnelis, Une société hors de soi, 288-296.
81
distanced from the sea due to the expansion of the shoreline. The districts located
between the Ottoman and Frank customs were highlighted with dotted lines and in
yellow color like Punta, indicating the upcoming construction projects on the
seashore. The area between the two points was not completely built yet in 1856.
Fig. 36 Details of the newly developing district at Punta according to the urban
reforms introduced with the edict of Tanzimat
Although Storari’s city did not reveal any property ownership, religiously,
publicly, or politically important buildings and places were indicated in his city plan,
such as the Church of St. Polycarp, British and French consulates, mosques, inns,
hospitals, and streets. His indications made it possible to discover some interesting
facts about the structures that stand between Frank Street and the shoreline. From the
Frank custom towards the north, the first structure marked was “Gioia Hâne,” and the
82
second one indicated as “Barbaresco Han.”144 The following places indicated refers
to the Church of St. Maria and the Church of Lazarists. The British consulate was
settled in front of the English pier a few blocks away. Rolleston also attests to the
presence of foreigner-owned businesses, residences, consulates, and mercantile
buildings along the coastline.145 Interestingly, the description of the warehouses in
Rolleston’s report and the description of frenkhânes on the previous documents and
visual materials correspond to each other. According to Rolleston, the warehouses,
“generally long and lofty arcades,”146 were where the exports were stored. In terms
of their architecture, they have “small windows let in considerable height above the
ground, and strong iron-plate doors which are regularly locked and barred at
sundown.”147 The markings on Storari’s plan and Rolleston's report indicate that the
usage of frenkhâne properties on the waterfront has varied, and the structures
constructed on these properties served as shops, houses, warehouses, gardens and
passages, religious spaces, and consulates.
These multifunctional structures serve as the hub for the various daily
activities carried out by Smyrniots of all nationalities and beliefs. Frenkhânes, rather
than being merely houses of Franks, served in various capacities as a consulate, a
storage facility, or a residence. Nevertheless, even though these structures have long
been used for storage, the term "warehouse" appears for the first time in Rolleston's
report. In the second half of the 19th century, the word was shortened to “ferhane” or
“verhane”. It was believed that the term ferhane was a contraction of frenkhâne and
144 Barbaresco Han may could be the place for the products imported from North Africa. See the
documents in Levantine Heritage Foundation website. (April 25, 2023). Retrieved from Levantine
Heritage Foundation. http://www.levantineheritage.com/murat3.htm
145 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 46.
146 Walter Benjamin defined arcades as department stores built by modern construction materials such
as iron, glass, and steel. However, Rolleston’s definition and other authors’ descriptions of frenkhânes
do not match with Walter Benjamin’s description of arcades. See further: Benjamin, The Arcade
Project, 3-5.
147 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 83-84.
83
related to the Ottoman Turkish word "fer," which signifies "light." The term ferhane
was claimed to have originated because these buildings received light from windows
positioned above and on both sides.148 The term frenkhâne was frequently used in
documents from the 18th century, according to those found in the Ottoman Archives
of the Prime Minister's Office (BOA), although records from the first years of 20th
century demonstrate that the term ferhane was preferred instead of frenkhâne.149
Another abbreviated term, verhane, was used by Charles E. Goad’s insurance map
from 1905.150 Indeed, in the years following the French Revolution in 1789, as
British trade intensified in Smyrna and there were more frequent cultural and
material exchanges with the British merchants, the concept of the warehouse was
encountered more commonly in the region. Just as we encountered in Rolleston's
report, we see that “generally long and lofty” structures built in these properties
started to be called warehouses. Therefore, I argue that the abbreviation verhane was
formed by the vernacularization of the term warehouse in the course of time.
148 Atay, İzmir Planları, 5.
149 For instance, two ferhane were built without permission in 1905 and 1909. BOA, BEO,
2628/197097, 20 Cemazeyilevvel 1323 (July 23, 1905) and BOA, ŞD, 71/3, 7 Rabiulahir 1237 (April
28, 1909).
150 See “Chapter 4: After 1880” for the visuals taken from the insurance map of Charles E. Goad. For
instance, Fig. 71.
84
Fig. 37 The waterfront on the city plan of Luigi Storari
In this regard, I think the term frenkhâne was transformed into verhane
simultaneously as the function of the properties changed. Before the 1688
earthquake, these properties served as residential places and consulates for wealthy
Ottomans, Levantines, and foreigners. However, after the 1688 earthquake, this area,
the waterfront, and Frank Street, began to be an attraction center for individuals from
diverse communities as commercial and social hubs due to the population increase,
cultural and material exchange thanks to the growing trade volume, and human
mobility. After the 1688 earthquake, the properties on the waterfront were used by
diverse communities as commercial areas, religious spaces, residential places,
consulates, shops, and warehouses during the redevelopment of the city. However,
due to territorial expansion toward the north, the construction of the residential areas
toward Punta district, and the implementation of projects that took place in the
modern era, such as quay construction, decreased the attraction of Frank Street and
the waterfront as residential places. Indeed, the increase in the trade volume,
construction of the quay, infrastructural works, and street widening projects by the
municipality caused an increase in the traffic of ships, vehicles, and humans as well
85
as a rise in the disturbing noise level.151 Hence, people living in the area may have
been motivated to move. Thus, as the city plans from the mid-19th century and early
20th century show, these properties were used as offices, warehouses, and shops
instead of residential places for wealthy Ottomans, Levantines, and foreigners, as I
will try to demonstrate in the fourth chapter.152
Fig. 38 Details of frenkhâne properties.
151 This issue will be discussed in the next subchapter. See Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 75-114.
152 The Ottoman tax registers from 1845 demonstrates that there were bachelor’s rooms for single men
in frenkhâne properties. Thus, although these spaces were used as residential places, they were not
Frank houses (frenkhâne) as they were used to be before the 1688 earthquake, but properties that were
owned and rented by institutions and wealthy Ottomans, Levantines, and foreigners. Özdemir, “Italian
immigration,” 18.
86
3.1.3 Communal spaces, contested borders
Several names given in the city plan of Storari indicate that buildings, places, and
spaces were named according to the communal affiliations, communal identities, or
the prominent members of the communities living in Smyrna. In general, inns,
bazaars, squares, and streets were the places named according to communal
affiliations or after the communities or significant individuals.153 For instance, there
were inns called “Armeno Han,” “Cezaer Han,” “Eschi Cezaer Han,” and “Grande
Han Ebreo.”154 Besides, some inns bear the name of the owner such as “Abagioglu
Hané,” “Imrocor Hané,” While some streets were named after the prominent
occupation or professions clustered around the street, such as “Boja Hane” Street,
“Sabun Hane” Street, “Adlié” Street, “Civigiler” Bazaar,155 other streets that Storari
indicated bear the name of politically or historically important individuals, Muslims
and Non-Muslims. Some public places were named as “Halim Agha” Bazaar, “Ali
Pascia” Street, “Ali Pascia Meidané,” “Yapicioglu” Street, Alaj Bei” Street, “San
Rocco” Street, “Inglisoglu Kuleli.” One street, near to Frank Street, was named after
the Greek Church of St. Giorgio, and indicated as “Ayi Yorghi” Street.
Besides, Storari indicates religious and community buildings such as
mosques, synagogues, churches, schools, and hospitals. In the indicator list of the
plan, Storari included 17 mosques, 9 churches, 3 synagogues, 9 hospitals, and 3
schools. According to the city plan, the mosques were usually clustered in the
southern and eastern parts of the city, and there was no mosque or synagogue
indicated around the Frank Quarter, but only churches. Three catholic and six Greek
churches were listed on the indicator of the city plan. Besides, the Armenian church
153 The person, place, and other names will be written same as Luigi Storari wrote in his plan.
154 Armenian Inn, Algeria Inn, Old Algeria Inn, and Great Jewish Inn.
155 Dye (Boja) Inn Street, Soap (Sabun) Inn Street, Courthouse (Adlié) Street, Nailers (Civigiler)
Bazaar.
87
in the Armenian quarter was shown on the map but not listed in the indicator of
Storari’s plan.156 The three catholic churches, the Church of Lazarists, the Church of
Capuchins, and the Church of St. Maria, were built closer to each other and all
located on Frank Street. On the contrary, the location of Greek churches varied: the
Church of Panaia Espano Makata (Madonna di Sopra) and the Church of Aji Janni
Epano Makala (St. Giovanni di Sopra) located on the south-east,157 the Church of St.
Giorgio and the Church of St. Photini located near Frank Street, the Church of St.
Giovanni was built in Punta, and the Church of St. Demetrio located near to the
Armenian quarter. The diverse communities established nine hospitals in the city:
two catholic hospitals were established, the French Hospital and the Hospital of St.
Antoine. The French hospital was at the starting point of Punta, near the French
consulate, while the Hospital of St. Antoine was in the Armenian quarter, near
Armenian, Greek, British, and Dutch hospitals. However, the Turkish and Jewish
hospitals were in the southern part of the city, near Turkish and Jewish
neighborhoods. In terms of educational institutions, the Catholic Propaganda School
was on Frank Street near the French and British consulates,158 the Greek School was
located around Frank Street, in between the Church of St. Giorgio and the Church of
St. Photini. Similarly, the Armenian School was close to the Armenian Church
located in the quarter.
156 Unlike the Armenian church which was not indicated on the list but marked on the map, some
buildings on the map have a plan type resembling the basilica plan associated with the churches, but
they were not indicated or listed on the map.
157 In the same order, they were indicated as Church of St. Jean and Church of St. Marie in the city
plan of Lamec Saad from 1876.
158 Probably there were other small community schools, non-Muslim or foreign, not mentioned in the
plan of Storari. Still, Rolleston emphasizes the French government’s support for the Catholic
institutions in Smyrna, and the Propaganda School was one of them. Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 46.
88
Fig. 39 The Greek Orthodox Church of St. Giovanni (1) at Punta.
Storari’s map demonstrates how diverse communities, such as Ottoman
Muslims, non-Muslims, Levantines, and foreigners, shared Smyrna’s urban
landscape. Nevertheless, the communities were clustered in separate quarters and
belonged to their communities to a certain extent. However, through intermarriages,
commercial partnerships, and religious conversions, some members within
communities are known to have established relationships with each other. Through
such means, an individual or more than one member of a community can have plural
affiliations. In fact, if Storari’s map is carefully examined, there are indications to be
89
found about this phenomenon. For example, there were neighborhoods where
Armenians, Jews, and Turks clustered according to their ethnicities. Besides,
community buildings and religious places were built around these neighborhoods. On
the contrary, the Greek community and their churches were established in various
parts of the city, near Frank Street, the Armenian Quarter, and in Punta, along with
the churches located in the Greek Quarter. Similarly, Rolleston’s report shows the
relationship of Greeks with other communities and Westerners through religious
conversion, commercial partnerships, or being protégé as obtaining legal status from
Western states.159 A relevant number of Ottoman Greeks were most likely converted
to Catholicism, whereas only a few converted to Protestantism. Nevertheless,
between 2.000 and 3.000 Ottoman Greeks were the subjects of the British
government.160 Hence, the distribution of Greek hospitals, churches, and institutions
in various locations can be explained through two reasons; first, the Ottoman Greeks
constituted most of Smyrna’s population with the Turkish population, and they were
actively involved in commercial activities. Consequently, their neighborhoods
extended into a larger territory in comparison to other communities of the city, and
they built their communal buildings and religious spaces where they inhabited.
Second, they were associated with other communities and developed plural
affiliations. Although Greeks were concentrated in a quarter like other communities,
their plural connections, intense engagement with mercantile activities and
interactions with diverse communities brought them to surpass the communal notion
of spatial boundaries and to inhabit the districts where they could interact and live
with diverse communities, such as Frank Quarter, and Punta.
159 Ottoman subjects gained nationality and protection from the European states. See Groot, A.
“Protection and Nationality.”
160 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 28-42.
90
Rolleston claims that around 1856, “the business of exporting and importing
goods to and from Europe is becoming more and more monopolized by the Greek
merchants day by day.”161 Indeed, the Ottoman Greeks, including those subjected to
the foreign consulates or the Independent Greek state, were engaged in mercantile
activities, and they were important actors of the trade business in Smyrna since the
early 18th century. They competed successfully with other communities like
Armenians, Jews, Turks, and foreigners such as British, German, and French actors,
and finally, they constituted 40 or 50 percent of the merchants of Smyrna in the early
20th century.162 As a result of the Ottoman Greeks’ success and prominence in trade,
they established business relations with the foreign actors working in Smyrna’s trade
business. For instance, foreign companies appointed Greeks as their directors who
would control the interior trade business. Even though it was possible to see
Armenians and Jews as the directors of foreign firms, Greeks dominated this
business too.163 The strong mercantile traditions of the Greeks and the prominent
commercial role they played in commercial activities in Smyrna necessitated that
they develop close associations with the city's waterfront.164 Hence, the proximity of
two Greek churches and the Greek school to Frank Street and to the waterfront and
their expansion into other neighborhoods while other communities concentrated on
their quarters could also be explained by the Greeks’ predominance in the
commercial activities and the relations that they have established over time with
diverse actors.
161 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 30.
162 Frangakis-Syrett, “The Economic Activities,” 17-19.
163 Frangakis-Syrett, “The Economic Activities,” 22.
164 Frangakis-Syrett, “The Economic Activities,” 20.
91
3.1.4 Ownership on the shoreline
The waterfront of Smyrna was occupied by different actors and parties, not only
foreigners or merchants. It was a hybrid space constituted by foreigners, Levantines,
Ottoman Muslims, and non-Muslims. Examining the property ownerships
established on the seashore demonstrates the complexity of the communal relations
in Smyrna. In this regard, the earliest maps and plans showing the property
ownership at the waterfront were prepared in the years around when the construction
of the quay started. A map prepared in Ottoman Turkish around 1865 shows the
property ownership at the sea lots and the extension buildings located at the shore.165
The map only shows the seashore and the buildings located on the sea lots. Except
for a few examples, the map does not reveal the ownership of the properties known
as frenkhânes. On the map, parcels were colored yellow, pink, brown, green, blue,
and purple. However, the meanings of the colors are not clear. One possibility is that
the colors indicate the different legal status of the parcels, such as blue, which
usually indicates the sea lots.
Fig. 40 Map showing the property ownership on the waterfront [Property Map].
(c.1865). Retrieved from BOA
The map was prepared approximately one decade after Storari’s map and two
years before foreigners and Levantines were legally allowed to obtain properties in
165 BOA, PLK.p.., 12.
92
1867.166 The map demonstrates that the parcels on waterfront colored yellow in the
city plan of Storari were filled up, and new structures were erected on the sea lot
from Vezir Han up to the Steam Mills. The building types varied: shops, residential
places, public service buildings, warehouses, and consulates.167 Besides, industrial
buildings were clustered in Punta. The map shows that individuals, waqfs, and
institutions from diverse nations and religions owned the properties. For instance,
some of the property owners at the shore were Reşit Efendi, Necip Pasha, Seyit Bey,
Hacı Nikola, Yanoko, Marko, Gorgi, Yorgaki, Hristaki, Istefan, Gorgi, and Aliotti.
Except for Aliotti, foreign and Levantine properties were registered under the names
of wives or mothers-in-law.168 Besides the individual names, there were properties
owned by foundations and institutions such as Armenian Church, Austrian Hospital
Waqf, Austrian Church Waqf,169 French estate, and Kudüs-ü Şerif Waqf. The map
also shows the outcomes of the local government's practice of selling sea lots. While
some properties were registered for a single name or institution along with the sea
lots, some of the sea lots in front of properties were owned by different people than
those who owned the property on the seashore.
Fig. 41 Map showing the property ownership on the waterfront [Property Map].
(c.1865). Retrieved from BOA
166 Atay, İzmir Planları, 108.
167 I encountered with such terms Akaret, Balıkhane, Fabrika, Karakol, Konak, Konsoloshane, Menzil
and Talimhane in Ottoman Turkish.
168 Many parcels were registered as “… zevcesi (wife of…) or property of madam …”
169 Nemçe İspitalyası Vakfı and Nemçe Kilisesi Vakfı.
93
The ownership map is significant as it shows that various actors from
different ethnicities and religions occupied Smyrna's waterfront. The map also
demonstrates the property ownership practices on the waterfront before 1867. For
instance, the cadastral map indicates that churches and foreign-owned hospitals
owned property through endowment institutions. Waqf, fundamentally an Islamic
term, was also founded by the non-Muslim communities living in the Ottoman
Empire.170 In fact, Christian waqfs in the Ottoman Empire did not differ
fundamentally from the Muslim waqfs, and they were categorized into two; hayri
and ahli. Hayri waqfs maintained charity activities for public welfare, such as food
aid, hospital services, and ahli waqfs served as institutions that were responsible for
the financial situation and welfare of clergy, monks, and church.171 However,
Christian waqfs in the Ottoman Empire were not legally allowed to obtain properties
as Muslim waqfs did, due to the Islamic legal doctrine. Similarly, non-Muslim waqfs
found other ways that surpass the legal doctrine to obtain properties, like in the case
of individual foreign property practices. They established their waqfs in the lands
that were given by Ottoman sultans, or privately-owned properties of community
members. Besides, they registered their waqf properties under the name of
community members or fictitious characters such as saints and significant religious
figures.172
The foundation of Christian waqfs indicates that non-Muslim communities
adopted a common practice in Islamic tradition in order to maintain charity activities
and the welfare of their communities. Nevertheless, the legal status of Christian
waqfs was differentiated. Although the Ottomans integrated the religious and
170 Shaham, “Christian and Jewish waqf,” 460-472.
171 De Obaldia, “Latin Catholic Church,” 172-173.
172 De Obaldia, “Latin Catholic Church,” 174-175.
94
military groups in its mechanisms during the foundation years, the Orthodox church
became a part of the state and favored by the state among other groups. Therefore,
their properties and privileges were acknowledged by the Ottoman state, and their
advantageous status was used by the Ottomans as a tool that created tension between
the Orthodox and Catholic churches.173 In fact, Catholic waqfs of Smyrna
demonstrate that not only Ottoman non-Muslim communities but also those who
migrated to the empire adopted Islamic and Ottoman practices to use the legal
advantages of the waqf status. Thus, the establishment of non-Muslim and Catholic
waqfs in the Ottoman lands also shows that communities living in the multicultural
port city constituted a hybrid, plural society, both individually and as communal
organizations.174
3.2 New sites of encounter: The railways and the modern quay
On 23 September 1856, a British company, namely the Ottoman Railway Company,
took the concession from the central government for constructing the first railway
lines of Western Anatolia.175 The concession was a crucial step for developing the
city and its port. Smyrna was the distribution center of goods imported from outside
the empire, circulating goods among nearby territories and cities. Nevertheless,
before the construction of the railways, although Smyrna was a prominent commerce
173 R. De Obaldia, “Latin Catholic Church,” 175-177.
174 The Catholic church of St. Anthony in Galata was rebuilt in 1763 after the fire destroyed it. An
archival document demonstrates that the new church plan did not follow Roman liturgical standards in
its rebuilding process, but instead, the interior plan of the church was prepared according to the
division of ethnicity, gender, and status. The interior plan resembles the common mosque plan scheme
with mahfils. Thus, we can think that long-term Ottoman and Muslim practices found a way for
themselves in a Catholic space thanks to hybrid identities that emerged over time. In the case of
Catholic waqfs, we can also argue that long-term Islamic practices were adapted into Catholic belief
in order to use the legal advantages of waqfs and legally obtain properties. See further: Girardelli,
“Architecture, Identity and Liminality,” 248-252.
175 See for the historical development of the company concept in Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce,
433-457.
95
hub where goods and capital flowed, modes of transportation needed to be improved
for the circulation of exports and imports from one point to another. Besides, the
conditions of the roads by no means make the long-distance travel comfortable. For
instance, in 1856, George Rolleston harshly criticized the severe conditions of roads
in Smyrna and the Empire:
The Turkish empire cannot be said to possess any roads or ever to have made
any, or even attempted to preserve such as it found ready to its hand. Its
internal communications are tracks formed by the passing traffic,
uninterrupted where spared by the mountain torrent, impassable occasionally
when this has not been the case, either covered with loose stones of all sizes
and shapes, or consisting of deep and yielding sand.176
Thus, traveling around Smyrna was not always a source of comfort or
pleasure. Before the railroads’ implementation, common vehicles were “camels,” but
the “use of mules, asses, and horses was not uncommon.” Besides, according to
Rolleston, the conditions of the roads were not suitable for vehicles with wheels.
Therefore, a string of heavily burdened camels played a vital role in transporting the
goods.177
Besides Rolleston, other travelers also criticized the roads of the Ottoman
Empire due to severe conditions, long hours of travel, and the lack of modern modes
of transportation. Due to the lack of modern transportation, travelers traveled in
traditional ways, such as on horseback.178 Besides the conditions of roads and old
modes of transport, the bandits on the trade routes created a critical issue for travelers
and merchants. Banditry was common on the routes from Smyrna to other towns, and
the roads were sometimes dangerous due to unpredictable acts of bandits.179 The
severe conditions created a need for modern modes of transportation to facilitate,
176 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 82.
177 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 82.
178 Schiffer, Oriental Panorama, 44-45.
179 Schiffer, Oriental Panorama, 74-80.
96
accelerate, secure, and cheapen the flow of goods from Smyrna’s port to other
markets, as Stephenson declared:
As the trade of the country has been hitherto obstructed by every conceivable
natural difficulty, it is certain that it will be materially increased by a
transition from the slowest, most insecure, most costly, and most irksome
existing means of transport, to the most rapid, safe, and economical medium
of a Railroad.
Furthermore, Stephenson argues that most of the profit from the trade goes to
the camel owners:
Another great drawback in this country, arising from the scarcity of the
transport, is that the produce cannot be all sent to Smyrna when it is ripe and
in fine weather. Raisins are on the road now, which with a ready transport,
should have been in Marseilles or Liverpool six months ago. This wretched
state of things stops enterprise in the cultivation of the boundless fresh land,
the improvement of the sample of cotton and other produce, the importation of
better implements and modes of culture, as now, with the most frugal habits,
the producer’s profit all goes to the camel owner.180
Smryna’s traders and merchants wanted to reduce the cost of transportation
fees caused by the camel owners to hold maximum profit in their pockets.181
Consequently, the construction of railroads was also a good solution to reduce the
transportation costs that would be given to the camel owners. Thus, to secure and
regulate the roads and profit from the trade, the railways of Smyrna were
constructed, and it changed the everyday travel experiences of Smyrniots, merchants,
workers, and travelers. In addition to the stations in the city center, the railway
reached rural areas and suburbs like Buca (1858) and Bornova (1861), where
residential places of wealthy Ottomans and foreigners were located. Besides, the
railways created new opportunities for the transportation of goods from the lands
180 Stephenson, Railways in Turkey, 8.
181 For further details camel trade in Western Anatolia between 17th and mid-19th centuries see İnal,
“One-Humped History.” Besides, Braudel suggests that the control exerted by the Ottomans over
caravan trade played a vital role in the trade life of the Ottoman Empire, see in Braudel, The
Perspective of the World, 475-476.
97
where agriculture was the dominant economic model, expedited the circulation of
low-level technological products, and triggered the making of the working class.182
Thus, the suburbs and towns in the countryside became easily accessible, the long
distances shortened, and the troubling roads became a spectacle for voyagers.
Even though the railways seemed to impact the city positively, the
implementation of railways and the construction processes were not easily
manageable since there were many different actors and problems to solve, such as
decisions concerning routes and stops, financing the construction, and avoiding
problems generated due to property rights. In order to solve problems, negotiations
among locals, foreigners, local and central governments, investors, and companies
were necessary. The first round of negotiations took place among the British
company, investors, and local and central governments. Before the concession was
granted to the railway company for the construction project, the central government
received detailed reports from engineers and companies about the possible outcomes
of the railway implementation in Smyrna. The reports informed the central
government about the railway construction plans, expenses, revenues, and benefits
that the Ottoman Empire and Smyrna would gain after the construction.
Finally, on September 23, 1856, after a series of negotiations about the
uncertainties and obstacles regarding the expenses and financing of the
construction,183 the central government granted the concession to the Imperial
Ottoman Smyrna & Aidin Railway Company.184 British company took the central
182 For the making of the working class, please see further: Quataert and Zurcher, Workers and The
Working Class.
183 Stephenson, Railways in Turkey, 9-12.
184 Clarke, Smyrna & Aidin Railway, 3.
98
government’s concession for fifty years.185 However, the duration of the concession
did not end in fifty years; the central government extended the concession first up to
1910, then extended it again up to 1935.186 However, while the grant was given in
1856, the company could not maintain the implementation of railways in the first 4
years as it was expected. Consequently, the company charged officially about being
culpable for the delay and severe criticisms raised about the company by the
public.187 Thus, although the first construction projects started at Punta station in
1858, the station at Aydın was completed in 1866.188 When it was completed, the
Smyrna-Aidin railway lines started from Punta and passed through Caravan Bridge,
Buca, Seydiköy, Cumaovası, Develiköy, Torbalı, and several small settlements until
the last stop, Aydın.189
However, railway construction required much time, materials, and workforce,
and wide spaces and costly expenses were obligatory for the construction of terminal
buildings. Besides, spatial and physical adjustments to the existing urban space were
necessary to create suitable ground for the construction of the roads.190 In the case of
Smyrna railways, the companies and the engineers faced two vital issues during the
construction and planning: firstly, meeting at a joint station was very difficult for the
two railroads. Even though the companies made plans and wanted to connect those
two lines on a joint station, the joint station plans could not have been realized until a
suitable location was found. The second problem was to determine the locations of
railways’ terminal stations, since it had to be near the city center and accessible to
185 The central government bought the shares of the British company in 1893. A French company,
Smyrne-Cassaba et Prolongement, bought a small percentage of the shares from the central
government in the same year. See in Rauf Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 275.
186 Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 275.
187 Clarke, Smyrna & Aidin Railway, 3.
188 Atilla, İzmir Demiryolları, 102-103.
189 The timetable for August 1875 was published in the Levantine Heritage Foundation. (May 6,
2023). Retrieved from Levantine Heritage Foundation. http://www.levantineheritage.com/rail.htm
190 Krim, “Squeezing Railroads into Cities,” 137.
99
the suburbs. In the case of the Smyrna-Aidin railway, the concerns were related to its
proximity to the port and the roads’ suitability to give access to the suburbs. For
instance, British engineer Hyde Clarke (1815-1895) states that the construction of the
train station in the city center would be costly, therefore, the engineer must have
avoided building the terminal in the heart of the city. Besides, the information about
crowds and traffic in the city center was insufficient.191 Consequently, Punta was
chosen due to several reasons related to its location. First, it was close to the seashore
and the city center, where diverse communities inhabited. Secondly, Caravan Bridge
was only three kilometers away from Punta, and the location of the train station
allowed for easier access to the countryside. Last but not least, Punta’s location
would allow for new arrangements in the case of establishing a joint station with
Smyrna-Cassaba Railway.192
Besides, another British company, Smyrna-Cassaba Railway Company, took
concession from the central government in 1863 for 99 years and constructed 93
kilometers long railway roads for the Smyrna-Cassaba railway in 1866.193 The
Smyrna-Cassaba railway lines started from Basmane and passed through Karşıyaka,
Bornova, and Menemen until Turgutlu (Cassaba).194 Similar concerns about the
location of the terminal station were also raised during the construction of the
Smyrna-Cassaba railway. In the Smyrna-Cassaba railway line, Basmane was chosen
as the terminal station due to its proximity to the city center, and the location was
suitable for constructing new railroads reaching the suburbs, such as Karşıyaka and
Bornova. Besides, a suitable location for the joint station for two railroads was
191 Clarke, Smyrna & Aidin Railway, 8.
192 Atay, İzmir Planları, 84-85
193 Rougon, Smyrne, 149.
194 Atilla, İzmir Demiryolları, 137-141.
100
found, and the Smyrna-Cassaba railway line intersected with the Smyrna-Aidin
railway line at the Caravan Bridge station.195
Spatial transformations in Smyrna, the commercial hub of the eastern
Mediterranean, both impacted and caused by diverse communities such as Ottoman
Muslims, non-Muslim Ottomans, Levantines, and foreigners. All the elements of the
Ottoman public sphere were interested in the construction of the railways, which was
a highly significant development. In this regard, heated debates took place in
newspapers, magazines, or official documents. For instance, a debate about the
construction of the railway lines in the Caravan Bridge area was published in Journal
de Constantinople on 10 November 1858. While the location of the railway
implementation was a matter of discussion, Imperial Commissioner Colonel Reshad
Bey reminds the responsibilities and obligations determined by the concession
contract:
Staff Colonel Reshad Bey, Imperial Commissioner of the Aidin Railway,
relying on article 8 of the concession contract, still insisted that a bridge be
built near the Caravan Bridge, where the barriers are currently located and
where the rails pass. To serve as a double roadway, this bridge must have at
least seven and a half peaks under the vault. The aforementioned article reads
as follows: "The railway meeting public roads or watercourses must pass
either above or below these roads or watercourses, by throwing bridges or by
making excavations. Level crossings will be tolerated only for small roads.196
Another debate, which Hyde Clarke brought up, shows that public opinion
considered the expenses for Punta terminal station construction costly, and several
criticisms were raised during the construction. On the other hand, Clarke argues that
195 Atilla, İzmir Demiryolları, 137-140.
196 Journal de Constantinople, November 6, 1858. (Fr. “Le colonel d’état-major Réchad bey,
commissaire Impérial du chemin de fer d’Aidin s’appuyant sur l’article 8 du contrat de concession,
insiste toujours à ce qu’un pont soit construit près du Pont-des-Caravanes, à l’endroit où se trouvent
actuellement les barrières, et où passent les rails. Ce pont, devant servir à une double voie, doit avoir
au moins sept pics et demi sous voute. L’article précité est ainsi conçu : “Le chemin de fer a la
rencontre des routes publiques ou des cours d’eau devra passer soit au-dessus soit au-dessous de ces
routes ou cours d’eau, en jetant des ponts en faisant des excavations. Les croisements de niveau seront
tolérés seulement pour les petits chemins.”)
101
constructing Punta Terminal Station was not expensive but only moderate. He argues
that the terminal station includes all necessary rooms and spaces for a city like
Smyrna, and the cost would be considered as cheap eventually due to the ongoing
increase in the land prices, which was as precious much as it was in London. Further,
he states that the land’s price would be equal to the cost of the construction in three
years:
The station at the Point is a very fine building of stone, having a good effect
from the sea and being an ornament to the city. It has been already criticized
as being too expensive and costly, when in fact if there be any traffic at all, it
will be found that the station is on a very moderate scale. It includes the
necessary offices, waiting rooms and courts, company’s, engineers’, audit,
cashiers’, booking, parcels, goods, post and telegraphic offices, arrival and
departure platforms, of good dimensions; porters’-room, lamp-room, store
office, and the many small offices and departments which are required for
railway traffic at a central and terminal station; and which so far from being
dear will be regarded as cheap in a city like Smyrna, where land is rising in
price, and is as dear as in London. In three years the land alone of the stations
will be worth the whole present outlay for land and buildings.197
Finally, the charming train station of Punta started to operate in 1865 with all
its glory.198 However, since it was a significant development and impacted the urban
fabric of Smyrna, the construction of railroads and train stations became another
driving force behind the landscape changes that materialized in the second half of the
19th century. For example, one of the questions that needed to be addressed after the
trains started to operate was how to transport goods from the port to the terminal
station, especially when the distance between two points was considered. The
traditional modes of transportation were carried out for a while, such as porters,
camels, etc. At last, a possible solution already proposed by Clarke and Stephenson
was integrated into the planning process of the modern quay: a tramway line. During
the planning and construction processes, adequate transportation of goods from the
197 Clarke, Smyrna & Aidin Railway, 9.
198 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 32.
102
port to the railways was one of the main concerns of the merchants. Thus,
constructing a tramway line between the terminal station and the port for transporting
goods was considered a satisfactory solution.
Fig. 42 Terminal Station at Punta [Photograph]. (c.1860). Retrieved from Levantine
Heritage Foundation
Even though building a modern quay was on the agenda of the investors,
local people, visitors, and local and central governments since the 1850s,199 the
construction of the quay only started in 1868.200 The modern quay construction
started as a British construction but ended up as a French one thanks to the
investment of the French engineering company Dussaud Brothers, which was
199 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 127. For instance, L. Storari raised concerns about the insufficient
port facilities in Smyrna that were unable to support the trade volume adequately. Storari, Guida con
Cenni Storici di Smirne, 24.
200 Frangakis-Syrett, "Le Développement d’un port Méditerranéen," 42.
103
internationally famous and realized many projects in different parts of the world.201
Besides, the construction of the quay demonstrates one of the striking examples of
how Smyrniots from diverse backgrounds were actively involved in the
modernization process since it impacted many people directly regarding property
rights, business opportunities, public order, and daily life on the waterfront. Besides
the investors and local and central governments, the modern quay project resulted
from a local need and was initiated and financed by the locals of Smyrna. The first
three British investors, J. H. Charnaud, A. Barker, and G. Guarraciano,202 were
actively involved in the trade business in Smyrna. Besides, the Smyrna Quay
Company’s board of directors in 1868 was constituted of A. Cousinéry, Baron
Aliotti, P. Aliotti, A. Aliotti, E. de Creamer, F. Charnaud, K. Abro, A. Spartali. Like
the company’s initial investors, these people were engaged in trade in Smyrna.
Among all names, only A. Cousinéry had a French origin; the other people were
British at birth or had British nationality afterward. Although the project started as a
British investment initially, the British consulate and diplomats opposed the project
due to property ownership issues. Because, after the construction, the British
consulate would be distanced from the seashore. Besides, while the initial investors
tried to gain the support of British diplomats for the project, the British diplomats
opposed more after the construction became a French project in the hands of the
Dussaud Brothers. On the other hand, the French consul and local and central
governments favored the project.203
Since the project was transforming the land tenure and public space, the
British consulate and diplomats were not the only opposition sources. Still, some of
201 Frangakis-Syrett, “The making of an Ottoman port,” 26-27.
202 Demetrius, Smyrne et l'Asie Mineure, 154
203 Frangakis-Syrett, “The making of an Ottoman port,” 26-27.
104
the wealthy members of Smyrna and property members at the waterfront opposed the
project since they faced the danger of losing their properties on the seashore.204 The
property owners at the waterfront considered the project dangerous for their own
interests but only good for the British investors. The company would gain profit from
the reclaimed lands and revenue from all the exports and imports, whereas property
owners would lose direct access to the waterfront, and their lands’ values would
reduce. Consequently, even though the central government supported the project
because the Sublime Porte wanted to regulate the waterfront to avoid smuggling and
bring order to the urban space, gaining the support of local people was not easy.
Therefore, newspapers such as Levant Herald and La Turquie became the voice of
public opinion. While several articles advocated the project, opponents published
articles about how the company was lawlessly benefitting from the project and the
privileges granted to the company.205 For instance, according to articles published in
Levant Herald on January 8, 1868, the company had authorization, capital, and
power to fill the seashore. Since the Sublime Porte issued an edict in 1856 that
permitted the expropriation of the lands for the public welfare, the company could
expropriate the properties on the shore in case of need. Nevertheless, the company
was obliged to pay the confiscated properties' value in order to protect landowners.
Besides, while some people advocated the project and emphasized the prosperity that
would be generated thanks to the new quay, the property owners were trying to
defend their rights. According to another article published in La Turquie on July 2,
1868, property owners claimed that the company did not pay the actual value or use
it for the public good but aimed to profit for its own good.206
204 Frangakis-Syrett, “The making of an Ottoman port,” 30.
205 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 66-67.
206 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 67.
105
The issues about property created discontent and disturbance among the
shopkeepers, inhabitants, and property owners. Some people even stopped
maintaining their facilities because they believed their property would soon be
seized. Consequently, neglected structures caused incidents on the waterfront. One
striking example occurred in 1873 and forced local and central governments to take
action. According to an article in Levant Herald, a coffee shop located in the piles,
Kivoto (or café de l’Arche)207, collapsed and caused the death of almost 100 people
(Fig. 43).208 The Kivoto incident was also reported internationally. On March 15,
1873, Le Monde Illustré reported the death of 250 people caused by the accident
(Fig. 45), and as it noted, the Greek coffeeshop owner sought shelter in Greek
consulate in order to escape from the anger of the crowd. However, his demand was
rejected by Greek consulate since they were also feared from the temper of the
crowd, and finally the shopkeeper surrendered to the police to survive from the rage
of the people.209 Like in the example of Kivoto, shopkeepers and property owners
wanted to delay the seizure and the implementation of the project even though the
company had authorization for the expropriation, and the central government ordered
the demolishment of the wooden structures on the shore. But the landowners did not
want to fill in the lots in the sea and refused to pay the costs for filling the land. In
the example of Kivoto, the company already spent the money to take over the
property to the owners of Kivoto and wanted them to abandon the building before the
accident. However, the shopkeeper slowed down the process of abandoning the
property until the violent incident took place. After the incident, the central
207 Le Monde Illustré, March 15, 1873, 171.
208 Levant Herald, February 19, 1873. (In Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 70. Although the
number of death people were given around 100 in Levant Herald, Le Monde Illustré reports the death
of 250 people caused by the Kivoto incident.
209 Le Monde Illustré, March 15, 1873, 171.
106
government enforced its power to demolish all the wooden structures and coffee
shops on the waterfront (Fig. 46).210
Fig. 43 Kivoto (or café de l’Arche) before the violent incident. From Le Monde
Illustré
Fig. 44 Lloyd Insurance Agency and Greek Casino on the waterfront. From Le
Monde Illustré
210 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 70-71. Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 141.
107
Fig. 45 The drawing showing the view during/after the incident of Kivoto. From Le
Monde Illustré
Fig. 46 The waterfront with wooden piers and properties extending to the sea.
(c.1860). From Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir
108
Similarly, another interest group, the city’s merchants, opposed the project.
The merchants believed that the project was profitable only for a few people. The
company’s agreement with the central government about the taxation of imports and
exports generated a vital issue among the actors. According to the agreement, the
Quay Company would acquire 12% of the total revenues.211 Besides, merchants had
questions about the quay facilities that the company could offer and if merchants
could afford to pay the fees determined by the company in exchange for these
facilities. For instance, merchants did not know if their vessels could approach the
quay easily and if the necessary precautions would be taken, such as lighters and
sheltered ports to avoid crashes. Besides, the mercantile community believed that the
quay proposal sent to the central government was unsuitable for the large vessel
traffic but better suited for coastal trade.212 Consequently, the merchants of the city
and property owners believed that the project would not serve public welfare; it
would not increase the trade volume and bring prosperity. On the contrary,
merchants and property owners thought that the property would only maximize the
company owners' revenues and not bring prosperity but only inequality for the
mercantile community.213
The mercantile community and property owners were also a significant part
of the mercantile community and needed to be convinced to build the quay. They
were high in number, influential in local government, and some of the members of
the mercantile community were the local elites. The mercantile community and
property owners believed that public welfare was related to protecting their
properties and their right to free trade. Therefore, the company must have made
211 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 66-67.
212 Frangakis-Syrett, “The making of an Ottoman port,” 32.
213 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 68.
109
several compromises, like all other actors, to find a middle way. The central
government decided to take steps in order to convince the mercantile community and
local elites. The central government and the company reduced the taxation fees for
the traders of Smyrna. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fuad Pasha (1814-1868),
declared that direct shipments to the Customhouse would not be taxed even though
this change was against the company's and central government's initial agreement.
However, the Sublime Porte gave the company 12% of its revenue since this action
reduced the original income estimated on the contract with the Dussaud Brothers.
While the opposition of different actors continued, the company started constructing
the quay, and bought all shares of the first three initiators.214
On the other hand, while the construction was ongoing, there was another
matter of discussion for the project. Some parties considered the public good outside
the property and free trade rights framework and were interested in the general
welfare, hygiene, and urban space. While some actors thought that a modern quay
would diminish the pleasure of daily promenade and that increased vessel traffic
would not be good for the public, another problem related to public health was
caused by the lack of a sufficient sewerage system on the construction site. The
company wanted to build walls for the quay construction, but water pools
accumulated between the walls and the old shore created an issue of public health.
Before the construction, the wastewater was going into the sea, however, the
construction works blocked its flow into the sea. Consequently, some people
criticized the company that the water pools could spread diseases and infections. This
was due to rapid population growth in the city, an insufficient draining system, and a
lack of coordination between the local government and the company about how to
214 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 69-70.
110
manage the sewer lines and clear out the unhealthy waters on the construction site. In
1872, the wastewater started to make a disturbing smell, and British, Spanish, Dutch,
Portuguese, Belgian, Danish, and Russian consulates petitioned the central
government about the issue. In order to prevent diseases and infections caused by the
wastewater, the company and the central government agreed on the implementation
of the sewer lines, which did not exist in the original concession. Therefore, the
company wanted a more profitable agreement and to extend the territories of the
quay. The company wanted to extend the quay towards the Customhouse, a tax-free
zone for merchants. The quay company offered merchants a notable discount on
export and import taxes in exchange for the extension zone. The merchants formed a
commission to evaluate the offer, constituted by the local elites such as Psiaschi,
Paterson, Aliotti, Farkoa, Henriquez, Yenisehirlizade Ahmet Efendi, and Evliyazade
Mehmet Efendi.215 However, the negotiations lasted approximately two years, and all
the parties made offers and counteroffers to find the middle way.216
Indeed, although the construction and planning processes were troublesome
for all parties, the modernized quay project was supported by many Smyrniots. Until
the construction period, the seashore was highly fragmented and unregulated, which
created a space open to illegal activities and smuggling. Some property owners even
claimed that the irregularity blocked their access to the sea. Besides, natural events
such as hurricanes and storms caused problems for vessel traffic at the shore.
Consequently, the modernization of the quays was perceived as a necessity for some,
not only for trade purposes but also for the city's security, health, and welfare. For
instance, on 16 August 1864, an article was published in Levant Herald about the
prosperities that would come with the new quay. According to the article, the new
215 Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” 69-74.
216 Frangakis-Syrett, “The making of an Ottoman port,” 34.
111
quay would bring welfare, hygiene, and order to the urban layout, thus, the flaneurs
of Smyrna would be able to make long promenades if the project would be
realized.217 Therefore, the construction of the quay was supported by different actors,
such as local and central government, the mercantile community, and property
owners. Finally, the quay construction was completed in 1880. The tramway line
started to operate for passengers and to transport goods from the quay to the terminal
station. However, the tramway only carried goods at night to avoid disturbing
pedestrians and human traffic during the day, most likely due to public concerns
about the disturbance of daily pleasures.218
Thus, the construction of railroads and the quay demonstrates to what extent
the different actors were involved in the processes and developments that shaped the
urban fabric they lived in. The local elites, mercantile community, local and central
government, intellectuals, and property owners were actively involved in
modernization. These parties, in fact, did not only include wealthy foreigners or
capital owners who wanted to bring imperialism to Western Anatolia,219 but also
locals such as Ottoman Muslims and non-Muslims. Besides, we cannot consider such
parties, like local elites, property owners, and Smyrna’s mercantile community, as
monolithic unities within them. Instead, even the components of these “monolithic
unities” have taken various positions in construction processes. Diverse groups and
217 Levant Herald, August 16, 1864. (In Sibel Zandi-Sayek, “Struggles Over the Shore,” p. 64)
218 Frangakis-Syrett, "Le Développement d’un port Méditerranéen," 42. Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir,
140.
219 Several scholars considered the construction of modern quay and implementation of the railroads
as the penetration of imperialism (economic expansionism) into the Ottoman Empire since their
financers were foreigners and Great Powers. The modern infrastructure projects, railways, and quay
construction demonstrate the integration of modernity and the global exchange regime into the
Ottoman Empire. Besides, the construction of such projects cannot be considered as the penetration of
imperialism into the Ottoman Empire since diverse actors, communities, and institutions actively
participated in the processes, and these projects fundamentally born out as a result of local needs.
Kurmuş, Emperyalizmin Türkiye’ye Gelişi, and Atilla, İzmir Demiryolları. The italic emphasis in the
sentence was given by the author of this thesis.
112
elements within these groups behaved differently depending on the situation. For
example, although the British consulate opposed the project, believing that it would
devalue its waterfront pier and property, the initial financiers of the project were
three British. Moreover, the project, opposed by the British consulate and diplomats,
was later bought and realized by the French Dussaud Brothers, but the British
investors wanted to repurchase the project. The Dussaud Brothers wanted to sell the
company because of disagreements between the central government and the
company during the construction process and the decrease in profitability due to
mutual concessions. However, the French government and the Sublime Porte tried
various ways to prevent the project from falling into the hands of the British
investors, who already controlled the railways and telegraph, either stopping the sale
or ensure that the French would repurchase it. The motivation behind such a move
was to prevent the entire infrastructure from being owned by British capitalists.
Ultimately, the company was sold to another French, the nephew of the Dussaud
Brothers, Elie Guiffray.220 Thus, the reflections of the cross-cultural relations into the
urban fabric were even impacted by the personal interests of individuals who could
act outside the community framework, at least at a certain level.
3.3 New face of urban coexistence: Frank street
In the second century of the 19th century, one of the places heavily impacted by the
outcomes of the Ottoman Empire's efforts to regulate and modernize itself was Frank
Street in Smyrna. Additionally, migration and economic growth profoundly shaped
the urban layout of the street. Even though some scholars defined Frank Street as an
area where foreigners used to live and imported commodities from the West were
220 Frangakis-Syrett, “The making of an Ottoman port,” 34-39.
113
sold,221 Frank Street was not a hub only for foreigners and their goods but rather an
area where many diverse communities coexisted as I tried to demonstrate in the
previous chapter. In Frank Street, it was possible to find goods from the West and
goods already manufactured in Smyrna and imported goods from other geographies.
Besides, Frank Street was not a European space characterized by the Western urban
fabric, on the contrary, it was a very local space and shared many commonalities
with the rest of Smyrna. Like many others, the street was irregular, narrow, and
usually unmaintained.222 Consequently, Frank Street, like other parts of Smyrna,
became a target of regulations and modernization projects enforced by local and
central governments. Hence, the Smyrniots, who were indeed members of local
government and commissions, have also been involved in this transformation, and
almost all elements of this multicultural city have been actively involved in this
process of change.
Frank Street, main artery of Smyrna, remained one of the most prestigious
and vital streets in nineteenth-century due to its essential role in diplomacy, trade,
and social and cultural life. Consequently, as in previous centuries, the street was
frequently visited by locals, travelers, visitors, and diplomats. The travelers’ accounts
from the first half of the century give us similar insights about the urban fabric of the
street to the previous century. For instance, a French visitor, Alexis de Valon (1818-
1851) says that even though the street has its own character, it is far from the
imagined. According to him, the street was occupied by foreign or Ottoman
shopkeepers selling different goods, such as tobacco and Parisian fabrics. The
221 Beyru, 19. Yüzyıl’da İzmir Kenti, 179.
222 The drawing of Thomas Allom ca. 1838, “A street in Smyrna,” (Fig. 47) gives an idea about how
the streets of Smyrna looked like. A narrow street with houses built in local architecture but also
ornamented with decoration patterns common in west or east. Allom, Constantinople and the scenery,
75.
114
horribly paved street was so narrow that even a wheeler could not pass, it was
crowded with people, and walking was almost impossible without getting hurt due to
the traffic of porters, donkeys, and camels. Besides, houses and their roofs were in a
dilapidated condition.223
Fig. 47 A Street in Smyrna [Lithograph]. From Allom, T. (1838-40). Constantinople
and the scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor illustrated
223 De Valon, Une année dans le Levant, 48-49.
115
However, Frank Street, or the “endless street (that) runs along the face of the
town”224 was, in fact, transformed over time. The expansion of the street towards the
north was one of the changes caused by the transformations that took place in the late
18th and early 19th centuries. The length of the street was emphasized by travelers
and one of them, Rolleston makes a similar statement and defines the area as “long
shore.”225 Besides, Rolleston gives a detailed information about the street and the
shore. According to Rolleston, Frank Street begins in “the esplanade” that was
located a few meters away the Frank custom, marine shops, and drinking houses. The
street, where several consulates, residential places, and shops are located, continues
up to a second esplanade, where some fragments of ill-built Greek houses were
visible:
Still following the water line we come, at the end of this handsome esplanade,
upon a block of ill-built closely aggregated houses, a fragment of the Greek
quarter, interposed between two portions of the European. Its streets are mere
alleys ; the houses are either the dwelling houses of the "long shore" Greek
boatmen, or drinking houses of an almost exclusively Greek character, as the
pictures on the walls show. It contains a second fish market and vegetable
market; and part of the neighbourhood is appropriated to a colony of Maltese,
chiefly boatmen. Along this part of the shore we may observe several wooden
piers running out ten or twelve yards into the sea.226
The area where Greek houses were common was known as “Rue de Roses,”
which was connecting the Frank Street and Greek neighborhoods in the eastern part
of the city. According to a different account, Roses quarter was inhabited by rich,
merchant Greek class, and they have lived in the houses with interior gardens
surrounded with walls, doors, and windows.227 According to Rolleston, the area
where Greek character was apparent were decorated with pictures on the wall. In
224 Oldmixon, Gleanings from Piccadilly to Pera, 375.
225 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 9.
226 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 9.
227 Martins, Promenade Botanique, 4.
116
fact, the walls were decorated with icons and images related to the faith during the
religious festivals.228
Rolleston’s description of the street, in fact, corresponds to the visual
materials that we encounter from the late 19th century.229 Although there are only a
few accessible visual materials about Frank Street of Smyrna, the images from the
late 19th century help us to imagine the architectural texture and urban character of
the street. For instance, one photograph of the street taken around the 1890s show
people, signboards, posters, and buildings, probably residential places and shops
(Fig. 48). The street, which had a narrow width, was crowded with people who
walked on the road itself because sidewalks were extremely narrow and occupied by
tools or vehicles of the shopkeepers. People on the street wore clothes associated
with modernization, such as neckties, hats, dresses, and shirts, while only a few with
traditional and local clothes were on the street. Signboards mainly were Greek, but a
few in French and English were on the photograph, such as Pears Soap and Dentist
Granier.230 The image contains buildings in different types and shapes. However,
many buildings have iron shutters on their windows, a characteristic element of
eastern Mediterranean architecture. There are few visible ornamentations. For
instance, the balcony of Pears Soap and the one closer to the camera had decorations
in meander form.231 The bay windows of the Dentist Granier had ornaments too, but
this time resembled more the traditional Ottoman wooden decorations. Next to Pears
Soap, a building with Corinthian columns and a neo-classical façade catches the eye.
228 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 162.
229 Unfortunately, accessible visual materials about Frank Street usually produced around late 19th
century. Only a very few materials on 17th and 18th centuries are known today.
230 While there was not any soap manufacturer under the name of “Pear Soaps” in 1888 Smyrna
Commercial Guide, the dentist Granier was registered in the guide. According to guide, dentist
Granier was operating business in Madama Han in 1888. It indicates that the photograph was taken
after 1888.
231 An ornamentation mostly associated with Ancient Greek culture and art.
117
The street layout surely fits with the descriptions: fragmented, irregular, and did not
have a regular urban fabric. Therefore, the street indeed carries many Ottoman
elements and foreign ones in the same urban fabric. The urban fabric of the street
shows the coexistence of diverse communities, and “they speak Greek, Turkish,
English, and French but fall far from agreeing.”232
232 La Turquie, January 16, 1872. (In Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 109.)
118
Fig. 48 Frank Street in Smyrna [Photograph]. (c.1890). Retrieved from SALT
Research
119
3.3.1 A street with many names
After the second esplanade, Rolleston moves towards Punta, until the end of the
longshore, “where the town reaches no further in that direction.”233 As he described,
on the “long handsome but ill-paved street" were well-built houses, a French
hospital, a Turkish guard house, consuls of France, Austria, Prussia, Portuguese, and
Greece, a windmill, and a barrack.234 While the end point of the street was Bella
Vista in the previous century, the expansion of the city towards the north lengthened
the street toward Punta. Storari’s city plan shows the long street, starting from Vezir
Han up to the Steam Mills. The street was indicated under four different names from
Punta towards the starting point on the south: Mesudiye, Teşrifiye, Mahmudiye, and
Sultaniye. In the 19th century, Mahmudiye and Sultaniye streets constituted Frank
Street, while Teşrifiye was Fasula Street,235 and Mesudiye was Trassa Street.236 Even
though when and how the streets were named after Sultan Mahmud II (1785-1839) is
unknown, it should have been named after the devastating event, the Greek War of
Independence, which took place during the reign of Mahmud II. In this regard,
several possibilities exist. First, the central government could have enforced the
naming of the streets because of the disruptive events, and second, the local
government, which indeed influenced Ottoman subjects and foreigners, could rename
Frank Street after Sultan Mahmud II.
The first possibility is that the Ottoman government wanted to dominate the
public space, which Greeks and foreigners intensely inhabited, by changing the street
names and making itself more visible. In the maps and visual materials from 18th and
233 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 9.
234 Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 9-10.
235 In the map of Lamec Saad (Fig. 54), Fasula Street were named as Teşrifiye and Mecidiye. In
Storari’s city plan, Mecidiye Street was Rue de Roses in the Frank Quarter. The street visible at Fig.
49 as number 1.
236 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 18-19.
120
early 19th centuries, this area on the waterfront and Frank Street was represented as a
“European part” of the city. Therefore, local and central government wanted to
rename the street in Turkish and aimed to represent it as an Ottoman space in the
maps and city plans produced after the Tanzimat reforms. The second possibility was
related to the developments regarding the local Latin and catholic community of
Smyrna. In 1836, Mahmud II recognized the local Ottoman catholic subjects as Latin
millet.237 Besides, the Greek War of Independence strained the relationship between
the Greeks and the mercantile community of Smyrna. Indeed, Jewish, foreign, and
Levantine merchants were accused by Greeks of being crueler even than the Ottoman
government for their lust for money.238 Moreover, we should also consider that some
of the local Greek elites who were influential in the city administration might also
support the Ottomans in the Greek War of Independence in order not to lose the
wealth, properties, and business opportunities that they had built over the years.239
Thus, the streets might be renamed after Mahmud II by the wishes of local elites and
local government, both constituted by diverse communities, as an appreciation and
glorification of the Sultan for the recognition of the local Catholic community as
millet and to show their loyalty to the Sublime Porte due to recent Greek War of
Independence that tensed the relations between Greeks and the mercantile class of
the cosmopolite port city. In all possibilities, the various names for Frank Street in
different languages demonstrate the multicultural texture of the street and how a
237 Unfortunately, the edict is lost today. However, see further for the details: Jehay, De la situation
légale, 320. See further for the source and the formation of Latin Milleti, Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir,
161.
238 Comstock, History of Greek Revolution, 450.
239 In his report, Rolleston says that upper class Greeks in Smyrna adapted the European lifestyle, for
instance, in how they dressed, whereas local Greeks were wearing their traditional costumes. As this
situation points out, upper class Greeks and wealthy Greek merchants might behave according to their
own class interests rather than communal interests such as supporting the revolutionary Greeks in the
Independence War. Rolleston, Report on Smyrna, 29.
121
hybrid environment became a sphere of public discourses and politics due to the
impact of cross-cultural relations.240
Fig. 49 Rue de Franques or Mahmudiye Caddesi
Fig. 50 Rue de Franques or Sultaniye Caddesi
240 The names turn spaces into places where the memory of a group, an individual, an historical
moment, a collective memory, or common feelings of communities revitalize. In this regard, my
suggestion takes its roots from the concept of “memory places.” Nora, “Between Memory and
History: Les Lieux de Mémoire.”
122
Fig. 51 Rue de Fasula or Teşrifiye Caddesi
Fig. 52 Rue de Fasula or Teşrifiye Caddesi
123
Fig. 53 Rue de Trassa or Mesudiye Caddesi
Frank Street, with its churches, shops, houses, warehouses, and consulates
belonging to diverse communities, constituted a hybrid public space. This hybrid
space, in fact, became a sphere of public visibility: it was a place for communal
rituals, and a route for parades organized by different communities, as the procession
of Bauffremont demonstrated in 1766. Although all communities in the Ottoman
Empire organized communal festive, the edict of Tanzimat gave liberty to the non-
Muslim communities more than ever, and it helped them to become more visible in
the public sphere. Besides, these organizations strengthened communal identities and
created a sense of solidarity among community members. For instance, in 1872, the
Greek Orthodox community celebrated Christmas in their churches:
124
Today the Greek churches are celebrating their Christmas—twelve days later
than ours, old style instead of new style. I attended their "mass" in the
morning, at eight o'clock, in the city church, and in another in the afternoon.
Their exercises were chiefly singing, reading, kissing sacred-pictures, and
crossing themselves, much like the Roman Catholics. All stand during
worship. The Greek churches are well constructed and finely adorned.241
However, religious festivals and days were celebrated not only in the
religious spaces, but they were significant occasions that spread into streets. For
instance, the Latin community of Smyrna held a religious parade in Frank Street in
the year 1842, Corpus Christi. The religious ritual, organized by the Catholics of
Smyrna, constitutes an important example of how the public sphere played an
important role in the visibility of the communities and how the cross-cultural
relations impacted the design of the rituals. A procession for Corpus Christi was
organized by the Latin Catholic Church and archbishop of Antonio Mussabini (1805-
1861).242 The procession of 1842 started from the College of the Propaganda and
stopped at several significant points, such as Levantine Club, and Lazarist Church,
and finalized at St. Mary, the Austrian church. Although the Catholic Church was
under the protection of France officially, the parade was stopped at the Austrian
church and met with the Austrian consul, which was a rival state of France. The
Austrian consul showed that they also protected the Latin community of Smyrna.
Besides, although France officially protected the Latin community of Smyrna, they
abolished their Capuchin organization in 1802. Thus, their control over the Latin
community weakened. For instance, archbishop Mussabini (1805-1861) was a
Syrian-born Italian and had relations with Rome, which was not well received by the
French consul of Smyrna.243 However, the Latin community did not have any
241 Andrews, Travels in Bible Lands, 73.
242 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 152-154.
243 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 168.
125
specific national affiliations and associations and was constituted by diverse
communities of Smyrna. In the processions of Corpus Christi in 1842 and in later
ones, the Catholic Church of Smyrna considered the national and religious tensions
among different parties and organized parades according to this reality. Therefore,
processions were organized in consideration of the supranational character of the
Latin community.244
Frank Street witnessed religious events such as Easter, Ramadan, or Corpus
Christi and social, diplomatic, and imperial occasions. Both tension and solidarity
could be seen during these occasions since friendly and rival states and diverse
communities were in the same area. In 1867, a national holiday was organized by the
Greek community of Smyrna. The national holiday, the celebration of King George’s
rule, started in 1863, and it was also St. George’s Day, celebrated in 1867 with the
participation of Greek and Russian consuls in the church service. In the church, the
crowd and consuls celebrated Russian, Ottoman, and Greek rulers.245 However, of
course, the communal and diplomatic interests were in conflict sometimes, creating
tension between the consulate, the Greek community, and the Ottoman state. The
consul wanted Ottoman Greeks to take its side and sold Hellenic passports to the
Ottoman Christians. However, in some cases, the Ottoman Greeks protested the
Greek state. 1862 when first king of Greece, King Otto (1815-1867) was taken out of
power, the Ottoman Greeks who supported the revolutionaries hung the Greek flag
on the Church of St. Photini. This action generated tension between the consul and
the local Greek community. In order to suppress the protests, the Greek consul
needed to ask for help from the Ottoman government.246
244 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 162.
245 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 174.
246 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 174-175.
126
Besides being a hub for diverse communities, Smyrna was always a highly
diplomatic place where different states and consuls encountered. From the early
centuries, national and state flags constituted a principal element of the city
landscape. Flags were, indeed, powerful tools of visibility, not only for trade ships
but the city’s inhabitants, consuls, and visitors.247 Around 1880, there were 17
consulates in Smyrna carried the flags of different nations: Sweden, Norway, Samos,
Italy, Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, Greece, United
States of America, Russa, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, and Persia. And except for
the Persian consulate, which was located near Armenian quarter in the southeastern
part of the city,248 all other consulates clustered at Frank Street and the waterfront.249
Surely, the 19th century witnessed many diplomatic plays, conflicts of interest, and
power relations. As a result, complex diplomatic activities and inter-state relations
between different parties were reflected in the landscape of nineteenth-century
Smyrna and, consequently, in Frank Street, where the flags were hanged. In Smyrna,
the consulates celebrated national events and important days. As a courtesy, other
consulates also participated in these events. However, in some cases, rivalries did not
participate in these celebrations. For instance, in 1852, the French consulate
celebrated the coronation of French emperor Napoleon III (1808-1873). While some
consulates raised their flags to honor France, Austrian, Prussian, Russian, and
American consulates did not raise their flags. A similar case was observed during the
birthday of King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel (1820-1878). Consulates raised their flag
if their government recognized the Italian Kingdom founded in 1860. Again, when
the British consulate celebrated birthday of Queen Victoria (1819-1901), the Spanish
247 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 176.
248 The location of Persian consulate was based on 1876 city plan of Lamec Saad.
249 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 172.
127
consulate refused to raise its flag. All these events demonstrate how the space was
used as a diplomatic arena with the rivalry or friendly relations among the states.250
Frank Street, as a multicultural and hybrid space, constituted an important
part of the everyday life of Smyrniots. Consequently, the regulations, infrastructure
works, and modernization impacted the street’s urban fabric. For instance,
inhabitants of the street criticized the narrowness of the street, as well as visitors. The
fire of 1844 damaged the street. For some inhabitants, it was an opportunity for
renovation. Even some property owners gave up their shares for the sake of the
enlargement project. As a result, Fasula square was widened during the renovation
of the street. Moreover, another measure was taken in 1864 when the local
government forbade the placement of shop goods, vendor vehicles, or consumer
goods on the street.251 All these works were carried out as a result of regulation
projects, directly aiming to regulate everyday life on the street. However, the
construction of the quay had a profound impact on the street. As the map of
cartographer Lamec Saad from 1876 demonstrates, the street was notably distanced
from the seashore (Fig. 54). Nevertheless, the street continued to play a significant
role in the commercial and social life of Smyrna, but the construction of the quay
created a new space for commerce, leisure, diplomacy, and residence. Thus, the next
chapter will focus on the changes the transformation of the landscape brought to the
waterfront and Frank Street.
250 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 176-177.
251 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 104-109.
128
CHAPTER 4
AFTER 1880
4.1 Waterfront
Fig. 54 Saad, L. (1876). Plan de Smyrne [City Plan]. Retrieved from BNF Gallica
The implementation of the railways and the construction of the modern quay
transformed the waterfront and inner city of Smyrna profoundly. After two decades
from Luigi Storari, Lamec Saad drew Smyrna’s plan in 1876. Saad’s plan illustrates
the waterfront in its new shape after the construction of the quay. Saad also
illustrated the new elements of Smyrna’s landscape, such as the modern port, new
Ottoman and Frank customs, regulated space on the shore, tram line, terminal station
at Punta, industrial buildings near the terminal station, and another terminal station
near the Armenian quarter. Besides, the map illustrates that the city expanded
129
towards the east. In contrast to previous periods, the plan indicates that people started
to build new structures in the rural areas, which were barely occupied in the plan of
Storari. The expansion of the city center was in harmony with Izmir's population
growth. According to the Annuaire Oriental, from 1891, the population of the city,
including its suburbs and villages, was measured as 234.000252 in 1909, it reached
350.000,253 and in 1913 it increased to 500.000.254
Fig. 55 The waterfront after the quay construction
Fig. 56 Newly constructed area on the left side of the Ottoman custom
252 Cervati, Annuaire oriental (ancien Indicateur oriental) du commerce, de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature… 10e année, 1891, 805.
253 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1890.
254 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1708.
130
The newly constructed quay was colored white, indicating that this area was
planned to be built soon. Indeed, in the insurance plan of Charles E. Goad, this area
was indicated as completely constructed, and many buildings serving in different
ways have been built. Visual materials from the 1890s, one decade after the quay
was constructed, show that the quay became a regularized space with residential
places, coffee shops, hotels, financial institutions, and consulates. Most of the
buildings were built in a hybrid character; both local and Western architectural
elements were prominent. Besides, the new quay project has made the coastline
accessible to the public. Although the tramway occupied the space reserved for
public use, it worked only at night for transporting merchandise, to avoid disturbing
human traffic during day hours. Nevertheless, the urban layout of the waterfront in
the early 1880s was different from its urban fabric in the 1890s. Six photographs
taken by Alphonse Rubellin in Pierre de Gigord Collection show the waterfront of
Smyrna in 1880.255 Photographs show Smyrna’s seashore from Punta up to
Değirmentepe, the hill at the end of the city’s southern part, after the quay
construction was completed. Rubellin’s photographs, in fact, constitute a panorama
of the shoreline. The first photograph shows a mill (Moulin Goût) in the front,256
while an industrial building and the Ottoman Greek Church of St. Jean Giovanni257
are visible in the background. Towards Değirmentepe, two Greek Churches, St.
Photini and St. Georges, were visible in the front. The panorama also shows the
Armenian Church of St. Etienne in the background behind the two Greek churches.
255 For the full view of panorama and original versions of photographs please see: Photographer
Unknown. Smyrne, 1880 (1880). Retrieved from Getty Research Institute.
https://primo.getty.edu/permalink/f/tjqn6u/GETTY_ROSETTAIE2370981. On the website, the
photographer was indicated as “unknown.” However, Alphonse Rubellin was usually considered as
the author of photographs. See further: Maeso and Lesvige, Smyrna in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
256 For the mills in Smyrna see further: Alpaslan, “Kent Merkezindeki Değirmenler.”
257 S. Giovanni in the city plan of Storari.
131
The rest of the panorama displaying the southern part of the city shows Vezir Han
alongside Hisar Mosque. Near the modern pier, the panorama shows warehouses and
inns built during the process of the quay construction. On the panorama, Aliotti Han,
Haralambo Yossifoglou Han, Balouzoglu Han, and Maksoudian Han were visible.258
In fact, these structures were colored red in the plan of Saad in the newly constructed
area on the left side of the old Ottoman custom, showing that these structures were
built before the quay construction was completed (Fig. 56).
Fig. 57 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 1st photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute
258 The project of Izmir Time Machine aims to reconstruct significant buildings digitally. See further:
www.izmirtimemachine.com. For detailed information about the inns mentioned above please see
Atay, Kapanan Kapılar.
132
Fig. 58 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 2nd photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute
Fig. 59 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 3rd photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute
133
Fig. 60 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 4th photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute
Fig. 61 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 5th photograph. Retrieved from Getty Research
Institute
134
Fig. 62 Rubellin, A. (1880). Smyrna, 6th photograph [Photograph]. Retrieved from
Getty Research Institute
Although only a few structures were built in 1880 in the recently filled-up
area, the construction works on the shoreline were once again based on property
relations and the involvement of various parties. Besides Aliotti, Yossifoglou,
Balouzoglu, and Maksoudian (Fig. 63), there were various actors who contributed to
the construction process of the modern waterfront. In this regard, we are fortunate
that, unlike in previous periods, there were more documents and maps showing
property ownership along the waterfront. Two plans prepared in French around the
late 19th century and early 20th century show the property owners on the waterfront.
According to the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office, one of the
cadastral plans was produced in 1889,259 and other plan was produced in the early
20th century.260 Both plans demonstrate the old shoreline and the newly constructed
259 BOA, PLK.p., 9, 18 Safer 1307 (October 14, 1889).
260 BOA, 230/0/0/0, Nafia Vekaleti, 131/21/1, 35R.
135
area. According to the plans, the newly constructed parcels were bought or given to
the persons, foundations, and consulates that had pieces of land behind the
constructed areas. For instance, the French consulate acquired the filled-up land
located before its property in the first plan. Although some plots were blank in the
first plan, in the latter, these spaces were registered under the name of individuals or
institutions, such as governmental and administrative institutions, hotels, and banks.
Besides, some names registered differently in the two plans. For instance,
Yossifoglou Han was not registered at first property map, but that parcel was
recorded as the Office and Warehouses of the Smyrna Quay Company (Fig. 64).
Similar to previous periods, Armenian, Greek, Muslim, Jewish, and foreign names
appear as property owners in both plans (Fig. 65). However, in contrast to earlier
periods, the properties of foreigners were registered under their own names, not the
names of their wives or mothers-in-law.
Fig. 63 Details from the 1889 property map showing the properties of Balouzoglu
and Maksoudian [Property Map]. Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime
Minister’s Office
136
Fig. 64 Details from the 1889 property map showing the properties of the Aliotti
Family and Quay Company [Property Map]. Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives of
the Prime Minister’s Office
Fig. 65 Details from the early 20th century property map showing the new owners of
the properties once belonging to the Aliotti Family and Quay Company [Property
Map]. Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office
The panorama does not reflect the colorful image for which the promenade
was best known, full of residential places with bay windows, coffee shops, theaters,
clubs, and hotels. Instead, it remained dominated by an irregular settlement pattern.
Old building types and structures were still prevalent. The panorama shows that there
were long and narrowly built structures made of wood or stone, probably used as
warehouses or offices. The products to be used for export or import were also placed
137
haphazardly on the quay. Besides, the panorama shows that large-scale ships could
also dock in the harbor after the quay construction. This panorama suggests that the
transformation of the waterfront was also extended over a period of time and that the
construction process in this area was completed long after the construction of the
quay. Two postcards from the early 20th century illustrate the urban landscape of
Smyrna after the construction works were mostly completed, which was a more
familiar image of the quay. The first postcard shows Hotel Alexandria and Hotel
Elphiniki (Fig. 66).261 There were coffee shops downstairs of the buildings, while the
upstairs were used as hotels. The hotels’ signboards were written in English and
Greek, but there was also a sign of a boulangerie in French. The second postcard
(Fig. 67) shows the famous hotel, Grand Hotel Huck, and people gathered in front of
the place. The Grand Hotel Huck was a neo-classical building decorated with gothic
ornaments on its door and pediment.
Fig. 66 Hotel Alexandria and Hotel Elphiniki [Postcard]. (c.1900). Retrieved from
the Digital Commonwealth
261 For the history of hotels in Smyrna see: Kayın, “İlk Oteller.”
138
Fig. 67 Grand Hotel Huck [Postcard]. (c.1900). Retrieved from the Digital
Commonwealth
One of the commercial guides about the Ottoman Empire was prepared by
Raphael C. Cervati in 1881, indicating that coffee shops and hotels started to be a
part of the landscape of the waterfront since the very years the quay was constructed.
According to the indicator, there were three hotels in the quay, namely Des Deux
Auguste, Egypte, and Ville. Hotel Egypte also had a restaurant on the same
property.262 Besides, a few hotels were located near the quay or on Frank Street. The
262 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 503.
139
indicator demonstrates that there were no theaters yet in the quay, whereas there was
an Armenian theater in the Armenian quarter, Theater Euterpe in the Rose Street,
and Theater Smyrne in Horiat Alan Street.263 However, there were many coffee
shops located on the shore, such as Alcazar, Alhambra, Astre de l’Orient, Capital
Polo, Constantinople, Corinna, Jérusalem, Kissavos, Mimico, Pausilipe, Pera d’ora,
Phénix, Rodocanachi, Thermopyles.264 Moreover, two casinos were registered in the
guide: Smyrne Rest and Club Grec. In 1883, two new coffee shops started to operate
in the quay: Concordia and Cercle Commercial, and the first theater in the quay
opened its doors: El-Dorado.265 Although no new coffee was registered in the guide,
the Grand Hotel Huck was recorded in the commercial guide in 1885.266
Towards 1890, new coffee shops began to serve the customers such as
Amerique, Athénes, Anatolie, Belle Vue, Byron, De la Bourse, Ermis, Louvre, New
York, Nouveau Monde, Petit Marseillais. Additionally, there were places for musical
activities, such as Alhambra, Monaco, Capitan Paolo, Orphée, and Théatre des
Quais. Besides coffee shops and concert areas, there was an increase in the number
of brasseries. In 1890, there were six brasseries serving the Smyrniots, Kraemer,
Procopios, Franghias, Gagarnon, Tissot, and Homsy, and two new clubs were
founded for the gatherings, Smyrna Club and Armenian Club.267 In 1891, new
restaurants were opened in Rue Paralléle and in the quay such as d’Amérique,
L’Angleterre, L’Artemis, La Belle Gréce, Le Bosphore, L’Espérance, L’Europe, La
263 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 508-509.
264 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 504.
265 Cervati, Indicateur Ottoman Illustré Annuaire Almanach du Commerce 1883, 577 and 589.
266 Cervati, Indicateur Oriental Annuaire Almanach du Commerce 1885, 454.
267 Cervati, Annuaire Oriental du commerce l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature.
1889-1890, 670.
140
France, Grande Bretagne, Leonidas, Milan, Smyrne, and Sparte.268 Hotels such as
Aivali, Cousadasi, Thesalonique, Alexandrie, Anna Bey, Etrangers, Lesbos, Kidonie,
and Samos were registered in the guide from 1893.269 In 1913, there were 28 hotels
recorded in the Annuaire Oriental.270 Nevertheless, there were several shopkeepers
for mechanical and construction works alongside the coffee shops, hotels, and clubs,
as the indicators demonstrate. Besides, administrative organizations, banks,
warehouses, and companies occupied the quay. Therefore, as indicators also show,
the quay started to be a place of social, cultural, and commercial activities for
Smyrniots, adorned with various coffee shops, brasseries, theaters, clubs, and hotels.
The new construction works attracted engineers and architects. According to
the indicator of 1881, there were six architects in Smyrna, Amat, Bouvet, Darvan, X.
Lattry, R. Vitale, and Werry.271 In 1883, this number increased. There were eight
people, Dawam, X. Lattry, Margossoff, E. Petrokokinos, A. Pezzaros, P. Vitale, R.
Vitale, and Werry, who worked as architects and engineers in the city.272 According
to the guide of 1889-90, Aslan Efendi, I. Cochino, E. Latris, N. Maganiotis, D.
Rambaonis, G. Stefanidis, and E. Veri began to work in Smyrna as architectures.273
And in 1896, numbers continued to increase: D. Andrus, R. Bailley, Yanis
Bambakeros, M. Coutsoufiadhi. Calfas Douman, B. Hodder, E. Johnson, D. Lorimer,
Moelhausen G., L. Rice Brothers, and S. Watkins were registered as architects in the
commercial guide of the year besides the existing ones.274 Surely, as the years went
268 Cervati, Annuaire oriental (ancien Indicateur oriental) du commerce, de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature… 10e année, 1891, 823.
269 Nalpas, Annuaire des commerçants de Smyrne et de l'Anatolie 1893, 305.
270 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1728.
271 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 509.
272 Cervati, Indicateur Ottoman Illustré Annuaire Almanach du Commerce 1883, 582.
273 Cervati, Annuaire Oriental du commerce l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature.
1889-1890, 667.
274 De Andria, Indicateur des professions commerciales et industrielles de Smyrne, de l'Anatolie, des
côtes, des îles, etc. 1896, IV, 2.
141
by, we no longer see the names of some architects, but when we come to 1909, we
see a significant increase in the number of architects. In the indicator, there were
forty-two architects registered. These were M. Anghelides, D. Apostolides, P.
Bouyouca, A. Brant, G. Calokerinos, A. Caloghiros, J. Catalanos, G. Cokinos, M.
Coutsoudiadis, E. Courmoulis, J. David, A. Deliyannis, G. Delovoia, J. Demeris, E.
Draco, P. Farmakis, S. Fexas, J. Fotiades, A. Ghavans, M. Grafa, A. Grispis, J.
Halapas, M. Lignadis, M. Limneos, D. Lytis, A Manganiotis, Emm. Manganiotis,
Calloust. Eff. Maxoud, G. Meimaroglou, C. I. Mercurian, A. Meletis, A. Moliviadis,
B. Papadopoulo, S. Pavlides, E. Petroccochino, A. Pacourellis, Achilles Pompeati,
D. Rambaonis, C. Raymond, Elia D. Simitopoulo, S. Tsakarellis, Th. Stavrides.275
Interestingly, the guide of 1909 shows a remarkable increase in the number of
painters and decorators too. According to the guide, there were nineteen artisans in
Smyrna who could also work in interior and exterior decoration during the
construction works. Indeed, in the guide of 1883, Raymond Charles Péré (1854 –
1929) was mentioned under the article of painters, but in 1909 his name appeared in
the article of architects. Raymond Péré was an important architect and builder in
Smyrna who worked on significant construction projects such as the Clock Tower of
Smyrna in 1901276 and restored the Church of St. Polycarp between 1892-1896.277
Surely, there were other architects who were not mentioned or located in Smyrna but
undertook significant construction projects, such as Italian architects Luigi Rossetti
(1876 – 1949) and Stefano Molli (1858 – 1917).278 Two Italian architects carried out
the construction project of the Italian School for Girls or Regie Scuole Femminili
275 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1896.
276 Kuyulu Ersoy, “Saat Kulesi,” 278.
277 San Lorenzo, St. Polycarp et son tombeau, 264 and Gültekin, “Antik Smyrna Kenti’nin
Koruyucusu,” 101.
278 Berkant, “Italian Architects in Smyrna.”
142
(Fig. 68).279 The school was built in 1906 in the Rue Paralléle, nearly when the new
French consulate building was constructed in the quay. In fact, the commercial guide
of 1909 indicates the existence of several schools in Smyrna, Turkish, Armenian,
Greek, Jewish, American, French, Italian, Catholic, and Protestant. Besides, there
were many professors registered in various subjects from diverse communities.280
In the second half of the 19th century, one of the important modernization
projects undertaken by the central government was the regulation of education. In
order to regulate the education system in the empire lands, the government issued the
Ottoman Education Reform in 1869 based on the French educational system.281
Although there were religious schools for foreigners, the new educational reform was
a driving force behind the emergence of new foreign and minority schools in the
empire due to the growing number of students, and liberty was given to the
communities. Thus, the construction of a school for Italian girls was a result of a
need, and the Italian community in Smyrna took permission from the Sublime Porte
in 1904. The school building’s plan was prepared by Stefano Molli, and the school
opened its doors to students on October 6, 1906. The school was near the French
consulate and Sporting Club, and it was built in an eclectic style. On its lower floors,
rusticated ashlar work decorated the building. The windows with triangular
pediments on the second floor were placed, while the upper floor windows had
niches. Besides, the building had a tower on the northwest corner, which was built
279 First appears in Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la
magistrature. 1909, 1908.
280 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1920.
281 Fortna, “Islamic Morality,” 372. Also, education emerged as a powerful instrument in the hands of
nation-states for the purpose of nation-building in the 19th century, see in Hobsbawm, The Age of
Capital, 117-121.
143
higher than the other buildings surrounding it and was therefore prominent in the
landscape, even though it was not built on the quay.282
Fig. 68 Italian School for Girls [Photograph]. (c.1905). Retrieved from Levantine
Heritage Foundation
Smyrna’s waterfront was an important public space for visibility and
diplomacy. Even before the construction of the quay, flags constituted an important
element of its landscape. Likewise, its waterfront turned into a space for visibility
after the construction. In the second decade of the 20th century, consulate buildings
282 Berkant, “Italian Architects in Smyrna,” 334-336.
144
became a remarkable element of the waterfront. Besides, the commercial guide 1913
indicates fifteen consulates in Smyrna, nine of which were in the quay. Germany,
Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Principality of Samos,
Romania, and Russia consuls were in the quay, while the United States of America
consulate was in Punta,283 Italian and British (Fig. 69) consulates were in Fasula
Street, Spanish consulate (Fig. 70) was in Madama Han Street, Greek consulate was
in Verreires Street (Fig. 71), and Austria-Hungarian consulate was in Negropont
Street.284
283 The consulate of United States moved to the waterfront from Rue Paralléle. Cervati, Annuaire
Oriental du commerce l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1889-1890, 665.
284 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1709-1710.
The guide does not show the address of Persian consulate. Also, according to the guide of 1883,
Italian and Greek consulates were in Frank Street. Cervati, Indicateur Ottoman Illustré Annuaire
Almanach du Commerce 1883, 573.
145
Fig. 69 British Consulate (32) in Charles E. Goad’s insurance map, no 3 [Insurance
Map]. (1905). Retrieved from SALT Research
146
Fig. 70 Spanish Consulate (69) in Charles E. Goad’s insurance map, no 4 [Insurance
Map]. (1905). Retrieved from SALT Research
147
Fig. 71 Greek Consulate (85) in Charles E. Goad’s insurance map, no 5 [Insurance
Map]. (1905). Retrieved from SALT Research
However, according to Goad’s insurance map, there were none in 1905, and
Austria-Hungarian, British, Spanish, Greek, Italian and Romanian consulates were in
Frank Street or in the area where verhanes was located. Nevertheless, visual
materials and cadastral plans show that the French consulate was on shore. The
cadastral plans of 1889 and the early 20th century demonstrate that the property near
Sporting Club belonged to “Consulate de France” (Fig. 72). However, that property
was not included in the insurance plan of Charles E. Goad. A postcard from the early
148
20th century shows that there was a small, stone-built structure (Fig. 73). The
building was known as a French kiosk, and it was replaced by a large consulate
building in 1906 (Fig. 74). French architect Emmanuel Pontremoli (1865-1956) was
commissioned for the construction of the new consulate.285 Pontremoli was born in
an Italian-Jewish family in Nice, which could have relations with the Italian-Jewish
family of Pontremoli from Smyrna.286 He graduated from Ecole des Beaux Arts and
won the Grand Prix de Rome d’Architecture in 1890,287 which was a prestigious
award given by the French government for young French artists to study in Rome.288
The new consulate building, which still stands today,289 has two floors and one
terrace on the roof. The building was built of concrete and decorated with massive
stones. It has an eclectic style, and upper windows have niches and lower windows
are ornamented with pediments. While the lower floor has a porticoed balcony with
round arches, the upper floor has a balcony with Doric columns.
Although visual materials and commercial guides290 suggest that there were
several consulates on the shore at the end of the first decade of the 20th century, the
cadastral maps and city plans did not show any property freehold by foreign states
before 1905 except the parcel acquired by the Consulate of France. In the first years
of the 20th century, there was only the French consulate located on the waterfront.
After 1909, two new consulates started to serve on the seashore. According to the
commercial guide of 1913, the Russian and Dutch consulates moved to their new
285 Abensur-Hazan, “Aspects of Social Life,” 124.
286 See note 11 in Abensur-Hazan, “Aspects of Social Life,” 124.
287 Ch. P., “Emmanuel Pontremoli (1865-1956),” 77-78.
288 “Prix de Rome,” in Encyclopedia Britannica (May 10, 2023). https://www.britannica.com/art/Prixde-
Rome
289 The building was restored by Raymond C. Péré after the devastating fire in 1922. For several years
it continued to serve as consulate building, and now functions as Arkas Art Center.
290 Besides Commercial Guide of 1913, the guide of 1909 indicates that there were consulates of
Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, Persia, Romania, Swedish, and Principality of Samos
in the quay. Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature.
1909, 1891-1892.
149
buildings on the quay. In 1909, Russian consulate was in Limanaki Street, and the
consulate of the Netherlands was in the Rose Street. The commercial guides
demonstrate that these consulates moved from their old places to Quay between
1910-1913. Therefore, we can assume that some consulates started moving into the
waterfront or consuls established after 1905 acquired properties. The commercial
guides of 1921 and 1922 also point out that the Italian consulate relocated to
Paralléle Street between 1913 and 1921, while British, Spanish, and Greek
consulates kept their original locations and continued to serve in Frank Quarter.291
Fig. 72 Elie Guiffray’s property and French Consulate in the 20th century cadastral
plan [Property Map]. (c.1900). Retrieved from the Ottoman Archives of the Prime
Minister’s Office
291 Annuaire Oriental. Oriental Directory, commerce, industrie administration magisture. 1921, 1448-
1449 and Annuaire Oriental, Oriental Directory. Commerce, industrie, administration, magisture.
1922, 1392-1393.
150
Fig. 73 Old French Kiosk before 1905 [Photograph]. (c.1900). Retrieved from the
digital archives of George Poulimenos
Fig. 74 New French Consulate after 1905 [Postcard]. (c.1910). Retrieved from the
digital archives of George Poulimenos
151
Nevertheless, communities and institutions that did not have a consulate on
the waterfront found a way to make themselves visible. For Smyrniots, banks and
post offices became a tool of visibility in the city and on the seashore. In 1881, there
was only Imperial Bank Ottoman serving the city.292 In 1905, there were five banks
in the city, and only two banks located on the waterfront, Imperial Ottoman Bank
and Banque de Mételin. Banque d’Orient, Crédit Lyonnais, and Banque d’Athénes
were in the Frank Quarter and used offices of verhanes as their bureaus. The bureaus
of Banque d’Athénes was in vernahe of Jerusalem Patriarchate, Banque d’Orient in
verhane Baltazzi, and Bank Lyonnais in verhane Arapian. In 1909, Ziraat Bankası,
and Banque de Salonique were recorded in the guide in addition to those mentioned
above.293 In 1913, three more banks opened their doors to the customers. Smyrna
Bank, The British Oriental Bank, Wiener Bankverein, and Société Anonyme
Hongroise de Banque et de Commerce were recorded in Annuaire Oriental 1913.294
Besides, Banco di Roma established its Smyrna branch in 1919, even though it was
not registered in the commercial guides.295
Dynamism in the financial sector and relocation of institutions in the city
complicates finding their exact locations. Even though several banks continued to
operate for a remarkable time, such as Banque d’Orient and Ottoman Imperial Bank,
some branches were closed, changed their names, or turned into new banks.
However, visual materials, documents, and maps show that there were at least four
banks operating on the waterfront at various times, namely the Imperial Ottoman
Bank, the Ottoman Bourse, Banque de Mételin, Banque d’Orient, and Banco di
292 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 503.
293 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1891-1892.
294 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1709-1710.
295 Berkant, “Ticari Yapılar,” 53.
152
Roma (Fig. 75). The banks and financial institutions located on the waterfront and
Frank Street made diverse communities, and different states visible in the city
through institutions. Indeed, the institutions were aware of their visibility on the
waterfront and used flags and decorative elements to represent their nations.296 For
instance, when Italian finance institution Banco di Roma settled in its building on the
waterfront, the façade of the building was redecorated by the institution. The bay
windowed balcony was removed, the entrance holes on the façade facing the
waterfront were transformed into windows, the door was taken to the left side on the
façade looking to the street, and the façade on the waterfront was altered to give the
impression of early Florentine renaissance palaces.297 Thus, although the view of the
city after the quay construction was different from the appearance created by
consulates and frenkhânes, it was significant in reflecting the city's cosmopolitan
urban fabric, its integration into global regime of exchange, and modernity.
296 In the long 19th century, the concept of nation, nationalism, and national symbols took on a
profound significance in contrast to earlier eras. See Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire, 142-164. In fact,
communal symbols/architectural styles became important tools for communities in Smyrna to
represent themselves. Thus, the buildings they lived in or practiced their communal activities were
decorated with religious/communal/national symbols. For instance, Greek communal buildings, such
as universities, commercial buildings, and churches were decorated with the motives and elements
evoking the Hellenic classical or the Byzantine religious affiliation. Besides, individual agencies such
as patronage networks and architects played important roles as much as community identities,
individuals, and collective feelings. For the impact of Greek Architects in 19th-20th century Smyrna,
see Colonas, Greek Architects, 93-125.
297 Berkant, “Ticari Yapılar,” 53.
153
Fig. 75 Banco di Roma on the waterfront [Photograph]. (c.1910). Retrieved from the
archives of George Poulimenos
In 1881, there were already several national post offices serving Smyrniots:
British, Austria-Hungarian, Egyptian, French, Greek, Ottoman and Russian post
offices were active in the city. Besides national post offices, there was also private
postal service and ferry companies such as Lloyd Autrichien company.298 According
to Annuaire Oriental registers, only the Imperial Ottoman Post operated in the quay,
while British Post was in the verhane where the British consulate was located, and
Austria-Hungarian, Egyptian, and Russian post offices had their bureaus in the
Honischer building.299 Additionally, French Post Office operated at the verhane
Homsy in Rose Street.300 Records also show that Italian Post Office was founded
between 1896-1909.301 In this regard, Goad’s insurance map shows that there was
298 While the post offices had state affiliated names, such as Italian, French, and British Post Offices,
there were also private investment postal services and ferry companies without state affiliated
company names.
299 The building known as General Han or Ismail Effendi Han. It was in the crossroad between Rue
Paralléle and Hukumet Caddesi.
300 Rue de Roses was also known as Mecidiye street in the city plan of Luigi Storari.
301 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1893.
154
also the office of Messages Maritimes near Russian and German Post Offices.302
Also, next to the Imperial Ottoman Post Office, there was the office of Lloyd
Autrichien. Thus, in addition to Annuaire Oriental registers that indicate that their
warehouses and bureaus were in inns or verhanes, Goad’s map also shows that the
postal services and post offices were located on the quay.
Besides, a Greek guide which was printed in Alexandria, “Calendar and
Guide of Smyrna and the Surrounding Cities and Islands for the Year 1890,” shows
that there were ferry companies operating on the shore besides Llyod Austrichien and
Messages Maritimes.303 According to the guide, Ottoman state initiatives Hamidiye
and Hidiviye, British investment Papagianni and Co., two private Ottoman
investments Mahsuse and Egeu-P.M. Kurci and Co., Limnos Ferry Company and
Co., and a German investment K. A. Fraytas were operated their businesses on their
offices on the waterfront. Also, British Bell’s Asia Minor and Italian Florio-
Rouvatino ferry companies were in Rue Paralléle. In 1913, Annuaire Oriental
register records thirty-four ferry companies operating in Smyrna.304 In fact, although
they were registered as national private investments, or as in the case of Hamidiye
and Hidiviye, state initiatively founded companies, workers, and officers of
companies were not necessary only constituted by same nationalities. As in the urban
space, diverse communities worked together in ferry companies according to the
capacity and manpower that the company had. For instance, officers of Llyod
Austrichen in 1890 were Ioannis Dizarzio, Georgios Mavrikos, Annivas Bogdaniç,
Slavos Katouriç, A. Matessih, and P. Varissih.305 Besides, like in the examples of the
302 It was registered under the title of Ferry and Sailling Companies in Annuaire Oriental, commerce,
industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1722.
303 The calendar was translated by Engin Berber, and examined in his study. See in Berber,
“Komisyoncu İşverenler,” 100-113.
304 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1722.
305 Berber, “Komisyoncu İşverenler,” 103.
155
Imperial Ottoman Bank, Railway, and Quay companies, Ottoman ferry company
Hamidiye had members and officers from Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Levantine
backgrounds.306
Branches of post offices, banks, and postal services did not operate in the
same venues all the time and relocated their offices occasionally, and they became a
significant part of the waterfront’s landscape in different times. For instance, the
building in which Banco di Roma operated their works after 1919 was built as the
headquarter of Banque de Mételin around 1890s, and between 1911-1919 Hongroise
de Banque et de Commerce moved to the building.307 Besides, there was a post office
building on the waterfront that post services operated their works, and it appears in
postcards around 1905 and 1910. The postcard which could be dated back to around
1905 (Fig. 76), shows the post office building with the flags and signboards of the
French Post Office and Messageries Maritimes ferry company. In the second
postcard around 1910 (Fig. 77) shows everyday life on the quay: people walking,
flags of different states and nations were hanging from buildings, and the tramway
carrying passengers. The post office, which was destroyed during the great fire of
1922, had two floors and was built in neoclassical form. On the first floor, there was
the office of Poste Italiane. The flag of the Italian Kingdom was erected next to the
corner facing the side street. Besides, another flag in red and white, resembling the
flag of Denmark, was hung on the left corner of the post office building.
306 Berber, “Komisyoncu İşverenler,” 101.
307 Berkant, “Ticari Yapılar,” 53.
156
Fig. 76 The Quay of Smyrna [Postcard]. (c.1905). Retrieved from SALT Research
Fig. 77 The Quay of Smyrna and the Waterfront [Postcard]. (c.1910). Retrieved
from SALT Research
157
The buildings that financial institutions, postal services, and commercial
structures operated were mostly built in neoclassical form and shared common
architectural features with the rest of the buildings on the waterfront. In this sense,
the construction of the structures on the waterfront constitutes a continuity with the
architectural understanding of the late Ottoman Empire. From the mid-19th century
onwards, architectural elements and styles from the West prevailed in construction
projects, realized by local or foreign architects. As a result, the newly constructed
buildings on the waterfront created an urban characteristic that resembles Western
architecture. Nevertheless, in addition to the monumental buildings, buildings were
constructed along the waterfront in line with the characteristic Smyrna architecture
that began to emerge in the 19th century.308 The settlement along the waterfront has
developed in a manner consistent with the previous landscape of the seashore and
Frank Street. The harbor area was characterized by commercial, financial, and
entertainment venues, while residential architecture increased towards Punta.
Monumental buildings on the waterfront, such as the French Consulate, the Post
Office building, Banco di Roma, Banque d'Orient, Ottoman Bourse, Hotel Kraemer,
and Grand Huck Hotel, were mostly neoclassical. However, local architectural
elements such as bay windows in inns, cafes, or warehouses were also noticeable.
Local architectural elements have mostly been encountered in residential places.309
In the second half of the 19th century, a new type of local architecture
developed in Smyrna. These houses were particular in terms of their style and
construction materials. The Smyrna Houses were developed differently from those
known as Western Anatolian Houses, or as they were also called, Greek and
308 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 214-215.
309 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 215.
158
Armenian houses.310 The development of a new type of house architecture was
related to the developments in Smyrna. Introducing new types of construction
materials and structures through new public buildings such as barracks, hospitals,
warehouses, train stations, and factories created an experienced architect class in the
city. The construction of modern-era buildings requested the application of new
materials such as iron beams, polygonal stones, and decoration elements, and
contemporary architectural styles such as pediments and windows/door frames.311
Besides, the application of new construction technics, both industrial and semiindustrial,
was important in order to meet the demand for new residential structures
that were born as a result of population growth.312 Undoubtedly, the migration also
brought new people that were experienced in architecture, and styles were applicable
to the construction of new buildings.
Regional migrations from Chios and Aegean islands were essential sources of
the workforce in terms of architecture, engineering, artisanry, stonemasonry, and
woodworking. This migrated workforce contributed to the process of building the
structures on the waterfront and rebuilding the areas damaged by fires and
earthquakes. For instance, in Smyrna Houses, there were commonalities with the
house architecture of Chios and other Aegean islands.313 These commonalities
between Smyrna Houses and the residential architecture of Aegean islands were most
likely encountered in the external façades of the houses, plan type, monumental
entrance holes, and pediments.314 Postcards and photographs were taken after the
quay construction was completed show that these types of houses, Smyrna Houses,
310 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 212.
311 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 217-218.
312 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 219.
313 Akyüz, “Tarihsel Süreçte İzmir’de Konut,” 34.
314 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 222.
159
were the common architectural type on the waterfront (Fig. 78). Most of the
residential places in Punta were built in this architectural understanding, and they
constitute the earliest examples of Smyrna houses.315
Fig. 78 One Part of the Quay [Postcard]. (c. 1900). Retrieved from SALT Research
In addition to the prevalence of this architecture in the houses built in the
Punta district and on the waterfront, it was also possible to see examples of modern
industrial materials and the changes brought about by migration in other types of
buildings constructed in the area, such as commercial and public buildings, coffee
shops, and hotels. Perhaps one of the most interesting examples was the coffee shop
located near the Hotel Kraemer (Fig. 79). In the construction of a café next to the
neoclassic Hotel Kraemer, which was shown on Goad’s insurance plan also as
property of Kraemer, iron and glass were used in a technique that evokes an
intensely industrial design. The architectural design of the coffee house, Kraemer
Brasserie et Restaurant, followed the contemporary trend of 19th century
315 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 215.
160
architecture, which began with the Industrial Revolution and modernization.316 The
coffee shop was built of industrial materials like glass, steel, and iron. Therefore, the
coffee shop was differentiated from other neoclassical structures built on the
waterfront due to the intense use of industrial materials in its construction.
Fig. 79 Grand Hotel Kraemer Place [Postcard]. (c. 1900). Retrieved from SALT
Research.
The impact of modernization and industrialization became apparent in the
urban fabric of Smyrna thanks to new architectural ideas, materials, and people. It is
believed that architects from the islands or different regions were involved in the
construction activities in this area together with local architects. The mobility of
architects and builders, and the techniques, styles, and materials that came to Smyrna
with their mobility was learn and practiced by local architects. Therefore, rather than
being an imported product, local/foreign workers and patrons internalized modern or
316 The Industrial Revolution and rise of industrial bourgeois in the 19th century transformed the
artistic conditions, materials, and construction techniques. Colquhoun, Modern Architecture, 13.
161
Western techniques and incorporated them into the local architecture. Indeed, there
were rational reasons behind this behavior: rapid production to meet housing needs,
availability of materials, and a preference for facilitating alternatives to complex old
traditions.317 Thus, when the waterfront was developing after the quay construction,
numerous local and foreign artisans and architects were involved in the construction
activities along Smyrna's waterfront.318 Even though our knowledge of architects and
patronage relationships in the city is still limited, we still know that architects
working in the region applied different styles, techniques, and materials. For this
reason, the construction process on Smyrna's waterfront and the quay was
remarkable to demonstrate the city's integration with a plural, diversified and in part
localized version of modernity. Its “cosmopolitan” urban space was the product of
complex patronage networks, and cannot be understood outside the mobility and
diversity of its actors.
4.2 Frank street
The construction of the quay on the waterfront distanced Frank Street, or as it was
indicated in Saad’s city plan, Mahmudiye, Sultaniye, Mecidiye, Teşrifiye, and
Mesudiye streets, from the coastline and cut the spatial affiliation of the street with
the waterfront.319 The construction of the quay and the building of new coffee shops,
theaters, commercial places, hotels, postal services, banks, and public buildings
attracted many people to the shore, and the waterfront became a space of prestige in
19th century Smyrna. Nevertheless, the rise of the quay does not necessarily mean
that Frank Street lost its importance. Still, on the contrary, it continued to play a
317 Banham, Theory and Design, 23.
318 Çıkış, “Modern Konut,” 223-229.
319 Mecidiye Street was Rue de Roses in the city plan of Storari. However, according to the city plan of
Saad, it was used as a name of a part of Frank Street.
162
significant role in the everyday life of the Smyrniots as a site of encounter. People
still occupied the street, and there were many shopkeepers. Besides, new shops,
offices, and public places started to operate in the street after quay construction.
Therefore, the street did not lose its role in the everyday life of Smyrna, but it
changed and transformed according to the developments that took place in the 19th
century.
Even though infrastructural developments and street widening works changed
the fabric of the street over time, it preserved its characteristic image and commercial
aspect.320 The street was still narrow and occupied with shops selling different
products, offices, and bureaus of various professions. In 1881, it was possible to find
numerous places for business and business owners in the street, such as assurance
companies, butcheries, clockmakers, coachbuilders, coiffeurs, dentists, doctors,
draperies, drug stores,321 firefighters, forges, furniture stores, grocery stores,
gunsmiths, hardware stores, jewelry, journals, lithographers, macaroni stores,
mechanicians, opticians, perfumeries, pharmacies, photographers,322 printing houses,
shoemakers, tailors, tobacconists, and vine and liquor stores.323 It was also possible
to find artisanries for iron and wood works and offices of advocates, bankers, and
merchants. In addition, companies, traders, post offices, and banks used rented rooms
and buildings as their warehouses.
The rooms in the verhane buildings on Frank Street were mostly rented by
bankers and merchants. The number of these two professions gives us an idea of the
320 Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 304 and please see note below Figure 1.7 in Zandi-Sayek,
Ottoman Izmir, 22.
321 Opium sellers.
322 The possible author of the quay panorama, Alphonse Rubellin, had an office in Frank Street. Also,
famous photographer Antonio Zilpoch’s office was located in “local Bainderli” in the street.
323 The profession and shopkeeper list were summarized from Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur
Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de l'administration et de la magistrature.
1881, 502-545 and 1905 insurance map of Charles E. Goad.
163
commercial and economic life in the city. According to the Annuaire Oriental of
1881, there were approximately 40 bankers working in Smyrna.324 Until 1909, the
number of bankers remained approximately similar.325 However, Annuaire Oriental
of 1913 suggests that this number decreased to around 30 in 1913.326 Although this
number has decreased, new banks were opened, indicating that the banking sector
and bankers were working intensively in the city. Another indicator of the vitality of
commercial life was the consistently high number of merchants. Indeed, between
1881 and 1913, there was a remarkable increase in the number of merchants. While
there were approximately 160 merchants registered in the guide of 1881,327 this
number reached up to 500 merchants in 1913.328 Although exports and imports in
Smyrna followed an up-and-down graph between 1880 and 1912, the number of
merchants continued to increase, and in the first decade of the 20th century, Smyrna
enjoyed a remarkable volume of trade. In 1909, the value of export volume reached
up to 5,036,000£, and the value of import volume rose to 3,508,000£.329 Thus, the
increase in the city's population and the construction of a modern pier led to both an
increase in the volume of trade and the expansion of the merchant class in the city.
Goad’s insurance map shows that rooms in the verhanes were also used as the
offices of advocates working in the city (Fig. 80).330 Besides modernization in
financial institutions, the juridical system was adapting itself to new regulations. In
324 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 503.
325 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1899.
326 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1717.
327 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 511-513.
328 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1733-1736.
329 For the export-import trade volume graph between 1865-1912 please see Frangakis-Syrett, “The
Making of an Ottoman Port,” 35.
330 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 502-503.
164
the 1880s, Nizamiye courts became the primary body of the juridical system in the
empire after their introduction two decades before. The regularized courts also
increased the need for a new profession for the advocacy of litigants. In order to
regulate the juridical system, the empire also founded educational institutions to
graduate people trained in judicial work, and organized examinations for people who
did not get graduation from law schools. Students who graduated or passed the
examinations started practicing their professions in the Empire. They were educated
in civil, commercial, and criminal cases.331 In Smyrna, it was apparent that the
profession of attorney was practiced as a result of reasons such as population growth,
the proliferation of professions, or the increase in the volume of trade. The number of
lawyers practicing in this city increased over the years. In 1881, there were only 25
advocates were recorded in the guide,332 whereas the number of registered attorneys
increased to 90 in 1909333 and 72 in 1913.334 There were European, Armenian,
Greek, Jewish, and Turkish names among the registered lawyers. In this respect, it
can be said that this profession shows similarities with other professions and shows
the multicultural structure in the city.
331 Rubin, “From legal Representation to Advocacy” 113-118.
332 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 502-503.
333 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1898-1899.
334 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1716.
165
Fig. 80 Detail from Goad’s insurance map, no 5. Gioya Han, Verhane
Terdjimanoglou, and Verhane Spartali with offices, warehouses, bureaus of various
professions [Insurance Map]. Retrieved from SALT Research
Moreover, the variety of professions was connected in many ways to the
urban fabric of the late 19th century and to the ways the urban landscape in Smyrna
was modernized, as well as Frank Street. The city consists not only of shops and
places of commerce. In fact, many professions and trades associated with modernity
emerged, and the diversity of professions and shops demonstrates that there was a
high demand for everyday or long-term businesses and items, traditional or modern,
and they met the needs of Smyrniots. Workplaces and industries started to appear,
indicating that mass consumption and commodification have also become
widespread. Of course, this consumption culture was not dependent only on imports.
At the same time, local workplaces and workers have begun to emerge to meet these
demands. Some of these workshops, artisanries, and professions were related to the
166
construction sector alongside ironwork and woodwork artisans. For instance, there
were only two painters working in the city in 1881 who could for decoration the
inner and external facades of the structures.335 However, there was a notable increase
in the number of registered painters, and painters and decoration painters were
separately recorded in the guides at the end of the first decade. In the years 1909 and
1913, 15, and decoration painters, 19.336 Besides, sculptures were registered in
1913’s guide under the title of engravers.337 There is no reason not to think that
artisans were involved in building and construction activities in the city. This
suggests that urban craftsmen, like local architects and engineers, learned new
techniques that came with the migration and circulation of materials, knowledge, and
people.338
The offices and workplaces on Frank Street offer a landscape that also
reflects the cultural transformation that began in the mid-19th century and was highly
visible in the late 19th century. Goad’s map and Annuaire Oriental registers show
that there were shops for postcards and engravings alongside offices of musicians,
painters, and dance teachers. The post-1880 Annuaire Oriental records and Goad’s
insurance map show that libraries and schools were located on Frank Street during
this period. In addition to the social sciences and mathematics taught in these
schools, it was possible to take dance and music lessons in the city. There were also
gramophone and piano shops on the street.339 In 1913, 28 newspapers and magazines
were printed in different languages, many of which had printing houses and offices
335 As I also pointed out earlier, Raymond C. Péré was recorded as “painter” in the earlier indicators.
336 Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909,
1919 and Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1737.
337 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1739.
338 Çıkış, “‘Modern Konut’,” 219-220.
339 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1727-1737.
167
on Frank Street.340 The street, where libraries, visual materials, and printing houses
were located, had an important place in terms of cultural life in Smyrna. It is
interesting to note that the offices, businesses, and shops on the street were operated
in buildings formerly known as frenkhâne, which served mostly single individuals
and families previously. This suggests that the functioning of these building types
had also changed, and they turned into spaces that outsiders could rent.
Frank Street also remained the focus of municipal activities at the end of the
century, just as it had been in the middle of the 19th century. Infrastructure works
such as street lighting, street pavements, and electric distribution lines were carried
out during this period.341 In parallel with this infrastructure work in the city,
workplaces in the electrical, paving, and communications fields were established.342
However, it was the change in the political structure that most affected the
infrastructure works in Frank Quarter and Frank Street during this period. As can be
seen in the Annuaire Oriental registers, there were two separate municipal districts in
Smyrna.343 The primary factors that led to this distinction and the change in the
municipal organization were urban expansion and population growth. Besides, there
was a nationalist discourse in the public sphere, questioning the sovereignty of
Ottomans in the empire. The participation of foreigners in the administration of the
cities caused discomfort in Ottoman public opinion. Those who opposed this
continued these debates in the press and raised a nationalist discourse. The nationalist
discourse caused the exclusion of foreigners from political areas. Under the influence
340 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1729-30.
341 Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1730.
342 Three electricity company were working in the city in 1909 and 1913. Annuaire Oriental du
commerce de l'industrie de l'administration et de la magistrature. 1909, 1908 and Annuaire Oriental,
commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient 1913, 1725.
343 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 495.
168
of the debates taking place in the public sphere, the Provincial Code was issued in
1877.344 After the edict, Ottoman citizenship became compulsory for participation in
politics.
With the elections held in 1879, two municipal bodies were established and
started to govern different parts of the city. While the first district’s municipality
took care of the southern part, where Turks and Armenians were concentrated, the
second district’s municipality took care of the northern part, including Frank Street
and its neighborhood.345 The registers of Annuaire Oriental from 1881 show the
members of two municipality organizations. Although both municipalities include
both Muslim and non-Muslim members, the first district’s municipality had more
Muslim members, while there were more non-Muslim members in the second
district’s municipality. The member distribution of the municipalities was indeed
parallel with the social structures of two districts.346
The establishment of two different municipalities for two different zones
directly affected the infrastructure works in these districts. Even the lighting lamps,
street pavements, and sewers installed in the areas were affected by this separation.
Different quality products were used in the two districts during the infrastructure
works. For instance, expensive materials such as Neapolitan pavements347 and
vaulted sewer conduits were used in the second municipal district, whereas the
infrastructural works were implemented in the first municipal district with cheaper
344 The first municipal organization of Smyrna was established in 1866, however, there were many
suspicions in the public that if the administrative organization was capable to solve problems of the
city. Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 325-326.
345 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 97-98.
346 Cervati and Fatzea, L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de l'industrie, de
l'administration et de la magistrature. 1881, 495 and Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 98.
347 Volcanic stones. Neopolitan stones were ordered several times for street paving in 1886, 1892, and
1897. BOA, MV., 15/9, 12 Rabiulevvel 1304 (December 19, 1886) BOA, BEO, 5/ 362, 20 Şevval
1309 (May 18, 1892). BOA, İ..RSM, 7/9, 20 Şevval 1314 (March 24, 1897). See further for the
volcanic stones, Langella et al., “Lava stones…”
169
materials such as common sewers and cobblestones. The main reason for the contrast
in quality is the difference in the social and economic structure of the two districts.348
Again, street lighting was important in terms of showing the difference between the
two districts.349
Although the first street lighting in Frank Street was realized in 1835, the
implementation of street lighting works continued throughout the 19th century.350
Between 1879 and 1890, the number of gas lambs increased from 750 to 1.600, and
they were mostly implemented in the second district.351 In the first municipal district,
petroleum gas lamps were used, and only after two decades were the first gas lamps
implemented.352 The difference was sourced due to economic differences between
the two districts due to the profiles of inhabitants. Although the mandatory
requirement of Ottoman citizenship to participate in politics led to the exclusion of
foreign nationals from municipal positions, they still contributed to financing
infrastructural works in their neighborhoods.353 Consequently, their economic
contribution to the infrastructural projects in their municipal districts led to more
development of areas such as the waterfront and Frank Street than in the first
municipal district.
Therefore, it is possible to argue that Frank Street did not lose its importance
after the construction of the quay and infrastructure works and new development
plans were realized on the street. Besides, the street also continued to contain
consulates, religious buildings, banks, and commercial places. Flags were flown on
348 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 100.
349 For the impact of street lighting during the night on the social and cultural life of 19th century
Istanbul, see Wishnitzer, “Into the Dark.”
350 Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 337.
351 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 100.
352 Beyru, 19. Yüzyılda İzmir Kenti, 338.
353 Zandi-Sayek, Ottoman Izmir, 98.
170
important days, and religious or ceremonial processions continued to take place. In
this respect, the street continued to be a multicultural social, cultural and commercial
hub in the everyday life of diverse communities. However, the nationalist discourse
was not only limited to the administrative organizations but also influenced the
architecture that developed in Smyrna, as it did elsewhere in the Empire.354
Nevertheless, Smyrna would maintain its multicultural characteristic until the Greek-
Turkish war. The aftermath of the war and the great fire of 1922 drastically changed
the social and urban landscape of the city.355
354 Bozdoğan, Modernism and National Building, 16. Kuyulu Ersoy, “Orientalist Buildings.”
355 See further in Georgelin, La fin de Smyrne.
171
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Due to its protected and secure gulf, Smyrna started to become more significant in
eastern Mediterranean trade from the middle of the 17th century onward. The harbor
in Smyrna rose to prominence among eastern Mediterranean ports. As trade
increased, precautions were taken to safeguard local merchants and ships, and inns
and warehouses were constructed to house trade items. The city started to
economically and socially thrive as commerce volume increased in tandem with
population expansion. The city had a multicultural population structure, including
Jews, Turks, Armenians, and Greeks, but it also attracted immigrants from the West
and started to welcome individuals and families from the European continent. The
social, cultural, political, and economic life of the city was greatly influenced by
immigration from the West. Moreover, since foreign merchants were protected by
the Capitulation treaties or ahdnames, the city developed its importance in relation to
diplomacy. The waterfront landscape contained a coastline with flags and imposing
consular buildings, several ships, the Pagos mountain, the Kadifekale castle on the
Pagos mountain, and St. Polycarp's tomb. These were the features that served as the
city's historical, political, and religious landmarks.
Smyrna has been the subject of many narratives by travelers to Asia Minor.
Among these travelers, some of them also illustrated the city's landscape. The city
with this spectacular landscape was shaken by a severe earthquake in 1688.
Immediately after the earthquake, a fire broke out, threatening the surviving parts of
the city. The major difference in this period was that the destructive effect of the
earthquake was reflected in the urban fabric during the reconstruction process. Places
172
were built according to techniques that reduced the destructiveness of future
earthquakes, and warehouses and inns were rebuilt to revitalize the city's commercial
life. The landscape of the waterfront changed after the natural disaster, and it was
developed in tandem with the fact that the number of commercial places expanded in
the years following the earthquake. After 1688, the number of frenkhâne structures
on the shore, buildings with residential spaces on the top floors, and commercial
spaces on the lower, increased, and the waterfront expanded in accordance with both
the volume of trade and the population. Due to its piers in the waterfront, frenkhânes
served as spaces for unloading commodities arriving by ship into the city and
loading goods being sent from Smyrna. For this reason, these buildings served as
passageways between the seashore and Frank Street.
Nevertheless, these buildings should not be considered only as commercial
and residential places. After the earthquake, consulates remained in their pre-disaster
locations on the shore and Frank Street. Some frenkhânes served as consulates or the
residences of foreign consuls. Dating between 1709 and 1723, the painting depicting
the visit of Daniel Jean de Hochepied to the kadi of Smyrna shows that the number
of frenkhânes increased considerably. This change can also be noticed in the maps
and plans produced in the late 18th century by Bocage, and Missir, and early 19th
century by Graves, and Copeland. It is often assumed that these buildings were
owned by foreign merchants and consuls. However, the absence of flags of foreign
states on all the buildings on the coast indicates that the city's leading merchants also
started to settle in this region. Indeed, some primary sources from the end of the 18th
century indicate that not only foreign merchants and consuls but also local actors
began to be present in this zone.
173
In Smyrna, trade was practiced by locals as well as foreigners. Along with
merchants, there were Turks, Armenians, Jews, and Greeks working in trade-related
fields. The expansion of trade in Smyrna, particularly after 1740, made it possible for
local actors to get involved in the commerce sector. Apart from some primary
sources that provide some insight, unfortunately, due to the traditional property laws
of the Ottoman Empire, no property map was produced until 1865. Therefore, it is
difficult to identify the actors who owned property in the waterfront until this date.
Nevertheless, as we can see in the image representing Bauffremont's visit, the urban
landscape in Smyrna was formed by the interaction of actors from diverse
communities. We might suggest that this was also applicable to the seashore. For
example, the proximity of Greek Orthodox churches to the waterfront and Frank
Street can be considered an important indicator. The Greeks, one of the most
populous communities of Smyrna besides the Turks, indeed lived in a neighborhood
close to Frank Quarter and played an active role in trade and maritime activities.
Some of the Greeks established close affiliations with foreigners and maintained
these relations through business partnerships, inner-marriages, and religious
conversions.
The relationship between foreigners and local actors was not limited to
Greeks. Nearly all communities were related to each other through affiliations such
as work, marriage, and religion. The late 18th century parish map and the members of
the Catholic Church in the mid-18th century show how this diversity was reflected in
the urban fabric of Smyrna and how multiple belonging was shared by members of
diverse communities. However, this does not indicate the existence of a
cosmopolitan paradise of coexistence. On the contrary, inter-communal conflicts of
interest and cultural, political, and social tensions were frequent. For example,
174
relations between Westerners and Greeks were strained in the years following the
Greek War of Independence. One of the reasons for this tension was the Greeks'
perception that the Westerners were favoring the Ottomans in order to maintain their
commercial influence and not to lose their status. In this context, it is noteworthy
how the tension between the Ottomans, Greeks, and Levantines left its impact on the
urban landscape.
Moreover, ethnic and religious communities were not a uniform whole.
Community members behaved more individually in cases regarding their personal
interests. Especially in the period of the city's territorial growth, the emergence of
land speculation in the newly developing areas, the beginning of the railroad project,
the construction of the modern quay, and infrastructure works, individual actors and
institutions played a role as much as communities. From the second half of the 19th
century onwards, with the rise of modern ideas and practices or urban life, the
implementation of the order, and the central state's attempts to strengthen itself, new
regulations and projects were imposed on Smyrna. Particularly in the case of quay
construction, landlords, merchants, and business owners found themselves in conflict
with the local and central governments. Of course, some parties would benefit from
the project. For instance, the central and local governments wanted to prevent
smuggling, the Quay Company wished to raise profits from constructing the quay,
and people wanted a regularized promenade space. Therefore, the realization of these
projects required negotiation and compromise among property owners, city dwellers,
merchants, and institutions, regardless of their affiliations with communities.
Structural changes were equally crucial as individual actors in the
transformation of Smyrna's urban landscape. Starting from the second half of the 18th
century, traces of modernity began to be visible in Smyrna. The products of
175
modernity and technology, such as railroads, factories, gas lighting and electricity,
were the most prominent of these. Structural changes were as crucial as individual
actors in transforming Smyrna's urban landscape. As of the second half of the 18th
century, traces of modernity began to be seen in Smyrna. The products of modernity
and technology, such as railroads, factories, gas lighting, and electricity, were the
most prominent. Sultan Abdulaziz's journey by train in 1865 represents an exciting
moment. The Sultan, a symbol of the ancien régime but also of the Tanzimat
program of reforms, traveled through Western Anatolia by train, a symbol of the new
world and modernity. Instead of horse riding or passing through the neglected roads
of Smyrna with horsecar, he travelled in the region thanks to railroads. Thus, during
his journey, he became a passive observer of the landscape that lies beyond the
windows of the trains. In fact, this instant represents an intellectual transformation as
well. Trains have contributed to Smyrna's urban landscape beyond carrying goods
and passengers. Of course, trains were not the only examples. The local flaneur came
into being thanks to the quay, and the nightlife was redefined by the implementation
of gaslights. The streets were regulated, and hygiene became a matter of discussion.
The central government and the municipality have made a great contribution to these
developments.
Another important point was related to the movement of materials, ideas, and
people. The central government and the municipality have made a great contribution
to these developments. Another important point was related to the movement of
materials, ideas, and people. The migration of builders, the flow of intellectual
interactions, and the circulation of industrial materials played an important role in the
transformation of Smyrna's urban landscape. With the contribution of industrialized
materials, different ideas, and construction workers from other regions, the building
176
type known as the "Smyrna house" emerged in the second half of the 19th century. It
is possible to see both local and foreign elements in this building type. Architects
from islands, industrial materials, and influences from Western architecture were
instrumental in shaping the form of these houses. Circulating techniques and styles of
construction were also learned by local craftsmen and continued to be practiced. Of
course, this process was also influenced by foreign architects who did not live in
Smyrna or in the Ottoman Empire. However, especially the period after 1880, when
the quay was built, shows that the number of architects and construction workers in
the city increased considerably due to numerous constructions taking place in
different parts of the city, such as Punta and the waterfront.
Dominance, visibility, and control of space were important issues in the urban
landscape of Smyrna. Control of the urban space and visibility were maintained
thanks to a variety of techniques. First, it was controlled through maps and city plans,
which showed the certain areas as belonging to Muslims, or Europeans. After the
Tanzimat reforms, the Sublime Porte wanted to control the space through maps and
city plans and wanted to dominate the city’s main artery, Frank Street, through
renaming it. There were also consulates and religious buildings on the shore, which
imposing their religious symbols and flags. However, the transformation in the
global regime of exchange, increase in industrialization, and modernity altered the
old visibility and created new control mechanisms on the shore, such as social,
economic and financial institutions. National post offices, companies, hotels,
educational, and financial institutions occupied the modern quay, and became the
tool of visibility on the waterfront.
Secondly, public visibility was also an important for the communities. On
national and religious holidays, communities become apparent. In the city, parades
177
and ceremonies were organized. Imperial visibility was also significant. Smyrna
hosted a variety of celebrations for national holidays, official occasions, rulers’
birthdays, and government changes. Tensions between different groups were also
possible during religious or national festivals. After the construction of the quay,
elaborate and monumental buildings were built along the waterfront. These included
consulates, hotels, banks, and public buildings. Although the consulates remained on
Frank Street and moved away from the waterfront, the flags adorning monumental or
institutional buildings, national or corporate, continued to be seen in Smyrna's
landscape.
Smyrna's urban fabric transformed over time due to involvement of various
causes and individual/communal agencies. Economic, social, cultural, and political
reasons were the driving forces of spatial transformations. Smyrna's landscape
became a space of conflict, negotiation, and regulation. Its urban landscape was
transformed through the agency of social and economic structures and the humans'
interactions with the environment. An environmental approach to the study of this
city’s history may be important in the future scholarship on this extraordinarily rich
site of encounter and exchange.
178
REFERENCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
A. Ottoman Archives of the Prime Minister’s Office (Başbakanlık Osmanlı
Arşivleri), Istanbul, Turkey
230/0/0/0, Nafia Vekaleti, 131/21/1, 35R.
AE. SSLM, III. 170/10116, 5 Safer 1210 (August 21, 1795).
AE.SABH.I… 220/14527, 12 Şevval 1197 (September 10, 1783).
BEO, 2628/197097, 20 Cemazeyilevvel 1323 (July 23, 1905)
BEO, 5/ 362, 20 Şevval 1309 (May 18, 1892).
İ..RSM, 7/9, 20 Şevval 1314 (March 24, 1897).
MV., 15/9, 12 Rabiulevvel 1304 (December 19, 1886)
PLK.p., 9, 18 Safer 1307 (October 14, 1889)
PLK.p.., 12.
ŞD, 71/3, 7 Rabiulahir 1237 (April 28, 1909).
B. Newspapers
Levant Herald
Le Monde Illustré
C. Published Primary Sources
Aliotti, A. (1900). Des Français en Turquie : specialement au point de vue de la
propriété immobiliere et du regime successoral. Paris: Marchal and Billard.
Retrieved from Archive.org.
179
Annuaire Oriental, commerce, industrie, administration, magisture de l'Orient.
(1913). Istanbul: The Annuaire Oriental Ltd. Retrieved from SALT Research.
Annuaire Oriental, Oriental Directory. Commerce, industrie, administration,
magisture. (1922). Istanbul: Alfred Rizzo. Retrieved from SALT Research.
Annuaire Oriental. Oriental Directory, commerce, industrie administration
magisture. (1921). Istanbul: Alfred Rizzo. Retrieved from SALT Research.
Bruyn, C. de. (1714). Voyage au Levant, c’est-a-dire, dans les principaux endroits de
L’Asie Mineure, dans les isles de Chio, rhodes, & chypre &c. ...: De Meme
Que Dans Les Plus considerables villes d’egypte, des syrie, et de la Terre
Sainte ; Enrichi de plus de Deux Cens tailles-douces ... Paris: Chez Guillaume
Cavelier. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Cervati, R. (1881). L'Indicateur Ottoman. Annuaire almanach du commerce de
l'industrie, de l'administration et de la magistrature. Istanbul: Imprimerie et
Lithographie Céntrales du Journal “La Turquie”. Retrieved from SALT
Research.
Cervati, R. (1883). Indicateur Ottoman Illustré Annuaire Almanach du Commerce de
l'industrie, de l'administration et de la magistrature. Istanbul: J. Pallamary.
Retrieved from SALT Research.
Cervati, R. (1885). Indicateur Oriental Annuaire Almanach du Commerce de
l'industrie, de l'administration et de la magistrature. Istanbul: J. Pallamary.
Retrieved from SALT Research.
Cervati, R. (1890). Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de l'administration
et de la magistrature. Istanbul: J. Pallamary. Retrieved from SALT Research.
Cervati, R. (1891). Annuaire oriental du commerce, de l'industrie de l'administration
et de la magistrature. Istanbul: J. Pallamary. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Cervati, R. (1894). Annuaire oriental du commerce, de l'industrie de l'administration
et de la magistrature. Istanbul: J. Pallamary. Retrieved from SALT Research.
Cervati, R. (1896). Annuaire oriental du commerce, de l'industrie de l'administration
et de la magistrature. Istanbul: J. Pallamary. Retrieved from SALT Research.
180
Cervati, R. C. (1909). Annuaire Oriental du commerce de l'industrie de
l'administration et de la magistrature. Istanbul: E. Pallamary. Retrieved from
SALT Research.
Choiseul-Gouffier. M. G. A. (1782). Voyage pittoresque de la grece. Paris. Retrieved
from BNF Gallica.
Clarke, H. (1861). The Imperial Ottoman Smyrna & Aidin Railway: Its position and
prospects. Istanbul: Koehler Brothers. Retrieved from Google Books.
Collas, B. C. (1864). La Turquie en 1864. Paris: E. Dentu, Éditeur. Retrieved from
Google Books.
Comstock, J. L. (1829). History of Greek revolution. New York: W. Reed & co.
Retrieved from Library of Congress.
Courcelles, M. (1826). Histoire généalogique et héraldique de pairs de France, des
hrand dignitaires de la couronne de principales families nobles du Royaume,
etc. Paris: A. Bertrand. Retrieved from Google Books.
De Andria, J. (1895). Indicateur des professions commerciales et industrielles de
Smyrne, de l'Anatolie, des côtes, des îles, etc. Istanbul: Chez P. M. Astlick.
Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
De Andria, J. (1896). Indicateur des professions commerciales et industrielles de
Smyrne, de l'Anatolie, des côtes, des îles, etc. Istanbul: Chez P. M. Astlick.
Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
De Valon, A. (1850). Une année dans le Levant. Paris: Dauvin et Fontaine. Retrieved
from Google Books.
Duvergier, A.-J. (1839). Mémorial historique de la noblesse. Paris: L’Editeur.
Retrieved from Google Books.
Elliott, C. B. (1838). Travels in the three great empires of Austria, Russia, and
Turkey. London: R. Bentley. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Gardey, L. (1865). Voyage du sultan Abd-ul-Aziz de Stamboul Au Caire. Paris: E.
Dentu. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
181
Georgiadès, D. (1885). Smyrne et l’Asie Mineure au point de vue économique et
commercial avec préf. De M. Arthur Mangin. 1 carte, 1 PL. Paris: Impr. Chaix.
Retrieved from Google Books.
Hamilton, W. J. (1842). Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia. London:
Murray. Retrieved from Google Books.
Jehay, F. (1906). De la situation légale des sujets ottomans non musulmans. Brussel:
O. Schepens & cie. Retrieved from Google Books.
Lucas, P. (1724). Voyage du sieur Paul Lucas au Levant fait en mdccxiv par ordre de
Louis XIV dans la turquie, l’asie. Amsterdam: Chez Robert Machuel.
Retrieved from Google Books.
Martins, C. (1858). Promenade botanique le long des côtes de l'Asie-Mineure, de la
Syrie et de l'Égypte : à bord de l'Hydaspe, bateau à vapeur des messageries
imperials. Montpellier: Jean Martiel Ainé. Retrieved from Google Books.
Michaud, J. L., & Poujoulat, M. (1834). Correspondance d’Orient: 1830-1831.
Paris: Ducollet. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Motraye, A. (1727). Voyages du Sr. A. de la Motraye en Europe, Asie et Afrique.
Lahey: T. Johnson et J. Van Duren. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Nalpas, L. J. (1894). Annuaire des commerçants de Smyrne et de l'Anatolie. Izmir:
Journal de Smyrne. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Nalpas, L. J. & De Andria, J. (1893). Annuaire des commerçants de Smyrne et de
l'Anatolie. Izmir: Timoni. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Oldmixon, J. (1854). Gleanings from Piccadilly to Pera. London: Retrieved from
Library of Congress.
Peyssonnel, C. de. (1787). Traité sur le commerce de la Mer Noire. Paris: Cuchet.
Retrieved from Google Books.
Pococke, R., & Flotte, L. (1772). Voyages de Richard Pockocke, en Orient, dans
l’egypte, l’arabie, la Palestine, La Syrie, La grèce, la thràce. Paris: Costard.
Rolleston, G. (1856) Report on Smyrna. London: G. E. Eyre and W. Spottiswoode.
Retrieved from Google Books.
182
Rougon, F. (1892). Smyrne: Situation commerciale et économique des pays compris
dans la circonscription du Consulat général de france (vilayets d’aïdin, De
Konieh et des îles). Paris: Berger-Levrault. Retrieved from Archive.org.
San Lorenzo, J. (1911). Saint Polycarpe et son tombeau: Notice historique sur la
Ville de smyrne. Istanbul: F. Loeffler. Retrieved from Google Books.
Stephenson, M. (1859). Railways in Turkey: Remarks upon the practicability and
advantage of railway communication in European and Asiatic Turkey. London:
J. Weale. Retrieved from Google Books.
Storari, L. (1857). Guida con cenni storici di Smirne. Torino: Stamperia dell’Unione
Tipografico-Editerice. Retrieved from Google Books.
Thompson, C. (1813). Travels through Turkey in Asia, the Holy Land, Arabia, Egypt
and other parts of the world. London: Carlisle. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
Wheler, G. (1689). Voyage de Dalmatie, de Grece, et du levant. Paris: Chez D.
Horthemels. Retrieved from BNF Gallica.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Abensur-Hazan, L. (2013). Aspects of social life in Smyrna from the 18th to early
20th centuries. In Maeso & Lesvige (Eds.), Smyrna in the 18th and 19th
Centuries: A Western Perspective. Istanbul: MAS Matbaacılık.
Akiba, J. (2018). Sharī‘a judges in the Ottoman nizāmiye courts, 1864-1908.
Osmanlı Araştırmaları, 51 (51), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.18589/oa.591832
Akyüz, E. (1994). Tarihsel süreçte İzmir’de konut. Ege Mimarlık, (1994/3), 32-35.
Alpaslan, H. İ. (2022). Osmanlı döneminde İzmir kent merkezindeki değirmenlerin
kentin algısı ve sanayileşme sürecindeki rolleri. Tasarım + Kuram, 18(36), 53-
62.
American Oxford dictionary. (1980). New York: Oxford University Press.
Andrews, E. (1872). Travels in Bible lands: Italy, Egypt, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria,
and Palestine. Boston: J. H. Earle. Retrieved from Library of Congress.
183
Atay, Ç. (1998). Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e İzmir planları. İzmir: Yaşar Eğitim ve
Kültür Vakfı.
Atay, Ç. (2003). Kapanan kapılar (İzmir hanları). Izmir: İzmir Büyükşehir
Belediyesi Kültür Yayını.
Atilla, A. N. (2002). İzmir demiryolları. Izmir: Stil Matbaacılık.
Ayoub, S. (2015). The mecelle, sharia, and the Ottoman State: Fashioning and
refashioning of Islamic law in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Journal
of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 2(1), 121–146.
https://doi.org/10.2979/jottturstuass.2.1.121
Banham, R. (1970). Theory and design in the first machine age. London: The
Architectural Press.
Baykara, T. (1974). İzmir şehri ve tarihi. Izmir: Ege Üniversitesi Matbaası.
Bender, B. (2013). Place and landscape. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S.,
Rowlands, M., & Spyer, P. (Eds.). Handbook of material culture. SAGE.
Benjamin, W. (2002). The arcades project (Eiland, H., & McLaughlin, K., Trans.).
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Berber, E. (2023). İzmir Limanı’nda komisyoncu işverenler: Vapur acenteleri ve
buharlı vapur şirketleri (1876-1922). In Sempozyum “Geçmişten Günümüze
İzmir Limanı.” Izmir: İzmir Kalkınma Ajansı.
Berkant, C. (2008). Italian architects in Smyrna. In Godoli, E. (Eds.), The Presence
of Italian Architects in Mediterranean Countries: Proceedings of the First
International Conference: Bibliotheca Alexandrina, Chatby, Alexandria,
November 15th-16th 2007. M&M Maschietto.
Berkant, C. (2013). L'Impero Ottomano e l'Italia, le relazioni in architettura: Il caso
di Smirne (Published PhD Thesis). Università degli Studi di Padova, Padova,
Italy.
Berkant, C. (2023). İzmir Limanı’nın inşasıyla birlikte rıhtımda gelişen ticari yapılar.
In Sempozyoum “Geçmişten Günümüze İzmir Limanı.” Izmir: İzmir Kalkınma
Ajansı.
184
Beyru, R. (2011). 19. yüzyılda İzmir kenti. Istanbul: Literatür.
Bilsel, F. C., (2001). The Ottoman port city of Izmir in the 19th century: Cultures,
modes of space production and the transformation of urban space. 7 Centuries
of Ottoman Architecture: A Supra national Heritage (pp. 225-233), Istanbul:
TMMOB Mimarlar Odası.
Bozdoğan, S. (2002). Modernism and nation building: Turkish architectural culture
in the early republic. University of Washington Press.
Braudel, F. (1982). Civilization and capitalism, 15th-18th century, volume II: The
wheels of commerce. New York: Harper & Row.
Braudel, F. (1984). Civilization and capitalism, 15th-18th century, volume III: The
perspective of the world. New York: Harper & Row.
Braudel, F. (1985). Civilization and capitalism, 15th-18th century, volume I: The
structures of everyday life: The limits of the possible. New York: Harper &
Row.
Çelik, Z. (1993). The remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the
nineteenth century. London: University of California Press.
Cerasi, M. (1998). The formation of Ottoman house types: A comparative study in
interaction with neighboring cultures. Muqarnas. 15. 116-156.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1523280
Cezar, Y. (2005). The role of the sarrafs in Ottoman finance and economy in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Imber, C., Kiyotaki, K., & Murphey, R.
(Eds.) Frontiers of Ottoman studies: State, province, and the West. London:
I.B.Tauris.
Ch. P. (1957). Emmanuel Pontremoli (1865-1956). Revue Archéologique, 49, 77–78.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41754490
Çıkış, Ş. (2009). ‘Modern konut’ olarak XIX. yüzyıl İzmir konutu: Biçimsel ve
kavramsal ortaklıklar. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 26(2),
211–233. https://doi.org/10.4305/metu.jfa.2009.2.11
Colonas, V. (2005). Greek architects in the Ottoman Empire, 19th-20th centuries.
Athens: Olkos.
185
Colquhoun, A. (2006). Modern architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cosgrove, D. (2017). Prospect, perspective and the evolution of the landscape idea.
Environment, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315256351-6
Cosgrove, D. E. (1998). Social formation and symbolic landscape. Wisconsin:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Dağlı, Y., Kahraman, S. A., & Dankoff, R. (Eds.). (2005). Evliya Çelebi
seyahatnâmesi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
De Obaldia, V. D. (2018). Legal and Historical Study of Latin Catholic Church
Properties in Istanbul from the Ottoman Conquest of 1453 until 1740 (Published
PhD Thesis). Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.
Ersanlı, B. (2002). The Ottoman Empire in the historiography of the Kemalist era: A
theory of fatal decline. In The Ottomans and the Balkans. Leiden: Brill.
Ersoy, B. (1991). İzmir hanları. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek
Kurumu.
Findley, C. (2008). The Tanzimat II. In R. Kasaba (Ed.), The Cambridge history of
Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521620963.003
Fortna, B. C. (2000). Islamic morality in late Ottoman “secular” schools.
International Journal of Middle East Studies, 32(3), 369–393.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/259514
Frangakis-Syrett, E. (1985). The Ottoman port of Izmir in the eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries, 1695 -1820. Revue de l’Occident Musulman et de La
Méditerranée, 39(1), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.3406/remmm.1985.2071
Frangakis-Syrett, E. (1999) The economic activities of the Greek community of
Izmir. In Gondikas, D. & Issawi, C. (Eds.) Ottoman Greeks in the age of
nationalism. Princeton: Darwin Press.
Frangakis-Syrett, E. (2001). The making of an Ottoman port: The quay of Izmir in
the nineteenth century. The Journal of Transport History, vol. XXII/1, 23-46.
186
Frangakis-Syrett, E. (2006). Le développement d’un port Méditerranéen
d’importance international : Smyrne (1700-1914). In Carmen-Smyrnelis M.
(Eds.), Smyrne, La ville oublié ?. Paris: Éditions Autrement.
Georgelin, H. (2013). La fin de Smyrne: Du cosmopolitisme aux nationalismes. Paris:
CNRS Éditions.
Girardelli, P. (2005). Architecture, identity, and liminality: On the use and meaning
of Catholic spaces in late Ottoman Istanbul. Muqarnas Online, 22(1), 233–264.
https://doi.org/10.1163/22118993_02201011
Goffman, D. (1990). Izmir and levantine world, 1550-1650. Washington: University
of Washington Press.
Goffman, D. (1999). Izmir: from village to colonial port city. In Eldem, E., Goffman,
D., & Masters, B. The Ottoman city between east and west: Aleppo, Izmir, and
Istanbul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Groot, A. (2010). 4. Protection and nationality. The decline of the dragomans. In The
Netherlands and Turkey: Four hundred years of political, economical, social
and cultural Relations (pp. 61-82). New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463226022-006
Gültekin, R. E. (2003). Antik Smyrna Kenti’nin koruyucusu St. Polycarp adına
yapılan bir kilise: St. Polycarp. Sanat Dergisi, 4.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunigsfd/issue/2592/33354
Gürsoy, M. (2013). Our Izmir: With its history, economy and people. Izmir: MG.
Harley, J. B. (1988). Map, knowledge, power. In Cosgrove, D., & Daniels, S. (Eds.)
The iconography of landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hasluck, F. W. (1910). Depopulation in the Aegean islands and the Turkish
conquest. The Annual of the British School at Athens, 17, 151–181.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30096142
Heylen, S. (2007) Kunst in de Levant : de collecties van de Nederlandse families De
Hochepied en Van Lennep in Smyrna (Published PhD Thesis). Universiteit
Utrecht. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1989) The age of empire: 1875-1914. New York: Vintage.
187
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1995). The age of capital: 1848-1875. London: Abacus.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1996). The age of revolution: 1789-1848. New York: Vintage.
Hofmann, G. (1935). L'Arcivescovado di Smirne. In Orientalia Christiana Periodica
I. Roma: Palica.
İnal, O. (2021). One-humped history: The camel as historical actor in the late
Ottoman Empire. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 53(1), 57-72.
doi:10.1017/S0020743820000987
Jasanoff, M. (2005). Cosmopolitan: A tale of identity from Ottoman Alexandria. In
Common Knowledge 11(3): 393-409. https://doi:10.1215/0961754X-11-3-393
Kayın, E. (2023). Ulaşım teknolojisi ve seyahat kavramının dönüşümünün 19. yüzyıl
İzmir limanındaki temsilcileri: Liman / rıhtım inşası ve ilk oteller. In
Sempozyum “Geçmişten Günümüze İzmir Limanı.” Izmir: İzmir Kalkınma
Ajansı.
Keyder, Ç. & Tabak, F. (2007). The trade of cotton and cloth in Izmir: From the
second half of the eighteenth century to nineteenth century. In Frangakis-
Syrett, E. (Eds.) Trade and money: The Ottoman economy in the eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries. Istanbul: Isis Press.
Krim, A. J. (2014). Squeezing railroads into cities: Creating variable solutions in
Britain and the United States, 1820-1900. In Larkham, P. J., & Conzen, M. P.
(Eds.), Shapers of urban form: Explorations in morphological agency. New
York: Routledge.
Kurmuş, O. (1982). Emperyalizmin Türkiye’ye gelişi. Ankara: Savaş Yayınları.
Kuyulu Ersoy, İ. (2000). İzmir saat kulesi. Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi, 4 (2).
277-287.
Kuyulu Ersoy, İ. (2001). Orientalist buildings in Izmir: The case of the Kemeraltı
Çorakkapı, Keçeciler and Kemer police stations. EJOS, IV, 1-24.
Langella, A., Calcaterra, D., Cappelletti, P., Colella, A., D’Albora, M. P., Morra, V.,
& de Gennaro, M. (2009). Lava stones from Neapolitan volcanic districts in the
architecture of Campania region, Italy. Environmental Earth Sciences, 59(1),
145–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0012-x
188
Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire.
Representations, 26, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2928520
Özdemir, Y. (2022). Italian immigration to Izmir according to the 1845 Ottoman tax
registers. In Pongiluppi, F., & Selvelli, L. M. (Eds.) Smirne e L’Italia.
Comunità, Relazioni, Istituzioni. Athens: ETPbooks.
Pallini, C. (2011). Early 19th-century Smyrna: A hand-drawn map with views of the
city. In The New Griffon. No. 12. Athens: A Gennadius Library Publication.
Pınar, İ. (2020). Osmanlı dönemi İzmir planları ve haritaları. Izmir: İzmir Kalkınma
Ajansı.
Quataert, D. & Zurcher, E. J. (1995). Workers and the working class in the Ottoman
Empire and The Turkish Republic 1839-1950. New York: Tauris Academic
Studies.
Rubin, A. (2012). From legal representation to advocacy: Attorneys and clients in the
Ottoman Nizamiye courts. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 44(1),
111–127. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474983
Schiffer, R. (1999). Oriental panorama: British travellers in 19th century Turkey.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Shaham, R. (1991). Christian and Jewish “waqf” in Palestine during the Late
Ottoman Period. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London, 54(3), 460–472. http://www.jstor.org/stable/619055
Smyrnelis, M. C. (2005). Une société hors de soi: Identites et relations sociales a
Smyrne aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles. Paris: Peeters.
Stiros, S. C., (1995). Archaeological evidence of antiseismic constructions in
antiquity. Annals of Geophysics, 38(5–6). https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-4056
Tolias, G. (2017). Shaping the Levant in the 17th century: Francesco Luppazzolo and
his Isolarii (1638). In Espagne M., Gürtekin Demir, R. G., Verger, S. &
Aydemir, P. (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Symposium on Izmir from
Past to Present: Human and Cultural Interactions, 422-434.
Ülker, N. (1994.) XVII, ve XVIII. yüzyıllarda İzmir şehri tarihi. Izmir: Akademi
Kitabevi.
189
Vanneste, T. (01 Nov. 2021). Intra-European litigation in eighteenth-century Izmir.
Leiden: Brill. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004498235
Weiss, P. (2005). The aesthetics of resistance. (J. Neugroschel, Trans.). London:
Duke University Press.
Wilson, B. (2013). Francesco Lupazzolo’s Isolario of 1638: The Aegean archipelago
and early modern historical anthropology. In Mary, F., & Blake, D. M. (Eds.)
Reflections on renaissance Venice: A celebration of Patricia Fortini Brown.
Milan: Five Continents.
Wishnitzer, A. (2014). Into the dark: Power, light, and nocturnal life in 18th-century
Istanbul. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 46(3), 513–531.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43303183
Yerasimos, S. (1992). A propos des réformes urbaines des Tanzimat. In Dumont, P.
& Georgeon F. (Eds.), Villes Ottomanes a La Fin De L’Empire (pp. 17-32).
Paris: Editions L’Harmattan.
Yılmaz, S. (1996). XVI. Lui’nin coğrafyacısından Kemeraltı. In Kebikeç, 4, 65-72.
Zandi-Sayek, S. (2000). Struggles over the shore: Building the quay of Izmir, 1867-
1875. City & Society, 12(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1525/city.2000.12.1.55
Zandi-Sayek, S. (2012). Ottoman Izmir: The rise of a cosmopolitan port, 1840-1880.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.