Fleet K. The Cambridge History of Turkey: Volume 1, Byzantium to Turkey, 1071-1453

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

howard crane

Germiyan, the prosperity of K

utahya is attested by the construction of the

Vacidiye Medrese in the early years of the fourteenth century and later by

the founding of a series of mosques – the Kurs¸unlu Camii, the Balıklı Cami,

the Kale-i Bala Camii, the C¸ atal Mescid – in the reign of S

uleyman S¸ah.

Caria, on the south-west coast of Anatolia, the Turkoman of Mentes¸e, already

present in that country as early as the 1260s, embellished their capitals, Milas

and the nearby Pec¸in, with a series of ﬁne buildings. Ibn Battuta describes

them as among the ﬁnest and most extensive cities of Rum and singles out

Mentes¸eo

glu Orhan Bey’s new palace in Pec¸in, its congregational mosque and

other buildings for special mention.

Further north in the emirate of Aydın, the towns of Birgi, Tire and Aya-

soluk (Ephesus) became centres of architectural activity in the fourteenth

century. Birgi, which was occupied by Gazi Mehmed Bey in 707/1307–8,was

embellished with his state mosque – the Ulu Cami (712/1312–13) – his medrese

(school) and a series of dynastic tombs including those of Mehmed Bey himself

(734/1334), of his sons Gazi Umur Pas¸a and

Isa Bey, and of his sister Sultan S¸ah

Hatun (710/1310). In Tire, which is described by Ibn Battuta as being a ﬁne town

of streams and gardens, notable monuments included the now ruined mosque

Isa Bey’s daughter Hafsa Hatun (mid-fourteenth century), the Aydino

glu

Mehmed Bey Camii (c.727/1326–7) and the tomb of S

uleyman S¸ah ibn Gazi

Mehmed Bey (750/1349–50), who was appointed governor of Tire by his father.

Ayasoluk, which suffered considerable decline in the last period of Byzantine

rule, underwent a striking revival under the beys of Aydın. Ibn Battuta states

that it had ﬁfteen gates and that a large church (presumably the Church of

St John) had been converted into the town’s congregational mosque. The

importance of the town is reﬂected in an even more substantial way by the

congregational mosque (776/1375) built by

Isa b. Mehmed Bey, one of the most

impressive monuments of the period of the emirates to survive in western

Anatolia.

4 For the Germiyanid monuments andfoundation textsof K

utahya, see RCEA,5346; Mustafa

C¸ etin Varlık, Germiyan-O

gulları Tarihi (1300–1429) (Ankara, 1974), pp. 137–40; also A. Sayılı,

‘The W

ajidiyya Madrasa of K

utahya’, Belleten 12, 48 (1948), 667–77.

5 For the Mentes¸eid inscriptions of Milas and Pec¸in, see Paul Wittek, Das F

urstentum

Mentesche, Studie zur Geschichte Westkleinasiens im 13.–14.Jh. (Istanbul, 1934), pp. 134–

56; for Pec¸in, Ayda Arel, ‘Pec¸in, a Capital of the Principality of Mentes¸e,’ Anadolu Sanatı

Aras¸tirmaları 1 (1968), 69–102. For Ibn Battuta’s comments on Pec¸in see The Travels of Ibn

Battuta, A. D. 1325–1354, ed. and tr. H. A. R. Gibb, 4 vols. (London, 1962), ii,pp.428–9.

6 A full list of the monuments of the principality as attested by inscriptions and by archival

documents is given in Himmet Akın, Aydino

gulları Tarihi Hakkında bir Aras¸tırma (Ankara,

1968), pp. 216–20;

see also N. Emre, ‘Aydıno

gulları ve Eserleri’, Arkitekt 10–12 (1973), 307–20.

Of the monuments of Birgi, the tombs of Gazi Umur Pas¸a and

Isa Bey are no longer

270

Art and architecture, 1300–1453

The beys of the principality of Saruhan in the rich Gediz plain embellished

their capital, Manisa, in the third quarter of the fourteenth century, to which

its

Ilyas Bey Mescidi (764/1363), the far more impressive Ulu Cami complex

(778/1376) including a mosque, a medrese and the tomb of Saruhano

glu

Ishak

Bey, and a no longer extant zaviye, the Mevlevihane (770/1368–9) on the slopes

of Mount Sipylus, all date. That the town continued to retain its importance

into Ottoman times is clear from the fact that it was the residence of several

Ottoman princes during the ﬁfteenth and sixteenth centuries.

The emirs of the short-lived principality of Karası made Balıkesir and

Bergama their capitals, but little remains in either from the period of their

independence. Indeed, Ibn Battuta describes Bergama as a city in ruin, and

notes that although Balıkesir was a populous city with pleasant bazaars, there

was no congregational mosque for Friday prayers, one having been begun,

but left unﬁnished at the time of his visit.

Along the Black Sea coast, however,

the principality of

Isfendiyar, centred on the towns of Kastamonu and Sinop,

was a region of rather more notable building activity. A number of important

fourteenth-century foundations survive in Kastamonu and in nearby villages,

including the

Ibni Neccar Camii (754/1353), the Halil Bey Camii (765/1363–4)

of Kemah K

u and the Mahmud Bey Camii (768/1366–7) of Kasaba K

Although construction seems to have petered out in the last decades of the

fourteenth century, there appears to have been a revivalof activity after Timur’s

restoration of the principality in the early ﬁfteenth century. The most impres-

sive monuments of this late period are the

Ismail Bey complex, consisting of

a mosque, tomb (858/1454), medrese, imaret (soup kitchen), han (caravansary)

and hamam, and the

Ismail Bey Camii (855/1451) in the nearby K

urei Hadit

u. Sinop, further to the east along the Black Sea coast, served throughout

the period as an important commercial and naval base. Annexed by

Isfendiyar

in 1322, its importance is attested by the construction of a series of mosques –

the Fatih Baba Mescidi (740/1339–40), Aslan Camii (752/1351–2), Kadı Camii

extant. For the inscriptions, see RCEA, 5272, 5310, 5311, 5474, 5657. For the monuments of

Tire, see

Inci Aslano

glu, Tire’de Camiler ve

Uc¸ Mescit (Ankara, 1978); also RCEA, 5783, 5784,

6135, 774–012, 782–005. For the

Isa Bey Camii, see K. Otto-Dorn, ‘Die Isa Bey Moschee in

Ephesus’, Istanbuler Forschungen 17 (1950), 115–31; also M. S¸eker,Selc¸uk

Isa Bey Camii (Izmir,

1970); inscription, RCEA, 776–013. For Tire, Birgi and Aydın, see also Rudolf M. Riefstahl,

Turkish Architecture in Southwest Anatolia (Cambridge, 1931), pp. 32–8; Ibn Battuta, Travels,

ii,pp.438–47.

7 For the Ulu Cami complex, see Riefstahl, Southwest Anatolia,pp.7–15; for the

Ishak

C¸ elebi Mevlevihane, see Semavi Eyice, ‘

Ilk Osmanlı DevrininDın

ı-

Ic¸tima

bir M

uessesesi:

aviyeler ve Z

aviyeli-Camiler’,

Istanbul

Universitesi

Iktisat Fak

ultesi Mecmuası 21, 1–2 (1962–

3), 65; also Godfrey Goodwin, A History of Ottoman Architecture (Baltimore, 1971), p. 42.For

inscriptions, RCEA, 764–031, 768–006, 770–026, 780–004. Ibn Battuta, Travels, ii,pp.447–8.

8 Ibn Battuta, Travels, ii,pp.448–9.

271

howard crane

(766/1364) and Saray Camii (766/1375) – as well as by the existence of the

dynastic tomb (787/1385–6) of the late

Isfendiyaro

glu rulers located in the

forecourt of the Seljuk-period Ulu Cami.

In central Anatolia, it was the emir Eretna and his descendants who were

the successors of the Ilkhanids after the death of Abu Sa‘id Khudabanda. Curi-

ously, despite the size of their principality and their well-known support of

learning and of literature, the building activities of the beys of Eretna includ-

ing Kadı Burhaneddin appear to have been only moderately ambitious. In part

this appearance may be due to the loss of inscriptions and vakﬁyes (endow-

ment deeds of a vakıf, a pious foundation), although it may also reﬂect the

modest prosperity of the central Anatolian region in the fourteenth century

as compared with conditions a century earlier. Nonetheless, a number of

important and unusual monuments are found in the main cities of the prin-

cipality, Kayseri and Sivas, as well as in some of its secondary towns such as

Kırs¸ehir and

Urg

up. Among the most notable are the tomb of Eretna Bey’s

eldest son, S¸eyh Hasan, known as the G

uk Minare (748/1347) in Sivas, the so-

called K

os¸k Medresesi (740/1339) in Kayseri and the mosque complex of Tas¸kın

Pas¸a in Damsa K

u near

Urg

up. Of the towns themselves, little remains in

the way of contemporary accounts, although Mustaufı describes Kayseri as

a great city defended by a citadel of squared masonry and Ibn Battuta states

that it was one of the chief cities of this land and the residence of one of

the hatuns of Emir Alaeddin Eretna. As to Sivas, it is described by Ibn Bat-

tuta as the largest of the cities possessed by the Ilkhan in Rum and the res-

idence of his emirs and functionaries. He states that it had wide streets and

ﬁne buildings, the most outstanding being a hospice for descendants of the

Prophet (dar al-siy

ada) founded by Ghazan Han. Although Erzincan enjoyed

considerable prosperity and importance during the fourteenth and early ﬁf-

teenth centuries, virtually nothing remains of the monuments of that period.

9 Curiously, in contrast to Mustauﬁ (The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qul

ub Composed

by Hamd-All

ah Mustawf

ı of Qazwın in 740 [1340], tr. G. Le Strange (Leiden, 1919), p. 97), Ibn

Battuta, who stayed in Kastamonu for forty days in the winter of 1331–2 or 1333–4 describes

it as ‘one of the largest and ﬁnest cities [of Rum]’; Travels, ii,p.461. For the monuments

and inscriptions of the principality of

Isfendiyar, see Mahmut Akok, ‘Kastamonu’nun

Kasaba K

unde Candaro

glu Mahmut Bey Camii’, Belleten 10, 38 (1946), 293–301;A.

oylu, Paﬂagonya, Kastamonu, Sinop, C¸ ankırı, Safranbolu, Bartın, Bolu, Gerede, Mudurnu,

Iskilip, Bafra, Alac¸am ve Civarı Gayrımenkul Eski Eserleri Arkeolojisi (Kastamonu, 1952);

Yas¸ar Y

ucel, XIII. – XV. Y

uzyıllar Kuzey-Batı Anadolu Tarihi. C¸oban-O

gulları Candar-O

gulları

Beylikleri (Ankara, 1980), pp. 152–81. For the beylik-period monuments of Sinop, see F.

Taeschner, ‘Die T

urbe der

Isfendiyaro

glu in Sinop’, Beitr

age zur Kunstgeschichte Asiens

in Memoriam Ernst Diez (Istanbul, 1963),

pp. 31–3;S¸.

Ulk

utas¸ır, ‘Sinop’ta Candaro

glulları

Zamanına Ait Tarih

ı Eserler’, T

urk Tarih, Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi 5 (1949), 112–51.

For epigraphy, see RCEA, 5816, 5953, 6172, 6328, 766–009, 776–018, 787–006, 787–007.

272

Art and architecture, 1300–1453

Nonetheless, Mustaufı noted its walls were built of squared masonry, and

Clavijo, at the beginning of the ﬁfteenth century, states that while it was not

particularly large, it was very populous and possessed many ﬁne streets and

beautiful mosques. Located on a plain near the Euphrates, he found it to be sur-

rounded by many towns and fruit gardens and enclosed by walls and towers of

stone.

Erzurum seems to have suffered an extended period of instability follow-

ing the collapse of the Ilkhanid state. Occupied successively by the Mongol

emir C¸ obano

glu S¸eyh Hasan (1340), Mehmed Bey, the son of Eretna (1360),

the Karakoyunlu Turkomans (1385) and the Akkoyunlu (1465), its existence

was apparently too troubled for there to develop any strong tradition of local

architectural patronage. Already in the 1330s, Ibn Battuta notes that although

of vast extent, the city was largely in ruins in consequence of factional feuds

between the Turkomans. However, seventy years later, Calvijo states that

while it was formerly the largest and richest city in this country, in his time

it was no longer very populous. Indeed, no signiﬁcant architectural mon-

uments survive in Erzurum from the period following the collapse of the

Ilkhans. And east Anatolia as a whole seems to have sunk into considerable

disorder, as rival Mongol emirs, Turkoman tribal confederations and out-

side powers struggled for pre-eminence. The Karakoyunlu Turkomans, who

sprang from the region between lakes Van and Urmia, but in time, came to

establish their capital at Tabriz, left a scattering of monuments in towns such

as Ahlat and Ercis¸, but their most ambitious building activities were reserved

for regions outside east Anatolia. Their rivals, the Akkoyunlu, whose origins

lay east of Erzincan in the region of Bayburt, Palu and Ergani, were in time

able to establish themselves in Diyarbakır and Mardin as well as in western

Iran. Their most important building activities, however, date to the second

half of the ﬁfteenth century. As to the Dulgadıro

glu, who ruled the region

from Maras¸ to Malatya in the eastern Taurus, although Elbistan became their

capital in 1339, the town was destroyed by Timur in 1400 and again by the

10 For construction and funerary texts of Kayseri in the period of the principality of Eretna,

see RCEA, 5812, 6017, 6078, 6128, 6163; for Sivas, RCEA, 6057; also Kemal G

ode, Eratnalılar

(1327–1381) (Ankara, 1994), pp. 157–62. For the monuments of Kayseri, see Albert Gabriel,

MTA, i,pp.3–100. Ibn Battuta’s description is found in Travels, ii,pp.433–4; for Mustaufı,

see Mustauﬁ, Geographical,p.98. Concerning Sivas, see Ibn Battuta, Travels, ii,pp.434–

5; Mustauﬁ, Geographical,p.95. As regards Erzincan, see Mustauﬁ, Geographical,p.95;

Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo to the Court

of Timour at Samarcand,

1403–6, tr. Clements R. Markham (London, 1859), pp. 72–3;

repeated devastation caused by earthquakes has destroyed most of the early monuments

of Erzincan and its environs.

273

howard crane

Safavid Shah Isma’il in 1507, so that little remains from the period of their

ascendancy.

For the later development of Turkish art and architecture it was to be

the Ottoman principality in north-west Anatolia that was to be of particular

signiﬁcance. In the earliest period its key centres were Bursa, conquered by

Orhan Gazi in 1326, and

Iznik, occupied a few years later. By the early ﬁfteenth

century, however, other Anatolian towns such as Amasya and K

utahya were

also becoming notable foci of Ottoman building activity, while in the Balkans,

the conquest of Gelibolu (1354), Dimetoka (1359), Edirne (1361) and Filibe (1363–

4) was followed by signiﬁcant building programmes in those towns as well.

In contrast to most Turkish towns in Anatolia, whose physical appearances

and patterns of growth in the fourteenth and early ﬁfteenth centuries can only

vaguely be discerned from scattered buildings and fragmentary travellers’

descriptions, the form and evolution of early Ottoman Bursa, and to a lesser

extent Edirne, can be reconstructed with some assurance, using epigraphy,

standing architectural monuments, documentary sources such as vakﬁye and

early Ottoman historical accounts including As¸ıkpas¸azade and Nes¸ri. From

sources such as these, it is clear that while some urban spaces, notably the reli-

gious and social complexes (k

ulliye), which were such an outstanding feature

of Anatolian Turkish architecture, were the subject of careful planning, as a

whole Ottoman towns were the products of a rather haphazard evolution.

Thus, for example, while in Bursa or Edirne k

ulliye such as the Yıldırım com-

plex, the Yes¸il complex and the two Muradiye complexes were consciously

built to function as the social and religious foci of new urban districts, the

evolution of the surrounding neighbourhoods was far more organic.

Among Ottoman towns it is the evolution of Bursa that is best documented.

From available sources it appears that at the time of Orhan Gazi’s conquest

of the town, it was a centre of only secondary importance with its Greek

population restricted to the old Byzantine citadel or Hisar (Fig. 8.1). Shortly

thereafter, the Greek residents were forced to move beyond the walls and

new Turkish inhabitants were settled within the citadel. Almost immediately,

efforts were made to provide the new inhabitants with a Muslim architectural

and institutional infrastructure. Indeed, of the twelve mosques built in Bursa

during Orhan’s reign concerning which we have data, fully seven were located

inside the Hisar, the earliest being the no longer extant

Il Eri O

glu Ahmed

11 For south-east Anatolia, see Albert Gabriel, Voyages arch

eologiques dans la Turquie orientale

(Paris, 1940); also for Mardin, Ara Altun, Mardin’de T

urk Devri Mimarisi (Istanbul, 1971);

for Diyarbakır, Metin S

ozen, Diyarbakır’da T

urk Mimarisi (Istanbul, 1971); also S

ozen,

Anadolu’da Akkoyunlu Mimarisi (Istanbul, 1981).

274

Figure 8.1 Plan of Bursa showing expansion of city in the fourteenth and ﬁfteenth centuries (based on Gabriel, Une capitale turque,p.9)

howard crane

Bey Mescidi adjoining the Bey Sarayı, built according to Nes¸ri immediately

following the conquest. The Alaeddin Bey Camii can be dated by its vakﬁye to

733/1332–3 and the Orhan Gazi Camii can be dated by its inscription, which is

all that survives from it, to 738/1337–8. Documentation exists as well for the

construction of apairof medresesintheHisar,plusseveral bathhouses (hamams).

Finally, a tomb was built in the north of the Hisar for Orhan’s father, Osman

Gazi, who had originally been buried in S

ut, and the adjoining residence of

the Greek tekfur or governor was rebuilt as the Bey Sarayı.

Simultaneous with this transformation of the Hisar, an energetic effort was

made to develop a commercial district in the eastern suburbs of Bursa. It was

here, for example, that Orhan Gazi built a social-religious complex (740/1339–

40), including a mosque, medrese, mekteb (school) and imaret-zaviye. In addition,

several commercial buildings were erected, most notably Orhan Gazi’s Emir

Hanı (or Eski Bezzazistan) and the Bezir Hanı of Lala S¸ahin Pas¸a.

This process of expansion beyond the walls of the Hisar continued in the

reign of Murad I, with the construction of the sultan’s Kapan Hanı in the

eastern commercial district and of the Koca Naib Camii just outside the Kaplıca

Kapısı to the west of the Hisar. However, Murad’s most signiﬁcant foundations

were located in the Hisar itself, where he built the congregational S¸ehadet

Camii, and in the rather remote suburb of C¸ ekirge, two kilometres west of

the citadel, where, beginning in 767/1366, he built a major complex including

a mosque, medrese, imaret, hamam and tomb (t

urbe). Yıldırım Bayezid’s efforts

were concentrated to the east of the Hisar. He founded the Ulu Cami in the

commercial quarter and the great Yıldırım complex beyond the G

ok Dere,

some two kilometres east of the Hisar in an area which in the late fourteenth

century must still have been well beyond the city’s limits. Development seems

to have occurred in this period as well in the area to the north-east of the

commercial quarter known as At Pazarı, in Pınar Bas¸ı, the district to the

south-east of the Hisar, and in C¸ ınar

u to the west of the citadel.

Although Bursa was sacked and burned by a contingent of Timur’s army

following the defeat of Bayezid I at Ankara in 1402, the city recovered during

the reign of C¸ elebi Mehmed, when, with the construction of the Yes¸il complex,

it was extended in a deﬁnitive way to the east of the G

ok Dere. Bursa’s most

striking growth in this period occurred during the prosperous reign of Murad

II, when new districts were endowed and named after Sultan Murad, Fazlullah

Pas¸a, Hacı

Ivaz Pas¸a, Hasan Pas¸a, Umur Bey, Cebe-Ali Bey, S¸

ihabeddin Pas¸a and

Reyhan. Although the most densely settled districts continued to be located

round the Hisar and the market quarter to its east, the area beyond the G

Dere, centred on the Yes¸il complex and Emir Sultan, nowbegan to be built up as

276

Art and architecture, 1300–1453

well.The construction of two new bridges across the G

ok Dere at this time (the

Boyacı Kulu and

Irgandi bridges) can be explained by the development of these

eastern districts. Expansion occurred to the west as well, where in 1426 Murad

completed his mosque, medrese, imaret complex, the Muradiye, on the road to

C¸ ekirge. Thus, by 1432, when the Burgundian merchant and spy Bertrandon

de la Broqui

ere passed through Bursa, he encountered a town which was ‘a

very ﬁne commercial centre, the best city belonging to the Grand Turk’, a

town, moreover, which appeared even larger than it was, for it was made up

of a series of distinct quarters (Bertrandon calls them villages) separated by a

river (the G

ok Dere) ﬂowing north from Ulu Da

g (the Bithynian Olympus).

It was in Bursa, he noted, that the Ottoman sultans were buried and in the

town ‘there are many nice buildings, like hospitals, in three or four of which

bread, meat and wine (sic) are distributed to those [in need]’. In addition, there

were two bazaars, in one of which, among other things, silks, precious stones,

pearls and cotton cloth were sold, while in the other cottons and white soap

were important items of trade. ‘On a low mountain at the western end of the

city there is a ﬁne, large castle. There are about a thousand houses inside. This

is [the site of] the lord’s very beautiful residence . . . [within which] there is a

garden and a very nice pool where the lord takes his ease.’

Architecture of the beylik and early

Ottoman periods

The architecture of the beylik and early Ottoman periods has been the subject

of attention by architectural historians since the end of the nineteenth cen-

tury. Pioneering efforts by European scholars such as Friedrich Sarre, Rudolf

Riefstahl and Albert Gabriel, whose surveys were organised regionally rather

than chronologically, did much to introduce to the learned public what had

hitherto been a largely unknown ﬁeld. During the 1930s and 1940s, further

efforts were made to publish the monuments of key early Ottoman centres,

including Bursa, Edirne and

Iznik, to examine the architecture of particu-

lar Turkoman principalities and to survey systematically speciﬁc architectural

types dating to the period of the beyliks. Since the late 1950s, what had earlier

12 Bertrandon de la Broqui

ere, Voyage d’Outremer, tr. Galen R. Kline (New York, 1988),

pp. 83–5; for Schiltberger, see The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of

Bavaria, in Europe, Asia and Africa, 1396–1427, tr. J. Buchan Telfer (London, 1879), p. 40.

For an important general account of the evolution of the city, see Oya Pancaro

glu,

‘Architecture, Landscape, and Patronage in Bursa: the Making of an Ottoman Capital

City’, The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 19 (1995), 40–55; also M

ukrimin Halil Yinanc¸,

‘Bursa’, in

Islam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul, 1941–) [henceforth

IA], ii,pp.806–15.

277

howard crane

been a rather modest ﬂow of publication has turned into a veritable torrent,

the most important work being undertaken by Turkish architects and art his-

torians such as Oktay Aslanapa, Aptullah Kuran, Olus¸ Arık, Metin S

ozen and

Rahmi H

useyin

Unal. Aslanapa, for one, has carried out important excavations

of beylik and early Ottoman monuments with the aim of clarifying speciﬁc

questions of plan and date. Finally, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi published a monu-

mental, multi-volume documentation of Ottoman architecture through the

period of Mehmed II. Notwithstanding the sheer volume of this literature,

the fact remains that there has appeared no study of the Turkish monuments

of the fourteenth and early ﬁfteenth centuries that seeks to integrate in a

comparative manner Ottoman materials with those of the other principalities.

Nonetheless, the typologies and developmental outlines of this architecture

are well known.

As noted above, the proliferation of independent Turkoman principalities

at the beginning of the fourteenth century gave rise to a number of regional

centres of architectural activity and produced an environment in which the

broad stylistic unity that had characterised Seljuk architecture in the thirteenth

century was supplanted by one of pronounced local distinctions. Central and

east Anatolia, with old and relatively deeply rooted Islamic traditions, contin-

ued to build in styles clearly descended from the Seljuks. The west Anatolian

principalities, on the other hand, were more experimental and eclectic in

their architecture, not only drawing on ideas and vocabularies, techniques and

13 Regional surveys include Friedrich Sarre, Konya, Seldschukische Baudenkm

aler (Berlin,

1921); Max van Berchem and Halil Edhem, Mat

eriaux pour un corpus inscriptionum arabi-

carum, Troisi

eme partie, Asie Mineure, tome premier – Siwas, Diwrigi (Cairo, 1917); Riefstahl,

Turkish Architecture; Gabriel, MTA; Gabriel, Voyage arch

eologique; Rahmi H

useyin

Unal,

Les monuments islamiques anciens de la ville d’Erzurum et de sa region (Paris, 1968). The

early Ottoman monuments of key towns of the principality are dealt with in: Katharina

Otto-Dorn, Das Islamische Iznik, mit einem quellenkundlichen Beitrag von Robert Anheg-

ger, Istanbuler Forschungen, vol. XIII (Berlin, 1941); Sedat C¸ etintas¸, T

urk Mimari Anıtları,

Osmanlı Devri. Bursa’da

Ilk Eserler (Istanbul, 1946); C¸ etintas¸, T

urk Mimari Anıtları, Osmanlı

Devri, Bursa’da Murad I ve Bayezid I Binaları (Istanbul, 1952); Albert Gabriel, Une capitale

turque, Brousse, Bursa, 2 vols., Paris,1958; Oktay Aslanapa, Edirne’de Osmanlı Devri Abideleri

(Istanbul, 1949). On beylik mosque architecture, see Ali Kızıltan, Anadolu Beyliklerinde

Cami ve Mescitler (Istanbul, 1958); and on the architecture of the Karaman beylik and

some of its broader implications, Ernst Diez, Oktay Aslanapa and Mahmud Mesut

Koman, Karaman Devri Sanatı (Istanbul, 1950). Of fundamental importance for the early

Ottoman period are Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mim

ısinin

Ilk Devri 630–805 (1230–

1402) (Istanbul, 1966) [henceforth OM

ID];

and Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimar

ısinde C¸ elebi ve II.

Sultan Murad Devri 806–85 5 (1403–1451) (Istanbul, 1972) [henceforth C¸SMD]. Typologies

are found in Cel

al Esad Arseven, T

urk Sanatı Tarihi (Istanbul, n.d.); M. Olus¸ Arık, ‘Turk-

ish Architecture in Asia Minor in the Period of the Emirates’, in The Art and Architecture

of Turkey, ed. Ekrem Akurgal (New York, 1980), pp. 111–37; Aptullah Kuran, The Mosque

in Early Ottoman Architecture (Chicago, 1968); M. Olus¸ Arık, ‘“T

urbe” Forms in Early

Anatolian-Turkish Architecture’, Anadolu (Anatolia) 17 (1969), 101–19.

278

Art and architecture, 1300–1453

formulae derived from the Seljuks, but borrowing as well from the Antique

and Byzantine building traditions encountered in these newly acquired fron-

tier lands and from the Mamluks’ architecture. It should not be concluded,

however, that the old Seljuk heartland and the lands of the western frontier

constituted two distinctly separate architectural provinces existing in isolation

from one another. In fact there was a good deal of overlap, especially in the

fourteenth century, buildings of a strongly Seljuk character at times appearing

in the lands of the western uc, and structures of a more innovative sort usu-

ally associated with the western border lands being erected in the Anatolian

interior.

Mosques

Beylik and early Ottoman mosque architecture is characterised by a striking

diversity of form and planning that often deﬁes arrangement in neat and simple

typologies.Among the most common types, three groups stand out: the single-

dome mosque; the hypostyle congregational mosque; and so-called zaviye-

mosque. Of these, by far the most common is the simple single-dome mosque,

consisting of a square prayer hall covered by a single dome on squinches,

Turkish triangles or pendentives. Where present, minarets are usually attached

to the right or left of the entry fac¸ade, although in some instances, such as the

Kazirzade Mosque (late fourteenth century) in Tire and the original Orhan

Gazi Camii (early fourteenth century) in Bilecik, the minaret is a detached,

free-standing structure. Of generally small dimension, this type of mosque was

built throughout Anatolia and the Ottoman Balkans in both the fourteenth and

ﬁfteenth centuries. Its antecedents are to be found in the Seljuk architecture

of the thirteenth century, in mosques such as those of Ferruh S¸ah(621/1224)in

Aks¸ehir and the Hacı Ferruh (612/1215–16) in Konya. In its simplest form this

single-dome mosque type is exempliﬁed by buildings such as the Saray Mescidi

(776/1375) in Sinop, the Pekmez Pazarı Mescidi (783/1381–2)ofK

utahya and

the Kubbeli Mescid (731/1331) of Afyon.

Not all single-domed mosques are so modest, however. In scale, materials

and workmanship perhaps the most striking single-dome mosque of the period

is the

Ilyas Bey Camii at Balat (Miletus) (Fig. 8.2), built in 806/1404 by the

emir of Mentes¸e, following the restoration of his principality’s independence

by Timur. Part of a larger complex consisting, in addition to the mosque,

of a medrese and the tomb of the founder, all arranged around an irregular

courtyard, the

Ilyas Bey Camii is square in plan, measuring 18 metres on the

exterior fac¸ades. Built of rubble and roughly drafted stone, it is revetted on

both interior and exterior with a veneer of reused marble taken from the

279