Ottoman Plovdiv: Space, Architecture, and Population 14th‒17th Centuries [1 ed.] 3700193645, 9783700193647

Citation preview

Ottoman Plovdiv

Space, Architecture, and Population (14th–17th Centuries)

Grigor Boykov

GRIGOR BOYKOV OTTOMAN PLOVDIV

Schriften zur Balkanforschung Band 5 Herausgegeben vom Forschungsbereich Balkanforschung des Instituts für die Erforschung der Habsburgermonarchie und des Balkanraumes

OTTOMAN PLOVDIV SPACE, ARCHITECTURE, AND POPULATION (14TH–17TH CENTURIES) GRIGOR BOYKOV

Accepted by the publication committee of the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences: Michael Alram, Rainer Bauböck, Andre Gingrich, Hermann Hunger, Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Nina Mirnig, Renate Pillinger, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Danuta Shanzer, Waldemar Zacharasiewicz Published with the support of the Holzhausen Foundation.

Cover image: Public buildings and street pattern of Ottoman Plovdiv. Source for the visualization Boykov, G. (2023) “Ottoman Plovdiv_geodataset“. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10046836

This publication was subject to international and anonymous peer review. Peer review is an essential part of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press evaluation process. Before any book can be accepted for publication, it is assessed by international specialists and ultimately must be approved by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Publication Committee. The paper used in this publication is DIN EN ISO 9706 certified and meets the requirements for permanent archiving of written cultural property.

All rights reserved. ISBN 978-3-7001-9364-7 Copyright © Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna 2024 Layout: Maria Baramova,Sofia Print: Prime Rate, Budapest https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/9364-7 https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at Made in Europe

Contents List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 List of maps, plans, and figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Documentary archaeology: recreating Ottoman Plovdiv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City cadastral plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Written sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building a skeleton: a digital spatiotemporal model of the Ottoman city . . . . .

25 28 28 39 43 46 49

Regional geography and conquest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Upper Thrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Ottoman conquest of Plovdiv and the region of Thrace in the 1360s–1370s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 The region of Plovdiv in the Ottoman administrative system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Urban topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Urban topography of Roman and Medieval Plovdiv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Urban space of Ottoman Plovdiv: general observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 First Ottoman buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Urban core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Şihabeddin’s time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 The Imperial residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Water for a Muslim city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Population geography: dynamics, spatial distribution, and density . . . . . . . . . . . . Time of growth: the second half of the fifteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Towards a population peak in the sixteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forced relocation (sürgün) of Muslims to the west in the 1520s . . . . . . . . . . . . On the path to recovery: population dynamics in the second half of the sixteenth century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157 157 181 190 197

6|

Ottoman Plovdiv

A second population peak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Population dynamics in the early seventeenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Completing Muslim city’s urban fabric: public buildings from the late sixteenth and seventeenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Epilogue: toward a composite portrait of an Ottoman provincial center . . . . . . . 229 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.1 Plan of Plovdiv’s quarters in the nineteenth century . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.2 Identified buildings from the Ottoman period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.3 Total population distribution in 1472 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.4 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1472 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.5 Total population distribution in 1489 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.6 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1489 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.7 Total population distribution in 1516 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.8 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1516 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.9 Total population distribution in 1525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.10 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1525 . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.11 Total population distribution in 1530 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.12 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1530 . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.13 Total population distribution in 1570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.14 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1570 . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.15 Total population distribution in 1596 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.16 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1596 . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.17 Total population distribution in 1614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1.18 Population density per quarter (inh./ha) in 1614 . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2.1 Total population by quarter, 1472–1614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2.2 Population by quarter, 1472–1614 (rough tahrir data) . . . . . . . . Appendix 2.3 List of tahrir registers, 1472–1614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 255

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

List of abbreviations BNL – National Library “Sts Cyril and Methodius,” Sofia, Bulgaria BOA – T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı, Osmanlı Arşivi, Istanbul, Turkey İBK – İstanbul Belediye Kütüphanesi, Atatürk Kitaplığı, Turkey NBIV – National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv, Bulgaria RAM – Regional Archaeological Museum TKGM – Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, Ankara, Turkey VGMA – Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, Ankara, Turkey

List of maps, plans, and figures Maps Map 1. The region of Upper Thrace in Bulgaria. Drawn by the author. Map 2. Administrative boundaries and vakıf villages in the region of Plovdiv. Drawn by the author. Map 3. The hills and city walls of Plovdiv. Drawn by the author. Map 4. Street pattern and urban layout of Roman and Early Byzantine Plovdiv. Drawn by the author. Map 5. Locations of excavation sites showing habitation during the 12th and 13th centuries. Drawn by the author. Map 6. The density of human habitation during the 12th and 13th centuries based on excavation sites. Drawn by the author. Map 7. The layout of Ottoman Plovdiv, 15th–17th centuries. Drawn by the author. Map 8. The street pattern of Ottoman Plovdiv, 15th–17th centuries. Drawn by the author. Map 9. The commercial core of Ottoman Plovdiv in the mid-15th century. Drawn by the author. Map 10. The complex of Şihabeddin paşa in Plovdiv, built in 1444. Drawn by the author. Map 11. The main commercial street of Plovdiv, 1460s–1470s. Drawn by the author. Map 12. The vicinities of Çifte Hamam. Drawn by the author. Map 13. Confessional distribution of quarters in 1472. Drawn by the author.

8|

Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 14. The mosque of Kaya bey (Bey Mescidi) and İbn-i Kasım quarter in 1472. Drawn by the author. Map 15. Remains of the Late Antique ceremonial complex at the eastern gate of Plovdiv, overlaid with the location of Kaya bey’s mosque (Bey Mescidi), and the former Ottoman street pattern. Drawn by the author.

Plans Plan 1. Plan of Plovdiv and its surroundings by A. Jägerschmid, 1828. National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. Kp II 60. Plan 2. City plan of Plovdiv by Lejean, 1867. Guillaume Lejean, “Voyage en Bulgarie,” Le Tour du monde, nouveau journal des voyages 26 (1873): 113–70. Plan 3. City plan of Plovdiv by Heinrich Kiepert, 1876. Crop from Heinrich Kiepert, Karte des Sandjak Filibe (Philippopolis) aufgenommen nach Anordnung des dortigen Provinzial-Gouverneurs Mehemmed-Nusret-Pascha. Plan 4. City plan of Plovdiv by Ferdinand v. Hochstetter, 1869. Ferdinand von Hochstetter, “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869. 5. Philippopel,” Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65–80. Plan 5. City plan of Plovdiv by G. Ilinskij, 1878. National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. РЦ ІV 62. Plan 6. City plan of Plovdiv by Joseph Schnitter, 1891. National Library "Ivan Vazov," Plovdiv. Кр ІІ 62.

Figures Fig. 1. Tahtakale Camii in 1905, shortly before demolition. National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. C II 3752. Fig. 2. Kirazlı Cami of Şihabeddin paşa in Edirne. Photo by the author, 2010. Fig. 3. Floor plan of Muradiye Camii in Plovdiv. Drawn by the author based on Mihaila Stajnova, Osmanski izkustva na Balkanite, XV–XVIII vek (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 1994). Fig. 4 Floor plan of Ulu Cami in Bergama. Drawn by the author based on Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinin İlk Devri (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1966). Fig. 5. Muradiye Camii in 1879. Crop from Cavra’s panorama, National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. C II 908. Fig. 6. Muradiye Camii in 1932. Postcard, author’s collection. Fig. 7. Western façade and side entrance of Muradiye Camii, 2012. Photo by the author. Fig. 8. Tahtakale Hamamı (foreground) and the commercial core of Plovdiv with Kurşunlu Han (background) in 1879. Crop from Cavra’s panorama, National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. C II 908. Fig. 9. Bedesten (foreground) and Muradiye Camii (background) in 1892. Crop from Karastojanov’s panorama, “Părvoto bălgarsko izloženije v Plovdiv, 1892 g.”

List of maps, plans, and figures

|9

by Ivan A. Karastojanov, Central State Archive, Sofia, fond 3К, opis 7, arhivna edinica 327. Fig. 10. The complex of Şihabeddin paşa: a northern perspective with the bridge of Lala Şahin. Photo taken in the 1890s from the minaret of Hoşkadem Camii, Retro-plovdiv.com. Fig. 11. The broken dedicatory inscription of Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye. Photo by the author, 2011. Fig. 12. T-type imaret/zaviye of Şihabeddin paşa, front view. Photo by the author, 2010. Fig. 13. Development of the floor plan of Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye. Drawn by the author based on Margarita Harbova, Gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVIII vek (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1991). Fig. 14. Elevated oratory of Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye. Photo by the author, 2010. Fig. 15. Medrese of Şihabeddin, late 1920s. Rudloff, Deutsche Fotothek, df_a0018050. Fig. 16. The eyvan of Şihabeddin’s college, late 1920s. Rudloff, Deutsche Fotothek, df_a0017539. Fig. 17. Hünkâr Hamamı, late 1920s. Rudloff, Deutsche Fotothek, df_a0018041. Fig. 18. Demolition of Hünkâr Hamamı, late 1920s. Rudloff, Deutsche Fotothek, df_a0018043. Fig. 19. The inn of Şihabeddin paşa (Panayır Hanı), late 1920s. Rudloff, Deutsche Fotothek, df_a0018022. Fig. 20. The complex of Şihabeddin paşa, 1444. Crop from Cavra’s panorama, National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. C II 908. Fig. 21. İsmail Bey Camii in 1928. Postcard, author’s collection. Fig. 22. The double bath (Çifte Hamam). Photo by the author, 2010. Fig. 23. Panorama of the western part of Plovdiv with 1. Musalla Camii, 2. Aslıhan Bey Camii, 3. Taşköprü Camii, 4. Hacı Ömer Camii, 1880s. Crop from Cavra’s panorama, Retro-plovdiv.com. Fig. 24. Hacı Hasan Hamamı and Camii in the 1910s. Postcard, author’s collection. Fig. 25. Yeşiloğlu Camii in 1879. Crop from Cavra’s panorama, National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. C II 908. Fig. 26. Muslim cemetery between between Clocktower hill and Bunarcık tepesi. Alleged baldachin mausoleum of Behlül Efendi in the background on the right, 1890s. D. Cavra, National Library “Sts. Cyril and Methodius,” Sofia. C II 579. Fig. 27. Clock tower and baruthane, 1875. D. Ermakov, Retro-plovdiv.com. Fig. 28. Çelebi Kadı Camii and Hamamı in Karşıyaka. Crop from Cavra’s panorama, National Library “Ivan Vazov,” Plovdiv. C II 908. Fig. 29. Taşköprü Camii, 2015. Photo by the author. Fig. 30. Yeni Hamam (Yahudi Hamamı) in Orta Mezar, 1975. Photo by Machiel Kiel. Kiel photographic archive, NIT, XXXV-60-1975. Fig. 31. Hacı Abdullah Camii, 1875. D. Ermakov, Retro-plovdiv.com. Fig. 32. Alaca Cami, 1912. Retro-plovdiv.com.

Introduction

The heritage of the Ottoman Empire is a tapestry in which cities play a crucial role, being the indispensable thread from which intricate historical narratives are woven. These vibrant urban centers, teeming with life, were intersections of governance, religion, culture, and trade. Pivotal in shaping the empire’s trajectory, the study of its cities offers a panoramic view of a socio-economic realm possessed of an ever-evolving dynamism. Modern scholarship has made a foray into the exploration and interpretation of assorted aspects of Ottoman urban existence, and the fruits of this meticulous research have contributed to a better understanding of the trajectory of urban development in the empire, illuminating the complex interplay of the spatial and cultural patterns that made up the Ottoman Empire’s urban realm. While the present study has no illusions about the difficulty of integrating the narrative of a single city within a multilayered and fluid picture of urban life from a bygone era, it nevertheless seeks to meet this challenge, and thereby embarks upon gathering together a myriad of scattered fragments that reflect the many facets of urban existence, seeking to align these otherwise disintegrated pieces within the broader narrative of the Ottoman Empire. The endeavor to incorporate a study on a single city into the broader framework of Ottoman history is inevitably complicated by the very nature of the subject—a city. Guided by Benjamin Fraser’s counsel that “the city is not a thing but a process,”1 when we delve into the complexities of urban studies it is crucial to retain a keen awareness of the underlying dynamics at work. One must acknowledge that the city is not merely a vessel for human activity but indeed an entity that is shaped and continually reshaped by that very activity. Perhaps the most enlightening way to conceive of a city is as a continuum of temporal layers, encapsulating the convoluted and mutually dependent interaction between humans and their spatial and architectural environment, as reflected in the ceaseless evolution of the urban landscape. In adopting such an approach, one may attain a clearer view of the perpetual transformations of the urban entity and the forces driving them—a rich tableau compris1 Benjamin Fraser, Digital Cities: The Interdisciplinary Future of the Urban Geo-Humanities (New

York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 23.

12 | Ottoman Plovdiv

ing an ensemble of physical edifices, societal bonds, political mechanisms, economic interactions, and individual narratives. The complexity of this task is daunting, especially in a field like Ottoman studies, which still has a lengthy path to tread before it can claim that a critical mass of primary sources has been sufficiently examined for definitive conclusions to be drawn. The period of infancy for Ottoman urban studies was marked by an eager quest to establish typologies, a fascination that has since evolved and matured into an elaborate scholarly discourse.2 Over time, scholars have come to recognize that the development of Ottoman cities, characterized by a diverse range of factors, defies any uniform typology or categorization. The unique identity of each city emerged through a complex interplay of multifaceted elements, making it challenging to impose rigid classifications. These elements encompassed both tangible aspects (such as the physical environment and available natural resources) and intangible factors (including religious, cultural, economic, and political influences), each playing a vital role in shaping the distinctive character and growth of the Ottoman cities. Considering the vast territorial expanse of the Ottoman Empire, spanning three continents and encompassing a multitude of cultures, it is little wonder that the urban social fabric possesses such remarkable diversity and complexity; the study of cities therefore calls for an exploration that appreciates their nuanced and context-specific dynamics, and eschews the search for one-dimensional characterizations and common development trends. In the current academic landscape, debates confined by narrow disciplinary boundaries, such as the relevance of the concept of the “Islamic city” within the Ottoman context, appear to be increasingly archaic.3 Far from aiding deeper academic comprehension, these constructs often prevent us grasping the full spectrum of intricate urban phenomena.4 Indeed, this point equally applies to past debates, 2 See the condensed literature review in Kayoko Hayashi, “Turkey: I. The Formative Period of Turk-

ish Urban Studies; II. From the 1940s to the 1970s; III. Recent Trends,” in Islamic Urban Studies: Historical Review and Perspective, ed. Masashi Haneda and Tōru Miura (London; New York: Kegan Paul International, 1994), 185–234; Fatma Acun, “A Portrait of the Ottoman Cities,” The Muslim World 92, no. 3–4 (2002): 255–85; Ebru Boyar, “The Ottoman City 1500–1800,” in The  Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History, ed. Peter Clark, Oxford Handbooks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 275–91. 3 Ira M. Lapidus, “Muslim Cities and Islamic Societies,” in Middle Eastern Cities. A Symposium on Ancient, Islamic, and Contemporary Middle Eastern Urbanism, ed. Ira M. Lapidus (Berkeley: University of California, Press, 1969), 47–79; Janet L. Abu-Lughod, “The Islamic City—Historic Myth, Islamic Essence, and Contemporary Relevance,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 19, no. 2 (1987): 155–76; Halil İnalcık, “Istanbul: An Islamic City,” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1–23; André Raymond, “Islamic City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 21, no. 1 (1994): 3–18; André Raymond, “The Spatial Organization of the City,” in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi et al. (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 47–70; Giulia Annalinda Neglia, “Some Historiographical Notes on the Islamic City with Particular Reference to the Visual Representation of the Built City,” in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi et al. (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 3–46. 4 For a recent reassessment of the debate, see Φωκίων Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη. Επτά περιπτώσεις από τον νοτιοβαλκανικό χώρο, Αδριανούπολη – Σέρρες – Καστοριά – Τρίκαλα – Λάρισα –

Introduction | 13

often tinged with bitterness, about the potential regional or even national characteristics of cities within the confines of the Ottoman Empire.5 The political undertones of such debates are not difficult to discern, especially considering the background of the Cold War era and its dichotomous ideological divide between Marxist and non-Marxist academics.6 The intricacies of the Ottoman urban narratives, however, far transcend these simplistic classifications, invoking a demand for an understanding that is not only more nuanced but also more inclusive.7 This understanding resonates clearly in the perspectives of Gilles Veinstein and Pierre Pinon, who argued that examining whether pre-Ottoman Seljukid foundations existed in cities that were later “Ottomanized” offers a possible framework for classifying the spatial or morphological characteristics of cities in the Ottoman Empire.8 Despite the undeniable advancements in recent decades, the historiographical discourse concerning the Ottoman city still betrays its relative youth.

5

6

7

8

Θεσσαλονίκη – Ιωάννινα (Αθήνα: Βιβλιόραμα, 2019), 25–30. See also the overview by Edhem Eldem, Daniel Goffman, and Bruce Masters, “Introduction: Was There an Ottoman City?,” in The Ottoman City between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul, ed. Edhem Eldem, Daniel Goffman, and Bruce Masters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1–16. Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, “Quelques observations sur l’organisation économique et sociale des villes ottomanes des XVIe et XVIIe siècles,” in Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’ histoire comparative des institutions, vol. 7: La Ville 2: Institutions économiques et sociales (Bruxelles, 1955), 289–311; Nikolaj Todorov, The Balkan City, 1400–1900 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983); Nicoară Beldiceanu, Recherche sur la ville ottomane au XVe siècle. Étude et actes (Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1973); Hans-Joachim Kissling, “Die türkische Stadt auf dem Balkan,” in Die Stadt in Südosteuropa. Struktur und Geschichte, ed. Klaus-Detlev Grothusen (Südosteuropa-Jahrbuch 8, 1966), 72–83. For a recent reevaluation of the Barkan–Todorov debate, see Nikolay Antov, The Ottoman “Wild West”: The Balkan Frontier in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 158–65. Addressing the very core of this debate, Machiel Kiel offered deep insights into the categorization of the Ottoman cities in the Balkans: Machiel Kiel, “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: The Place of Turkish Architecture in the Process,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4, no. 2 (1989): 79–129. See the review of recent literature on the topic in Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη, 2019, 40–45. For instance, Kotzageorgis has introduced into the discourse the intriguing concept of “paired towns,” namely the mutually dependent coexistence of urban entities in close geographical proximity. One member of this urban pairing would typically be of Ottoman foundation, while the other would trace its roots back to a much earlier period. Phokion Kotzageorgis, “New Towns and Old Towns in the Ottoman Balkans: Two Case Studies from Northern Greece,” in Festschrift in Honor of Ioannis P. Theocharides, ed. Evangelia Balta, Georgios Salakides, and Theochares Stavrides (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2014), 273–91. Gilles Veinstein, “La ville ottomane,” in Sciences sociales et phénomènes urbains dans le monde arabe: actes du colloque de l’Association de Liaison entre les Centres de recherches et documentations sur le monde arabe (ALMA), Casablanca, 30 novembre--2 décembre 1994, ed. Mohammed Naciri and André Raymond (Casablanca: Fondation du Roi Abdul-Aziz Al-Saoud pour les études islamiques et les sciences humaines, 1997), 105–14; Gilles Veinstein, “The Ottoman Town (FifteenthEighteenth Centuries),” in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi et al. (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 205–17; Pierre Pinon, “The Ottoman Cities of the Balkans,” in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma Khadra Jayyusi et al., vol. 1 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 143–58; Karl Kaser, “The Urban Space of the Turko-Balkan City,” Balkanistic Forum 3 (2011): 63–69.

14 | Ottoman Plovdiv

When we set aside those scholarly endeavors that strive to construct a categorization and analytical framework adequate for the examination of Ottoman cities, the remainder—which indeed forms the majority of academic explorations—can be seen to span a wide-ranging series of research trajectories. Each of these scholarly works, with its unique character, presents a valuable avenue for analysis within the expansive realm of Ottoman urban studies; but while these works have undoubtedly set trends, charted meaningful directions for research, and enriched our understanding of this complex domain, they also have certain limitations. Such shortcomings—perhaps inevitable—serve as reminders of the complex and ceaselessly evolving nature of urban life within the Ottoman Empire. Scholarly publications within the vast and complex realm of Ottoman urban studies have thus far gravitated towards several key themes, each of which has its own unique perspective and further unveils the intricate layers of the urban narrative, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the urban world within the imperial entity. The societal structure of Ottoman cities and the description of urban communities attracted scholarly attention from an early stage, and we have seen a profusion of careful investigations related to the broad theme of social organization.9 Urban institutions, governance mechanisms, and guild structures have all received substantial scholarly scrutiny, highlighting their instrumental role in molding the stratified urban landscapes and generating the societal texture of the cities.10 Yet despite their undeniable contribution to our knowledge, the studies on urban social fabric and governance exhibit a significant drawback—they pay little to negligible attention to the spatial dispersion of the key actors that orchestrated the social dynamics under examination. Conversely, research focused on urban planning and the development of the urban fabric in Ottoman cities has demonstrated a keen awareness of the spatial dimension, driven in part by the disciplinary training of scholars in this field. Such research emphasizes the sophisticated interplay between space and urban processes, delving 9 Suraiya Faroqhi, Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia: Trade, Crafts, and Food Production in

an Urban Setting, 1520–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Daniel Goffman, Izmir and the Levantine World, 1550–1650 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990); Haim Gerber, Economy and Society in an Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600–1700 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1988); Özer Ergenç, XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa: Yerleşimi, Yönetimi, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Durumu Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006). 10 Özer Ergenç, “Osmanlı Klasik Dönemindeki «Eşraf ve A‘yan» Üzerine Bazı Bilgiler,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 3 (1982): 105–18; Hülya Canbakal, Society and Politics in an Ottoman Town: ʿAyntāb in the 17th Century (Leiden: Brill, 2006); Gabriel Baer, “The Administrative, Economic and Social Functions of Turkish Guilds,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 1, no. 1 (1970): 28–50; Suraiya Faroqhi, Artisans of Empire: Crafts and Craftspeople under the Ottomans (London: I.B. Tauris, 2012); Suraiya Faroqhi, ed., Bread from the Lion’s Mouth: Artisans Struggling for a Livelihood in Ottoman Cities (New York: Berghahn Books, 2015); Eunjeong Yi, Guild Dynamics in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul: Fluidity and Leverage (Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2004); Onur Yıldırım, “Ottoman Guilds in the Early Modern Era,” International Review of Social History 53, no. 16 (2008): 73–93.

Introduction | 15

into the spatial organization, layout, and transformations of the cities over time.11 Yet while scrutinizing the predominant patterns in the reshaping of pre-existing cities or the creation of new towns by the new Ottoman masters, the studies that trace the metamorphoses of the cityscape as a rule overlook an integral piece of the urban puzzle—the city dwellers themselves. Needless to say, despite illuminating the transformational dynamics and structural design of Ottoman urban landscapes, the omission of the human element in an urban narrative hinders a truly comprehensive portrayal of these vibrant and interdependent urban ecosystems. These studies therefore often fail to capture the essence of cities as living, breathing organisms, pulsating with human activity. In contrast, an abundance of scholarly publications have sought to reconstruct the population statistics of Ottoman cities, unearthing rich data from the Ottoman tax registers that permits a tracing of demographic shifts over time—yet these commendable efforts are often overshadowed by a striking lack of spatial context. As is particularly apparent in studies focusing on earlier periods, there is a marked tendency to confine the analysis to the temporal evolution of populations within urban quarters (mahalle), neglecting to provide clear spatial references for these units within the urban landscape.12 This spatial aporia effectively restricts observations to a gen11 Pierre Pinon, “Essai de définition morphologique de la ville ottomane des XVIIIe –XIXe siècles,”

in La culture urbaine des Balkans (XVe –XIXe siècles). Vol. 3: La ville dans les Balkans depuis la fin du moyen age jusqu’au debut du XXe siecle. Recueil d’etudes, ed. Verena Han and Marina Adamović (Belgrade; Paris: Académie serbe des sciences et des arts, 1991), 147–55; Pierre Pinon, “Essai de typologie des tissus urbains des villes ottomanes d’Anatolie et des Balkans,” in 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: “A Supra-National Heritage,” ed. Nur Akın, Afife Batur, and Selçuk Batur (Istanbul: YEM Yayın, 2000), 174–88; Pierre Pinon, Les villes et les maisons ottomanes (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2019); Maurice Cerasi, La città del Levante: civiltà urbana e architettura sotto gli Ottomani nei secoli XVIII–XIX (Milano: Jaca Book, 1988); Maurice Cerasi et al., eds., Multicultural Urban Fabric and Types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean (Würzburg: Orient-Institut Beirut; Ergon Verlag, 2007); Nur Akın, “La fabrique urbaine et architecturale de Galata, quartier occidental d’Istanbul,” in Multicultural urban fabric and types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Maurice Cerasi (Beirut-Würzburg: Orient-Institut; Ergon Verlag in Kommission, 2007), 13–26; Velika Ivkovska, An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans: The Case Study of Kavala (Abingdon-New York: Routledge, 2020); Alexandra Yerolympos, Urban Transformations in the Balkans (1820–1920): Aspects of Balkan Town Planning and the Remaking of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 1996); Çağla Caner-Yüksel, The Making of Western Anatolian Urban Centres: Spatial Transformation in Tire, 14th-16th Centuries (Pisa: Plus-Pisa University Press, 2010); Aptullah Kuran, “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul,” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 114–31; Todor Zlatev, Bălgarskijat grad prez epohata na Văzraždaneto (Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo, 1955); Margarita Harbova, Gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVIII vek (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1991); Ourania Bessi, “The Topographic Reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka: Issues of Periodization and Morphological Development,” in Frontiers of the Ottoman Imagination: Studies in Honour of Rhoads Murphey, ed. Marios Hadjianastasis (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 44–85. 12 Ronald C. Jennings, “Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: A Study of Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 7, no. 1 (1976): 21–57; Aleksandar Stojanovski, Gradovite na Makedonija od krajot na XIV do XVII vek: demografski proučuvanja (Skopje: Zavod za unapreduvanje na stopanstvoto vo SRM “Samoupravna

16 | Ottoman Plovdiv

eralized citywide scale, undermining the potential for an assessment of changes in population density within individual quarters over time, or an identification of shifts in urban focal points. Such an approach, then, implicitly forsakes a comprehensive understanding of the profound transformations that took place within the urban milieu. There is, of course, a rich body of scholarly literature on Ottoman architecture that explores the patterns of its urban development, and this naturally makes reference to space as an integral element of examination.13 However, this analysis is predominantly restricted to extant architectural monuments, scarcely venturing into the study of structures that have failed to stand the test of time. While the inclination of architectural historians towards this approach is understandable, steeped as they are in the tradition of examining extant monuments, it does impose a noticeable limitation on the breadth of study. For cities like Plovdiv, where less than a tenth of its Ottoman architectural heritage survives today, a focus solely on standing Ottoman monuments would paint a very incomplete picture. This approach becomes especially restrictive when probing into the social and urbanistic functions these vanished Ottoman public buildings undoubtedly played during the period from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. A handful of scholarly monographs delve into the fascinating period of transformation experienced by some of the principal cities in the Ottoman Empire, charting praktika,” 1981); İlhan Şahin, Feridun Emecen, and Yusuf Halaçoğlu, “Turkish Settlements in Rumelia (Bulgaria) in the 15th and 16th Centuries: Town and Village Population,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4, no. 2 (1989): 23–40; Krasimira Mutafova, Staroprestolniyat Tӑrnov v osmanoturskata knizhnina: XV-XVI vek (Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2002); Géza Dávid, “Demographic Trends of Urban Population in the 16th Century Hungary,” in Studies in Demographic and Administrative History of Ottoman Hungary, by Géza Dávid (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2011), 79–87; Tatjana Katić, “The Sancak of Prizren in the 15th and 16th Century,” OTAM 33 (2013): 122–29; Metodi Sokoloski, “Le dévelopment de quelques villes dans le Sud des Balkans au XVe et XVIe siècles,” Balkanica 1 (1970): 81–106. 13 Irene A. Bierman, Rifa‘at Ali Abou-El-Haj, and Donald Preziosi, eds., The Ottoman City and Its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order (New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1991); Ersi Brouskari, ed., Ottoman Architecture in Greece, trans. Elizabeth Key Fowden (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, 2008); Howard Crane, “Art and Architecture, 1300–1453,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey, ed. Kate Fleet, vol. 1: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 266–352; Aptullah Kuran, İlk Devir Osmanlı Mimarisinde Cami (Ankara: Mimarlık Fakültesi, 1964); Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion, 2005); Zeynep Yürekli, “Architectural Patronage and the Rise of the Ottomans,” in A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture, ed. Finbarr Barry Flood and Gülru Necipoğlu, vol. Volume 2: From the Mongols to Modernism, 2 vols. (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2017), 733–54; Finbarr Barry Flood and Gülru Necipoğlu, eds., A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture (Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2017). Doğan Kuban, Ottoman Architecture (Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club, 2010). Cf. Lowry’s critical response to Kuban’s neglect of one of the fundamental architectural prototypes in the early Ottoman cities. Heath W. Lowry, Filling the Gaps. Whither Goes the Field of Ottoman Architectural History? (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2019).

Introduction | 17

their growth from Byzantine roots to Ottoman urban organisms. These studies explore not only the physical transformation of the urban fabric but also, and significantly, the impact of the resettlement policies instituted by Ottoman rulers and the consequent shifts in the composition of the population. Unsurprisingly, the historians’ primary focus has been drawn towards the empire’s major cities such as Istanbul,14 Bursa,15 Trabzon,16 and İznik,17 as well as Belgrade,18 Sarajevo,19 and Thessaloniki20 in the Balkans. The abundance of source materials proved to be a treasure trove that allowed researchers to paint a vivid and comprehensive portrait of these cities, capturing the essence of their ever-evolving and intricate urban dynamics. Alas, one cannot overlook the existence of a myriad of other significant cities—notably in the Balkans—which despite their undeniable significance have sadly fallen into the shadows, eluding adequate scholarly attention. The absence of thorough research on these cities is particularly noticeable in the lack of monographic studies delving into the transition from Byzantine/Slavic to Ottoman rule and the consequential urban metamorphoses the cities underwent. Emblematic cities such as Edirne immediately 14 Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Con-

15

16

17 18

19

20

struction of the Ottoman Capital (University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009); Ebru Boyar and Kate Fleet, A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Shirine Hamadeh and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, A Companion to Early Modern Istanbul (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022). Suna Çağaptay, The First Capital of the Ottoman Empire: The Religious, Architectural, and Social History of Bursa (London: I.B. Tauris, 2021); Albert Gabriel, Une capitale turque: Brousse, Bursa (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958); Heath W. Lowry, Ottoman Bursa in Travel Accounts (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Publications, 2003). Lowry’s groundbreaking study on Trabzon paved the way for expanding the use of tax registers beyond mere population statistics. Heath W. Lowry, Trabzon Şehrinin İslâmlaşma ve Türkleşmesi, 1461–1583 (İstanbul: Boğazici Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1981); Heath W. Lowry, The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461–1583 (İstanbul: Isis Press, 2009). Halil İnalcık, Işıl Akbaygil, and Oktay Aslanapa, eds., İznik Throughout History (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2003). Radovan Samardžić, Beograd pod turcima (Beograd: Kolarčev narodni Univerzitet, 1954); Hazim Šabanović, “Urbani razvitak Beograda od 1521. do 1688. godine,” Godišnjak grada Beograda 17 (1970): 5–42; Vasa Čubrilović, ed., Istorija Beograda (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1974). Hazim Šabanović, “Postanak i razvoj Sarajeva,” Radovi naučnog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 13, no. 5 (1960): 71–89; Behija Zlatar, Zlatno doba Sarajeva: XVI stoljeće (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1996); York Norman, Islamization in Bosnia: Sarajevo’s Conversion and Socio-Economic Development, 1461–1604 (London: Academica Press, 2018). Βασίλης Δημητριάδης, Τοπογραφία της Θεσσαλονίκης κατά την εποχή της τουρκοκρατίας, 1430-1912 (Θεσσαλονίκη: Εταιρεία Μακεδονικών Σπουδών, 1983). Besides several key articles which address issues of population and topography in Thessaloniki, Lowry has recently devoted several studies to a number of Ottoman monuments in that city, examining them in their topographical context, both historical and modern. Heath W. Lowry, A Tale of Three Mosques: A Compendium of Sources for the Study of Early Twentieth Century Muslim Sanctuaries in Ottoman Selânik (1902– 1903) (İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2022); Heath W. Lowry, Ottoman Selânik: Then & Now. A Guide to Fifty-Six Ottoman Era Monuments & Twenty Dedicatory Inscriptions on Stone in Today’s Thessaloniki (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2022). For detailed bibliography, see the relevant chapter in Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη, 2019, 195–278.

18 | Ottoman Plovdiv

come to mind: once a prominent beacon, now quietly awaiting its scholarly due.21 Similarly, many principal provincial urban centers such as Skopje,22 Plovdiv, and Sofia,23 continue to wait patiently for their stories to be told and appreciated.24 With the advent of the digital and spatial turn in recent years, Ottoman studies have witnessed a proliferation of innovative research, providing a more nuanced understanding of the intricate urban dynamics at work within the empire. These groundbreaking investigations, fueled by the increasing power of digital tools for spatial analysis, have harnessed large amounts of statistical data, once considered daunting if not unmanageable, in order to paint a richer and more comprehensive picture of the urban milieu.25 However, despite the invaluable insights offered by 21 Amy Singer is working on a monograph on the history of Edirne in the first centuries of Otto-

22

23

24

25

man rule, to be published in the near future. See also Amy Singer, “Edirne,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam Three (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018); Amy Singer, “Enter, Riding on an Elephant: How to Approach Early Ottoman Edirne,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 1 (2016): 89–109; Aziz Nazmi Şakir-Taş, Adrianopol’ den Edirne’ye: Edirne Civarında Osmanlı Kültür ve Bilim Muhitinin Oluşumu (XIV.-XVI. Yüzyıl) (İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, 2009). Kotzageorgis’s recent monograph on the Ottoman cities in Greece has a chapter on Edirne which fills a substantial gap. His contribution also provides a detailed study on Kastoria, Serres, Trikala, Larissa, and Ioannina. Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη, 2019. Lidiya Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç, Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri (İstanbul: ENKA, 2008); Mustafa Özer, Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi (XIV.–XIX. yüzyıl) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006). See also the overview by Maximilian Hartmuth, “Building the Ottoman City: A Linear or Cumulative Process? Lessons from Fifteenth-Century Skopje,” Centre and Periphery? Islamic Architecture in Ottoman Macedonia, 1383–1520 Research Project No. 26406 Working Paper #3, n.d. A long-awaited monograph on Ottoman Sofia is due to be published soon: Stefan Peychev, The Nature of the Ottoman City: Water Management and Urban Space in Sofia, 1380s-1910s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). Machiel Kiel made pioneering studies of many cities in the Balkans. A collection of his articles on Ottoman Bulgaria has been published in Bulgarian translation: Machiel Kiel, Bălgarija pod osmanska vlast. Săbrani săčinenija (Sofia: Tendril, 2017). Heath Lowry also published a series of studies that examine some of the early Ottoman cities in modern Greece: Heath W. Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2008); Heath W. Lowry, In the Footsteps of the Ottomans : A Search for Sacred Spaces & Architectural Monuments in Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2009); Heath W. Lowry and İsmail E. Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: Notes & Documents (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010); Heath W. Lowry, The Evrenos Family & the City of Selânik (Thessaloniki): Who Built the Hamza Beğ Câmi’ i & Why? (İstanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, 2010). Yunus Uğur, “The Historical Interaction of the City with Its Mahalles. Ottoman Edirne in the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries” (PhD Dissertation, Boğaziçi University, 2014); Yunus Uğur, “Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City,” Social Sciences-MDPI 7, no. 4 (2018): 1–12; Yunus Uğur, “Tarihçilikte ‘Mekânın Yeniden Keşfi’: Osmanlı Şehir Çalışmaları İçin Öneriler,” Kent Araştırmaları Dergisi 30, no. 11 (2020): 678–700; Daniel Ohanian, Z. Mehmet Başkurt, and M. Erdem Kabadayı, “An Historical Geographic Information System for Ottoman Studies. The c. 1907 Ottoman Census and Armenian Settlement in Istanbul,” Turcica 51 (2020): 255–83; Ahmet Yaşar, “19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında İstanbul’da Hanlar: Mekânsal Bir Analiz,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 61 (2023): 151–215.

Introduction | 19

these studies, they have been restricted by the unfortunate absence of early Ottoman cadastral data, compelling scholars to bypass this crucial epoch in their analyses almost entirely. This lacuna becomes more glaring in several highly commendable publications that fuse cadastral material with Ottoman quantitative data to create a spatially informed urban narrative. Though they pave the way for a new path of analysis, these works focus predominantly on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and are geographically confined to the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire, leaving the urban narratives of the Balkans—a core region of the empire—largely unexplored.26 These constraints, though challenging, also present an opportunity for future research to expand its temporal and geographical horizons, thereby bringing to light hitherto overlooked aspects of the urban dynamics within the Ottoman Empire. In so doing, scholars will further enrich our understanding of this remarkable historical era. The present work attempts to compensate for the disciplinary limitations of the above-mentioned groups of studies by creating a uniform georeferenced historical digital model of the city in which spatial, architectural, and population data are brought into close interaction, thus enabling us to analyze changes and developments across time and space. In doing so, the present monograph aims to furnish a more holistic representation of Ottoman Plovdiv as a living urban organism. Adopting a spatiotemporal methodology, the study further seeks to distance itself from the prevalent state-centric approach, which—mainly resulting from the nature of the available source material—still retains its foothold in contemporary historiography. The research strategy chosen by the study is a deliberate attempt to transcend conventional perspectives and broaden the scope of scholarly discourse by incorporating previously overlooked dimensions of urban growth and development. It aligns with a recent trend in scholarship that acknowledges the significant contributions of different agents in the development and formation of urban centers, examining 26 Yuval Ben-Bassat, “Mass Petitions as a Way to Evaluate ‘Public Opinion’ in the Late Nineteenth-

Century Ottoman Empire? The Case of Internal Strife among Gaza’s Elite,” Turkish Historical Review 4, no. 2 (2013): 135–52; Yuval Ben-Bassat and Johann Buessow, “Ottoman Jerusalem, 1517–1918,” in Routledge Handbook on Jerusalem, ed. Suleiman A. Mourad, Naomi KoltunFromm, and Bedross Der Matossian (London: Routledge, 2018), 113–21; Yuval Ben-Bassat and Yossi Ben-Artzi, “Cartographical Evidence of Efforts to Develop Acre during the Last Decades of Ottoman Rule: Did the Ottomans Neglect the City?,” Mediterranean Historical Review 31, no. 1 (2016): 65–87; Yuval Ben-Bassat and Johann Buessow, “Applying Digital Methods to the Study of a Late Ottoman City: A Social and Spatial Analysis of Political Partisanship in Gaza,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 63, no. 4 (2020): 505–54; Michelle U. Campos, “Mapping Urban ‘Mixing’ and Intercommunal Relations in Late Ottoman Jerusalem: A Neighborhood Study,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 63, no. 1 (2021): 133–69; Johann Buessow and Yuval Ben-Bassat, “Rethinking Urban Neighborhoods in Late Ottoman Bilad Al-Sham: The Case of Gaza,” in From the Household to the Wider World: Local Perspectives on Urban Institutions in Late Ottoman Bilad al-Sham, ed. Yuval Ben-Bassat and Johann Buessow (Tübingen: Tübingen University Press, 2023), 79–108.

20 | Ottoman Plovdiv

these individuals through the lens of architectural patronage.27 In Ottoman studies, this new trajectory of investigation most noticeably highlights the indispensable part played by the powerful provincial elites in the Balkans, and especially the families of marcher lords (ucbeyleri), in sparking the emergence and fostering the development of numerous towns during the Ottoman period.28 These findings not only enhance our comprehension of the Ottoman cities, adding regional specificities and individual cases, but also make a significant methodological contribution to the field by demonstrating the large and hitherto little explored potential of adopting an actorcentered approach. The studies on the architectural patronage of the frontier lords showcased that the influential regional nobility was often in a state of competition with the Ottoman central authorities; a conclusion that evoked yet another range of polarized interpretations predicated on the center–periphery dichotomy. Furthermore, while the peripheral agents—chiefly the frontier warlords and their households—are clearly identified in the literature, the social group that constitutes the “center” remains largely anonymous, or, at best, its representatives are collectively labeled as state officials. The primary focus of this study is to examine the intricate urban and social dynamics of Plovdiv, a significant Ottoman provincial center during the early modern period, which often served as a principal seat of the governors of Ottoman Rumeli. The intention is not to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the development of Ottoman urban centers during this era, nor to attempt to identify a uniform Ottoman urban strategy based on this single case study. Instead, the main objective is to explore the rich “biography” of early modern Ottoman Plovdiv by situating its morphological evolution within the interplay of its built environment and its inhabitants. This approach entails shedding light on the agency of city benefactors and hence “deanonymizing” the state as a singular agent. By stepping away from expansive umbrella terms such as “state agents” and “state officials,” this study seeks to uncover the individual “governmental agencies” and their personal imprints on the historical shaping of Plovdiv’s urban fabric. Through a microscopic lens, it aims to reveal specific local dynamics and personal agencies that have the potential to pro27 See the recent special issue of the journal Medieval Worlds. Bruno De Nicola and Matthew Kin-

loch, eds., Urban Agencies: Reframing Anatolian and Caucasian Cities (13th –14th Centuries), Special Issue of Medieval Worlds 14 (2021): 3–207. 28 Zeynep Yürekli, Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The Politics of Bektashi Shrines in the Classical Age (Farnham, Surrey: Burlington, VT, 2012); Mariya Kiprovska, “Shaping the Ottoman Borderland: The Architectural Patronage of the Frontier Lords from the Mihaloğlu Family,” in Bordering Early Modern Europe, ed. Maria Baramova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivan Parvev (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2015), 185–220; Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece; Machiel Kiel, “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353–1453,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey, ed. Kate Fleet, vol. 1: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 138–91; Lowry and Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar; Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη, 2019.

Introduction | 21

vide a more nuanced perspective on the forces at work in the early Ottoman urban environment, and it emphasizes the regional and local standpoint as an integral element of these forces. By acknowledging that urban development within the wider Ottoman territory was influenced by regional dynamics and the actions of individual agents who were driven by their own local interests and strategies, this study emphasizes the governmental agency of key individuals who were intimately connected to Plovdiv and its region. The impact of these agents is evident in the city’s spatial, morphological, and architectural development, and by studying them we can enhance our understanding of the multifaceted, dynamic nature of Ottoman urban evolution through a provincial lens. This book is guided by several core objectives. At its heart lies the diachronic analysis of the urban space, predicated upon a careful and comprehensive examination of the architecture—both extant and long lost—in close conjunction with population fluctuations over time and space. This is not merely a journey that aims to document and categorize the various architectural expressions that adorned the cityscape. Instead, the key questions posed in this study revolve around the identities of those who shaped and molded the city, and the intricate processes by which they left their enduring imprints on the urban landscape. The methodology deployed is determined to place space and people at the center of the analytical framework. It must therefore confront the formidable challenges presented by the almost obliterated micro-toponymy, which adds a layer of complexity to the task. Furthermore, it attempts to compensate for the lack of judicial (kadı) court records (sicil) that could otherwise provide rich insights into the social fabric of the city. In light of these limitations, the study underscores the instrumental role of space for understanding social structures and their dynamics. Delving deeper into the fabric of the city, the research illuminates the urban space by accurately locating public buildings and individual quarters, which in turn offers the opportunity to historicize the interplay of these elements over time and space. Identifying the most prominent buildings of the Ottoman era within the urban milieu, it is argued, helps to provide a robust understanding of their impact on the built environment. Moreover, by situating these edifices within their respective city quarters, the study unfolds the ways these structures and their patrons interacted with and impacted the city’s social texture. This method endeavors to reveal the complexity and dynamism of the urban organism in a more nuanced manner, shedding light on the multitude of ways in which the Ottoman urban spaces were shaped, experienced, and understood. The careful examination of the architectural patrons of early modern Ottoman Plovdiv helps to gradually unfold critical information enabling the reconstruction of a nuanced portrait of the social cohort that directed the development of the city. These figures were not just representatives of the Ottoman officialdom but influential personalities within Ottoman society more broadly. They expressed their administrative prowess upon the city’s urban fabric, leaving behind a physical manifestation of the crucial societal roles that they played. As a rule, as well as being represen-

22 | Ottoman Plovdiv

tatives of the Ottoman state, most architectural patrons were also closely tied to the city and its region, forming an integral part of the urban elite of Plovdiv across various developmental phases. Their intimate links to Plovdiv underscore their key contributions to its evolution over time. By deconstructing Plovdiv’s urban elite into its individual components, the study offers a glimpse into the structure of the larger Ottoman governmental elite in the period. Unsurprisingly, it proves to be a very composite entity, constituted by former Christian nobility and converts to Islam of lower social standing, deposed rulers of Muslim principalities and Anatolian notables, local judges, Islamic scholars and clergymen, and various individuals linked to the military exploits of the Ottomans in the Central and Western Balkans. Every constituent of this societal group represented a distinct thread within the vibrant, complex tapestry of the early modern Ottoman Empire. The diverse origins and roles of these individuals exemplify the amalgamation of varied societal strands under the umbrella of the Ottoman Empire. Their collective efforts in urban development mirror their synergistic interactions within the multifaceted, composite Ottoman polity, and a concentrated study of Plovdiv’s benefactors therefore casts light upon the structure of the wider society under the auspices of the House of Osman. When writing the narrative of a multicultural city such as Plovdiv, one inevitably encounters a reality marked by the coexistence of various toponyms for the city, informed by linguistic and cultural variations among its inhabitants. To contemporaries, the simultaneous circulation of more than one name was entirely natural. The city on which this study focuses was thus recognized by various names throughout its millennia-long history—it was known as Philippopolis to the Greeks, Plovdiv to the Bulgarians, and Filibe to the Turks and to the Ottoman state bureaucracy. Yet while this multiplicity of toponyms coexisted without conflict for centuries, writing a monograph on the city necessitates the selection of a single name. This requirement nudges the author towards the uncomfortable prospect of favoring one toponym and consistently applying it throughout the book, irrespective of the language or origin of the historical source being cited. Certainly, within the realm of historians of the Ottoman Empire, ‘Filibe’ may be more commonly recognized, given its inherent Ottoman/Turkish origin, even obviating the need for the adjective ‘Ottoman.’ However, despite the author’s initial inclination towards the usage ‘Filibe,’ largely due to his training as an Ottomanist historian, several key considerations inclined toward the adoption of ‘Plovdiv’ in the title and throughout the text of the book. Foremost among these considerations is the fact that ‘Plovdiv’ is the only toponym that has been in continuous use from the Middle Ages to the present day. This lends credibility to its selection when documenting the history of the living city. Furthermore, the intended audience of the book is another decisive consideration. While its immediate target audience consists of historians of the Ottoman Empire, the book holds potential to engage a broader scholarly audience, such as art and architectural historians, urbanists, demographers, and geographers. Opting for the Turkish toponym over the globally recognized ‘Plovdiv’ might significantly diminish the book’s

Introduction | 23

appeal among non-Ottomanists. Possibly the most significant consideration, however, stems from the viewpoint of the book. While the primary source materials are Ottoman archival records produced by the central Ottoman administration, one of the pivotal tasks of this book is to reverse the perspective, thereby highlighting the critical importance of a distinct provincial viewpoint. In this sense, the use of ‘Plovdiv,’ a name perhaps unfamiliar or even alien to the Ottoman bureaucratic apparatus, marks a symbolic break with the centralist standpoint, reminding readers of the essential provincial perspective often overlooked by historians. Thus, guided by the intention to avoid the perspective of the central Ottoman administration, the author decided to use ‘Plovdiv,’ using this choice as a figurative gesture to underline the importance of adopting a view that factors in the provincial dynamics.

Documentary archaeology: recreating Ottoman Plovdiv

While archaeology stands as the principal contributor of evidence for a methodical reconstruction of Plovdiv’s topography and urban morphology in the period before the Ottoman conquest of the city, its capacity to offer pivotal data to reconstruct the city’s design during the Ottoman period is considerably limited. This limitation largely emanates from the significant alterations that swept across Ottoman Plovdiv’s post-1878 urbanscape when the city was designated as the capital of the newly established province Eastern Rumelia. The Russian occupation administration set in motion the substantial initial modifications, such as the transformation of the large Muslim cemetery Orta Mezar into the first city park, but the process of “de-Ottomanization” of Plovdiv’s cityscape stretched across the subsequent half a century, resulting in a near-complete obliteration of the Ottoman layer.1 The symbolic rupture with the imperial past was manifested through a systematic endeavor for the “modernization” of the urban space, a task gradually, yet methodically, executed by the local authorities. In this regard, Plovdiv is by no means an exception. The pattern of its post-Ottoman transformation aligns well with the broader Bulgarian and Balkan-wide process, although Plovdiv possibly preserved more of its Ottoman-era appearance, street pattern, and urban fabric compared to Bulgaria’s capital Sofia.2 Erasing most of the Ottoman layout of Plovdiv—i.e., replacing a large seg1 Maximilian Hartmuth, “Negotiating Tradition and Ambition: A Comparative Perspective on the

‘De-Ottomanization’ of the Balkan Cityscapes,” Ethnologia Balkanica 10 (2006): 15–33.

2 There is a rich literature on how national states in the Balkans dealt with the Ottoman urban

architectural heritage. Here I refer only to a few influential works that concern Bulgaria and that also touch upon the transformation of Plovdiv. Bernard Lory, Le sort de l’ heritage ottoman en Bulgarie (İstanbul: Editions Isis, 1985); Bernard Lory, “The Ottoman Legacy in the Balkans,” in Entangled Histories of the Balkans, ed. Roumen Daskalov and Alexander Vezenkov (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015), 355–405; Emily Gunzburger Makas and Tanja Damljanovic Conley, eds., Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires (London – New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2010); Alexandra Yerolympos, Urban Transformations in the Balkans (1820-1920): Aspects of Balkan Town Planning and the Remaking of Thessaloniki, 1st ed. (Thessaloniki, Greece: University Studio Press, 1996), 11–54; Aşkın Koyuncu, “Bulgaristan’da Osmanlı Maddi Kültür Mirasının Tasfiyesi (1878-1908),” OTAM 20 (2006): 197–243; Ömer Turan, “1877–1878 Osmanlı-Rus Savaşında Filibe’de Yıkılan Osmanlı Eserlerine dair Bir İngiliz Belgesi,” Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 25, no. 4 (1996): 241–51; Maria Todorova, “The Ottoman Legacy in the Balkans,” in Imperial Legacy: The Otto-

26 | Ottoman Plovdiv

ment of the built environment with “modern” public and residential buildings in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, which was carried out alongside significant modification of the street network—practically debars scholars from making first-hand observations of the Ottoman city and its urban tissue. Nor did the modernizing efforts go hand in hand with documenting the inherited structure. Moreover, modern archaeological methods are essentially impracticable because most of the buildings that replaced the Ottoman ones are still standing, which prevents any destructive or non-destructive archaeological intervention. Perhaps, over time, as the current buildings slowly give way to new ones, archaeologists will be presented with the opportunity to conduct more detailed studies on the sites and will gradually add additional data for reconstructing a more comprehensive portrait of the city during the Ottoman period. This lack of reliable archaeologically derived data, and the obliteration of the Ottoman layer of Plovdiv’s urban tissue, necessitate finding alternative ways to study the long-vanished urban fabric and the public buildings constituting its skeleton. Such an opportunity is offered by a wealth of documentary sources, which, in contrast to the medieval period, abound for the Ottoman and nation-state periods and allow for a substantial recreation of the settlement’s urban fabric. Bringing this documentary evidence together with a variety of other sources (mainly city plans and historical photographs), a methodology that I call “documentary archaeology,”3 permits not only drawing the general lines of the city’s demographic and urbanistic development but, with the help of digital tools, furnishes the spatial data needed to make observations of its spatial and temporal arrangement. In its essence, the method implies building an integrated database from a variety of historical sources that contain information on architectural objects, street patterns, and individual residential areas (mahalle). Using Geographic Information System (GIS) software, the data is spatially referenced and linked to a map with an accuracy varying between 0.5 to 3 m., which allows the recreation of an elaborate and highly accurate digital spatial model of the topography and urbanscape of early-Ottoman-era Plovdiv. This approach is rarely used in modern Ottoman studies, but nevertheless has great potential for expanding the source base by incorporating documentary evidence that is man Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, ed. L. Carl Brown (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 45–77; Dobrina Zheleva-Martins and Yuli Farkov, “The Role of Engineers from the Russian Army in Laying the Foundations of Contemporary Bulgarian Town Planning after the Liberation from Turkish Domination in 1878,” Études Balkaniques, no. 1–2 (1999): 75–83. 3 I borrow the term from the American archaeologist Mary Carolyn Beaudry, who coined it to describe an approach to archaeology and history writing that is not monoevidential, but rather blends together diverse source materials that might often convey different meanings and hence pose different obstacles in their interpretation. See Mary Carolyn Beaudry, Documentary Archaeology in the New World (Cambridge, Massachusetts: University Press, 2003), where the author calls for more exhaustive documentary research into the archaeology of America. Cf. Laurie A. Wilkie, “Documentary Archaeology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, ed. Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 13–33.

Documentary archaeology | 27

otherwise difficult to reference with regards to space, allowing a more complex study and interpretation of the city’s historical past. The map thus created forms the basis of the analysis of the development of Plovdiv’s urbanscape during the first three centuries of its Ottoman past, facilitating both synchronic and diachronic observations on its built and social environment while noting the profound relationship between the two. It is precisely with this consideration in mind—namely to historicize the formation and further development of Ottoman Plovdiv—that spatial precision was given priority in the analysis. The exact location of the buildings, the spatial distribution of the Ottoman quarters (mahalles), and the recreation of the street network provide the ground for observing the historical development of the urban tissue and the changes it underwent, in which citizens, patrons, and buildings were intricately connected. Moreover, in a city such as Plovdiv (like innumerable other post-Ottoman urban centers in the Balkans), where the Ottoman micro toponymy is almost entirely obliterated and where there are but few buildings still standing from the Ottoman period, the recreation of the Ottoman space with its buildings (including the longvanished ones) and inhabited places (mahalles) is of paramount importance, and is a logical first step in any ensuing analysis of the city’s Ottoman urban morphological development. Locating the prominent buildings and the city quarters of the Ottoman period hence provides the skeleton for the observations in this study. The chronological timespan analyzed in the present work covers the period roughly from the second half of the fourteenth century until the seventeenth century, a period which witnessed the constitution of the urbanscape of Plovdiv in broad terms, and in which Plovdiv was transformed into a distinctively Ottoman city. The historical sources over that period, however, do not offer substantial spatial information about the urban tissue, nor are there many edifices still extant that could otherwise serve as a firm spatial marker. A whole palette of non-contemporary sources, therefore, is used to build the “spatial skeleton” of Ottoman Plovdiv, whose “flesh” is added based on contemporary evidence to form a cohesive body of material for comprehensive analysis. Rather than begin with the period of Ottoman transformation starting with the first modifications to the cityscape in the second half of the fourteenth century, however, my point of departure is the beginning of another transformational period for the urban landscape—the late nineteenth century, marking the beginning of the nationstate era, when the Ottoman city was gradually reshaped into a national Bulgarian modern town. The direction of travel is hence reversed, for the nineteenth-century historical plans, which provide spatial evidence for the urban tissue of the thenstill-preserved Ottoman layer, are regarded as a sort of palimpsest that bears visible traces of its earlier form. To recover the earlier Ottoman urban layers, I effaced the post-seventeenth-century ones (both buildings and inhabited areas) and added earlier buildings—verified through contemporary sources of various types—that in the nineteenth century had already vanished. Applying this methodology resulted in a fairly precise reconstruction of the urban landscape during the period under investigation, laying the ground for a more in-depth analysis of its development.

28 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Bringing together disparate sources from different genres—to be briefly introduced below, and thus to a certain degree replicating archaeological methods—led to the successful identification of architectural markers that are now unknown, since these buildings have long since vanished, but were once determinant in the formation and further development of the Ottoman urban space. Specifying their precise location, furthermore, is of key importance for locating them within the urban tissue, as their accurate positioning situates them within the urban social fabric and hence makes possible additional observations on the correlations between them. Moreover, identifying the actual patrons of the buildings foregrounds the individual agents responsible for the spatial development of the city, and allows the urban morphological development to be historicized in a wider framework that not only defines the urban elite of early Ottoman Plovdiv but also adds an important regional perspective to the collective profile of the early Ottoman provincial and governmental elite. Before delving into these entanglements of buildings, patrons, and citizens, however, a brief overview is due of the sources used for building the skeleton of Plovdiv’s urban tissue that forms the basis of my analysis. In what follows I will only sketch the main materials, emphasizing their historical value for the purposes of my study and describing the methodology applied for constructing the spatial model of earlyOttoman Plovdiv.

Sources

City cadastral plans

Without a doubt, the bedrock of any study delving into the historical urban tissues of a city is the thorough examination of detailed historical urban cadastral plans. The meticulous investigation of such urban maps, when sequenced in chronological order, presents researchers with a lens through which to discern the transformation of the urban fabric that took place between the drafting of two successive plans. This opens the way for insights into the dynamics governing these processes.4 Unlike the Habsburg and Russian Empires, its neighbors and in many respects rivals, which began cadastral inventories as early as the seventeenth century and continued to 4 On the potential of detailed cadastral plans for studies on urban tissue, and the major difficulties

that the lack thereof presents to researchers, see Pierre Pinon, “Essai de définition morphologique de la ville ottomane des XVIIIe –XIXe siècles,” in La culture urbaine des Balkans (XVe –XIXe siècles). Vol. 3: La ville dans les Balkans depuis la fin du moyen age jusqu’au debut du XXe siecle. Recueil d’etudes, ed. Verena Han and Marina Adamović (Belgrade; Paris: Académie serbe des sciences et des arts, 1991), 147–55; Pierre Pinon, “Essai de typologie des tissus urbains des villes ottomanes d’Anatolie et des Balkans,” in 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: “A Supra-National Heritage,” ed. Nur Akın, Afife Batur, and Selçuk Batur (Istanbul: YEM Yayın, 2000), 174–88; Pierre Pinon, Les villes et les maisons ottomanes (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2019). For Ottoman urban maps from the precadastral period, see Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, “Urban Mapping in the Ottoman Empire,” in The History of Cartography. Volume 4: Cartography in the European Enlightenment, ed. Matthew H. Edney and Mary Sponberg Pedley (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), 1586–91.

Documentary archaeology | 29

build a systematic cadaster throughout the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire never made an effort to compile a systematic cadaster of its European and Asian possessions.5 The Ottoman government only attempted to carry out cadastral surveys of several larger cities within its domains—İzmir (1850–56), Thessaloniki (1850–53), and Bursa and Ioannina (1856–60)—however, these attempts were only partly successful and the practice was eventually discontinued. As a result, no further cadastral surveys were conducted for other cities in the empire.6 Indeed, Plovdiv, much like numerous other cities, unfortunately escaped the attention of the cadastral survey carried out by the Ottoman administration. A scholarly quest to unearth such a plan would therefore be futile, as it simply does not exist. Yet despite the notable absence of an in-depth historical cadastral plan for Plovdiv, it would be incorrect to assert that there are no extant historical plans of the city from the Ottoman era. In fact, the Balkan territories held by the Ottoman Empire were of considerable interest to the military topographic services of the Habsburg Empire and, most notably, the Russian. This curiosity sparked an extensive collection of topographic information on key cities and crucial communication and transportation routes, from as early as the first half of the nineteenth century.7 The earliest known plan of Plovdiv was drawn by the French-born officer Alexandre Jägerschmid and published under the title “Plan de Philippopolis et ses environs, levé en 1827” in his collection of plans Athènes et Constantinople, ou vues et plans des villes les plus importantes de l’Empire Ottoman.8 A later copy of the plan, prepared in 1934 by Pulevski, currently resides in the cartographic department of the National Library in Plovdiv.9 However, it is necessary to emphasize that Jägerschmid’s plan, while valuable, is 5 On the Habsburg cadaster, see Ernst Hofstätter, Beiträge zur Geschichte der österreichischen Landes-

6

7

8

9

aufnahmen: ein Überblick der topographischen Aufnahmeverfahren, deren Ursprünge, ihrer Entwicklungen und Organisationsformen der vier österreichischen Landesaufnahmen (Wien: Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen, 1990). Part of the cadastral maps have been made available online by the Mapire project: https://mapire.eu/en/browse/cadastral/. In Russia the modern cadastral survey was first introduced by Catherine the Great (r. 1762–1796). Cf. Nikolaj V. Komov, A. K. Rodin, and V. V. Alakoz, Zemelʹnye otnošenija i zemleustrojstvo v Rossii (Moscow: Russlit, 1995). Alp Yücel Kaya, “Politics of Property Registration: Cadastre of Izmir in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” New Europe College Regional Program Yearbook (2005-2006), n.d., 149–79; Alp Yücel Kaya, “Les villes ottomanes sous tension fiscale: les enjeux de l’évaluation cadastrale au XIXe siècles,” in La mesure cadastrale: estimer la valeur du foncier en Europe aux XIXe et XXe siècles, ed. Florence Bourillon and Nadine Vivier (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2012), 43–60. Béla Kovács and Gábor Timár, “The Austro-Hungarian Triangulations in the Balkan Peninsula (1855–1875),” in Cartography in Central and Eastern Europe: CEE 2009, ed. Georg Gartner and Felix Ortag (Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2010), 535–44; Mihail Simov, “Mapping Enemy’s Land: Russian Military Topographic Intelligence on 19th Century European Turkey,” Journal of Balkan and Black Sea Studies 2, no. 3 (2019): 45–70. Alexandre Jägerschmid, Athènes et Constantinople, ou Vues et plans des villes les plus importantes de l’empire ottoman, avec un texte historique et descriptif ... Documents recueillis sur les lieux pendant les années 1825, 1826, 1827 et 1828, par M.A. Jägerschmid (Paris: Imprimerie de Firmin Didot, 1829). National Library of Plovdiv (Narodna biblioteka “Ivan Vazov”, Plovdiv, hereafter NBIV), call no. Kp. II 60. Digital copy is openly accessible in the digital repository of the library - https://digital.libplovdiv.com.

30 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Plan 1. Plan of Plovdiv and its surroundings by A. Jägerschmid, 1828

inherently schematic and does not offer substantial details regarding the urban fabric of Plovdiv. It only marks some of the main public buildings, such as the central mosque, the great bath, or the residence of the governor of the city, and indicates the routes of the roads leading to Sofia and Adrianople. The plan’s lack of strong spatial orientation renders the information more indicative than precise, thereby limiting its utility for geospatial analysis. Notwithstanding, Jägerschmid’s plan has significant merit due to its comparatively detailed portrayal of Plovdiv’s urban surroundings. It paints a picture of a city nestled amidst farmland, fields, and orchards. The most intriguing feature, arguably with substantial implications for our understanding of the local economy, is the representation of Plovdiv as surrounded on almost all sides by extensive rice paddies, thus creating a sense of the city as an island of dry land amidst a gigantic lake.10 This situates the city within a unique socio-economic context, making the plan a valuable document despite its limitations. (See Plan 1) 10 For an analysis of some of these early plans of Plovdiv, see Dobrina Želeva-Martins and Julij Fărgov,

Istorija na bălgarskoto gradoustrojstvo XIX-XX v. (Sofia: Valentin Trajanov, 2009), 57–60.

Documentary archaeology | 31

In 1867, half a century later, the Breton/French explorer and ethnographer Guillaume Lejean, who devoted much of his life to studying the Balkans, visited Plovdiv and drew a plan of the city that was published in two editions: French and German. The French version of the plan appeared in 1873 along with his extensive travelogue “Voyage en Bulgarie” in the popular magazine Le Tour du monde;11 the German version was appended to a map of the Filibe (Plovdiv) district (sancak) published in 1876 by Heinrich Kiepert, a German geographer and cartographer.12 Comparative analysis of the two versions reveals that they are almost identical, yet it becomes clear that Kiepert made modifications to the French rendition. In general, Kiepert opted for a simplification of the plan’s complexity, rounding the majority of the polygons that represented residential or agricultural areas around the town, a choice which resulted in a certain loss of detail; moreover, he took a pared-down approach to the representation of roads, only retaining the primary thoroughfares on his version and eliminating all secondary streets featured in the French variant. Additionally, for reasons largely unclear, Kiepert chose to omit from his rendition information concerning several urban cemeteries. This results in a marked absence of crucial details concerning the urban fabric of Plovdiv in the latter half of the nineteenth century, making Kiepert’s plan a more generalized, less precise, depiction of the city’s layout. (See Plans 2 and 3) Lejean’s plan of Plovdiv, while offering greater detail than Jägerschmid’s earlier plan, remains rather schematic. Its primary intent was not to accurately depict the intricacies of the urban fabric, but rather to provide a simplified overview of the city’s spatial distribution without aiming for pinpoint precision. The city’s residential area is depicted as a single, expansive polygon, bifurcated by the Maritsa river, and flanked by agricultural land (jardins). It also lists the names of the hills in the city and tentatively indicates the confessional distribution within the residential area— Turks, Bulgarians, Gypsies, Jews, Armenians, and Pavlikans, along with their respective cemeteries. Perhaps the most valuable feature of Lejean’s plan is that it represents relatively correctly the main compositional axes of the city as set by the posi11 Guillaume Lejean, “Voyage en Bulgarie,” Le Tour du monde, nouveau journal des voyages 26 (1873):

113–70. Map of Plovdiv on p. 159. Lejean must also have drawn plans of other towns in Bulgaria, but these remained unpublished. One such plan, of Tărnovo, was recently discussed by Bernard Lory and Ivan Rusev, “Neizvesten plan na Tărnovo ot 1857 g.,” Istorija 28, no. 1 (2020): 8–22. Lejean’s Balkan travel notes were collected and published, see Guillaume Lejean, Voyages dans les Balkans. 1857–1870, ed. Marie-Thérèse Lorain and Bernard Lory (Paris: Non Lieu Editions, 2011). Another Frenchman, the archaeologist Dumont, also visited Plovdiv around the same time and left a far more informative narrative description of the city and its environs in the chapter “Philippopolis – le réveil bulgare”. Albert Dumont, Le Balkan et l’Adriatique: Les Bulgares et les Albanais.--L’administration en Turquie.--La vie des campagnes.--Le panslavisme et l’ héllenisme (Paris: Didier et cie, 1873), 127–88. 12 Heinrich Kiepert. Karte des Sandjak Filibe (Philippopolis) aufgenommen nach Anordnung des dortigen Provinzial-Gouverneurs Mehemmed-Nusret-Pascha, 1876. The map by Kiepert is a translation of an earlier Ottoman map prepared by Mehmed Nusred paşa, Filibe Sancağının Harita Umumiyesi AH 1279 (1862), a copy of which is available in the Ottoman archives in Istanbul, BOA, HRT 220.

32 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Plan 2. City plan of Plovdiv by Lejean, 1867

tion of its crossroads. The urban fabric as illustrated in the plan appears dissected by thoroughfares emanating out in the four cardinal directions. The roads from Sofia (west) and Karlovo (north) enter the city from the north, converging to traverse the river via the bridge in one single route. This thoroughfare, dividing the town into two parts, continues south, crossing the depression between the hill with the clock tower and the citadel’s triple hill formation, running literally over the former Roman stadium and leaving the town in a southerly direction to head towards Asenovgrad and further into the Rhodope Mountains. The city’s northern part is intersected by an east–west route running just south of the river. This road departs the city towards the west, skirting the northern boundaries of the Bunarcık hill, and continues south of the Maritsa towards Peruštica and Kričim nestled in the Rhodope foothills. In all likelihood, this is where the late antique and medieval Via Militaris route once ran. Lejean’s plan also marks the paths of two eastward roads heading towards Adrianople and Istanbul. The northern path, passing by the north of the citadel, is identified as the “old road,” while the southern road is marked as the “new road to Adrianople.” This southern road is depicted with greater accuracy in the German version of the plan, approaching a more realistic visual representation, where Kiepert speculatively extended its course into the residential zone. The lack of reliable data obviously made the famous cartographer hesitant to take the next logical step and connect the

Documentary archaeology | 33

Plan 3. City plan of Plovdiv by Heinrich Kiepert, 1876

so-called new road to Adrianople with the route crossing the city in a north–south direction. This gap was bridged in a plan executed by Ferdinand von Hochstetter two years after Lejean’s visit. Hochstetter, a respected geologist from Vienna, was engaged by the Ottoman government to help a team of engineers and topographers tasked with conducting initial surveys in Thrace concerning the planned railway construction linking Adrianople and Belgrade.13 His observations from these explorations yielded rich, detailed travelogues covering parts of Thrace and Bulgaria, later published as distinct articles 13 On Ferdinand v. Hochstetter, see the online edition of Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon, https://www.

biographien.ac.at/oebl/oebl_H/Hochstetter_Ferdinand_1829_1884.xml;internal&action=hilite. action&Parameter=hochstetter*. He published the scientific results of the survey along with the first geological map of the region (1:420,000). Ferdinand von Hochstetter, “Die geologischen Verhältnisse des östlichen Theiles der europäischen Türkei,” Jahrbuch der Kais. Kön. Geologischen Reichs-Anstalt 20, no. 4 (1870): 335–461; Ferdinand von Hochstetter, “Die geologischen Verhält-

34 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Plan 4. City plan of Plovdiv by Ferdinand v. Hochstetter, 1869

during the 1870s.14 Of significant note is his meticulous description of the Plovdiv region, prefaced by a city plan sketched by Hochstetter himself during his 1869 sojourn in the city.15 Hochstetter’s plan marks the earliest comprehensive representation of Plovdiv’s intricate street layout and urban texture. Compared with its predecessors, this plan offers a wealth of urban detail and displays superior spatial accuracy. The shape of the city is very realistic. Although obviously, in most cases, being a simplified approximation of the one observed in situ by the Austrian scientist, the detailed street network forms irregular polygons of residential units that constitute the structure of the city quarters. The primary streets visible in the earlier maps are also discernible here, but the so-called “new road to Adrianople” connects more intuitively to the nisse des östlichen Theiles der europäischen Türkei,” Jahrbuch der Kais. Kön. Geologischen ReichsAnstalt 22, no. 4 (1872): 331–88. 14 Ferdinand von Hochstetter, “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869,” Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 13 (1870): 193–212, 350-358, 545-606; Ferdinand von Hochstetter, “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869,” Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65–180. 15 Ferdinand von Hochstetter, “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869. 5. Philippopel,” Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65–80.

Documentary archaeology | 35

artery traversing the city from north to south. The backbone of the Ottoman city, the extended commercial street (Uzun Çarşı), is highlighted with a thicker double line leading to the large caravanserai and the main Friday mosque nested at the heart of Plovdiv. The distribution of the Muslim cemeteries within the urban environment and the cultivated fields encircling the city are depicted with painstaking precision. In addition, Hochstetter’s plan is vastly superior to its predecessors with respect to the information about public buildings mapped on it. Except for the residence of the city governor and the Catholic church—marked on all the maps—his plan contains spatial information about the location of sixteen mosques scattered across different parts of the city. Upon closer inspection, the positions of the mosques, as mapped by Hochstetter, appear to reflect genuine historical structures that still stood in 1869: these are by no means arbitrary markers merely signifying the pronounced Islamic presence in Plovdiv. Yet despite its merits, Hochstetter’s plan is marred by significant shortcomings that impede its utility for a more precise spatial analysis of the urban structure. It is evident that the seasoned geologist constructed the map without the aid of geodesic measurements, relying solely on visual observations from several elevated points within the city. This imprecision manifests in an observable eastward twist in the urban fabric, most apparent in the alignment of the main commercial street. Consequently, attempts to rectify the plan fall short of producing useful outcomes. For the analysis of the urban fabric conducted here, Hochstetter’s map serves solely as a source of supplementary historical information, filling gaps left by the other plans. A notable instance in this context is the Muslim cemetery on Maritsa’s northern bank, clearly marked by Hochstetter but absent from all other urban plans consulted in this study. (See Plan 4) The first urban plan of Plovdiv, closely approximating a cadastral plan, was developed during the Russian occupation of the city after the Russian–Ottoman war of 1877–78. The military engineer G. Ilinskij was tasked with creating a fairly accurate town plan that would mirror the situation as it stood in 1878. Biographical information about Ilinskij is unfortunately scanty, but a document issued in March 1878 bears his signature, identifying him as the head of the office of the governor of Plovdiv, Staff Captain Ilinskij.16 A copy of his plan is preserved in the cartographic collection of the National Library in Plovdiv and is accessible on the website of the Digital Collection of the National Library “Ivan Vazov”—Plovdiv.17 Ilinskij constructed his plan on a 1:4200 scale, employing a semi-instrumental approach that combined geodesic exploration and visual rendering. The likely reason for adopting such an expedient method to prepare the plan was the imminent conclusion of the term of the Russian occupation’s administration in Plovdiv and the need to produce a map of the city that was detailed, if not entirely spatially precise, prior to the Russian forces’ departure. Despite the short timeline and the necessity of 16 Nikola Alvadžiev, Plovdivska hronika (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1971), 109. 17 NBIV, РЦ ІV 62. https://digital.libplovdiv.com.

36 | Ottoman Plovdiv

juggling other responsibilities simultaneously, the outcome achieved by the Russian officer is impressively satisfactory. When georeferenced and juxtaposed with modern satellite imagery, the average offset of the historical plan (estimation based on 15 control points) is 32 meters. The map’s buildings appear to be more accurately spatially situated than the natural sites, suggesting that in all probability Ilinskij’s measurements relied primarily on the city’s large public buildings. The alignment of the main commercial street lies approximately thirty meters west of its actual spatial location. Generally, the same holds true for the network of secondary streets, which the map depicts with commendable accuracy. Overall, the street grid is rather detailed and trustworthy, though signs of simplified details are apparent.

Plan 5. City plan of Plovdiv by G. Ilinskij, 1878

Ilinskij’s plan stands as an exceptional document capturing a snapshot of Plovdiv’s urban landscape in 1878. Not only does it serve as the city’s first reliable plan, offering priceless information about the exact location of buildings that have since been demolished and irrecoverably lost, but it also provides data absent from other city plans. For instance, this plan is the only historical document marking twenty pub-

Documentary archaeology | 37

lic fountains (çeşme) and their spatial distribution within the city. Moreover, it is the only source pointing to an Armenian cemetery in the town, which today lies below the paved yard of the Armenian school in Plovdiv. Other small bits of information marked on Ilinskij’s plan, although not explicitly detailed here, were incorporated into the digital reconstruction of Plovdiv’s urban fabric from the early Ottoman era. (See Plan 5) As accurate and valuable as the Russian map is, the groundwork for the spatial analysis conducted in this study rests primarily on another urban plan. The first contemporary cadastral plan of Plovdiv was created by the Czech engineer, geodesist, and architect Joseph Schnitter (Josef Václav Schnitter, d. 1914). Educated in Vienna, Schnitter immigrated to the Russian Empire in 1873 and converted to Orthodoxy in 1877. He joined the Russian army as a volunteer and served as a junior officer during the Russian–Ottoman war (1877–78). Wounded during the Siege of Pleven, Schnitter was quickly transferred by the Russian army General Staff to Plovdiv, where he was appointed district architect. Following the retreat of the Russians, Schnitter decided to stay in Bulgaria, and in 1886 he took up the post of city architect of Plovdiv. He then embarked on the task of preparing a comprehensive cadastral and urban plan of the city.18 Whether Ilinskij and Schnitter interacted in 1878 while the Russian officer was still working on his plan is unknown, but given the city’s size and the fact that both men served as officers in the Russian army, it is a reasonable assumption that they did. It is challenging to ascertain the extent to which Ilinskij’s earlier work was incorporated by Schnitter, but it is known that Schnitter began compiling data for his cadastral survey as early as 1880.19 The cadastral survey carried out by Schnitter took several years to complete. In 1891 he produced a city plan on a scale of 1:5000, which combined the mapping of the current urban landscape and his proposals for regulating the streets and the river’s course (see Plan 6).20 The city plan prepared by Schnitter is the most accurate source of information on the street network and urban fabric of Plovdiv during the Ottoman period. Although the composition of the cadastral data used for its compilation dates from a decade when Ottoman rule no longer had a direct influence on the city, the changes in the urban environment that had occurred 18 On Schnitter’s rich architectural heritage, including several churches, schools, and multiple private

houses in Plovdiv and the region, see Grigor Doytchinov and Christo Gantchev, Österreichische Architekten in Bulgarien: 1878-1918 (Wien: Böhlau, 2001), 191–96. 19 Želeva-Martins and Fărgov, Istorija na bălgarskoto gradoustrojstvo XIX-XX v., 63, note 19. It is very likely that the extended technical documentation produced by Ilinskij was taken to Russia after the Russian administration left Plovdiv. A search of the Brill online collection “Russian Military Intelligence on Asia: Archive series, 1651–1917,” which contains part of the archive of the Imperial military topographic service, unfortunately gave no result. If such documentation is indeed preserved, it must be housed in the Russian State Military Historical Archive (Gosudarstvenn’y VoennoIstoricheskiy Arhiv) in Moscow. 20 State Archive Plovdiv, fond 1190K, opis 1, a.e. 37, also available in the Digital Collection of the National Library “Ivan Vazov” – Plovdiv. Call no. Кр II 62, https://digital.libplovdiv.com.

38 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Plan 6. City plan of Plovdiv by Joseph Schnitter, 1891

were still minor and can be easily detected by a comparison with the preceding city maps. Moreover, the plan is remarkably precise. An analysis of fifteen control points reveals an average offset of only 3.62 m between Schnitter’s plan and satellite imagery. It indicates with high accuracy every primary and secondary street before any regulations were implemented, but more significantly it displays all major buildings

Documentary archaeology | 39

with great spatial precision. Without hesitation, therefore, the regressive analysis of the digitally reconstructed urban space undertaken in this study takes this plan as a point of departure, supplementing it with additional data extracted from the earlier maps of Plovdiv and other types of historical sources. Historical photographs The historical cadastral plans of Plovdiv provide the basis for the reconstruction of the urban fabric, but are not able to provide a realistic representation of its entangled, complex nature. The information in the plans allows us to recreate a credible digital skeleton of the town, but the numerous residential and public buildings that once filled the spaces between the roads—the flesh on the skeleton—are not adequately represented. The projection of vernacular residential architecture backward over half a millennium is undoubtedly an impossible task, not only because of the lack of primary data on the exact location, typology, and density of residential structures in Plovdiv, but also because modern scholarship has at best only a vague idea of what the residential architecture in Ottoman cities looked like in the period before the mid-eighteenth century.21 However, the study of the prominent public buildings in the town is far more tractable than studying vernacular residential architecture. Most of the significant public buildings were commissioned and built in the first two and a half centuries of Ottoman rule over the city and served an urbanistic purpose. Meant to direct the expansion and development of the urban tissue in a relatively organized fashion, and therefore built with durable materials, these buildings persisted far longer than the dwellings of Plovdiv’s residents. The precise locations of the public buildings can be identified on the urban plans, but cadastral evidence does not reveal much about their formal appearance and, consequently, their functionality and possible construction date. To assemble such data, one needs to dig deeper into different types of sources—mainly Ottoman archival material, but also visual resources, which, in the case of Plovdiv, are primarily historical photographs rather than gravures. It is essential to underline that no more than 10% of all public buildings from the Ottoman era identified in this study have survived—in whatever condition—to the present day, a fact that strengthens the conviction that all buildings, not only those still extant, should be included in the analysis of urban devel-

21 Alain Borie, Pierre Pinon, and Stéphane Yerasimos, “Tokat: essai sur l’architecture domestique et la

forme urbaine,” Anatolia moderna 1 (1991): 239–73; Stéphane Yerasimos, Pierre Pinon, and Alain Borie, “Essais sur l’architecture domestique et la forme urbaine des villes anatoliennes, II. Afyon,” Anatolia moderna 6 (1996): 191–253; Maurice Cerasi, “The Formation of Ottoman House Types: A Comparative Study in Interaction with Neighboring Cultures,” Muqarnas 15 (1998): 116–56; Velika Ivkovska, “Comparative Analysis between the Istanbul House Plan Types and the Plan Types of the Ottoman Houses in the Panagia District in Kavala,” Journal of Comparative Cultural Studies in Architecture 9 (2016): 13–27.

40 | Ottoman Plovdiv

opment. Historical photographs are therefore one source that helps identify the lost urban markers.22 There is no systematic collection of the historical photographs of Plovdiv, nor has any attempt been made to document the extant visual heritage consistently in either analog or digital form. Several albums of “old photos of Plovdiv” have attempted to collate the historical graphic material, yet they lack consistency, often do not apply any methodology, and, above all, are far from comprehensive in their coverage of the photographic heritage.23 Nevertheless, several repositories of historical photographs at various stages of digitization do contain valuable evidence, documenting Ottoman public buildings in Plovdiv in different periods. The largest and the richest are the photographic collections of the National Library in Plovdiv and the Bulgarian State Archives. The Bulgarian National Library in Sofia also houses photographs not available in Plovdiv’s repositories. These collections consist primarily of portrait photographs, but often also contain photos of architectural objects and panoramic views of the city. The metadata of the cataloged images is inconsistent, and essential information, such as the date of the photograph and the photographer’s name, is frequently missing. As odd as it may perhaps seem, by far the richest and the most comprehensive collection of Plovdiv’s historical photographs is a private initiative by a Plovdiv history enthusiast, Plamen Kočev, who has managed to collect and curate an impressive number of historical photos related to the city. The bulk of the material consists of Kočev’s own collection of prints and digital copies of historical photos, but it also brings together other contributions by private individuals resulting from a crowdsourcing initiative he organized on Facebook.24 Four photographers from the second half of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century, who focused on Plovdiv’s architectural heritage, have left us dozens of photos, making an incredible contribution to the city’s architectural history and helping tremendously in identifying many public buildings. The earliest historical photographs of the core parts of the city that I was able to identify were taken

22 Karl Kaser, “Visual Studies: Their Potential for the Comparative Study of the Late Ottoman

Empire,” in Ottoman Legacies in the Contemporary Mediterranean: The Balkans and the Middle East Compared, ed. Eyal Ginio and Karl Kaser (Jerusalem: The European Forum and the Hebrew University, 2013), 41–58; Kathryn Ebel, “Visual Sources for Urban History of the Ottoman Empire,” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3, no. 6 (2005): 457–86. 23 Krasimir Linkov, ed., Plovdiv predi i sega (Plovdiv: Nova Print, 2005); Dimităr Rajčev, Plovdiv zavinagi (Plovdiv: Agencia Seden D, 2005); Nedjalka Petrova and Vladimir Balčev, Plovdivska arhivna săkrovištnica. 55 godini Bălgarski dăržavni arhivi / Plovdiv Archives Depository. 55 Years Bulgarian State Archives (Plovdiv: Vion, 2007); Emil Stoicov, Iz Plovdiv v drugo vreme (Plovdiv: Žanet 45, 2011); Krum Savov, Plovdiv prez fotoobektiva na Krum Savov (Plovdiv: Regionalen Etnografski Muzej Plovdiv, 2020). 24 The crowdsourcing Facebook group initiated by Kočev is named Akcija Foto Plovdiv (Акция „Фото Пловдив“). A substantial part of the photographs are published on a website, maintained by Kočev, named Retro Plovdiv: https://retro-plovdiv.com/.

Documentary archaeology | 41

by the Georgian photographer Dmitri Ermakov.25 His enormous collection, of more than 25,000 prints and over 15,000 glass plate negatives, is housed in the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi, and has recently undergone a process of restoration, conservation, and inventory. Part of the materials have been scanned and are available in digital format upon request from the Georgian National Museum. Ermakov visited Plovdiv in June/July 1875 and took fourteen panoramic photographs from different elevated points, along with six photos of the Bačkovo monastery and Asenovgrad.26 The contribution of Ermakov’s photos to the visual reconstruction of the urbanscape is essential because they are the only visual source to record in great detail the situation before the Russian army entered the city on 4 January 1878 and initiated the first urbanistic changes. The second photographer to leave valuable materials that can help us to recreate Plovdiv’s lost Ottoman architectural heritage is a local Greek resident named Dimitris Cavra. The emergence of photography in the city is shrouded in obscurity, but undoubtedly it was present locally as early as 1849.27 Cavra took his first steps in photography in the studio opened by his father, Nikola Cavra, in the early 1850s, and later moved to Istanbul to continue his professional education in some of the prestigious studios of the Imperial capital, namely those of Abdullah Frères, Pascal Sébah, and Dimitris Michailidis. Cavra returned to Plovdiv in the mid-1860s and ran the studio with his brother.28 In 1873 he took the earliest panorama of Plovdiv, 25 Ermakov, one of the European pioneers of photography, opened his first studio in his native Tbilisi

(Tiflis) upon graduating from the Military Academy in Ananuri. During the war of 1877–78 he served in the General Staff of the Russian Caucasian Army as part of Field Photography Section, which recorded the military’s movements. He travelled extensively in Europe and Asia, taking large number of ethnographic, landscape, and architectural photographs. Ermakov’s interests ran well beyond photography. He was an honorary member of the Caucasian Section of the Moscow Archaeological Society and the Association for the Advancement of the Visual Arts. John Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, vol. 1: A-I, Index (London: Routledge, 2008), 494–95; Lika Mamatsashvili and Herman Maes, Dimitri Ermakov, Photographer and Collector, Masters of 19th Century Photography (Tbilisi: Georgian National Museum, 2014). I extend my profound gratitude to Heath W. Lowry, who graciously introduced me to Ermakov’s photographic record of Plovdiv. 26 Ermakov left Plovdiv for Edirne on 20 July 1875. The purpose of his long journey from Tbilisi remains unclear, but his close relations with the Russian Army headquarters and the Russian viceconsul in Plovdiv, Najden Gerov, whose children and spouse were also photographed by him, might suggest a possible connection. A visit to the Bačkovo monastery, built by a Georgian aristocrat on Byzantine service during the 11th century, might have been the pretext for this journey. Todor Pančev, Iz arhivata na Najden Gerov. Kniga II, korespondencija s častni lica, M-Ja (Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1914), 776. 27 Moravenov relates stories about the first photographer in the city, Atanas Saatçi (Atanas the Watchmaker), who took photos with a self-made camera. Konstantin Moravenov, Pametnik za plovdivskoto christijansko naselenie v grada i za obštite zavedenija po proiznosno predanie: podaren na bălgar. Čitalište v Carigrad 1869 (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1984), 63. 28 In January 1867 the Russian vice-chancellor in Plovdiv, Najden Gerov, commissioned the Cavra brothers to take 33 portraits of Bulgarians in traditional costumes, to be sent to an ethnographic

42 | Ottoman Plovdiv

a collage of three shots taken from an elevated point south of the city (locally known as Tumbite), which must have been an artificial hill created out of construction and domestic waste, located just over what was once the Roman forum.29 This early panorama overlooks the southern city outskirts, including the Clocktower hill which towers in background and Taksim and Džambaz tepe seen from the south. But while it may be valuable for many other aspects of the city’s history, this particular photograph does not offer much with regards to public buildings from the Ottoman era. Cavra’s second panorama, however, is one of the richest sources of visual data on Plovdiv’s urban fabric. It was taken from the northwestern edge of Nevbet tepe at an angle of roughly 110 degrees and depicts a large segment of the city enclosed between the main Friday mosque and the suburb Karşıyaka north of the Maritsa. The original glass plate negatives are kept in the Regional Archeological Museum in Plovdiv with no indication of a date;30 still, a closer inspection can reveal quite confidently that the photos were taken in February or March 1879. The signs of recent warfare are still perceivable: for instance, the damaged bridge over the river is replaced by a temporary pontoon bridge built by the Russian engineering corps. One can also observe that the transformation of the city had already begun at the time the photograph was taken, as attested by the conversion of the Muslim cemetery into a city park, which is very clearly seen in the photos. In the next two decades Cavra produced several more panoramas taken from various viewpoints and left many photos depicting parts of the city or individual buildings. His 1892 hardcover bound panorama was published in the album Plovdiv predi i sega.31 In 1898 Cavra left Plovdiv for Athens, where he opened a studio and soon became a court photographer to the king of Greece.32 The third influential author who photographed architectural objects in Plovdiv is Ivan Karastojanov. Descending from a family of photographers, Karastojanov inherited his father’s studio in Sofia and managed it together with his brother Dimităr. In 1888 Ivan Karastojanov became a court photographer to the Bulgarian prince and made a name as one of the most renowned photographers in the country.33 In 1892 he arrived in Plovdiv and worked in close cooperation with Dimitris Cavra to docu-

29 30 31 32 33

exhibition in Moscow. Todor Pančev, Dokumenti za bălgarskata istorija. Arhiv na Najden Gerov, 1857-1876, vol. 1 (Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1931), 423–24. The panorama was bound as an album. State Archive Plovdiv, archival unit 40. Regional Archaeological Museum, Plovdiv. Linkov, Plovdiv predi i sega. Vladimir Balčev, “Dimităr Kavra – fotoletopisecăt na Plovdiv,” Pod tepeto (blog), August 10, 2015, https://podtepeto.com/besedka-za-grada/dimitr-kavra-fotoletopisect-na-plovdiv/. Anelia Kassabova, “Identities in Frame: Photography and the Construction of a ‘National Body’ in Bulgaria (Approx. 1860 to World War I),” in Migration and Identity: Historical, Cultural and Linguistic Dimensions of Mobility in the Balkans, ed. Petko Hristov (Sofia: Paradigma, 2012), 74–75; Anelia Kassabova, “Inclusion and Exclusion: The Role of Photography in the Nation-Building Process in Bulgaria from Approximately 1860 to World War I,” in Competing Eyes: Visual Encounters with Alterity in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Dagnosław Demski, Ildikó Kristóf, and Kamila Baraniecka-Olszewska (Budapest: l’Harmattan, 2013), 112–13.

Documentary archaeology | 43

ment the cleaning up of the Muslim cemetery at the southern edge of the city and the construction of the first international fair in the city. His photos of Plovdiv, including several panoramic shots, were bound as an album and presented to the Bulgarian prince Ferdinand I (r. 1887–1918).34 Karastojanov’s photos were taken thirteen years after Cavra’s panorama and hence offer an excellent opportunity for observations of the rapid changes of the urbanscape. Thanks to these photos, the date of demolition of some key Ottoman architectural landmarks can be established with great precision. Last but not least, mention should be made of a collection of photographs left by the German art historian Gertrud Rudloff-Hille and her husband Otto Rudloff.35 The couple traveled to Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey in the early 1930s, documenting religious buildings and residential architecture from the Ottoman period. Some preliminary results of their work were published as a co-authored research article entitled “The City of Plovdiv and its Buildings.”36 More importantly, the couple kept extensive photographic documentation of their journey, leaving more than 800 photographs accessible in print at the German Archaeological Institute (DAI) in Istanbul and in digital format in the German photographic database (Deutsche Fotothek). The metadata of the collection is almost wholly lacking, which makes it difficult to work with, yet the Rudloff and Rudloff-Hille photographic evidence is nonetheless particularly significant for this study because, on the one hand, it documents the demolition of Şihabeddin paşa’s bathhouse (hamam), and, on the other, it captures numerous dedicatory inscriptions from public buildings in the city that have now disappeared, including the earliest known Ottoman tombstone in Plovdiv. Written sources The use of urban plans and historical photographs constitutes an essential aspect of the “documentary archaeology” method through which an attempt can be made to recreate a digital spatial model of early Ottoman Plovdiv’s topography. The aspect of the task that bears a closer resemblance to the methods applied while digging on an excavation site, however, consists of a thorough exploration of various written sources in an effort to identify valuable bits of historical information lacking from the first two groups of sources. The range of the relevant written sources is quite broad, and this short overview does not have the ambition to present them in detail or to dis34 Album “Părvoto bălgarsko izloženije v Plovdiv, 1892 g.” by Ivan A. Karastojanov. Central State

Archive, Sofia, fond 3К, opis 7, arhivna edinica 327. Digital copies are accessible online – http:// photoarchives.archives.bg/. 35 A short biography of Gertrud Rudloff-Hille, who was for many years director of the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, is available at the online database for Saxon regional history. https:// saebi.isgv.de/biografie/Gertrud_Rudloff-Hille_(1900-1983). 36 Gertrud Rudloff-Hille and Otto Rudloff, “Grad Plovdiv i negovite sgradi,” Izvestija na bălgarskija arheologičeski institut 8 (1934): 379–425.

44 | Ottoman Plovdiv

cuss their contents, overall historical value, and inevitable shortcomings. Instead, I will only highlight the main groups of sources that have the potential to deliver data valuable for purposes similar to the current study. Such a brief overview may serve as practical instruction for researchers applying a similar approach to the study of other towns in the Ottoman realm. Narrative sources, which consist of various chronicles, histories, and travelogues, are a natural point of departure, since they often contain shorter or longer written descriptions of the city, its buildings, and its population. It is challenging to offer a general assessment of the accuracy of these accounts because they differ in length and in the correctness of the information they contain, and because to a great extent they are a reflection of the author’s personal interests, preferences, and tastes. The authors from Central and Western Europe, are, in principle, naturally keener to focus on antiquities and the Christian population and its churches, paying barely any attention to the Islamic monuments in the city. Conversely, Ottoman chronicles and the few accounts left by Muslim travelers, such as Evliya Çelebi and Kâtib Çelebi, concentrate almost exclusively on the Islamic part of the city and its society. Moreover, in most cases, the Ottoman narrative sources are particularly instructive about the individuals who commissioned the public buildings that attracted their attention, and offer invaluable details not found in the administrative documents. Unsurprisingly, the longest and most detailed description of Plovdiv comes from the travelogue of Evliya Çelebi, who supplies useful information about the city which is not available in any other source. Nevertheless, a careful reading of the text also reveals discrepancies that must be considered when working with this otherwise significant text. The Ottoman documentary sources, which offer tiny bits of data that can contribute to the digital reconstruction of the urbanscape of Plovdiv, also vary by type and by time. Extracting information about public buildings, as well as identifying their location and their benefactors, based on the archival documents, in many respects recalls the work of an archaeologist who assembles unearthed pottery shards until a vessel is complete. Once a sufficient amount of data on a site is collected, it can be subjected to spatial analysis and placed on a reconstructed Ottoman city map. In this manner, buildings that played a prominent role in the development of the city during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but for some reason did not live to see the second half of the nineteenth century when they might have been documented on the city plans or even photographed, are added to the digital model of the urban fabric constructed in this work. The tax registers (tahrir defterleri), widely used for urban population estimates, occasionally contain information on public buildings too. This may be in the form of a recapitulation of the total numbers and types of buildings in the city, or an indication of the number of mosques in a given neighborhood. Furthermore, information about the occupations of some registered residents, mostly religious personnel serving in some of the Islamic institutions in the city, can also provide valuable hints about the names, locations, and existence of public buildings that are other-

Documentary archaeology | 45

wise unknown. The most significant advantage of the tax registers is that they offer information contemporary to the period examined in this study. Later sources can also contribute data when they refer to buildings that certainly existed in an earlier period. To name but a few, these are, for instance, the imperial registers of important matters (mühimme defterleri) that contain orders for the restoration of large public buildings; their financial counterpart, the records of financial orders (maliye ahkâm defterleri), which indicate the sums spent on repairs; the endowment deeds (vakfiye) and accounting sheets (muhasebe) of the Islamic foundations, which list the supported institutions and the sources of revenues—in urban contexts typically various shops, inns, or bathhouses; the registers for the appointments of religious personnel (ruznamçe, often referred to as hurufat due to their alphabetical arrangement); and a variety of individual documents penned by the Ottoman central administration, such as appointment diplomas (berat), instructions for inspections, or permissions for the repair or total reconstruction of existing buildings. The information from these sources has been extracted, analyzed, and added to the general database of public buildings in the city, thus presenting a more complete list of the architectural landmarks that defined the spread of urban fabric. Regrettably, this analysis cannot leverage one of the most fertile sources—the local court records (kadı sicilleri). These documents have long been a beacon for scholarly attention and have stood as an essential cornerstone for almost any endeavor to reconstruct urban life in the Ottoman Empire. The exceptional potential of these documents and the abundance of information concealed within them—relating to the urban tissue’s evolution, details about public and private buildings, and the intricate social interactions among the city’s residents—is an irreplaceable treasure trove. It may not be unfair to say that the entirety of the other sources combined cannot rival the insights the kadı court records can offer. In recognition of this unparalleled potential, the author has made exhaustive efforts over many years to locate sicils originating from Plovdiv. A persistent search encompassing all archives in Bulgaria and Turkey that could potentially house these documents, however, has established that no court registers from Plovdiv are to be found in these repositories. This disappointing finding suggests that the Ottoman court records from Plovdiv have either been completely destroyed, or were displaced from the lands of the former Ottoman Empire and thus remain hidden, patiently awaiting unearthing by future scholars. Although the proposition remains speculative, it is plausible that archival resources and libraries within Russia would be fertile grounds for a future search for the sicils from Bulgaria. Historical evidence indicates that throughout the nineteenth century, Russian military forces expropriated a significant quantity of manuscripts, documents, and diverse cultural artifacts from what is now modern Bulgaria.37 This 37 Orlin Săbev, “Za sădbata na osmanskite vakăfski biblioteki v Bălgarija sled Osvoboždenieto,” in

Vakăfite v Bălgarija, ed. Veselin Jančev, Mariya Kiprovska, and Grigor Boykov (Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2020), 285–309.

46 | Ottoman Plovdiv

assortment of assets even included unexpected items such as Ottoman stone dedicatory inscriptions, taken from some of the buildings. These cultural items, initially seized as spoils of war, were subsequently distributed among Russian research institutions and private collectors during that era. However, the ultimate fate of many of these items remains ambiguous. A recent exhibition held in Moscow showcased eight sicils of Pomorije (Ott. Ahıyolu), preserved within the library of the Moscow State Institute for International Relations (MGIMO University).38 This highlights the possibility that significant, yet underexplored, collections may still reside within Russian archives and libraries. Only time will show whether court records from Plovdiv will surface one day in Russia. However, for the immediate purposes of the present study, the author was not able to access these potentially valuable sources. Population sources The capacity of the Ottoman tax registers (tahrir defterleri) to serve as a reservoir of data for reconstructing historical population trends has long been recognized by modern scholarship, ultimately positioning these extensive documents as key for the study of the demographic history of the Ottoman Empire from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries.39 Yet thanks to the growing body of research utilizing these registers, it has also become evident to scholars that these documents do not yield genuine, modern-census-caliber demographic data, and are associated with various constraints.40 Such observations, eventually merging into a consensus, have raised concerns about the suitability of Ottoman tahrir registers for the quantitative analysis of some of the principal components of historical demography, such as fertility and mortality rates. Furthermore, the registers seemed to offer little insight into cer38 Ilya Zaytsev, Ottoman Manuscripts from Bulgaria in Russian Collections. On the Occasion of the 145th

Anniversary of the Liberation War in the Balkans (1877). Catalogue of the Exhibition (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022), 19–35. 39 İnalcık published the earliest preserved register and has drawn attention to the value of these sources. Halil İnalcık, Hicrî 835 Tarihli Sûret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954). Barkan’s groundbreaking work first revealed the value of the tahrir registers as a resource for exploring the historical demography of the Ottoman Empire. Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, “Tarihî Demografi Araştırmaları ve Osmanlı Tarihi,” Türkiyat Mecmuası 10 (1951–1953) (1953): 1–26; Ömer Lutfi Barkan, “Essai sur les données statistiques des registres de recensement dans l’Empire ottoman aux XVe et XVIe siècles,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1, no. 1 (1957): 9–36; Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys,” in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle Eastt: From the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, ed. Michael A. Cook (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 163–71. 40 In 1986, at the Fourth International Congress on the Social and Economic History of Turkey, Lowry first flagged potential misuses of the tahrir registers and laid out a host of strategies to circumvent their misinterpretation. Heath W. Lowry, “The Ottoman Tahrir Defterleri as a Source for Social and Economic History: Pitfalls and Limitations,” in Studies in Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, by Heath W. Lowry (Istanbul: Isis, 1992), 3–18.

Documentary archaeology | 47

tain aspects of population characteristics like marriage patterns and family structure. The reliability and usability issues associated with the Ottoman tax registers, along with their limited potential for use in historical demography, resulted in a marked drop in scholarly interest in Ottoman population studies after the 1980s. In a recent chapter on the Ottoman population for the Cambridge History of Turkey, Suraiya Faroqhi underscores the fact that due to the exhaustion of the potential of the Ottoman registers and the waning scholarly interest, the literature discussed in her chapter is at least 25 years old.41 Ironically, however, Lowry’s cautionary words to the scholarly community, spoken half a century ago, were not intended to discourage the utilization of these bountiful resources: rather, they seemed intended to foster the exploitation of the immense potential of the tahrirs, while remaining cognizant of some unavoidable limitations. Regrettably, this message was largely misapprehended by contemporary scholars, some of whom have even gone so far as to question the overall usability of these sources. While fully recognizing the various limitations of the tahrir registers, this study contends that they continue to be an exceptionally valuable source for examining general population trends and conducting historical reconstructions of population geography, even though some details of these reconstructions may remain somewhat blurry. Two significant challenges must be emphasized when employing these sources for population reconstructions in an urban context. Firstly, it is apparent that the Ottoman tahrir registers undercount the total urban population in any city encompassed by the registration. This originates from the inherent purpose of these sources—they were intended as taxpayer registers, aimed at recording anticipated revenues, thus excluding all members of the military class, who were not liable to taxation. Consequently, a realistic approximation of the total population in any Ottoman city, including Plovdiv, must factor in an unspecified number of military personnel residing in the same city but omitted from the registration. Disappointingly, it is impossible to specify, even in relative terms, the proportion of the military dwelling in an Ottoman city like Plovdiv or to account for the changes in the ratio over time. Thus, the population estimates in this study exclude the members of the military class and, therefore, should be considered as a minimum count of residents at a given time. In the event that future studies propose a well-substantiated model for supplementing taxpayer figures with a hypothetical number of military personnel, the data regarding Plovdiv’s total population can be appropriately adjusted.42 Secondly, it must be noted that the tahrir registers do not list individual taxpayers, but instead employ a particular fiscal unit referred to as hane. The term hane had a broad use in Ottoman administrative record-keeping and its logic of application 41 Suraiya Faroqhi, “Ottoman Population,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey, ed. Suraiya N. Faroqhi

and Kate Fleet, vol. 2: The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 361. 42 When examining a rural context, additional constraints of the sources come into play, as highlighted by Lowry’s critical overview mentioned above.

48 | Ottoman Plovdiv

varied across different types of registers. This includes the registers for the poll tax of non-Muslims, known as the cizye defterleri, and the registers for the collection of extraordinary taxes, or avarız defterleri, both of which coexisted alongside the tahrir registers.43 The task of translating the fiscal unit hane from the cizye and avarız registers into meaningful population data demands thoughtful consideration, given the myriad of uncertainties surrounding the conduct and specific logics of these surveys across diverse temporal and spatial contexts. Notwithstanding the intricacies of handling the hane within the tahrir registers, there is a solid scholarly consensus that it corresponds to a singular household, specifically encompassing a married couple and their underage children. The principal challenge in converting the households in the tahrirs into population totals concerns the absence of contemporary data elucidating the average household size in the period along with its regional, ethnoreligious, and temporal variations. Nearly a century ago, Barkan offered a solution to this quandary by suggesting the households in the tax registers be multiplied by a factor of five. This effectively presumes an average household to comprise a pair of parents and three offspring. Evidently, the coefficient of five suggested by Barkan is an approximation reflective of a burgeoning population and more of an intuitive estimate than a product of thorough statistical analysis. As a result, its universal applicability has been rightly subjected to critique, but an alternative solution has rarely been proposed.44 In a landmark study, Lowry made significant strides towards a convincing solution by comparing late Byzantine and early Ottoman sources. He proposed that the coefficient that might be applied to a family would be 4.6, and for a household presided over by a widow it would be 3.6.45 These meticulously drawn conclusions, while applicable specifically to the region of Macedonia in the fifteenth century and potentially varying in other locations, nevertheless converge closely with Barkan’s intuitively based coefficient of five. Hence, for the sake of simplicity and readability, the total population figures presented in this study are derived by applying a uniform multiplier of five to all households, irrespective of the specific period or demographic trend, supplemented by the addition of unmarried individuals and widow households documented in the registers. This approach, while undoubtedly lack43 Nejat Göyünç, “Hane Deyimi Hakkında,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 32

(1979): 331–48; Rıfat Özdemir, “Avârız ve Gerçek-hâne Sayılarının Demografik Tahminlerde Kullanılması Üzerine Bazı Bilgiler,” in X. Türk Tarih Kongresi: Ankara, 22-26 Eylül 1986. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler, vol. 4 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993), 1581–1613; Elena Grozdanova, “Za danăčnata edinica hane v demografskite proučvanija,” Istoričeski pregled 28, no. 3 (1972): 81–91; Nenad Moačanin, “The Poll-Tax and Population in the Ottoman Balkans,” in Frontiers of Ottoman Studies, ed. Colin Imber and Keiko Kiyotaki, vol. 1 (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005), 77–89. 44 Leyla Erder, “The Measurement of Pre-Industrial Population Changes. The Ottoman Empire from the 15th to the 17th Century,” Middle Eastern Studies 11, no. 3 (1975): 284–301. 45 Heath W. Lowry, “Changes in Fifteenth-Century Ottoman Peasant Taxation: The Case Study of Radilofo,” in Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, ed. Anthony Bryer and Heath W. Lowry (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986), 23–37.

Documentary archaeology | 49

ing in exactitude and offering merely an approximation, is adaptable and can easily accommodate fresh estimates if comprehensive data on the region’s family structure during different periods becomes available. To avoid imposing restrictions on other researchers who might prefer different coefficients, the raw data as extracted from the tahrirs is readily accessible in Appendix 2.2. The population assessments offered in this study rest upon a foundation of nine detailed (mufassal) and one summary (icmal) tahrir registers, spanning a period from 1472 to 1614. While there exist more registers that cover the rural hinterland of Plovdiv, the selected sources are likely to comprise all the tahrirs housed in Istanbul, Ankara, and Sofia that provide detailed information about the urban population. Apart from the extensive summary register TD 370, published in facsimile and summary description by the Ottoman Archive in Istanbul, the remainder of the source materials is accessible solely as digital copies within the archives. A comprehensive list of all the tahrir registers used in the study, with their respective dates and relevant pages, is presented in Appendix 2.3.

Building a skeleton: a digital spatiotemporal model of the Ottoman city The process of constructing the georeferenced spatial model of Ottoman Plovdiv, a model that assuredly surpasses any “traditional, non-digital” counterpart in terms of spatial precision, unfolded through a series of stages that I will briefly outline below. The initial step entailed georeferencing the historical plans of Plovdiv sketched by Ilinskij (1878) and Schnitter (1891), and extracting features from them manually. Certainly, the functionalities of ArcGIS Pro or other non-commercial software include an array of methods, each with its own strengths, for the automatic extraction of principal features. Yet deliberate selection and manual extraction is not without its own rationale, as this method allows for an immersive, comprehensive learning process, one that encourages a greater level of detail-oriented sensitivity. Furthermore, it provides the freedom to make decisive interventions when handling the inaccuracies that may arise in the course of drawing polygons and polylines. A point that bears repeating is the inherent high precision of these historical plans, a quality that fosters a remarkable level of accuracy during the process of feature extraction, thereby enabling a nuanced portrayal of the city’s historical layout and architecture. This fortuitous intersection of technical precision and reliable historical sources truly amplifies the possibilities open to us. By adhering to this methodology, it was possible to reconstruct the full framework of streets while simultaneously capturing the vast layout of commercial and residential spaces, thereby reweaving the urban tapestry of nineteenth-century Plovdiv in its complete historical richness. Underbuilt public areas, such as the Muslim and Christian cemeteries scattered across the city, were also extracted and added to the reconstruction of the urban fabric, thus ensuring that residential areas would not erroneously overlap with these territories. Elements like the Maritsa riverbed and its islands were restored to their nineteenth-cen-

50 | Ottoman Plovdiv

tury boundaries, untouched by subsequent alterations. The historical accuracy of the reconstructed urban landscape was bolstered by the reinstatement of the wooden bridge, which once crossed the river at the city’s northern edge, in its original location.46 Additionally, the city’s peripheral elements—gardens, fields, and forests— were all enmeshed into this detailed reconstruction, contributing to a more comprehensive depiction of Plovdiv’s outskirts. Finally, the swamp on the city’s western boundary was drawn as an approximation, acknowledging that its spatial spread naturally varied with seasonal humidity levels. Though arduous and time-consuming in its nature, the extraction of features from historical plans is primarily a technical process rather than one necessitating specialized analytic acumen. The analytical aspect is grounded in a critical assessment and thorough exploration of the data included in an array of earlier historical plans, further bolstering and refining the foundational platform that has been painstakingly assembled by extracting features from Schnitter’s 1891 city plan. Thus the detailed analysis of earlier maps enriched the digital model, offering additional depth and nuance to the existing data set. The second phase in crafting a comprehensive digital spatial model of Ottomanera Plovdiv demanded a more profound injection of analytical thought, creative endeavor, and—in a restricted number of cases—informed conjecture. This elevation in complexity from the earlier phase provided a richer, more nuanced understanding of the historical urbanscape, bringing it to life through the power of digitization. In the initial phase, a total of 259 polygons, varying widely in their dimensions, were extracted from the urban plans, each representing a distinct segment of the urban fabric. These segments are intricately interconnected by an array of main thoroughfares and an extensive lattice of secondary streets, inclusive of numerous dead ends, showcasing the city’s unique urban pattern during the Ottoman era. Regrettably, the historical plans utilized in this endeavor offer no indications concerning the names or territorial extent of the city’s quarters (mahalle), which are the primary spatial unit used in the tax registers. Hence, the second phase of crafting the digital city model encompassed a critical task—defining the perimeters of each city quarter with the highest attainable precision and attributing the previously mapped polygons (extracted from historical plans) to their corresponding neighborhoods. The reconstruction of the mahalles’ structure within the Ottoman city is crucial for spatially analyzing population fluctuations over time. As the primary spatial unit, these quarters have experienced various shifts in population densities, making them a significant focus of study. Ascertaining the precise historical demarcations of each of the quarters indicated in the Ottoman tax records poses a considerable challenge, particularly when confronting a modern city where the microtoponymy of the Ottoman era has been almost entirely obliterated. Furthermore, as previous studies have 46 The foundations of the bridge were recently discovered during rescue excavations. I am grateful to

Elena Božinova for sharing with me this information as well as her forthcoming publication. Elena Božinova, “Spasitelno arheologičesko nabljudenie na ul. ‘Rajko Daskalov’ No 82, gr. Plovdiv,” Archeologičeski otkritija i razkopki prez 2022 g., forthcoming.

Documentary archaeology | 51

suggested, the demarcation of neighborhood boundaries was not as rigidly defined as tax registers might lead one to believe. On the contrary, it seems that in numerous cases, the names, socio-economic makeup, and physical parameters of the neighborhoods comprising the urban fabric had a propensity to evolve over time.47 While acknowledging that any endeavor to demarcate strict mahalle boundaries amounts to a simplification of a more complex reality, the study of Ottoman Plovdiv arguably presents a more reliable basis for undertaking such an attempt. The feasibility of this venture springs from the strikingly conservative nature of the local microtoponymy during the Ottoman period. In contrast to many Ottoman cities, where neighborhood names frequently changed—particularly in Christian quarters, which often adopted the name of their presiding priest—the majority of the neighborhood names in Plovdiv maintain remarkable continuity from the earliest Ottoman registers through the initial decades of Bulgarian governance. This consistency is evidenced by an extensive array of documents, including tahrir, cizye, avarız, temettuat, and nüfus registers, spanning a period exceeding four centuries. In a limited number of instances, an alternative name for a neighborhood arose and co-existed with the original for an extensive period. This duality was faithfully echoed in the historical sources, thereby ensuring that the shifts in microtoponymy remain entirely traceable. The enduring nature of quarter names throughout the Ottoman era strongly suggests that they were firmly spatially identified, despite potential minor shifts at the fringes of neighborhood boundaries. This situation raises hopes that we will be able to link polygonal areas derived from historical urban plans to specific quarters, albeit with the acknowledgment that inaccuracies and misidentifications may be inevitable. Regrettably, no credible city plans exist that would permit the derivation of spatial data regarding the city’s neighborhoods. Until quite recently there were also no academic studies that sought to contextually situate the quarters of Plovdiv during the Ottoman era, even in a merely descriptive manner.48 Very recently, however, 47 For a discussion of the topic, see Özer Ergenç, “Osmanlı Şehrindeki «Mahalle»nin İşlev ve Nite-

likleri Üzerine,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 4 (1984): 69–78; Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital (University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), 180–88; Leyla Kayhan Elbirlik, “Neighborhood and Family Lives,” in A Companion to Early Modern Istanbul, ed. Shirine Hamadeh and Çiğdem Kafescıoğlu (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2021), 341–64. 48 Practically until 2020, the only detailed description of the names of Plovdiv’s quarters as used in the Ottoman period came from an article in local newspaper by Hristo Peev, “Plovdivskite mahali v tursko vreme,” Plovdivski Obštinski Vestnik, January 31, 1942. Peev utilized an urban plan, presumably sketched in the late 19th century, which depicted the territorial expansion of the neighborhoods. According to his reports, this plan was in a poor condition at that time. Since then this document has gone missing from the archives, indicating that it may have been either misplaced or destroyed. A recent scholarly publication seemingly focuses particularly on the quarters of Plovdiv. Desislava Dimitrova, “Po mahalata šte gi poznaete (po primera na Filibe prez XVI-XVII vek),” Godišnik na Istoričeskija fakultet na Velikotărnovskija universitet “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodij” 34 (2018): 147–62. The content of the article, however, reveals that the author not only provides a familiar

52 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Vidin Sukarev, a researcher at the Regional History Museum in Plovdiv, published a detailed study that offers a complete list of the quarters and makes a remarkable attempt to situate them spatially via narrative description of the precise borders of every quarter in nineteenth-century Plovdiv.49 Sukarev’s study, based on mid-nineteenth-century population registers and electoral lists from the 1890s, is a magnificent source of information, and it was widely used in this work for drawing up realistic borders for the quarters.50 Indeed, attributing spatial characteristics to Sukarev’s narrative data was anything but a routine task, occasionally leading to divergent interpretations concerning the extent of some quarters. Furthermore, this endeavor enabled the inclusion of quarters within the spatial model that Sukarev was unable to pinpoint, hence facilitating a more precise reconstruction of the Ottoman-era mahalles in Plovdiv. (See Appendix 1.1) The third major step in constructing the digital spatial model of Plovdiv, once the street pattern, urban tissue, and location of the quarters were accomplished, was to add a spatial reference to the public buildings database and add them to the model. The precise locations of the bulk of the buildings were extracted from the historical plans. Their names—and in most cases also their patrons—were identified, and the metadata thus created was added to the polygons of the relevant building in GIS software. Other buildings not indicated on the historical city maps were added to the model thanks to data extracted from the written sources discussed above, thus supplementing the initial model based on the plans. Often the spatial resolution for these additional buildings mentioned in the narrative and documentary sources is simply a reference to the quarter in which they were located, without further indication of the precise location of the building within the neighborhood itself. In such cases, tentative and most likely locations that fall within the boundaries of the mahalles were adopted. While this method may seemingly descend into spatial conjecture, it is crucial for the aims of the analysis to ensure the inclusion within the digital model of all public buildings, including those that vanished prior to the latter half of the nineteenth century. Monumental structures that the cadastral and visual sources have not documented clearly did not play any role in the urban environment of the nineteenth century, but some of them contributed significantly to the formation of the urban fabric in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, where the focus of this study lies. Therefore, including these architectural landmarks in the list of the city’s quarters without attempting to identify their locations, but also presents misleading information about the ethnic composition of these quarters. This discrepancy is likely the product of academic misconduct and the incorrect interpretation of previously published information, falsely depicted by the author as derived from primary sources. 49 Vidin Sukarev, “Plovdivskite mahali prez vtorata polovina na XIX vek,” Plovdivski istoričeski forum 4, no. 1 (2020): 49–78. 50 I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Sukarev with whom I have had a mutually enriching exchange. He was kind enough to share the manuscript of his article prior to its being published, along with some of the sources used by him, such as the electoral roll of Plovdiv residents from the 1890s.

Documentary archaeology | 53

model—even at the cost of some spatial precision—seemed a necessary and justified approach. The relative accuracy of the location of the edifices in question is duly indicated on the plan (see Appendix 1.2). In view of the area of the neighborhoods in which these buildings are located, the margin of possible error in their positioning varies between 100 and 250 m. Crafting a digital model of Plovdiv during the Ottoman era allows in-depth diachronic observations on the evolution of the urban space. The lack of a detailed historical cadastral plan from the Ottoman period, which would provide information about the individual land plots, is a significant shortcoming, but in any case cadastral information on individual plots originating in the nineteenth century would hardly apply to the realities of the fifteenth century, when the urban fabric of Ottoman Plovdiv initially developed. Instead, the spatially referenced database created for this study might be tackled using methodologies adapted from retrogressive analysis, a strategy which enables the progressive reconstruction of urban development through the ages. Knowing the precise location, names, and spatial extent of the nineteenth-century quarters of Plovdiv, one can combine this information with population and taxation data to track the evolution of the quarter structure throughout the Ottoman period. By employing this approach, the spatial model selectively excludes quarters that are present on the nineteenth-century city plans and in the contemporary Ottoman registers but whose existence is not evidenced in the sources dating back to the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries. This spatial crop registers only the territories of the city that were occupied during the first three centuries of Ottoman rule, without including in the spatial analysis parts that were developed later, in the course of the eighteenth century but most notably during the nineteenth. The georeferenced database of public buildings serves as a significant data validator, since none of the known buildings from the period can fall outside the confines of its contemporary urban space based on the territorial extent of urban quarters as they were. In order to ensure data reusability and address any potential errors introduced by the author, all data packages generated for the purpose of this book have been made publicly accessible on Zenodo.51 Additionally, high-resolution versions of the visualizations utilized in the book are provided and can be downloaded from the dedicated website, appropriately titled Ottoman Plovdiv.52

51 Grigor Boykov, “Ottoman Plovdiv_geodataset”. Zenodo, 2023. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.

10046836.

52 https://ottomanplovdiv.org/visualizations/.

Regional geography and conquest Upper Thrace Plovdiv’s strategic importance emerges quite vividly when one examines the region’s geographic merits, and its elaborate infrastructural array including a broad web of transportation routes, communication systems, and fortifications. The city is nestled in the heart of Upper Thrace and has served as the traditional seat of regional power since Late Antiquity. It dominates the most extensive lowland in Bulgaria, Upper Thrace (Bul. Gornotrakijska nizina), with a surface area of more than 6000 km2. Upper Thrace has an irregular rectangular shape that stretches from west to east (160–80 km) between Ihtimanska Sredna Gora and Manastirski-Svetiilijski Eminences and the Sakar mountain. To the north, the lowland begins at the foot of Sredna Gora (Ott. Karacadağ) and stretches south for 40–50 km until it reaches the Rhodope Mountains. The average altitude of Upper Thrace is 168 m, with its lowest point near mod. Părvomaj (Ott. Hacı İlyas) lying at an altitude of 100 m. The Čirpan Eminences provisionally divide the lowland into two similar parts. The western part comprises the regions of Pazardžik and Plovdiv, while the eastern portion encompasses the area of Stara Zagora and the course of the river Sazlijka.1 With its fertile soils and temperate climatic conditions, the lowland within Upper Thrace is particularly conducive to the cultivation of cereals, including wheat, rye, barley, and oats, while the mountain slopes that border the lowland to the north and south, owing to their suitable topography and climatic conditions, have been wine-producing regions since at least Antiquity. Additionally, the predominantly flat terrain and ample availability of running water render Upper Thrace an optimal location for the intensive cultivation of rice, which the Ottomans quickly recognized as evidenced by

the construction of numerous irrigation channels to facilitate the provision of water to the region’s paddy fields.

1 Remarkably, two recent studies concerning the eastern part of Upper Thrace during the Ottoman

period persistently, yet inexplicably, situate this region within the Central Balkans. Milena Petkova, Centralnite Balkani i osmancite. Demografsko razvitie i agrarna ikonomika na Iztočnija djal na Trakijskata nizina prez XVI vek (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2020); Milena Petkova, Meždu Anatolia i Rumelija. Jurucite i stopanskoto rajonirane na časti of Centralnite Balkani, sredata na XV - sredata na XVI vek (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2021).

56 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 1. The region of Upper Thrace in Bulgaria

The Maritsa River (Gr. Evros and Ott. Meriç) traverses Upper Thrace diagonally before reaching Adrianople, while numerous smaller streams converge with the Maritsa from the north and south; during the Ottoman era, rafts were used on these waterways for the shipment of grain, iron, and other goods between Pazardžik (Ott. Tatarpazarı) and Enez (Gr. Aenus) on the Marmara coast.2 In addition to the presence of the river, Upper Thrace was a nexus within the expansive transportation network connecting Constantinople and Belgrade. This crucial thoroughfare, known as the Roman Via Militaris (also known as Via Diagonalis), served as the primary communication artery throughout the Balkan region. The perpetual movement of people and goods along this route is indicative of its immense significance for the exchange of resources, ideas, and culture during the historical period under consideration. As a pivotal commercial artery, the Via Militaris was not only integral to economic exchange but also played a vital role in military logistics, as its name suggests. Armies have traversed this strategic route for military expeditions and campaigns since Antiquity, and this pattern persisted well into the Ottoman era, during which the Via Militaris became the primary conduit for Ottoman 2 For a comprehensive and in-depth examination of the geography of the region, see Andreas Liber-

atos, Vărzoždenskijat Plovdiv: transformacija, hegemonija, nacionalizăm (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2019), 31–81. Original Greek version, Ανδρέας Λυμπεράτος, Οικονομία, πολιτική και εθνική ιδεολογία : η διαμόρφωση των εθνικών κομμάτων στη Φιλιππούπολη του 19ου αιώνα (Ηράκλειο: Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις Κρήτης, 2009).

Regional geography and conquest | 57

forces advancing towards the western regions of the Balkans and Central Europe. Consequently, the route was critical for both commercial and military endeavors, underscoring its enduring importance throughout various historical periods.3 Several other secondary roads branched from the primary route, making Plovdiv a strategic crossroads of communication arteries. One notable route extended northward from Plovdiv following the course of the Strjama River (Ott. Göpsu), traversing the Karlovo plain, and penetrating the Balkan mountain range (Stara Planina; Ott. Koca Balkan) via the Trojan Pass (Beklemeto). The path proceeded northward through Loveč (Ott. Lofça) and Pleven (Ott. Plevne) before ultimately reaching Nikopol (Ott. Niğbolu) on the Danube River. This vital connection between Upper Thrace, Danubian Bulgaria, and the Danube River had been utilized for centuries prior to the Ottoman period, and remained significant during Ottoman times as evidenced by the enduring local designation of the route as the “Gaziler yolu,” or the road of the warriors of the faith.4 Two secondary, yet critically important, roads emanating from Plovdiv ensured connectivity with the Aegean coast by traversing the extensive mountain massif of the Rhodopes. The eastern route passed through Stenimachos (Ott. İstanimaka and mod. Asenovgrad) before continuing southward into the heart of the mountains. From there, it branched into two independent paths, one leading to Komotini (Ott. Gümülcine) and the other to Xanthi (Ott. İskeçe). The western corridor, on the other hand, followed the valley of Văča (Ott. Kriçime suyu) and, passing through Dospat (Ott. Despot), ultimately reached the cities of Drama and Serres (Ott. Siroz).5 These two routes provided access to the Aegean ports, further enhancing Plovdiv’s strategic significance for transportation and communication networks in the region. Despite the challenges posed by the elevated mountainous terrain and increased energy costs associated with transportation on these routes, both roads were in active use, particularly during the warmer seasons, because they considerably reduced the distance between Upper Thrace and the ports on the Aegean coast. The advantages of these roads in terms of distance and transportation time can be demonstrated through a simple path simulation utilizing Orbis: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World.6 Orbis’s database lacks information about the roads cutting through the Rhodopes, and therefore the platform fails to provide direct insight into the potential benefits of these routes. When connecting Philippopolis with Neapolis (Ott. Kavala) on the platform and selecting a walking function, the resulting displayed road takes an extended loop around the mountain with a total length of 663 km, which could be traversed within 22 days. In contrast, when 3 For a recent literature review and a simulation of the movement of Ottoman troops, see M Erdem

Kabadayi, Piet Gerrits, and Grigor Boykov, “Geospatial Mapping of a 16th Century Transport Corridor for Southeast Europe,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 37, no. 3 (2022): 788–812. 4 Mitko Madžarov, Rimskijat păt Oescus-Philippopol. Pătni stancii i selišta (Plovdiv: Samizdat, 2005). 5 Catherine Asdracha, La région des Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles: étude de géographie historique (Athens: Verlag der byzantinisch-neugriechischen Jahrbücher, 1976), 29–49. 6 https://orbis.stanford.edu/.

58 | Ottoman Plovdiv

utilizing the walk function in Google Maps to connect the same points/cities— despite being based on modern road infrastructure and therefore yielding only tentative results—the algorithm selects the roads crossing the Rhodopes and calculates a total distance of 266 km, which can be covered within seven or eight days at a walking pace based on an eight-hour day. Although both simulations lack precision, they demonstrate that using the mountainous roads for moving people and goods (likely loaded on pack animals) was significantly more time- and distance-efficient than using the roundabout road with flatter terrain, which would have been more advantageous for military purposes. The roads cutting through the Rhodope mountains were also indispensable for transporting goods between the north and south, functioning as the primary arteries connecting Upper Thrace with Western Thrace and the region of Southern Macedonia. At a distance of approximately 25 kilometers east of Plovdiv, a secondary thoroughfare diverged from the Via Militaris and linked the city to the Black Sea shoreline through Čirpan (Ott. Çırpan) and Stara Zagora (Ott. Eski Zağra) before joining the main route leading north to Walachia and further on to Iaşi, Kyiv, and Moscow.7 About 35 km west of Plovdiv, where Pazardžik would emerge in the late fourteenth century, there was another critical juncture on the Via Militaris. This point served as either the starting or endpoint of a road that led through Samokov (Ott. Samako), Kjustendil (Ott. Köstendil), and Skopje (Ott. Üsküb), and continued towards Kosovo, Novi Pazar (Ott. Yeni Bazar), and further on to Dubrovnik. It was one of the caravan routes for the goods of the Ragusan merchants, but also—and probably more notably—the chief transportation artery for the strategically important iron production of the Samokov region, which was transported either eastward to Istanbul or westwards toward Bosnia and further north to Central Europe.8 The need to secure and maintain the safe flow of traffic on these routes had led since Late Antiquity to the gradual construction of numerous fortifications in the region. These structures, of varying sizes and purposes, served to control traffic, offer refuge in case of enemy invasion, and provide storage for valuable commodities such as metalware until safe transportation could be arranged. The available archaeological data, however, cannot determine with precision how many of these fortifications were still in use in the mid-fourteenth century when the Ottoman forces appeared in the region. For many of these sites, proper excavations or detailed 7 Michael Wendel, Karasura: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Thrakien, vol. 1–3

(Weissbach: Beier & Beran, 2001); Peter Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, vol. 6. Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos) (Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), 132–46. 8 Constantin Josef Jireček, Die Handelstrassen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien während des Mittelalters (Prag: Verlag der Königliche böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1879); Jesse Howell, “The Ragusa Road: Mobility and Encounter in the Ottoman Balkans (1430–1700)” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2017), 33–41; Zdenko Zlatar, Dubrovnik’s Merchants and Capital in the Ottoman Empire (1520–1620): A Quantitative Study (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2011), 170–75; Suraiya Faroqhi, “Camels, Wagons, and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 14, no. 4 (1982): 532.

Regional geography and conquest | 59

non-destructive research in situ have not to date been carried out, although scholars have collected some data during field surveys.9 If we were to assemble the available data on the fortifications built in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, despite its expected insufficiency and inaccuracy, the list of sites with various types of fortified ruins would easily exceed one hundred.10 When plotted on a map, the geographical distribution of the fortifications likely to have been standing in the mid-fourteenth century reflects the circumstances that the Ottomans possibly faced at that time. In the open lowland, fortified settlements were scarce, and Plovdiv was a dominant city in a vast, probably sparsely inhabited region. In contrast, Upper Thrace and its metropolis were encircled by several heavily fortified belts consisting of fortified settlements, small fortresses, and single towers situated at elevated locations at the foot of the mountains. At the northern skirts of the Rhodopes, a dense line of fortifications was erected that served two purposes: it protected the medieval route of the Via Militaris, which ran closer to the mountain than its later Ottoman successor, and it obstructed access to the highland. Additionally, two more belts of fortifications were constructed at the southern foot of Sredna Gora and Stara Planina, regulating access to Upper Thrace from the north. Several other fortresses were placed along the region’s primary and secondary roads, simultaneously guarding and monitoring the traffic.11 Stara Zagora and Plovdiv served as the power centers overseeing these numerous fortifications in the hinterland, and they effectively controlled every transportation artery in the region. Having swiftly and relatively easily gained control over the principal towns, the Ottomans must have enjoyed a measure of comfort in gradually subduing the more significant fortresses that might have resisted the forces of Lala Şahin. Records of the conquest of the remaining parts of Upper Thrace, the Rhodopes, and the planes of Karlovo and Kazanlăk, squeezed between Sredna Gora and Stara Planina, are absent from the narrative sources, but anecdotal evidence suggests that not all places and their governors surrendered without resistance. That was probably the case for the descendants of those semi-independent regional rulers of small regional principalities such as Smilec (d. 1298), who occupied the Bulgarian throne (r. 1292–98) and whose daughter Theodora gave birth to the Serbian king Stefan Dušan (r. 1331–55), or Eltimir/Aldemir (d. 1305 or later) who ruled over his 9 An archaeological gazetteer of Ottoman Bulgaria is currently being prepared by Chavdar Kirilov

and his team at the University of Sofia as part of the Bulgarian Science Fund–funded project “Settlement Network, Road Infrastructure, and Population in Bulgaria during the Ottoman Period: A Historical and Archaeological Spatial Analysis.” 10 For details on individual sites, see the monumental reference work by Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini. 11 Petăr Mutafčiev, Stari gradišta i drumove iz dolinite na Strema i Topolnica (Sofija: Carska pridvorna pečatnica, 1915); Dimităr Cončev, Arheologičeski pametnici po južnite sklonove na Panagjurska Sredna gora (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1963); Valeri Grigorov, Krepostta Krasen do Panagjurište (Sofia: Akademično izdatelstvo “Marin Drinov,” 2010); Kamen Stanev, Trakija prez Rannoto srednovekovie (Vekiko Tărnovo: Faber, 2012).

60 | Ottoman Plovdiv

family domains centered on the fortress of Krăn near Kazanlăk. Vojsil, the younger brother of Smilec, unified and controlled the region in the first half of the fourteenth century, using the fortress of Kopsis near Karlovo as a residence and a regional seat of power.12 The lack of written sources regarding the Ottoman conquest of this region seemingly blocks any attempt at understanding that would extend beyond speculation. Yet archaeological evidence from Kopsis, the ancestral residence of Vojsil, indicates a sudden and violent demise of the town during the mid-fourteenth century.13 In all probability, the observed devastation can be correlated with the region’s subjugation by the Ottoman forces, which can potentially be ascribed to Lala Şahin’s endeavors to assert complete control over the Upper Thracian territories during the 1360s.

The Ottoman conquest of Plovdiv and the region of Thrace in the 1360s–1370s Telling the history of Plovdiv under Ottoman rule necessitates setting a clear starting point, a terminus a quo, for its subjugation by the Ottomans, and comprehending the conditions leading to its Ottoman occupation, thereby generating two fundamental questions—when and how the Ottomans conquered the city. Moreover, the term “Ottomans” itself demands careful articulation when painting a picture of the Eastern Balkans during the mid-fourteenth century. To trace how Ottoman control over the city was established and identify the chief players involved in this process is perhaps not unduly daunting; to identify the precise moment when these events occurred is more difficult. This obscurity is mainly due to the ambiguity of the sources relating the earliest Ottoman incursions in Southeastern Europe, especially regarding the conquest of the eastern parts of the Balkan Peninsula. While the interactions in the Central and Western Balkans, particularly those between Late Medieval Christian actors and their adversaries who sided with—and, in essence, embodied—the Ottoman dynasty, are sufficiently chronicled that one can trace the narrative almost day by day, the situation for the Eastern Balkans is not so clear. The sources describing similar processes in these regions are so sporadic and contradictory that they provoke disagreements over the precise chronology of major historical events, often to the point of indeterminacy as regards where within the span of one or even multiple decades these events should be placed. In a series of recent studies, Oliver Jens Schmitt has critically assessed the wealth of literature concerning the Ottoman con12 Petăr Nikov, “Tatarobălgarski otnošenija prez srednite vekove s ogled kăm caruvaneto na Smileca,”

Godišnik na Sofijskia universitet, Filosofsko-istoričeski fakultet 15–16 (1921): 1–95; John V. A. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994), 170–85; Ani Dančeva-Vasileva, Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV–XIV vek) (Sofia: Akademično izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 2009), 150–53. 13 Ivan Džambov, Srednovekovnata krepost kraj Sopot (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1991), 181–82; Atanas Popov, Kreposti i ukrepitelni săorăženija v Krănskata srednovekovna oblast (Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1982).

Regional geography and conquest | 61

quest, underscoring the fact that the Western Balkans has been disproportionately represented in scholarly work, largely due to the robustness of the sources at hand. Schmitt then advocates for a greater level of detailed research concerning the Eastern territories. Such contributions would enable a richer and more comprehensive understanding of the long-drawn-out and complex process of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, beyond the well-charted narratives of the West. His call to scholarship recognizes the necessity for a nuanced portrayal of the Ottoman expansion, a narrative that in its current state remains fragmented.14 By answering his call, we might achieve a more profound comprehension of the complex dynamics at play in the Eastern Balkans during the Ottoman invasion, extending our understanding beyond the narratives of successive conquests and states. The fall of Plovdiv into Ottoman hands serves as a case in point. It stands as a distinct instance within the grand narrative of the Ottoman expansion, demonstrating the complex and often understudied dynamics at play in the Eastern Balkans during the time of the Ottoman conquest. Despite the contrasting views, there seems to be a consensus within contemporary scholarship that the conquest of Plovdiv likely occurred after Adrianople (Ott. Edirne) had fallen into Ottoman control. Nevertheless, scholars remain sharply divided over the exact timing of Adrianople’s capture by the Ottomans, attributing it to differing figures and agencies. The proposed dates for the Ottoman takeover of Adrianople span from 1361 to the latter half of the 1370s, thereby introducing further complexity into the overall chronology of the conquest of Thrace at large. On one side of the debate is the authoritative opinion of Halil İnalcık, who argued persuasively in favor of an early conquest date, as accomplished in 1361 by the then prince Murad I (r. 1362–89).15 The subsequent Turkish historiography generally aligned with İnalcık’s suggested date, constructing the chronology of the conquest of Thrace on that basis.16 On the oppo14 In Schmitt’s view it is imperative that modern studies also reevaluate the terminology utilized in the

general historical narrative of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, and effect a much closer integration between the various actors involved in the process. Oliver Jens Schmitt, “Südosteuropa im Spätmittelalter: Akkulturierung – Integration – Inkorporation?,” in Akkulturation im Mittelalter, ed. Reinhard Härtel (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2014), 81–136; Oliver Jens Schmitt, “Introduction: The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans – Research Questions and Interpretations,” in The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans: Interpretations and Research Debates, ed. Oliver Jens Schmitt (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016), 7–45; Oliver Jens Schmitt, “Der Balkan zwischen regionaler Herrschaftsbildung und osmanischer Eroberung (ca.1300 – ca.1500),” in Handbuch zur Geschichte Südosteuropas. Bd. 2: Herrschaft und Politik in Südosteuropa von 1300 bis 1800, ed. Oliver Jens Schmitt (Oldenbourg: De Gruyter, 2021), 84–159; Oliver Jens Schmitt, “The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans and Its Historical Arenas: on the Relationship between Regional and Supraregional History,” Revue des études sud-est européennes 59 (2021): 9–35; Oliver Jens Schmitt, “Traîtres ou champions de la survie? Les seigneurs de tendance ottomane dans les Balkans à l’époque de la conquête ottomane,” Travaux et mémoires 25, no. 1 (2021): 213–75. 15 Halil İnalcık, “The Conquest of Edirne 1361,” Archivum Ottomanicum 3 (1971): 185–210. Halil İnalcık, “Edirne’nin Fethi (1361),” in Edirne: Edirne’nin 600. Fetih Yıldönümü Armağan Kitabı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993), 137–59. 16 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Edirne,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1994); İlhan Şahin, “XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Sofya-Filibe-Eski Zağra ve Tatar

62 | Ottoman Plovdiv

site pole is an equally well-argued opinion expressed by Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr and Elizabeth Zachariadou, who advocated for a later date based on the analysis of different sources: 1369, thus complicating the picture with the viable and intriguing suggestion that the city’s conquest was not the work of Murad I, but rather of the semi-independent marcher lords known as ucbeyleri.17 The year suggested by Beldiceanu-Steinherr/Zachariadou for Adrianople’s fall was adopted by Hristo Matanov in his groundbreaking study of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, placing the conquest of Bulgarian (Northern) Thrace and Plovdiv in 1369 or after.18 The same holds true for Colin Imber’s seminal work, which aims at making sense of the chronology of the early Ottoman Empire,19 and the more recent overview “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire” by Machiel Kiel, who modified the dates of conquest for other small towns in Thrace to match the later year (1369) for Adrianople’s fall.20 The author of the present study must confess to a certain inconsistency, having adopted the later date for the fall of Adrianople and the conquest of Plovdiv in a former publication, only to veer toward the earlier date in subsequent works.21 Despite being an essential temporal marker for the subsequent course of events, the exact date of Adrianople’s conquest remains unsettled and the debate has been ongoing for several decades. The difficulty of resolution lies in the fact that all sides of the discussion put forth persuasive arguments, making it almost impossible to

17

18

19 20

21

Pazarı’nın Nüfus ve İskan Durumu,” Türk Dünayası Araştırmaları Dergisi 48 (1987): 249–56; İlhan Şahin, Feridun Emecen, and Yusuf Halaçoğlu, “Turkish Settlements in Rumelia (Bulgaria) in the 15th and 16th Centuries: Town and Village Population,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4, no. 2 (1989): 23–40; Neriman Ersoy-Hacısalihoğlu, “Filibe/Plovdiv in der Zeit der Tanzimat-Reformen im 19. Jahrhundert. Administration, Bevölkerung, Wirtschaft,” Südost-Forschungen, no. 65–66 (2006): 268. Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “La conquête d’Andrianople par les Turcs: la pénétration turque en Thrace et la valeur des chroniques ottomans,” Travaux et mémoires 1 (1965): 439–61; Elizabeth Zachariadou, “The Conquest of Adrianople by the Turks,” Studi Veneziani 22 (1970): 211–17. Less influential is the hypothesis of Burmov, who argued that Adrianople was conquered after the battle of Černomen in 1371. Aleksandır Burmov, “Türkler Edirne’yi ne vakit aldılar?,” Belleten 13, no. 7 (1949): 97–106; Aleksandăr Burmov, “Koga e zavladjan Odrin ot turcite?,” in Izbrani proizvedenija v tri toma, vol. 1 (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1968), 297–303. To date, this work stands as the sole monograph on the Ottoman conquest. Hristo Matanov and Rumjana Mihneva, Ot Galipoli do Lepanto: Balkanite, Evropa i osmanskoto našestvie, 1354–1571 g. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1988), 44–45. Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1481 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1990), 28–31. Machiel Kiel, “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353–1453,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey, ed. Kate Fleet, vol. 1: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 170. Grigor Boykov and Mariya Kiprovska, “The Ottoman Philippopolis (Filibe) During the Second Half of the 15th c.,” Bulgarian Historical Review 3–4 (2000): 112; Grigor Boykov, “Mastering the Conquered Space: Resurrection of Urban Life in Ottoman Upper Thrace (14th–17th c.)” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ankara, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2013), 39–40. The latter was completed under the invigorating supervision of Prof. İnalcık and was very much influenced by his authoritative opinion as concerns the conquest of Adrianople.

Regional geography and conquest | 63

adopt a standpoint without negating some part of the discourse.22 Hence, İnalcık offers solid evidence that Prince Murad indeed took the city in early 1361; simultaneously, however, from the sources and arguments presented by Beldiceanu-Steinherr and Zachariadou, it becomes apparent that the city was undoubtedly in Byzantine hands throughout most of the 1360s and was taken by the Ottomans in 1369. Since an analysis of the sources demonstrates their reliability, yet the sources nevertheless give conflicting dates for the conquest of Adrianople, it is worth asking the obvious questions: Is it possible that the city was conquered more than once? Do we really need to envisage the Ottoman conquest of Thrace as a process that progressed along a strict linear trajectory? Revisiting the controversial matter of the exact date Adrianople fell to the Ottomans, Samet Budak has recently argued that, by perceiving the Ottoman advance in the Balkans as a unilinear process, scholars have thus failed to comprehend a much richer reality in which some localities changed hands more than once before Ottoman control was definitively established.23 Citing Ottoman and European sources that to date had been either underutilized or entirely ignored, Budak was able to establish that Adrianople changed hands several times during the 1360s and 1370s. Practically, the city having been “conquered” three times. As İnalcık argued, Murad I did indeed take it in early 1361; but Ottoman control did not last long, since evidence suggests that later in the same year the Byzantines resumed control. Several sources strongly imply that it remained in Byzantine hands until 1369, when, as proposed by Beldiceanu-Steinherr, the mighty marcher lord Hacı İlbegi (d. 1370s), in all likelihood together with Gazi Evrenos (d. 1417), conquered the city for a second time. This conquest was achieved without Murad I’s involvement, his forces being blocked in Asia Minor, and the relationship between the sultan and some of the marcher lords in Europe in any case having been seemingly very tense. According to Budak’s analysis, Adrianople remained under the control of the ucbeyleri until 1377, when Sultan Murad I campaigned against the city and forcefully established permanent control by the House of Osman.24 Budak’s finding that Adrianople was taken more than once is highly significant because it allows us to improve the chronology of the conquest of Thrace in general and of Plovdiv in particular without forcing the entire narrative to conform to either 22 The most recent studies on Ottoman Edirne, whose authors underscore the impossibility of defin-

ing the exact date of the Ottoman conquest, illustrate this confusion. Panagiotis Kontolaimos, “The Transformation of Late Byzantine Adrianople to Early Ottoman Edirne,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 1 (2016): 7–27; Amy Singer, “Enter, Riding on an Elephant: How to Approach Early Ottoman Edirne,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 1 (2016): 89–109; Φωκίων Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη. Επτά περιπτώσεις από τον νοτιοβαλκανικό χώρο, Αδριανούπολη – Σέρρες – Καστοριά – Τρίκαλα – Λάρισα – Θεσσαλονίκη – Ιωάννινα (Αθήνα: Βιβλιόραμα, 2019), 53–83. 23 Samet Budak, “The Conquests of Adrianople by the Turks: Reflections on the Ottoman Expansion in Thrace,” Der Islam 99, no. 2 (2022): 552–83. 24 Budak, 564–75.

64 | Ottoman Plovdiv

of the dates for the city’s fall. Recent studies on the eastern parts of Thrace, an area that often remains at the periphery of scholarly interest, strengthen the viability of Budak’s hypothesis. Adrianople was not the only city in the region that changed hands several times in the second half of the fourteenth century. Hence, for instance, the essential provincial military and administrative center Vizye (Ott. Vize) was first conquered in 1358 by the Ottoman prince Süleyman paşa (d. 1359), who marked the event by converting the local cathedral of St. Sophia into a mosque. Soon retaken by the Byzantines, the town was besieged and seized once more in 1369 by Mihaloğlu Hızır bey, only to be quickly returned to Byzantine control, but occupied once again by Prince Musa Çelebi (d. 1413) during the Ottoman accession wars in the first decades of the fifteenth century. The triumphant Mehmed I (r. 1413–21), however, returned Vizye to Emperor Manuel II (r. 1391–1425), and the town remained in Byzantine hands until the 1420s when Murad II (r. 1421–44 and 1446–51) finally conquered it and added it to the territories of the Ottoman state.25 The shift in the approach towards the dating of Adrianople’s fall, allowing more than one possibility, substantially changes our conception of the sequence of the events that occurred during the 1360s and 1370s. This new paradigm allows historians to more accurately describe the complex realities of the conquest of Thrace, and to situate the Ottomans’ taking of Plovdiv within this history as newly conceived. A comprehensive and fully reliable account of all details regarding the fall of every individual town in the region is undoubtedly far off, but the main actors, zones of activity, and a relative chronology of their actions can nevertheless be drawn in its general lines. Establishing the precise sequence of events during the Ottoman conquest of Thrace in all its complexity lies beyond the scope of the present text, but in order to contextualize the fall of Plovdiv within the larger framework of the early Ottoman exploits in the Balkans, in what follows I will attempt a rough sketch of the general picture. As much as the narrative lacks precision and obscures valuable details, it still has the potential to offer a broadly truthful account of how and under 25 For a detailed critical overview of the sources related to the conquest, see Mariya Kiprovska,

“Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century. The Mihaloğlu Family Vakf Possessions in the Area,” in Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation, ed. Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivaylo Lozanov (Sofia: Sofia University Press, 2017), 188–92. Cf. Halil İnalcık, “Polunya (Apollunia) – Tanrı-Yıkdıgı Osmanlı Rumeli Fetihleri Kronolojisinde Düzeltmeler (1354–1371),” in Prof. Dr. Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, ed. Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 2006), 27–57; Halil İnalcık, “Apolonija (Pulunija) - Tanră Jăkdăgă: kăm hronologijata na osmanskite zavoevanija po Balkanite (1354-1371),” Istoričeski pregled, no. 1–2 (2007): 16–41; Georgios Liakopoulos, “The Ottoman Conquest of Thrace. Aspects of Historical Geography” (Unpublished MA Thesis, Bilkent University, 2002), 79–81; Toni Filiposki, “Before and after the Battle of Maritsa (1371): The Significance of the Non-Ottoman Factor in the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans,” in The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans: Interpretations and Research Debates, ed. Oliver Jens Schmitt (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016), 65–78; Machiel Kiel, “A Note on the History of the Frontiers of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th Century,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 66, no. 2 (1973): 351–53.

Regional geography and conquest | 65

what circumstances Ottoman control over Plovdiv was established, and who were the main actors involved. The storyline is concerned not so much with the fall of individual places as with spatial considerations regarding the power of dominant regional actors in Thrace, some of whom, as appears during the events from the 1360s–1370s, were acting rather independently from the Ottoman dynastic house, although initially commissioned to act on its behalf.26 Scholarship to date agrees that in 1362, after Murad I returned to Anatolia and engaged in an exhausting struggle to secure the Ottoman throne, the situation in the Balkans gradually changed. This became more apparent after 1366 when Gallipoli (Ott. Gelibolu) passed out of the control of the Ottomans, and the easy transfer of troops across the Dardanelles was interrupted. Ottoman chronicles assert that before leaving Europe, Murad I left his tutor (Ott. lala), a convert to Islam named Şahin, to act on his behalf in the Balkans, and even created for him an office that did not exist prior to that moment—he appointed him to serve as “lord of the lords” (beylerbeyi) in command of the other inferior lords.27 It is unclear whether or to what extent the other marcher lords accepted the superiority of Lala Şahin, but the Ottoman sources imply that there existed a general mistrust, if not an open competition and enmity, between him and Hacı İlbegi, which eventually led to the execution of the latter upon Murad’s return to the Balkans in the second half of the 1370s.28 The command of Lala Şahin over the regional marcher lords was likely nominal at 26 The spatial extent of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans has recently been emphasized by Oliver

Jens Schmitt, who distinguishes several important regional and supraregional spaces for the overall process of conquest, in which various actors interacted. Schmitt, “The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans and Its Historical Arenas: on the Relationship between Regional and Supraregional History”; Schmitt, “Traîtres ou champions de la survie? Les seigneurs de tendance ottomane dans les Balkans à l’époque de la conquête ottomane”; Oliver Jens Schmitt, “‘Sie kämpften mit den Türken, wider Willen zwar, aber es war nicht anders möglich’: Beobachtungen zur serbisch-osmanischen Verflechtung zwischen der Schacht am Amselfeld und dem Untergang des serbischen Despotats (1389–1459),” Zeischrift für Balkanologie 58, no. 1–2 (2022): 131–52; Adrian Gheorghe, The Metamorphoses of Power: Violence, Warlords, A ḳ ıncıs and the Early Ottomans (1300–1450) (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022). 27 Halil İnalcık, “Murad I,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2006); Victor L. Ménage, “Beglerbegi,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition) (Leiden: Brill, 2012); İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1947), 96–97; M. Safiyüddin Erhan, “Şihabüddin Lala Şahin Paşa Hayatı, Vakıfları ve Külliyesi,” in Sultan I. Murad Hudâvendigâr ve Dönemi, ed. İsmail Selimoğlu (Bursa: Osmangazi Belediyesi, 2012), 196–231. Cf. Vedat Turgut, “Vakıf Belgeleri Işığında Umur Bey ve Lala Şahin Paşa’nın Menşei ve Osmanlılar ile İttifakı’na Dair,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 47 (2016): 1–38, who argues against the Christian origin of Lala Şahin. 28 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “La conquête d’Andrianople par les Turcs: la pénétration turque en Thrace et la valeur des chroniques ottomans,” 451; Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “En marge d’un acte concernant le penğyek et les aqınğı,” Revue des études islamiques 37, no. 1 (1969): 38–41; Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Le règne de Selim I: tournant dans la vie politique et religieuse de l’empire ottoman,” Turcica 6 (1975): 45; Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 138–44.

66 | Ottoman Plovdiv

best, and one can distinguish three clearly defined zones of action (uc), controlled by different powerful actors and their allies.29 The southern zone was held by Hacı İlbegi, a warlord from Karasi who came to the Balkans early on, together with Süleyman paşa, and his then probably relatively young associate Gazi Evrenos (d. 1417). The military contingents of Hacı İlbegi and Evrenos must have been very efficient because, in the course of the 1360s, they managed to subdue all the critical strongholds along the valley and delta of the Maritsa River. Around the time of the first conquest of Adrianople (1361) and the subsequent reestablishment of Byzantine control over it, the marcher lords, acting together or individually, managed to conquer the keep of Pythion (Ott. Hacı İlbegi Burgazı/Kulesi), built after 1341 by John VI Kantakouzenos (r. 1347–54) as his treasury and safehouse; the large and strong fortress of Didymoteichon (Ott. Dimetoka); and the key crossroads town Kypsela (Ott. İpsala).30 This success must have emboldened the southern zone leaders to make a new attempt on Adrianople, and they conquered it again in 1369. The second conquest of Adrianople, along with the fact that Evrenos may have claimed noble if not royal Serbian descent, must have been among the main factors that triggered the counter-campaign organized by the Serbian king Vukašin Mrnjavčević (r. 1365–71) and his brother Jovan Uglješa (d. 1371), the despot of Serres.31 The Serbians’ attempt 29 Oliver Jens Schmitt, “Between Two Worlds or a World of Its Own? The Eastern Adriatic in the Fif-

teenth Century,” in The Crusade in the Fifteenth Century: Converging and Competing Cultures, ed. Norman Housley (London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), 170–71. 30 Heath W. Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2008), 18–23; Hristo Hristozov, “The Ottoman Town of İpsala from the Second Half of the 14th to the End of the 16th Century,” in Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation, ed. Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivaylo Lozanov (Sofia: Sofia University Press, 2017), 161–82; Manolis Korres and Charalambos Bakirtizis, “Fortress of Pithion, Greece,” in Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Euangelia Hadjitryphonos (Thessaloniki: AIMOS, Society for the Study of the Medieval Architecture in the Balkans and its Preservation, 1997), 158–61; Elisabeth Zachariadou, “The Sultanic Residence and the Capital: Didymoteichon and Adrianople,” in The Ottoman Empire, the Balkans, the Greek Lands: Towards a Social and Economic History, ed. Elias Kolovos, Phokion Kotzageorgis, and Sophia Laiou (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 357–61; Panagiotis Kontolaimos, “Small Place, Large Issues: Didimoteicho/Dimetoca and Early Ottoman Urban Practices in the Balkans from the Mid-Fourteenth to the End of the Fifteenth Century,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 5, no. 1 (2018): 143–67; Ourania Bessi, “The Topographic Reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka: Issues of Periodization and Morphological Development,” in Frontiers of the Ottoman Imagination: Studies in Honour of Rhoads Murphey, ed. Marios Hadjianastasis (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 44–85. 31 It is unclear whether Evrenos claimed Serbian descent in his lifetime, but the fact that one of his sons presented his genealogy in a 1456–1457 document as “İsa bey, son of emir Evrenos, son of Branko Lazar” strongly suggests so. See Heath W. Lowry, Fourteenth Century Ottoman Realities: In Search of Hâcı-Gâzi Evrenos (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2012), 3–15, who first commented on the document, claiming Serbian descent for Evrenos and therefore revising his earlier hypothesis advocating a Catalan origin of the marcher lord. Heath W. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), 58–59. Cf. Ayşegül Kılıç, “Evrenos Bey’in Babası Pranko Lazarat’ın (Pranko İsa) Vakfı ve Türbesi,” GAMER 1, no. 1 (2012):

Regional geography and conquest | 67

at a preemptive strike against the emerging Thracian principality, one of whose leaders was a potential legitimate claimant of their own lands, ended abruptly in 1371 when the forces of Hacı İlbegi and Evrenos defeated the two Serbian rulers at the Battle of Černomen (Ott. Sırpsındığı), killing them on the battleground.32 The region east of Adrianople, very little studied in the literature to date, formed another war zone where the descendants of Köse Mihal (d. 1326?), the close companion of the first Ottoman ruler Osman Gazi (r. 1299–1326), managed to establish a strong presence.33 It is unclear when the Mihaloğlu family members first appeared in Eastern Thrace because the Ottoman and Byzantine sources do not mention them, but around the time of the second conquest of Adrianople (1369) the Mihaloğlus launched an offensive against Saranta Eklesiai (Ott. Kırkkilise), Brysis (Ott. Pınarhisar), and Vizye (Ott. Vize), taking the castles one after the other.34 It is not a simple matter to follow the chronology of the subsequent events, precisely because of the lack of information in the sources, yet it appears that the Byzantines soon retook the metropolis Vizye. Simultaneously, the Mihaloğlu family kept control over the smaller Brysis, Saranta Eklesiai, and possibly the keep of Fikla (mod. Matočina in Bulgaria), located 20 kilometers north of Adrianople.35 In any case, the presence of the Mihaloğlu family in the region

32

33

34

35

87–99; Ayşegül Kılıç, Bir Osmanlı Akıncı Beyi: Gazi Evrenos Bey (İstanbul: İthaki, 2014), 42–46. The mausoleum of Evrenos’s father stands in ruins at an important late medieval and Ottoman era crossroad located 10 km southeast of Radoviš (xy: 41.542345 22.397733). Aleksandar Stojanovski, “Zaveštanieto na Evrenos-beg vo nahijata Konče,” Glasnik Instituta za Nacionalna Istorija 40, no. 1 (1996): 103–10; Mihailo Popović, “Das Flusstal der Kriva Lakavica in spätbyzantinischer und osmanischer Zeit (1259–1600): Das Verhältnis des Ortes Konče zum Siedlungsnetz der Städte Štip und Strumica,” Revue des études byzantines 69, no. 1 (2011): 159–84. Gavro A. Škrivanić, “Bitka na Marici (26. septembra 1371. godine),” Vojnoistorijski glasnik 14 (1963): 71–94; Georgije Ostrogorski, Serska oblast posle Dušanove smrti (Beograd: Naučno delo, 1965), 127–43; Hristo Matanov, “Kăm văprosa za učastieto na bălgarite v Černomenskata bitka 1371 g.,” in Bălgaria i Balkanite 681-1981, ed. Bistra Cvetkova (Sofia: Săjuz na naučnite rabotnici v Bălgarija, 1982), 142–54; Matanov and Mihneva, Ot Galipoli do Lepanto, 49–50; Aleksandar Šopov, “Falling like an Autumn Leaf: The Historical Visions of the Battle of the Maritsa/Meriç River and the Quest for a Place Called Sırp Sındığı” (MA Thesis, Sabancı University, 2007), 11–80. On Köse Mihal, see Orlin Sabev, “The Legend of Köse Mihal: Additional Notes,” Turcica 34 (2002): 241–52; Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “L’installation des ottomans,” in La Bithynie au Moyen Age, ed. Bernard Geyer and Jacques Lefort (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 2003), 354–60; Tijana Krstić, Contested Conversions to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 55–57; Mariya Kiprovska, “Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Köse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland,” in Defterology: Festschrift in Honor of Heath Lowry, ed. Selim Kuru and Baki Tezcan (Special issue of Journal of Turkish Studies 40, 2013), 245–69. The Ottoman chronicles ascribe these conquests to Murad I, mentioning only marginally the role of the Mihaloğlus. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Murad and his forces indeed participated in this campaign, because he must have been in Anatolia at that time. Kiprovska, “Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century. The Mihaloğlu Family Vakf Possessions in the Area,” 188–92. Stefan Boiadzhiev, “Fortress near Matochina, Bulgaria,” in Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Euangelia Hadjitryphonos (Thes-

68 | Ottoman Plovdiv

was enduring and remained tangible throughout the Ottoman period, as manifest by its rich architectural patronage in Kırkkilise, by the numerous villages in the area endowed to the pious foundation linked to their complex in Edirne, and by their turning Pınarhisar into an ancestral powerbase where family members resided until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.36 In the years following the first Ottoman conquest of Adrianople in 1361, a third zone of expansion was also formed, directed towards the northwest along the Via Militaris, establishing control over the fortresses in modern Bulgarian Thrace. This line of expansion was directed by Lala Şahin paşa, who must have commanded a solid military contingent, left by Murad I, that allowed him to subdue all the strongholds in Upper Thrace in the course of the 1360s.37 All three zones (ucat) had their own specific internal dynamics of hierarchical relations: indeed, they functioned independently to the point of seeming to be completely disconnected from one another. Their connecting point, the city of Adrianople, was soon retaken by the Byzantines and remained in their hands until 1369, when the forces of Hacı İlbegi and Evrenos once more conquered the city. In light of this, the “lord of the lords” Lala Şahin must have been left to act alone in Upper Thrace, ahead of his troops, while observing the growing power of the other ucbeyleri. Had Hacı İlbegi been indeed married to a Seljuk princess, as alleged in the vita of şeyh Bedreddin, whose father was one of the companions of Hacı İlbegi and who himself claimed Seljuk royal descent during his revolt against the Ottoman dynasty in 1416, then the 1360s and the first half of the 1370s must have been a period in which the preeminence of the House of Osman among the marcher lords in the Balkans was at stake.38 This precarious situation was brought under control only when Murad I transferred his forces back to the Balkans. Some of the marcher lords, such as Evrenos and the Mihaloğlus, were apparently quick to pledge allegiance to Murad, thus giving way to Lala Şahin, who was glorisaloniki: AIMOS, Society for the Study of the Medieval Architecture in the Balkans and its Preservation, 1997), 162–65. 36 Kiprovska, “Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century. The Mihaloğlu Family Vakf Possessions in the Area,” 192–203; Özcan Mert, “Kırklareli Kitabeleri,” Tarih Dergisi, no. 25 (1971): 155–62; Mehmet Tuncel, Babaeski, Kırklareli ve Tekirdağ camileri (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1974), 23–26; Meryem Kaçan Erdoğan, “Edirne Gazi Mihal Bey Camii ve İmareti Vakfı’na Bağlı Kaza ve Köyler,” in Trakya Üniversitesi’nin 40. Yılına Armağan, ed. Halûk Kayıcı and Orkun Akman (Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi, 2022), 57–88. 37 İnalcık, “Murad I”; İnalcık, “Polunya (Apollunia) – Tanrı-Yıkdıgı Osmanlı Rumeli Fetihleri Kronolojisinde Düzeltmeler (1354–1371),” 46–47; Petăr Nikov, “Turskoto zavladjavane na Bălgarija i sădbata na poslednite Šišmanovci,” Izvestija na bălgarskoto istoričesko družestvo 7–8 (1928): 41–112; Franz Babinger, Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.–15. Jahrhundert) (Brünn; München; Wien: Rohrer; Callwey, 1944). 38 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “La conquête d’Andrianople par les Turcs: la pénétration turque en Thrace et la valeur des chroniques ottomans,” 447–48; Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 143; H. Erdem Çıpa, “Contextualizing Şeyḫ Bedreddīn: Notes on Ḫalīl b. İsmāʿīl’s Menā ḳ ıb-ı Şeyḫ Bedreddīn b. İsrāʾīl,” in Şinasi Tekin’ in Anısına: Uygurlardan Osmanlıya, ed. Günay Kut and Fatma Büyükkarcı (İstanbul: Simurg, 2005), 285–95.

Regional geography and conquest | 69

fied in the officialized narrative that was produced at the Ottoman court a century later. The disobedient elements were suppressed and went underground, while key figures such as Hacı İlbegi were gradually integrated into the pantheon of the itinerant dervishes in the Balkans.39 The sultan entered Adrianople once more, the superiority of the Ottoman dynasty was reaffirmed, and its domination over the region was finally established. Returning to the Ottoman conquest of Plovdiv, one can confidently situate it both spatially and temporally in the overall situation in the Eastern Balkans during the 1360s and 1370s while also identifying the main actors. Located on the primary road crossing the Balkans diagonally, the Roman Via Militaris/Diagonalis, Plovdiv fell within the zone (uc) under the control of Lala Şahin.40 The raids toward the principal centers of Upper Thrace, Plovdiv and Stara Zagora, began immediately after the first Ottoman conquest of Edirne in 1361. The Aşıkpaşazade-Neşri-Anonymous chronicles tradition asserts that Murad ordered Lala Şahin to begin raiding (akın verdi) toward Plovdiv and Stara Zagora, which effectively established him as the ucbeyi of the region.41 The narration in these chronicles lacks any detail, nor do the chronicles 39 Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Seyyid ‘Ali Sultan d’après les registres ottomans: l’installation de l’Islam

hétérodoxe en Thrace,” in The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule (1380–1699), ed. Elizabeth A. Zachariadou (Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1996), 45–66; Rıza Yıldırım, Rumeli’nin Fethinde ve Türkleşmesinde Öncülük Etmiş Bir Gâzi Derviş: Seyyid Ali Sultan (Kızıldeli) ve Velâyetnâmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007); Rıza Yıldırım, “Dervishes, Waqfs, and Conquest: Notes on Early Ottoman Expansion in Thrace,” in Held in Trust: Waqf in the Islamic World, ed. Pascale Ghazaleh (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2011), 23–40. The case of sanctification of prominent commanders was by no means restricted to Hacı İlbegi, who turned into Kızıl Deli/Seyyid Ali Sultan. The saint Binbiroklu Ahmed Baba, whose monumental tomb stands in Erenler, a small village on the road between Pınarhisar and Vize, was no different than Mihaloğlu Ahmed bey: see Mariya Kiprovska, “Legend and Historicity: The Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba Tekkesi and Its Founder,” in Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel, ed. Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2010), 29–45. Another example is the tomb of Hızır Baba in Bogomil, Bulgaria, who is mentioned in the sources as a son of Timurtaş bey and a father of şeyh Şüca’ (Şüca’eddin Veli). Grigor Boykov, “Abdāl-Affiliated Convents and ‘Sunnitizing’ Halveti Dervishes in Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Rumeli,” in Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750, ed. Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 315. Cf. Ayşegül Kılıç, “Malkoçoğlu Bali Bey ve Mezarı Hakkında,” Kafkas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 26 (2020): 747–76. 40 On the Via Militaris, see Constantin Josef Jireček, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe. Eine Historisch-Geographische Studie (Prag: Verlag von F. Tempsky, 1877); Mihailo Popović, Von Budapest nach Istanbul: die Via Traiana im Spiegel der Reiseliteratur des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Eudora-Verlag, 2010); Alexander Vezenkov, “Entangled Geographies of the Balkans: The Boundaries of the Region and the Limits of the Discipline,” in Entangled Histories of the Balkans, ed. Roumen Daskalov et al., vol. 4: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017), 115–256; Stéphane Yerasimos, Les voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman (XIV e –XV e siècles). Biographie, itinéraires et inventaire des lieux habités (Ankara: Imprimérie de la Société turque d’histoire, 1991), 43–53; Florian Riedler and Nenad Stefanov, eds., The Balkan Route: Historical Transformations from Via Militaris to Autoput (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021). 41 For the genealogy of the early Ottoman chronicles, see Halil İnalcık, “The Rise of the Ottoman Historiography,” in Historians of the Middle East, ed. Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt (London:

70 | Ottoman Plovdiv

specify how and when Plovdiv was conquered.42 One can nevertheless safely assume that the complete subjugation of the region took Lala Şahin years, and in all likelihood it was not completed immediately after the first conquest of Adrianople, as the chronicles imply. Apparently due to its being geographically closer, Stara Zagora was the first target of Lala Şahin’s incursions. According to this narrative tradition, the town and its surroundings were conquered in the winter following Murad I’s retreat to Anatolia, but there is no mention of the conquest of Plov-div.43 The most detailed and, in this respect, possibly the most reliable account of the Ottoman conquest of Plovdiv comes from a currently lost source that belongs to a different narrative tradition. The Aşıkpaşazade-Neşri-Anonymous chronicles did not use this source, but it was obviously available to İdris-i Bitlisi (d. 1520), who utilized it and incorporated it into his Heşt Bihişt (Eight Heavens), completed in 1506.44 The same narrative, most likely drawn from İdris’s work in Persian, was included in the later compilation

Oxford University Press, 1962), 152–67; Victor L. Ménage, “The Beginning of Ottoman Historiography,” in Historians of the Middle East, ed. Bernard Lewis and P. M Holt (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 168–79; Victor L. Ménage, Neshri’s History of the Ottomans: The Sources and Development of the Text (London: Oxford University Press, 1964); Halil İnalcık, “How to Read ‘Ashık Pasha-Zade’s History,” in Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V.L. Ménage, ed. Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1994), 139–56; Victor L. Ménage, “On the Recensions of Uruj’s ‘History of the Ottomans,’” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 30, no. 2 (1967): 314–22. 42 Although there are variations in the editions, they all share a common original source. Aşıkpaşazade, Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi (Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman), ed. Ali Bey (İstanbul: Matba‘a-i ‘Amire, 1332), 54; Aşıkpaşazade, Die altosmanische Chronik des ʿĀšı ḳpašazāde. Auf Grund mehrerer neu entdeckter Handschriften von neuem hrsg. von Friedrich Giese, ed. Friedrich Giese (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929), 50; Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âsıkî, “Tevârı̂ h-i Âl-i Osman,” in Osmanlı Tarihleri, ed. Çiftçioğlu N. Atsız, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949), 127–28; Âşık Paşazade, Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi, ed. Kemal Yavuz and M. A. Yekta Saraç (İstanbul: Koç Kültür Sanat Tanıtım, 2003), 382; Mehmed Neşri, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi, ed. Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed Köymen, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1949), 196–97; Mehmed Neşrî, Ǧihānnümā die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Mehḥemmed Neschrī, ed. Franz Taeschner and Theodor Menzel, vol. 1-Einleitung und Text des Cod. Menzel (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1951), 53; Mehmed Neşrî, Ǧihānnümā die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Mehḥemmed Neschrī, ed. Franz Taeschner and Theodor Menzel, vol. 2-Text des Cod. Manisa 1373 (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1955), 82; Mevlâna Mehmed Neşrî, Cihânnümâ, ed. Necdet Öztürk (İstanbul: Çamlıca, 2008), 90; Anonymous, Anonim Osmanlı Kroniği (1299–1512), ed. Necdet Öztürk (İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2000), 27; Franz Babinger, Die frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch: nach den Handschriften zu Oxford und Cambridge (Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heınz Lafaire, 1925), 21; Oruç b. ʿAdil, Oruç Beğ Tarihi, ed. Necdet Öztürk (İstanbul: Çamlıca, 2014), 24. 43 Aşıkpaşazade, Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi (Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman), 55; Âşık Paşazade, Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi, 383; Neşri, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi, 1:200–201; Neşrî, Cihânnümâ, 92. 44 İdris-i Bitlisî, Heşt Bihişt, ed. Mehmet Karataş, Selim Kaya, and Yaşar Baş, vol. 1 (Ankara: Bitilis Eğitim ve Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları, 2008), 312–13. This edition is based on an 18th-century translation of Bitlisi’s Persian original into Ottoman Turkish.

Regional geography and conquest | 71

Tacü’t Tevarih (Crown of Histories), penned by Hoca Sadeddin (d. 1599) who presented it to Sultan Murad III (r. 1574–95) in 1584.45 The narrative of İdris/Sadeddin interpolates an account according to which, prior to relocating to Anatolia, Murad I ordered the ucbeyleri to further the Ottoman advance in Rumeli, assigning to Lala Şahin the conquest of Plovdiv. The gazis raided the area, pillaged the infidels’ lands, enslaved them, and sacked their gold, silver, and treasuries. First, Lala Şahin conquered Zagra, “one of the most important and most beautiful cities of this area,” capturing immeasurable booty in gold and slaves.46 In AH 765/1363–64, Lala Şahin led his retinues in a raid towards Plovdiv. The Christian governor of the fortress, possibly a Bulgarian nobleman, since the city was then in Bulgarian hands, retreated to the stronghold without confronting the Muslim forces.47 Lala Şahin besieged the city, but the governor negotiated a safe conduit for himself and his family through the blockade to the “land of the Serbs,” while guaranteeing the life and property of the residents of Plovdiv.48 The source does not specify which the “land of the Serbs” was in this particular case, but the fact that the narrative introduces the conquest of Plovdiv in connection with the preparations of despot Jovan Uglješa for the campaign of 1371 suggests that the governor of Plovdiv might have moved to Serres after delivering the town to Lala Şahin. The story in the Ottoman chronicles claiming that Plovdiv was not taken by an assault is also confirmed by Chalkokondyles, who writes that the city was taken “through a negotiated surrender.”49 The spiritless resistance of the Christian forces is not surprising. Surrendering to any significant military force that appeared at the doorstep seems to have been a survival strategy adopted by the towns in the bitterly contested region of Thrace, where various factions in Bulgarian, Byzantine, or Ottoman service competed for control during the Late Middle Ages. The history of Plovdiv region after the Bul45 Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tacü’t Tevarih, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Tabhane-i Âmire, 1279), 76–77; Hoca

46 47 48

49

Sadeddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-Tevârih, ed. İsmet Parmaksızoğlu, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Başbakanlık Kültür Müsteşarlığı Kültür Yayınları, 1974), 121–22. İdris-i Bitlisî, Heşt Bihişt, 1:310; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tacü’t Tevarih, 1:74; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-Tevârih, 1:119. Dančeva-Vasileva, Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV–XIV vek), 139–43. Karataş, Kaya, and Baş, İdris-i Bitlisî. Haşt Bihişt, 1:312. The date AH 760/1358–59 for the conquest of Plovdiv provided by the editors of Heşt Bihişt is undoubtedly a mistake, either by the 18th-century translator Abdülbakî Sa’adî or by the modern editors. The correct date should read AH 765/1363–64, as becomes apparent from the next story in İdris, which is also corroborated by Sadeddin. The original Persian copy of the manuscript in Zagreb, published in translation by Trako, gives AH 765, as also does the copy in Atıf Efendi Library (Istanbul), MS no. 1946, v. 104a. Salih Trako, “Pretkosovski događaji u Hešt bihištu Idrisa Bitlisija,” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 20–21 (1976): 169. Hoca Sadeddin confirms the date AH 765: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits. Turc 70, vol. 41r; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tacü’t Tevarih, 1:76; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tâcü’t-Tevârih, 1:122. Chalkokondyles, however, erroneously ascribes the conquest to Süleyman paşa, the son of Orhan. Laonikos Chalkokondyles, The Histories, trans. Anthony Kaldellis, vol. 1 (London: Harvard University Press, 2014), 51.

72 | Ottoman Plovdiv

garian Kingdom re-emerged in 1185 was particularly violent. For a period of nearly two centuries, the Bulgarians frequently raided and pillaged the region. Simultaneously, the Byzantines launched counter-offensives when the Bulgarians established their control over the city. The Third and the Fourth Crusades are known to have been very destructive for the region, along with the subsequent actions of the Bulgarian king Kaloyan (r. 1197–1207), who sacked and burned Plovdiv, and deported many of the residents of the region to the north of the Danube. The Catalan company of Roger de Flor (d. 1305) ravaged Thrace for two years at the beginning of the fourteenth century, while the factions in the Byzantine wars for the throne used the region as a battlefield on many occasions. All in all, the history of Plovdiv from the end of the twelfth to the middle of the fourteenth century, when Lala Şahin and his troops appeared at its gates, shows that the city changed hands no less than fifteen times, i.e., on average almost every decade. Several major battles were fought before its doors, and some of the sieges ended with the city and its surroundings devastated.50 Taking into account that the forces of Lala Şahin were raiding the region for booty and slaves for likely close to three years before attacking the city, it is plausible that Plovdiv by that time was both exhausted and lacking resources to resist a siege, a situation also faced by many other towns in the region.51 Finally, and above all, it is likely that few people in the region could have imagined that the Ottoman conquest of any of these places would turn into a long-lasting domination. To the residents of Plovdiv, Lala Şahin, a convert to Islam, or any of the other ucbeyleri for that matter, must have appeared no different than the Western mercenaries or Orthodox contenders who came, installed themselves forcibly in the area, but ultimately disappeared, usually within a decade. The Ottomans, however, were to remain for half a millennium.

50 Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans; Soustal, Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 6. Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē

und Haimimontos):399–404; Krasimira Gagova, Trakija prez Bălgarskoto Srednovekovie. Istoričeska geografija (Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2002); Ani Dančeva-Vasileva, Bălgarija i Latinskata imperija, 1204–1261 (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1985), 57–80; Kenneth M. Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311–1388 (London: Variorum, 1975), 4–7; David Jacoby, “The Catalan Company in the East: The Evolution of an Itinerant Army (1303– 1311),” in The Medieval Way of War: Studies in Medieval Military History in Honor of Bernard S. Bachrach, ed. Gregory Halfond (London: Routledge, 2015), 153–82; Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204–1453 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 72–80; Dančeva-Vasileva, Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV–XIV vek), 103–43; Francesco Dall’Aglio, “The Opposition Between Bulgaria and the Latin Empire of Constantinople: A Necessary Hostility?,” in Medieval Bosnia and SouthEast European Relations: Political, Religious, and Cultural Life at the Adriatic Crossroads, ed. Dženan Dautović, Emir O. Filipović, and Neven Isailović (Amsterdam: Arc Humanities Press, 2019), 65–84. 51 The conquest of Stara Zagora is very unclear. Some authors suggest that the city was taken by an assault and the Christian population was enslaved or deported elsewhere. Machiel Kiel, “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: The Place of Turkish Architecture in the Process,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4, no. 2 (1989): 91.

Regional geography and conquest | 73

The region of Plovdiv in the Ottoman administrative system Due to the lack of information in the contemporary sources, the administrative history of the region of Plovdiv in the years immediately after the conquest of the city remains shrouded in mystery. Taken as a whole, very little is known about the administrative framework of the Eastern Balkans in the initial half-century following the Ottoman conquest and the consolidation of their power over the region. With some caution, it could be argued that the territories that at a given moment were under the direct jurisdiction of the then governor-general (beylerbeyi) of Rumeli, were consolidated to form the largest district (sancak) in Ottoman Europe, which was then named Paşa, after the title beylerbeyi. Nevertheless, it remains impossible to ascertain when precisely this happened or to what extent the process of shaping the Paşa sancağı was the consequence of a deliberate strategy enacted by the sultan with the aim of integrating the newly conquered territories, or was rather a spontaneous development, evoked by pragmatic necessities associated with the region’s administration by the beylerbeyi. It is probably safe to suppose that in the initial phase Paşa sancağı likely encompassed only the territories wherein Lala Şahin was successful in establishing his authority, while the territories governed by other prominent lords were simultaneously shaping their own distinct sancaks, including Vize, Kırkkilise, Çirmen, and Gelibolu. Subsequently, the Paşa sancağı, managed by the incumbent beylerbeyi, underwent a gradual territorial expansion following the acquisition of new lands and reflecting administrative changes over time, such as the incorporation of the territories conquered and managed by the Evrenosoğlus and İshakoğlus. This growth extended as far as Sofia on the Diagonal Road and also integrated all the sub-districts along the Via Egnatia Road, stretching as far west as Skopje and Bitola. Apart from the fact that the acting beylerbeyi of Rumeli was concurrently responsible for the administration of Paşa sancağı, remarkably little can be said about the practical management of the Ottoman Empire’s European territories as a whole, and this extensive district in particular. It seems plausible that at an early stage, conceivably as soon as the area was subjugated, the territory of this large sancak was segmented into administrative sub-districts (kaza), each placed under the jurisdiction of a local administrator and judge (kadı). By the onset of the sixteenth century, at the zenith of its territorial expansion, the Paşa sancağı was subdivided into numerous kazas which were centered on provincial towns, either inherited from the Byzantine and Bulgarian states or freshly instituted under Ottoman dominion.52 Modern scholarship is inclined to consider Adrianople (Edirne), Plovdiv (Filibe), and Sofia as 52 For a full list of kazas in Paşa sancağı and variations across time, see İbrahim Sezgin, “Paşa Livâsı,”

in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2007); Rossitsa Gradeva, “Administrative System and Provincial Government in the Central Balkan Territories of the Ottoman Empire, 15th Century,” in Rumeli under the Ottomans, 15th-18th Centuries: Institutions and Communities, by Rossitsa Gradeva (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2004), 29.

74 | Ottoman Plovdiv

permanent seats of power and residences of the incumbent beylerbeyi, and even proposes a chronology for a gradual geographic shift from east to west of the alleged capital of Rumeli.53 Yet a more plausible line of interpretation veers towards a less predictable and more fluid style of governance, which emerged from practical necessity. It seems that the governors-general of the European parts of Ottoman Empire adopted a more itinerant approach to administration. Like the sultans themselves, who frequently changed locations for the administration of power, the beylerbeyis were also far from stationary, and their places of residence far from permanent. However, it is crucial to stress that, in a manner mirroring the sultans who reigned prior to the conquest of Constantinople, and therefore before that city came to serve as a permanent imperial capital, the provincial governors of Rumeli exhibited a partiality for certain residences. While the second half of the fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth saw the beylerbeyis traverse the expanse of the province in a seemingly random manner, a discernible pattern nonetheless emerged: they were most frequently sighted journeying between Edirne and Plovdiv. In the wake of the complete reconstruction of Sofia that ensued after the Crusade of 1443, the latter half of the fifteenth century witnessed a pronounced westward shift in the preferred itinerary of the beylerbeyis. This alteration, which saw them moving between Plovdiv and Sofia, was inextricably intertwined with the broader territorial expansion to the west that unfolded during this period. Towards the turn of the century, then, the once itinerant provincial governors began to adopt a more static form of governance. In the sixteenth century Sofia emerged not merely as a favored stopover but as a principal residence, a hub from which the administrative mechanism of the empire could be effectively steered. The central role of Plovdiv and its environs within the Ottomans’ mechanisms for establishing domination over the Balkans becomes apparent when considering its recurrent selection as a preferred residence for the Rumeli beylerbeyi. Plovdiv’s prominence was no mere happenstance, but rather underscores that the city was an essential actor in the wider geopolitical chessboard of the time. This fact finds best expression in the size and composition of the territory that fell under its administrative dominion, the expansive kaza of Filibe. As with Paşa sancağı, the kaza of Filibe possibly took shape in the first decades after the Ottoman conquest of Upper Thrace. Commanding a vast geographical area, its colossal size is testament to its early establishment within the overarching Ottoman administrative framework. In the latter half of the fifteenth century, when the Ottoman tax registers enable a closer examination of the region, it is observed that Filibe kazası spanned an area of approximately 11,400 square kilometers, encompassing more than 400 settlements. This shows the kaza comprised a larger territory and housed a greater number of settlements than certain contemporaneous sancaks like Çirmen or Vize, which were of a somewhat 53 Gradeva, “Administrative System and Provincial Government in the Central Balkan Territories of

the Ottoman Empire, 15th Century,” 28–29.

Regional geography and conquest | 75

diminutive scale. The kaza which had Plovdiv at its center was intricately partitioned into smaller administrative parts, namely the nahiyes of Saruhanbeylü, Çimenlü, Koyun tepesi, Filibe proper, Göpsu, Karacadağ, Konuş, and Rupçoz. The first two decades of the sixteenth century witnessed the rise of Tatarpazarı (mod. Pazardžik), a burgeoning urban entity within the region, which stimulated the subdivision of the extensive kaza of Filibe, the western fringes being carved out to constitute a fresh kaza with Tatarpazarı at its core. The communities inhabiting the four hundred villages in the region presented a rich tapestry of religious and ethnic diversity. Orthodox Christians, comprising Greeks and Bulgarians, were primarily settled in the larger, more established villages. Remarkably, these settlements had withstood the turbulence of the Byzantine civil wars, endured the destruction wrought by Catalan and Turkish pillage raids, and eventually survived the Ottoman conquest. To the north of Plovdiv there existed a few clusters of Bulgarian Catholic villages, while deep within the Rhodopes, where the ecclesiastical network was either remarkably weak or completely non-existent, the local Christian populace maintained a diverse array of beliefs, entwining elements of paganism and heresy. The population density of the region on the eve of the Ottoman conquest must have experienced a historic low, which, alongside the cataclysmic impact of conquest-related destruction and enslavement, might have rendered significant parts of the territory utterly desolate. The region’s ample fertile lands, coupled with incentives from the Ottoman sultans and influential provincial nobility, spurred a significant migration of the Anatolian populations into Upper Thrace. Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a diverse range of communities, including sedentary urban and rural Muslim inhabitants from Anatolia, Tatars from the Northern Black Sea region, and semi-nomadic Turcomans and Yuruks from Western and Central Anatolia, established hundreds of new settlements in the region. This population movement engendered a profound transformation in the region’s ethnic and demographic balance, reshaping the social and cultural fabric of the territory. By the 1530s the region boasted a total population of approximately 110,000, striking testament to the major transformations that had taken place over the past two centuries. This population was nearly evenly split along religious lines, with Muslims making up around 57,000 and Christians roughly 53,000. These numbers not only reveal the extent of the influx of Anatolian populations, but also highlight the endurance of the Orthodox Christian communities amidst the radical changes surrounding them. By the same period, the fertile lands of the region were generating considerable revenues, amounting to around 3.5 million akçe each year. This robust economic output indicates that the region had been incorporated into the Ottoman fiscal machinery, and that its agricultural potential was now being exploited. The breakdown of the revenue distribution is particularly illuminating, providing insights into the control and dispensation of wealth within the region. The largest portion, nearing two million akçe annually, was funneled directly to the sultan via the Imperial domains

76 | Ottoman Plovdiv

(havass-i hümayun). Notably, the second largest beneficiary was the system of Islamic charitable endowments (vakıf; pl. evkaf ), which garnered approximately 800,000 akçe from the 181 villages under their jurisdiction. The timar system was the least favored, collecting a relatively meager sum of around 700,000 akçe. This arrangement offers a glimpse into the region’s socio-economic fabric under Ottoman rule. The intricate allotment of land, with the vakıfs holding a substantial stake, shows the economic power of the benefactors who later sculpted Ottoman Plovdiv. The structure, scale, and distribution of land tenure in the region of Plovdiv serve as a model which informs us about the mechanisms that underpinned the absorption and subsequent management of the Ottoman Empire’s core territories.

Map 2. Administrative boundaries and vakıf villages in the region of Plovdiv

Urban topography Urban topography of Roman and Medieval Plovdiv Human habitation on the territory of Plovdiv dates back to the Neolithic, probably because the site provides ideal conditions for settlement. From the north, the Maritsa forms a natural protective obstacle in times of danger, and is a source of fresh water and allows rapid, cheap communication in times of peace. Several volcanic hills south of the river are places of easy refuge, which must be a chief reason for the ancient and uninterrupted habitation there. The oldest settlement was located on one of the three joined hills (Ott. Nevbet, Džambaz, and Taksim tepe) in the northeastern corner of the central zone of the modern city. A narrow depression separates the three hills from the rocky western “Clocktower hill” (Saat tepesi), named after the clock tower built during the Ottoman period. Further west lies the much larger and higher hill named Bunarcık (mod. Hălm na osvoboditelite), which takes its name after the natural spring on the hill’s northern skirts. The depression between these two hills is the lowest point in the city, which collected the rain waters and formed a swamp that was drained by the local authorities only at the beginning of the twentieth century. The tallest hill of Plovdiv, Džendem tepe (mod. Mladežki hălm), rises at the southwestern corner of the city at a distance of roughly two kilometers from the highest point on the three adjacent hills. In Ottoman times this hill was also known as Saray tepesi, as indicated on the plan of Plovdiv drawn by Guillaume Lejean in October 1867, a name which was obviously a reference to the Ottoman imperial palace, located west of this hill.1 Several smaller hills, such as Markovo tepe, Kamenica, and Laut, which were scattered around the city, disappeared in the twentieth century due to their high-quality syenite rock, a material that was good for paving the streets in Plovdiv, and was exploited until the hills were leveled. (See Map 3) The earliest Thracian settlement developed within the limits of the Hellenistic citadel, placed on the three interconnected hills of Nevbet, Taksim, and Džambaz, in the eastern part of the city. The crescent-shaped fortified area, which occupied the 1 On the plan by Lejean, see Dobrina Želeva-Martins and Julij Fărgov, Istorija na bălgarskoto gra-

doustrojstvo XIX-XX v. (Sofia: Valentin Trajanov, 2009), 57–66. The imperial palace will be discussed below.

78 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 3. The hills and city walls of Plovdiv

hills’ high parts, was not large. At its maximum extent, in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, it covered 8.6 hectares; it was wider in the southern part, while in the north, on Nevbet tepe, the fortifications were much tighter, measuring only 58 meters at the narrowest point between the eastern and the western walls. The distance between the main eastern and western gates is merely 85 meters, a fact indicative of the actual dimensions and hence the prospects for habitation within Plovdiv’s citadel.2 There was a second phase of urbanization after Philip II of Macedon (r. 359– 336  BCE) defeated the Scythians in 342 BCE, renaming the city Philippopolis, after himself. The Hellenistic city developed entirely within the protected zone on the adjacent three hills, while permanent habitation outside the citadel occurred only after the Romans took control over Philippopolis and made it the center of the province of Thracia in 45 CE. Following a predefined plan, the Romans significantly extended the fortified territory of the city, developing the urban fabric in the open 2 The most detailed overview of the fortifications of Plovdiv has been provided by Mina Bospačieva

and Vera Kolarova, Plovdiv – grad vǎrhu gradovete. Filipopol – Pulpudeva – Pǎldin (Sofia: Tola, 2014).

Urban topography | 79

Map 4. Street pattern and urban layout of Roman and Early Byzantine Plovdiv

flat area south of the citadel.3 (See Map 4) In the course of the first and second centuries the walled parts of Plovdiv were also greatly expanded, reaching an area of roughly 68 hectares, arranged in accord with the Roman urbanistic tradition. The space surrounding the citadel from the west, south, and east was dominated by a distinct orthogonal grid street network, directing the traffic to the forum/agora, situated on the flat terrain south of the citadel. A stadium occupied the depression between the citadel and Clocktower hill; a large theater was cut into the rocks between Taksim and 3 Ivo Topalilov, Rimskijat Fililpopol. Topografija, gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura (Veliko Tărnovo: Faber,

2012), 28–105; Bospačieva and Kolarova, Plovdiv – grad v ǎrhu gradovete. Filipopol – Pulpudeva – Pǎldin, 141–61.

80 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Džambaz tepe; several public baths were equipped with fresh water drawn from the Rhodopes via a double aqueduct.4 Under Roman rule the city flourished, reaching its zenith during the second and third centuries, as attested by the excavations of numerous public buildings from this period, including several basilicas and a large synagogue. The development of the city continued during the Early Byzantine period, adding monumental public and religious buildings and elaborate residential complexes.5 The magnificence of Roman and Late Antique Plovdiv has left sufficient material evidence for archaeologists to draw the urban layout with relative precision. Studies of the city’s topography in the medieval period are less informative because several waves of destructive invasions virtually erased a significant part of the existing urban fabric. The lonely ruins of imposing buildings, a fading reminder of the once magnificent Roman city’s glorious days, served to satisfy the medieval inhabitants’ more immediate needs for building materials. The spatial transformations and adaptations of Plovdiv’s urban morphology after the Ottoman conquest can be best understood by juxtaposition with the available information on how the city looked in the period preceding the conquest. Drawing the urban layout of late medieval Plovdiv, however, is difficult. The complete lack of contemporary written sources that describe the city and its parts leaves us only with the data from archaeological sites in modern Plovdiv. In their vast majority, however, these data do not come from planned archaeological surveys that systematically studied representative urban parts, but from rescue observations in Plovdiv’s densely built-up central areas. These archaeological surveys therefore offer only fragments of information extracted from tiny glimpses of the stratigraphy of Plovdiv, and encompass only the specific construction sites where archaeologists were allowed to work. Precise dating of every site examined by archaeologists also proves challenging. Often the unearthed artifacts cannot be located in time with any greater accuracy than to a period of several centuries. Furthermore, the absence of representative monumental public buildings constructed in the high and late Middle Ages is a serious obstacle to the accurate reconstruction of the then-urban topography. Therefore, assumptions about the spread of urban tissue and inhabitance in the period can be merely indicative and must be treated with the necessary degree of caution. Collecting and curating a reliable database of the excavation sites in Plovdiv that refer to the twelfth through fourteenth centuries poses an additional challenge since the published materials are scattered in periodicals and collective volumes that are not 4 Ivo Topalilov, “Philippopolis. The City from the 1st to the Beginning of the 7th Century,” in Roman

and Early Byzantine Cities in Bulgaria, ed. Rumen Ivanov (Sofija: Ivraj, 2012), 363–437; Rumen Ivanov, ed., Tabula Imperii Romani. Sheet K35/2 - Philippopolis (Sofia: Tendril Publishing House, 2012), 293–99; Bospačieva and Kolarova, Plovdiv – grad vǎrhu gradovete. Filipopol – Pulpudeva – Pǎldin, 171–82; Elena Kesjakova, “Vodosnabdjavane,” in Kniga za Plovdiv, ed. Elena Kesjakova (Plovdıv: Poligraf, 1999), 73–76. 5 Ani Dančeva-Vasileva, Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV–XIV vek) (Sofia: Akademično izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 2009), 207–13.

Urban topography | 81

easily accessible. Furthermore, not all archaeological results are duly published, thus depriving our analysis of potentially valuable information. Ani Dančeva-Vasileva’s study on Plovdiv’s medieval topography demonstrates the difficulties in drawing a reliable portrait of the city due to the fragmentary nature of the available information.6 In 1995 and 2001, Rosica Moreva-Arabova published a synopsis of the medieval archaeological material found in Plovdiv, pointing to the fact that the layers from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries are best observed on the three hills with the citadel, but also that there is a clearly discernable pattern of habitation in the lower parts of the city, which in all probability matched the confines of the Antique and early Byzantine town.7 A more comprehensive systematization of the existing medieval archaeological data was only recently attempted by Kamen Stanev, who prepared a catalog based on secondary publications and his personal experience gained from work on several excavation sites in the city.8 The study of Stanev, although limited to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, is a significant breakthrough. It offers readily available archaeological data, which was imported in GIS software for the current work’s purposes to produce the two maps below illustrating the spatial distribution of inhabitance in the centuries preceding the Ottoman conquest of Plovdiv. (See Maps 5 and 6) The visualizations of the distribution of medieval archaeological sites are instructive concerning the spread of habitation and human activities in the late medieval period. The most densely populated area of the city was the citadel on the three joined hills and the slopes to its immediate northwest and southeast. The density of medieval sites also demonstrates a higher concentration to the south of the citadel, where the archbishop’s residence was located during the Ottoman period. The connection between the archbishopric and this concentration of finds south and southwest of the three hills is unclear, nor is it possible to establish the location of the medieval premises of Plovdiv’s archbishop with any certainty or precision. Yet the fact that a second medieval wall was constructed that enclosed this area strongly suggests that there was some relationship. The additional wall encompassed the depression between the citadel and Clocktower hill, thus protecting the archbishop’s residence and forming a residential area near it. In Ottoman times, this quarter was known under the name “Polat” or “Pulat,” and the memory of its seclusion must have still been alive in the early Ottoman period, because in the earliest register listing the quarters of Plovdiv it was registered as a village, almost certainly a reflection 6 Dančeva-Vasileva, 214–38. 7 Rosica Moreva-Arabova, “Danni za topografijata na srednovekovnija Plovdiv,” Godišnik na arche-

ologicheski muzej Plovdiv 10 (2001): 100–113; Rosica Moreva, “Stratigrafski nabljudenija vărhu srednovekovnija plast na Plovdiv,” Izvestija na Muzeite or Južna Bălgarija 21 (1995): 83–96. 8 Kamen Stanev, “Filipopol v sredata na XII - načaloto na XIII v. Teritorija i broj na naselenieto,” in Gradăt na Balkanite. Prostranstva, obrazi, pamet, ed. Rumjana Prešlenova (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 2021), 141–67. I am grateful to Dr. Stanev for sharing his publication while still in draft form.

82 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 5. Locations of excavation sites showing habitation during the 12th and 13th centuries

Urban topography | 83

Map 6. The density of human habitation during the 12th and 13th centuries based on excavation sites

84 | Ottoman Plovdiv

of its rather isolated position behind the walls. The open flat terrain where Roman and Late Antique Plovdiv had developed was also inhabited during the medieval period. Additionally, the archaeological evidence attests that the previously existing monumental buildings and infrastructure were no longer in use during the medieval period, while structures of inferior quality were constructed on top of the magnificent Roman edifices. According to Stanev, during the eleventh–twelfth centuries the city’s territory occupied approximately 90 hectares, but, as he emphasizes, this picture could be misleading because there are several areas in Plovdiv for which modern archaeology practically lacks any data. During the thirteenth century, another wall built on Nevbet tepe separated the highest point of the citadel and formed a small keep with an area of 1.26 hectares. The construction of a large cistern, still extant today, at this time and within this specific keep, must have served the purpose of securing fresh water for the stronghold’s defenders, and testifies to the increasing insecurity of the region and the city in that period. The additional fortification of the highest point of the northern part of the citadel was only recently discovered during rescue excavations, and still awaits a comprehensive interpretation by specialists on Plovdiv’s medieval fortifications.9 Despite the scarcity of data covering the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the reinforcement of the citadel could be yet another indication of the gradual withdrawal of the city from the flat areas south of the three hills to the fortified hilltops themselves. Based on current information, it is impossible to state with any certainty what portion of the territory outside the citadel was inhabited when the troops of Lala Şahin appeared before the city gates. It is probable, though, that the entire area of the Roman and Early Byzantine city was already almost entirely desolate. The large Ottoman cemetery that developed almost on top of the Roman forum/agora corroborates this assumption. Most of the city’s residential quarters must have been limited to the confines of the fortified parts on the three hills and the sloping land east of them. As mentioned above, it is plausible that there existed another quarter around the archbishop’s residence, which was enclosed with a protective wall cutting through the flat terrain until it reached Clocktower hill. In short, by 1363–64, when the Ottomans established control, Plovdiv was a mere shadow of that magnificent Roman metropolis, with its dozens of imposing public buildings, supplied with fresh water from the Rhodopes through an aqueduct kilometers long. In the centuries of political instability during the later medieval period, and especially after the twelfth century, Plovdiv gradually lost its grandeur, as is also evident from the development of its urban tissue. It seems that on the eve of the Ottoman conquest, the city had been reduced to a small town with a fortified part encompassing only 8.6 hectares, with tiny bridgeheads close to the citadel. 9 Kamen Stanev and Elena Božinova, “Novootkrita srednovekovna krepostna stena s porta v Plovdiv

(po arheologičeski danni),” in Gradăt v bălgarskite zemi, ed. Pavel Georgiev (Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2014), 359–75.

Urban topography | 85

Urban space of Ottoman Plovdiv: general observations Even the most cursory glance at the recreated map showing the spread of early Ottoman Plovdiv’s urban tissue is enough to demonstrate the minimal continuity between the newly flourishing city and that of the Roman and Late Antique period, when the city was somewhat matching in size. (See Map 7)

Map 7. The layout of Ottoman Plovdiv (marked in grey), 15th–17th centuries

The continuity with the late medieval period is limited to the citadel area where Christians remained to reside after the Ottoman conquest. The city surrendered to

86 | Ottoman Plovdiv

the forces of Lala Şahin under certain conditions, which the Ottomans respected, and the changes within the citadel were minimal. Similarly to many other Byzantine and Slavic cities in Anatolia and the Balkans in which the intramural space was insufficient, the Ottoman town soon spilled out of the citadel and developed on flatter terrain surrounding it, so as to accommodate the growing numbers of new settlers and their needs. Curiously, the Ottomans did not place their city on top of the Roman forum, where the urban tissue could grow in a southerly direction unimpeded by natural obstacles. On the contrary, the central commercial core of Ottoman Plovdiv developed west of the citadel on a much smaller area, naturally bounded by the river to the north and the hills to the south. It is hard to say why the town developed in this direction rather than at the far more favorable southern end. Where the Romans had placed the center of their city, the Ottomans established their largest cemetery, which remained on the outskirts practically until the end of the Ottoman period. In all likelihood, the reason for this seemingly strange development is linked to the long wooden bridge over the river, which the Ottomans built immediately after the conquest of the town. The bridge is an essential infrastructural solution that overcomes the city’s most significant natural constraint, the Maritsa river, and makes traffic on the Via Militaris immensely easier. As lonely as it must have stood at the beginning of the Ottoman occupation of the town, the bridge over the river probably became the pull factor that stimulated natural organic growth in this direction.

Map 8. The street pattern of Ottoman Plovdiv, 15th–17th centuries

Urban topography | 87

Ottoman Plovdiv’s morphological structure comprised several main thoroughfares that cut through the urban tissue, dividing it into commercial areas and residential quarters with their associated urban facilities. Numerous streets, defined by the division of parcels in the quarters, percolated through the smaller segments of residential dwellings, often forming cul de sacs, testimony to the manner in which the parcels evolved. In the fifteenth century the city occupied 121 hectares, increasing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by claiming previously unoccupied areas to reach 135 hectares. The expansion of the urban fabric continued during the period that lies beyond the scope of this study, i.e., the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth century, when Christians, mostly Bulgarians from the surrounding rural regions, settled in Plovdiv en masse and formed several new quarters on the city’s outskirts. The area of Ottoman Plovdiv reached its highest point in 1878, when the transition toward national rule began, extending over 160 hectares. A branched street network interconnected the different parts of the city. The estimates of the territories occupied in the period from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century show that the total length of the road infrastructure in Plovdiv amounted to slightly over 35 km, of which 6.9 km were thoroughfares, 1.9 km were secondary axes, and the remaining 26.5 km were small streets that divided the urban fabric into smaller units and formed the city quarters. (See Map 8) The street pattern of Ottoman Plovdiv is organic, reflecting the gradual evolution and growth of urban tissue in the second half of the fourteenth and particularly over the course of the fifteenth century. Nevertheless, close observation of the irregular street network reveals signs of a rudimentary radial pattern. The street model of Plovdiv was a typical example of what Pinon calls a “matrix system” in which several major axes fan out and distribute the space from a central point towards the outskirts.10 The square of the main Friday mosque (Muradiye Camii) is one focal point from which several axes sprang, and is crossed by the main urban artery. The throughfare comes from the north, crosses the bridge over the Maritsa, and leads the traffic straight to the square of Muradiye, i.e., to the commercial core of the Ottoman city. That was the only paved thoroughfare at the time, and commercial buildings such as inns and caravanserais, along with hundreds of small shops and warehouses, were built along it. Crossing the square of the central mosque, the same artery continued further south to form a secondary commercial street running along the depression between the citadel and the hill with the clock tower, passing over the now-buried Roman stadium. Two more axes sprang out of the area near Muradiye Camii leading westward, and another went northeast, climbing the three hills adjacent to the citadel. A second focal point was located in the eastern residential part of the city. Six secondary axes radiated from a small square near the so-called Bey Mescidi, a small 10 Pierre Pinon, “The Ottoman Cities of the Balkans,” in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma

Khadra Jayyusi et al., vol. 1 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 153–54.

88 | Ottoman Plovdiv

neighborhood mosque commissioned in the second half of the fifteenth century by a member of the İsfendiyaroğlu family, descendants of the Candaroğlu dynasty that ruled over the homonymous North Anatolian principality (beylik) centered on the Black Sea coast in the region of Sinop and Kastamonu. This area of the city was strictly residential, and the purpose of the axes must therefore have been to secure easier access to the fortified parts and to provide a connection with the two principal roads running east towards Adrianople and Istanbul. Perhaps not accidentally, the mosque that became the eastern focal point of Plovdiv was placed on top of the lavishly decorated triumphal complex of the Late Antique eastern gate of the city, built in the fourth century and incorporating the earlier triumphal arc of Emperor Hadrian (r. 117–138). One thoroughfare crossed the northern part of the city in an east–west direction, following one of the old routes of the ancient Via Militaris. The newer route in the east direction passed by the city’s southern outskirts, and its route may indicate an intentional attempt to shift the traffic and redirect it via the urban core built in the Ottoman period. The continuation of the main commercial street from the main Friday mosque to the south left the city in a southerly direction and, crossing the old Roman forum, headed toward the Rhodopes and the Aegean coast. The commercial area (çarşı) of Ottoman Plovdiv formed around and to the northeast of the main Friday mosque, occupying an almost ideally central position in the urban space, which had the shape of an irregular rectangle.11 The Ottoman tax registers demonstrate that although most of the trading activity was concentrated in this area, and that therefore commercial buildings occupied a significant part of the space, the çarşı was not strictly a commercial zone, as studies often assume; in fact there was also a considerable number of permanent residents. The commercial core was enclosed on all sides by residential quarters of different sizes. The smaller quarters were more centrally located, clustered around the commercial center at the western foot of the citadel hills. These are likely to be the oldest Muslim quarters in Plovdiv, a fact corroborated by the earliest taxation registers, which show their high population density. An outer circle of larger quarters surrounded the citadel and the commercial core, these being strictly residential areas where the density was generally lower. Still, there was a tendency to attract more residents over time, and in the seventeenth century the quarters located at the western edge of the town reached a density that matched the centrally located ones. The Christians in the city resided in four quarters situated within the citadel and on its eastern slopes. The urbanscape must have presented the impression of a Christian island, elevated on the three adja11 For comparison with the development of Skopje’s commercial core, see Aleksandra Krstikj, “Values

of the Historic Urban Form of Skopje’s Old Bazaar Based on Analysis of the Ottoman Urban Strategy” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Osaka University, 2013); Aleksandra Krstikj and Hisako Koura, “Identifying the Significance of Historic Place in Skopje’s Old Bazaar (Based on Analysis of Facility’s Location and Pimary Road in the Ottoman Urban Strategy),” Journal of Architecture and Planning 78, no. 686 (2013): 829–35.

Urban topography | 89

cent hills, surrounded by a sea of Muslim quarters spreading out over the city’s lower parts. Without a detailed cadastral plan indicating the precise distribution of the parcels in the residential quarters, it is practically impossible to conduct an in-depth spatial analysis of the housing structure. Research on neighboring cities that could provide parallel examples is also wholly lacking, which prevents researchers even drawing tentative conclusions based on analogy. Nevertheless, the historical photographs from the nineteenth century provide sufficient evidence to classify the residential quarters of Ottoman Plovdiv as a discontinuous urban fabric.12 This means that the urban tissue was composed of single houses or groups of adjacent houses surrounded by vegetation, and the build-up area ranged between 30 and 80% of the land coverage. Without precise cadastral data it is impossible to estimate the artificially surfaced area of Plovdiv in the Ottoman period, but analysis of the visual sources confirms these observations, which are common to the structure of many other Ottoman cities in Western Anatolia and the Balkans. Typically, the parcels were large enough to accommodate a house, placed near one of the plot’s sides, and used by one or several families. The rest of the parcel, as can also be seen in the panoramic photographs of Plovdiv, was occupied by a private garden. Therefore, although precise spatial data about the built-up environment is currently lacking, and is unlikely ever to be available, the residential part of its urban tissue can safely be classified under the category of discontinuous urban fabric. The cityscape of Ottoman Plovdiv thus emerges as a fascinating case study of urban adaptation and transformation in the face of conquest and change. Influenced by a complex interplay between the religious and political edifices constructed by the ruling authorities and the inherent geographical and topographical limitations, the city’s growth was both strategic and organic, finely tuned to the nuances of geography, culture, and infrastructure. This study demonstrates how its morphological structure, ranging from the rudimental radial pattern of its streets to the unique blend of residential and commercial areas, encapsulates both continuity and change across various historical periods. While this analysis provides an initial understanding of Ottoman Plovdiv’s urban evolution, it also sets the stage for further exploration of the city’s transformation from a broader perspective. Subsequent sections will anchor these insights within the broader narrative arc of the region’s politics, focusing specifically on the pivotal moment of the Ottoman conquest of Plovdiv and its region and the subsequent reshaping of the urban fabric. This approach allows us to unpick the layers of symbiotic interplay between the city’s patrons, architectural expressions, and its inhabitants.

12 For the classification of urban fabrics used by the CORINE land cover inventory, see M. Bossard,

J. Feranec, and J. Otahel, “CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide – Addendum 2000” (Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, May 2000).

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology First Ottoman buildings The narrative sources related to the conquest of Plovdiv contain no information on the exact number of Muslims who first settled there after its capture, but İdris asserts that Lala Şahin left a garrison of trusted people when he led the rest of the Ottoman forces back to Edirne. Later, according to the chronicler, Murad I granted the city and the region of Plovdiv as a prebend to Lala Şahin and asked him to return there and revive the depressed town and its area.1 The chronological uncertainty of the Ottoman sources makes it very difficult, if not wholly impossible, to follow the events that occurred in Plovdiv in the first years after the conquest with any confidence. However, it seems plausible that Lala Şahin spent the 1360s in Thrace trying to consolidate his grip on power in the region. The Byzantines retook Adrianople, and the area under the control of the freshly appointed beylerbeyi of Rumeli must have appeared somewhat isolated, especially given that his authority over the other marcher lords was being questioned—to say the least—by Hacı İlbegi and Evrenos. The conflict between the different factions leading the Ottoman advance in the Balkans is excised from the later narrative tradition, but the balance of power must have changed in favor of the Ottoman dynasty and Lala Şahin with the return of Murad I and his army to European soil in the late 1360s. After relocating to Plovdiv as the appointed representative of the Ottoman dynasty in Europe, and thus transferring the seat of power there, Lala Şahin paşa must have subdued the smaller strongholds in the area over the course of the next few years. The raids westward of Plovdiv along the Via Militaris, northward towards the plains of Karlovo and Kazanlăk, or eastward in the direction of Jambol, indeed necessitated better and safer infrastructure for crossing the often wild waters of the river Maritsa.2 Building a bridge over the most prominent river traversing Upper Thrace, thus allowing his forces to raid the area, take booty, and return without difficulties, must have been among the first steps Lala Şahin undertook to establish firm and perma1 İdris-i Bitlisî, Heşt Bihişt, ed. Mehmet Karataş, Selim Kaya, and Yaşar Baş, vol. 1 (Ankara: Bitilis

Eğitim ve Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları, 2008), 312.

2 Franz Babinger, Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.–15. Jahrhundert)

(Brünn; München; Wien: Rohrer; Callwey, 1944), 51–52.

92 | Ottoman Plovdiv

nent control over the old medieval urban center. İdris relates that Lala Şahin spent a large sum in gold to construct the long and wide wooden bridge over the Maritsa; moreover, he assigned some of his own slaves to maintain and repair the bridge in the future and appointed a superintendent (nazır-i emin) to secure its proper usage.3 Information on the early years of the bridge in Plovdiv is scarce, but Lala Şahin must have understood the necessity for its constant maintenance. Three decades after its construction, the bridge seems to have been swept away by the spring waters of the Maritsa, as in 1389, ahead of the Ottoman vanguard marching toward Kosovo, Çandarlı Ali paşa was detained in Plovdiv by the overflowing river, which prevented any crossing for two whole months.4 The bridge must have been quickly repaired, because shortly afterward Murad I assembled the main body of the army near Plovdiv and crossed the river without trouble.5 Lala Şahin did not establish a pious foundation (vakıf ) that could have secured regular revenues to maintain his bridge, but bequeathed something he must have had in abundance—slaves. Obviously, this could only have been a temporary solution, and it appears that due to its high strategic importance, the maintenance of the wooden bridge in Plovdiv was taken up by the Ottoman central treasury. Ottoman documentary evidence reveals that on later occasions, when the wild spring waters damaged it, the expenses for repair of the bridge were met by the central treasury. A document from 1490 records the financial balance of bridge restoration work supervised by the local kadı İshak Çelebi, who raised the necessary sum from the superintendents of the state tax farm (mukata’a) of the rice fields in the proximity of the city.6 In 1529 the bridge was once more carried away by the spring waters and the Ottoman army suffered great difficulties in crossing the Maritsa.7 A sultanic order from 1566, preserved in a register of important financial matters (maliye ahkâm), explicitly indicates the strategic importance of the bridge for the Ottoman army and orders the local kadı to assemble all materi3 İdris-i Bitlisî, Heşt Bihişt, 1:312–13. For further details on the bridge, see Cevdet Çulpan, Türk Taş

Köprüleri: Ortaçağdan Osmanlı Devri Sonuna Kadar (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1975), 96–97.

4 Mehmed Neşri, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi, ed. Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed Köymen,

vol. 2 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 259.

5 İdris and Hoca Sadeddin present an account that differs slightly from that of Neşri. According to

İdris/Sadeddin, it was not Ali paşa but Sultan Murad who was detained for several days by the high waters of the Maritsa. Karataş, Kaya, and Baş, İdris-i Bitlisî. Haşt Bihişt, 1:387–88; Hoca Sadeddin Efendi, Tacü’t Tevarih, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Tabhane-i Âmire, 1279), 115. Neşri’s chronicle, however, incorporates a highly detailed and reliable earlier text, labeled by İnalcık “Kosovonâme,” which must have been part of the gazavatnâme literature of the time. The original narrative is lost, but it seems apparent that Neşri incorporated the detailed text of the gazavatnâme, in all likelihood without changes. Therefore, on this specific episode Neşri’s text must be considered the more reliable source, rather than the later compilations of İdris/Sadeddin. 6 İBK, M.C. O. 91, ff. 261r–262a contains an accounting record of a repair of the bridge initiated in 1486. The state treasury spent 20,197 akçe for the restoration of the bridge. Another 20,217 akçe was spent for repairs of the state stables for camels, located by the bridge on the northern bank of the river. 7 Maria Barămova, Evropa, Dunav i osmancite (1396–1541) (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2014), 111.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 93

als needed for its repair.8 Looking for a more permanent and less costly solution, in the late sixteenth or seventeenth century the central government assigned to the residents of a village named Arnavud-i zir (mod. Dolnoslav, near Asenovgrad) the task of regular supply of materials and maintenance of the bridge in Plovdiv. In exchange for their service, the villagers were exempted from the extraordinary levies (avarız-i divaniye) and delivered the rest of their taxes as a lump sum (maktu’).9 Thanks to its prominence in the Ottoman narrative sources, the wooden bridge over the Maritsa is the only edifice of Lala Şahin in Plovdiv that is identifiable with certainty. However, the circumstantial evidence assembled below strongly suggests that he also became a patron of the earliest Ottoman monumental public buildings within the confines of the city. Judging by similar cases in Bythinia and the Balkans, one can assume that Lala Şahin and a tiny group of his closest companions installed themselves among the Christians in the fortified town where housing was readily available, while the greater part of the Muslim newcomers settled outside the walls of the citadel. Extending this analogy farther, one would expect that soon after the conquest Lala Şahin commissioned a T-shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviye together with a public bath, located below the citadel of the old city, this being a trend common to the spatial development of most of the newly conquered Ottoman cities in which the Muslim part developed in the extramural terrain.10 Normally the conqueror and/or the person entrusted with the control of a newly captured city in Western Anatolia or the Balkans was also the patron of its first Muslim buildings. These earliest structures, built below the walled parts of the con8 BOA, MAD 2775, f. 429, dating from 11 January 1566. 9 The village was established in the 1520s by Christian Albanians who settled southeast of Plovdiv at

the foot of the Rhodopes. BOA, MAD 519, f. 102 contains a record about the arrival of the first five Albanian settlers. On the migration of the Albanians in the 16th century toward the eastern parts of the Balkans, see Bojan Gjuzelev, Albanci v iztočnite Balkani (Sofia: IMIR, 2004). Pages 98–99 contain brief information on the village in question. In the mid-16th century the village was endowed to the large pious foundation of Süleymaniye. See Kemal Edib Kürkçüoğlu, Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi (Ankara: Vakıflar Umum Müdürlüğü, 1962), 65. A rare example of 18th-century tahrir registration specifies that the residents of the village paid their dues (the poll-tax, tithes, ispençe) as a lump sum (ber vech-i maktu’) in exchange for providing wood materials (döşeme tahtaları) for the repairs of the bridge in Plovdiv. Moreover, 73 individuals from the village served as permanent maintenance workers (köprücüler). The text specifies that this is an old arrangement that was copied into the new register. TKGM, Vakf-i Cedid 123, f. 8a, dated 11 October 1713. Hristo Hristozov, “Demografski i etno-religiozni procesi v rajona na Asenovgrad prez XVI v.,” Istoričeski pregled 3–4 (2012): 102. 10 Grigor Boykov, “Politics of Religion: Spatial Modification and Transformation of Religious Infrastructures of the Southeastern European Cities in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period,” in Städte im lateinischen Westen und im griechischen Osten zwischen Spätantike und Früher Neuzeit, ed. Elisabeth Gruber et al. (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2016), 299–312; Grigor Boykov, “The T-Shaped Zaviye/İmarets of Edirne: A Key Mechanism for Ottoman Urban Morphological Transformation,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 1 (2016): 29–48; Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, “Lives and Afterlives of an Urban Institution and Its Spaces: The Early Ottoman ʿİmāret as Mosque,” in Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750, ed. Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu (Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2020), 255–307.

94 | Ottoman Plovdiv

quered city, were, as a rule, T-shaped imaret/zaviyes, functioning as the “colonizers” of the space beyond the fortified town; in the majority of the cases they were built together with a public bath, and sometimes an inn for merchants and other commercial and educational infrastructure was also added. The construction of the first religious buildings depended on how the cities were conquered: where a city was taken by force, the Ottomans normally converted one of the principal churches to a mosque, thus displaying their triumph over the place; for cities delivered without resistance they normally left the existing Christian infrastructure almost intact.11 As Plovdiv was not taken by assault but rather surrendered to Lala Şahin’s forces, one can assume that none of the existing churches located within the stronghold was converted into a mosque.12 The only mosque that stood within the citadel was built in the seventeenth century, an addition to the convent of the Mevlevi order of dervishes.13 The architectural patronage that aimed at establishing the presence of Islamic institutions in the city must therefore be sought elsewhere, outside the confines of the citadel. It is plausible that soon after the Ottomans took control of the city, Lala Şahin, as its conqueror and new governor, commissioned the first Muslim public buildings there. The new structures must have responded to the small Muslim community’s immediate needs while also making an imprint on the urban landscape, displaying the permanent intentions of the conquerors.14 Based on the available sources, however, it is hard to prove the existence of any complex commissioned specifically by Lala Şahin. The uncertainty is due to the lack of any documentary evidence 11 For a recent discussion on the topic, see Velika Ivkovska, An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans:

The Case Study of Kavala (Abingdon-New York: Routledge, 2020), 15–23; Φωκίων Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη. Επτά περιπτώσεις από τον νοτιοβαλκανικό χώρο, Αδριανούπολη – Σέρρες – Καστοριά – Τρίκαλα – Λάρισα – Θεσσαλονίκη – Ιωάννινα (Αθήνα: Βιβλιόραμα, 2019). 12 While it is certain that on the eve of the Ottoman conquest the city had several churches, it is not possible to establish with confidence their total number nor how many of them were operational in the mid-14th century. The present-day Orthodox churches located within the citadel were rebuilt in the 19th century, thus their medieval foundations are in most cases obscured. Nevertheless, an Ottoman register from 1472 lists seven priests among the Christian taxpayers of Plovdiv, which makes it plausible to suggest that at that time there were at least seven Orthodox churches in the city, to which number one should possibly add the metropolitan church, served by the metropolitan himself, who was exempted from this taxation and therefore not recorded among the Christians in 1472. When Stephan Gerlach visited Plovdiv in 1578, a century later, he noted eight functioning churches in the city. It is likely, therefore, that all or most of the medieval churches in the city witnessed by Gerlach did operate at the time of the Ottoman conquest. On the history of the churches in the city, see Nikola Alvadžiev, Starinni čerkvi v Plovdiv (Plovdiv: Letera, 2000); Dimo Češmedžiev, “Starata cărkva ‘Sv. Petka’ v Plovdiv,” in Etjudi vărhu bălgarski srednovekovni kultove (Plovdiv: Bălgarsko istoričesko nasledstvo, 2019), 79–119. 13 Machiel Kiel, “Filibe,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1996). 14 The idea that the Ottoman public architecture was also meant as a statement of permanency is among the main themes in Heath W. Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2008).

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 95

from this early period pointing to him as a patron, as well as to the disappearance of the majority of the Ottoman buildings in modern Plovdiv, which prevents researchers identifying patronage or construction date based on architectural features. Nonetheless, although not referring explicitly to the patronage of Lala Şahin, some circumstantial evidence attests to the existence of Muslim public buildings outside the citadel as early as the 1410s, thus making such a hypothesis plausible. The narrative of Constantine the Philosopher (d. 1431), also known as Kostenečki, describing the disruptive war for control over Plovdiv during the so-called Ottoman Interregnum period in the early 1400s, mentions a public bath (hamam) in the city used by emir Süleyman for one of his numerous feasts.15 At least two critical points can be derived from Constantine’s account: first, it suggests an extramural location for the hamam used by Süleyman; secondly, it is very likely that the public bath in question did not stand alone but was part of a larger complex. Looking for an analogy from the other Ottoman cities (Bursa, Edirne, Skopje) that were modified after the conquest, it seems plausible that the bath mentioned by Constantine was part of a complex centered on a T-shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviye commissioned by the conqueror and ruler of the city soon after he took control. The fact that the bath and the rest of the buildings were located outside the walled town, as was the case in most other towns altered by the Ottomans, greatly supports this argument. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the conqueror and first Ottoman governor of Plovdiv, Lala Şahin, a man with undeniable authority and considerable resources, was the one who commissioned the earliest Ottoman public buildings providing for the basic necessities of the Muslims in the city. Moreover, Lala Şahin had already proved to have been a vigorous patron of architecture before his arrival in Thrace: he commissioned and built a medrese in Bursa located in the Tophane area, very close to the Şehadet Camii built initially by Orhan I,16 and a mosque, a zaviye, and a mausoleum for himself in the modern town of Mustafakemalpaşa (ancient Kirmasti/Kremastre).17 If the buildings in Plovdiv were indeed commissioned by Lala Şahin, this must have happened

15 Kostenečki was a disciple of the last patriarch of Medieval Bulgaria, Evtimij of Tărnovo (d. ca. 1403),

and served with the archbishop of Plovdiv until 1410 when he moved to the Serbian court, enjoying the patronage of Stefan Lazarević in Manasija monastery. Maximilian Braun, ed., Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarević von Konstantin dem Philosophen (The Hague: Mouton, 1956), 39–40; Kujo Kuev and Georgi Petkov, Săbrani săčinenija na Konstantin Kostenečki: izsledvane i tekst (Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1986), 16–17. For these particular events and the struggle for control over Plovdiv between Süleyman and Musa, see Dimitris Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402–1413 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007), 152–53; Nedim Filipović, Princ Musa i šejh Bedreddin. (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1971), 102–31. 16 Albert Gabriel, Une capitale turque: Brousse, Bursa (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958), 155–56; Suna Çağaptay, The First Capital of the Ottoman Empire: The Religious, Architectural, and Social History of Bursa (London: I.B. Tauris, 2021), 38. 17 Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinin İlk Devri (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1966), 190–97. The endowment deed of Lala Şahin’s pious foundation is partially preserved (lower part of the document has been torn off) in BOA, TSMA. E. 1080/18.

96 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 1. Tahtakale Camii in 1905, shortly before demolition

in the period between the conquest of the city in the mid-1360s and the mid-1380s, when it seems likely Lala Şahin died.18 The fate of these early Ottoman buildings is unclear. In all probability they did not survive the first decade of the fifteenth century, falling victim to the struggle between the two pretenders to the Ottoman throne, in which Plovdiv changed hands several times, with severe destruction inflicted by both sides. The citadel walls were heavily damaged during this war and were never repaired: twenty years after the Interregnum, the damaged fortifications were still in ruins,19 and probably furnished ready building materials for the major reconstruction of the city that took place in the 1430s. The building complex used by Prince Süleyman, possibly commissioned by Lala Şahin, must have been located to the west of the citadel, occupying the flat 18 The exact date of Lala Şahin’s death is uncertain, but in any case he died prior to 1384, when

Timurtaş paşa appears in the sources as his successor as beylerbeyi of Rumeli. Halil İnalcık, “Murad I,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2006), 159; İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1947), 573. A brick-made domed baldachin in today’s town of Kazanlăk (Central Bulgaria) is believed to be the burial place of Lala Şahin’s internal organs, while his body was transported to Anatolia and buried in the mausoleum of his complex in the town of Mustafakemalpaşa. The vakıf that Lala Şahin established was managed on a hereditary basis by his son Mehmed paşa and grandson Hamza bey, who are believed to have also commissioned a mosque in the town of Mustafakemalpaşa. Babinger, Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.–15. Jahrhundert), 72–73. 19 In 1433 the ruined walls of the stronghold were observed by Bertrandon de La Brocquière, Voyage d’outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière, ed. Charles Henri Auguste Schefer (Paris: E. Leroux, 1892), 200.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 97

Fig. 2. Kirazlı Cami of Şihabeddin paşa in Edirne

terrain immediately under the fortifications. The site, however, lay on the direct line of attack during sieges, being the most favorable point for an assault on the western gate of the citadel. It is therefore rather likely that the earliest Ottoman buildings in the city were destroyed or heavily damaged during the clashes between the armies of Musa and his brother Süleyman. Turning to the digital model of Ottoman Plovdiv and the extant nineteenth-century photographs, one notices that at the location where Lala Şahin’s buildings are likely to have stood, there was a mosque and, a bit westward, also a public bathhouse. As in many other Balkan cities where the Ottomans developed a bridgehead outside the pre-Ottoman citadels, the area was locally known as Tahtakale.20 The 20 “Tahtakale” is a colloquial version of the Arabic “Taht al-kalʿa”, i.e., below the castle/citadel. For

the Tahtakale neighborhoods that developed as the earliest commercial cores of other Ottoman cities, see for example Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital (University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), 23–24; 39–43; Selma Özkoçak, “The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in the Sixteenth Century” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, London, SOAS, University of London, 1997); Özer Ergenç, XVI. Yüzyılda Ankara ve Konya: Osmanlı Klasik Dönemi Kent Tarihçiliğine Katkı (Ankara: Ankara Enstitüsü Vakfı, 1995); Özer Ergenç, XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa: Yerleşimi, Yönetimi, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Durumu Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006); Çağla Caner, “Townscape and Building Complexes in Medieval Western Anatolia under Turkish-Islamic Culture,” in Power and Culture: Identity, Ideology, Representation, ed. Jonathan Osmond and Ausma Cimdiņa (Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2007), 27–48; Hristo Hristozov, “The Ottoman Town of İpsala from the Second Half of the 14th to the End of the 16th Century,” in Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation, ed. Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivaylo Lozanov (Sofia: Sofia University Press, 2017), 161–82.

98 | Ottoman Plovdiv

plan reveals an open space, used until the nineteenth century as a market area, that is likely to be a remnant of the earliest Islamic core, established soon after the conquest of the city. The mosque seen in the old photographs, tellingly named Tahtakale Camii, was small, a typical mahalle mescidi from the fifteenth century, being a cubic stone-built building with a lead-covered dome resting on an octagonal drum.21 It stood until the early twentieth century when the local authorities pulled it down.22 The public bath of the same name (Tahtakale Hamamı), which will be examined in detail below, was also a typical construction from the mid-fifteenth century, located about fifty meters westward from the mosque. The observations based on the visual materials corroborate the evidence from the later Ottoman documentary sources, which reveal that both of the buildings were indeed commissioned by the beylerbeyi of Rumeli Hacı Şihabeddin paşa, whose personality and architectural patronage will be discussed in detail in a later section. Moreover, a comparison of the external features of Tahtakale Camii in Plovdiv and the so-called Kirazlı Cami in Edirne, built by the same patron in 1436–37, shows a remarkable resemblance.23 (See Figs. 1 & 2) It can be safely affirmed that the plot of land in the area where the buildings in Plovdiv were erected was in the possession of Şihabeddin, as attested by his pious foundation endowment. Therefore, one can assume that the area where the earliest Muslim community in Plovdiv was installed was habitually held by the acting beylerbeyi of Rumeli, a tradition that must have begun with Lala Şahin.24 Şihabeddin paşa repaired, or, more likely, built anew, the earliest Ottoman buildings in the city erected by his predecessor. The complex that constituted the Islamic bridgehead in newly conquered Plovdiv, which we may surmise was commissioned by Lala Şahin in the second half of the fourteenth century, was severely damaged if not leveled 21 Aptullah Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1968), 29–47.

22 The mosque occupied the northern edge of the then so-called grain market (today’s corner of bou-

levard Car Boris III and Benkovski Street). Vasil Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto (Plovdiv: Plovdivsko arheologičesko družestvo, 1941), 219. 23 The dedicatory inscription of Şihabeddin’s mosque in Edirne was published by Fokke Theodor Dijkema, The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 24–25; Abdülhamit Tüfekçioğlu, Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarisinde Yazı (Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001), 232–34. On this building, see Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture, 41–42; Sedat Bayrakal, Edirne’ deki Tek Kubbeli Camiler (Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2001), 31–36. 24 Hereditary patronage over public buildings by Ottoman officials who were not related by blood ties is not uncommon in the Ottoman realm. Inherited vizierial palaces in Istanbul, or the residence of the sancakbeyi of Smederevo and the earliest Muslim buildings commissioned in that town by Minnetoğlu Mehmed bey, are but a few examples. Tülay Artan, “The Making of the Sublime Porte near the Alay Köşkü and a Tour of a Grand Veziral Palace at Süleymaniye,” Turcica 43 (2011): 145–204; Grigor Boykov, “In Search of Vanished Ottoman Monuments in the Balkans: Minnetoğlu Mehmed Beg’s Complex in Konuş Hisarı,” in Monuments, Patrons, Contexts : Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel, ed. Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2010), 47–68.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 99

during the military actions in the early fifteenth century. About two decades later, Şihabeddin reshaped Lala Şahin’s imaret/zaviye into a small communal mosque, explaining the fifteenth-century appearance of this monument in the extant photographs.25 The bathhouse that emir Süleyman used, as attested by Constantine’s account, was Tahtakale Hamamı, which, judging from its size and architectural features, was also entirely rebuilt by Şihabeddin. These efforts to restore the earliest Ottoman buildings in Plovdiv indicate a general revival of the postwar city, initiated and funded by Sultan Murad II (r. 1421–44 and 1446–51) and the then acting beylerbeyi of Rumeli Şihabeddin paşa.

Urban core Lala Şahin’s contributions to Plovdiv’s urbanscape seem to have been completely erased in the first decades of the fifteenth century due to the destructive wars of the Interregnum. Two decades later, in 1433, when the Burgundian knight Bertrandon de la Broquière (d. 1459) visited the city, the traces of the recent warfare were still visible. The citadel walls were in ruins, and the general impression that his account leaves is that the city had still not recovered from the destruction of the preceding decades.26 He remarked that most of the residents were orthodox Bulgarians, although in the 1430s there must have already been a sizable Muslim community in the city.27 The Islamic architectural presence was therefore either still negligible or more likely ruined, because de la Broquière, a careful observer who was undoubtedly more than an ordinary pilgrim, would otherwise have noted it—as he does for other places he visited.28 25 The non-extant building of Lala Şahin would not have been much larger in size than the Tahtakale

mosque that replaced it. The oldest standing T-shaped imaret/zaviye in Bulgaria, built about the same time by Mihaloğlu Mahmud bey in the town of İhtiman, is very modest in size. Today from the complex of the Mihaloğlu family in İhtiman only the hamam and the ruinous neglected imaret/zaviye are extant. Semavi Eyice, “Sofya Yakınında İhtiman’da Gaazî Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey İmâret-Câmii,” Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 2 (1975): 49–61; Semavi Eyice, “Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey Camii,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1996); Machiel Kiel, “İhtiman,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2000); Machiel Kiel, “The Zaviye and Külliye of Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey in İhtiman in Bulgaria, Second Oldest Ottoman Monument in the Balkans,” in Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi’nin Hâtırasına: Osmanlı Mimarlık Kültürü, ed. Hatice Aynur and A. Hilâl Uğurlu (İstanbul: Kubbealtı, 2016), 351–70. 26 La Brocquière, Voyage d’outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière, 200. 27 “…et est peuplée ceste diete ville en grande partie de Vulgaires qui tiennent la loy greguesque”. La Brocquière, 200. 28 De la Broquière was on an intelligence mission in the Near East and the Balkans. Philip the Good (r. 1419–67) commissioned him to go to the Holy Lands and to return overland from Jerusalem to Belgrade, tasked with making detailed observation of the Ottoman provinces in Anatolia and the Balkans, in view of possible military action. John Tolan, “Bertrandon de La Broquière,” in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, ed. David Thomas and Alex Mallet, vol. 5: (1350– 1500) (Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2013), 443–46; Attila Pál Bárány, “Burgundian Crusader Ideology in

100 | Ottoman Plovdiv

It appears that de la Broquière passed through the city just before the beginning of Murad II’s ambitious project for its revival. The most intriguing element of the Burgundian’s account is that he does not mention the large Muradiye mosque (known locally as Džumaja džamija). This must be seen as evidence ex silentio that in 1433 the mosque was not yet standing. The Muradiye is a massive, imposing structure that still dominates the urban landscape of modern Plovdiv; had it been present in 1433, it would have undoubtedly attracted de la Broquière’s attention from a distance. Moreover, as he was taken to the citadel and shown around by locals, he must have passed the mosque on the way up to the hills of the citadel: the chances that Muradiye Camii was already standing or under construction, and that such a massive structure should have gone unnoticed and therefore unmentioned by the Burgundian seem extremely low. The construction date of Muradiye, a large congregational mosque and the heart of Ottoman Plovdiv, is a subject of debate. The uncertainty arises from the fact that the original dedicatory inscription (kitabe) above the main gate of the mosque was removed and replaced by an eighteenth-century inscription commemorating a significant restoration undertaken by Sultan Abdülhamid I (r. 1774–89), which bears no information about the original date of construction of the mosque.29 Moreover, exacerbating the modern researchers’ difficulties, the Ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi, who visited Plovdiv in the mid-seventeenth century, confidently states that the mosque was built by “the conqueror of Edirne, Gazi Hüdavendigâr Sultan Murad Han [I].”30 This short and undoubtedly incorrect remark has inclined many architectural historians to consider the Muradiye mosque in Plovdiv as founded by Murad I.31 Bertrandon de La Broquière’s Le Voyage d’Outremer,” in Byzance et l’Occident III. Écrits et Manuscrits, ed. Emese Egedi-Kovács (Budapest: Collège Eötvös József ELTE, 2016), 17–39; Boris Stojkovski, “Bertrandon de la Broquière on Byzantium and Serbia. Richness and Decline in the Age of Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans,” in Byzanz und das Abendland V: Studia Byzantino-Occidentalia, ed. Erika Juhász, Antiquitas, Byzantium, renascentia, XXXII (Budapest: Eötvös-József-Collegium, 2018), 175–87; Christine Ferlampin-Acher, “Le Voyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière : récit de pèlerinage, rapport d’espionnage ou récit de voyage ?,” Travaux de littérature, no. 26 (2013): 11–22; Semavi Eyice, “Bertrandon de la Broquiere ve Seyahatnamesi (1432–1433),” İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi 6 (1975): 85–110. 29 The inscription commemorating the restoration, completed on 5th July 1784 (27 Ş’aban 1199 AH), was studied and published by Ibrahim Tatarlă, “Turski kultovi sgradi i nadpisi v Bălgarija,” Annuaire de l’Université de Sofia, Faculté de Lettres 60 (1966): 605–8. For a recent review of the literature related to the building and the debate on its construction date, see Ljubomir Mikov, Džumaja džamija i Imaret džamija v Plovdiv. Istorija, specifika i săvremenno săstojanie (Sofia: Glavno mjuftijstvo, 2018), 7–20. 30 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), ed. S. Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 217. 31 Oktay Aslanapa, Turkish Art and Architecture (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2004), 195; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinin İlk Devri, 295–303; Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Avrupa’ da Osmanlı Mimârı ̂ Eserleri, vol. 4: Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982), 38–41. The restoration of Muradiye that took place in the period 2006–8 was marked by a conference on the architectural features and history of the building. With only one notable excep-

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 101

According to the famous seventeenth-century Ottoman traveler, the principal mosque of Plovdiv, whose closest architectural predecessor is Ulu Cami in Bergama (built by Bayezid I in 1398–99), was certainly built in the fifteenth century.32 The floor plan of Muradiye Camii, a typical example of the so-called ulu cami (great mosque) type, is a massive rectangle (40 × 30 m.) with three large domes over the central nave, supported by four massive pillars and two lateral spaces covered by three vaults on each side. The building originally had a five-domed portico which collapsed and was replaced, probably during the eighteenth-century restoration, by a penthouse resting on wall extensions from the sides and four stone columns, as can be seen in a photograph from the 1880s. In the 1900s the portico was removed and replaced by a lower wooden structure, which still occupies the front space after later modifications.

Fig. 3. Floor plan of Muradiye Camii in Plovdiv

Fig. 4 Floor plan of Ulu Cami in Bergama

tion, the article by Maximilian Hartmuth, all papers in the published proceedings of the conference regard Muradiye as a 14th-century building commissioned by Murad I. See Celaleddin Küçük and N. Mine Yar, eds., Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Camii Konferansı Bildirileri / Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Mosque Conference Papers (İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2008). Despite the lack of any textual or architectural evidence, some contributions even argued that the mosque was established by Murad I as part of a larger complex that also included a public bath, caravanserai, and a bedesten. Gönül Cantay, “Filibe Tarihi Topografyasında Hüdavendigâr Külliyesi,” in Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Camii Konferansı Bildirileri / Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Mosque Conference Papers, ed. Celaleddin Küçük and N. Mine Yar (İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2008), 25–29. 32 On the mosque in Bergama, see Bozkurt Ersoy, “Bergama Ulu Camii,” Arkeoloji Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 4 (1988): 57–66; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinin İlk Devri, 373–78; Osman Bayatlı, Bergama Tarihinde Türk-İslam Eserleri (İstanbul: Anıl Matbaası, 1956), 18–21.

102 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 5. Muradiye Camii, 1879

Fig. 6. Muradiye Camii, 1932

Fig. 7. Western façade and side entrance of Muradiye Camii, 2012

If this massive, imposing structure, visible at that time from afar, was indeed not there in 1433, then its construction must have begun shortly after de la Broquière’s visit, because evidence from Ottoman documentary sources shows that Muradiye

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 103

did exist by 1436. Contrary to common Ottoman practice, the largest communal mosque in Ottoman Plovdiv did not have its own pious foundation providing for its maintenance and staff salaries. Instead, the mosque was supported by the large vakıf established by Sultan Murad II on behalf of the T-shaped imaret/zaviye (also known as Muradiye Camii), which he built at the northeastern edge of Edirne. The extant accounting registers of the endowment of Murad II’s edifice in Edirne leave no doubt about this fact, and provide details of the salaries of the staff and the resources spent for maintaining his mosque in Plovdiv.33 According to the date encrypted in the original dedicatory inscription still in situ above its entrance, the Muradiye in Edirne, which was part of a mevlevihane,34 was built in AH 839 (1435 –1436).35 Thus, the endowment deed, of which there is no known extant copy, was most likely drawn up in 1435 or 1436. The fact that Muradiye Camii in Plovdiv was included in the foundation established by Murad II for the support of his complex in Edirne bespeaks that it must have been built around the same time, and in any case prior to 1436. A short remark by Hibri Efendi, an early-seventeenth-century historian of Edirne, which explicitly attributes the old mosque in Plov-div to the buildings commissioned by Murad II, adds strength to this argument.36 Since there is little doubt that it was Murad II who commissioned the mosque in Plovdiv, the sources therefore also allow us to clarify its precise date of construction. Murad II is unlikely to have commissioned the mosque in Plovdiv before 33 Kiel was the first to point to the muhasebe defteri as providing these important details. Machiel

Kiel, “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353–1453,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey, ed. Kate Fleet, vol. 1-Byzantium to Turkey 1071–1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 176. Despite being published more than half a century ago, the document remained overlooked by art and architectural historians. Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Edirne ve Civarındaki Bazı İmaret Tesislerinin Yıllık Muhasebe Bilançoları,” Belgeler 1, no. 2 (1964): 372. The document published by Barkan dates from 1633 and lists 24 individuals who received salaries from the vakıf as employees in the great mosque in Plovdiv. The part of the archival collection of the Topkapı Palace which was recently made accessible through the Ottoman archives in Istanbul contains many earlier and later muhasebe registers of Muradiye in Edirne which confirm the information in the document published by Barkan. For instance, BOA, TSMA 3687 0014 (dating from July 14, 1589); BOA TSMA 1572 (dating from 1600–1601); or BOA, TSMA 1681 (dating from 1670–1671) etc. For data analysis of the accounting registers of Muradiye, see Kayhan Orbay, “Edirne Muradiyye Vakfı’nın Mali Yapısı ve Gelişimi (1598–1647),” Belleten 78, no. 283 (2014): 983–1032. 34 A. Süheyl Ünver, Edirne Murâdiye Câmiʼi: Yaptıran İkinci Sultan Murad (İstanbul: Kemal Matbaası, 1952); A. Süheyl Ünver, “Edirne Mevlevihanesi Tarihine Giriş,” in Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht, ed. Emin Nedret İşli and M. Sabri Koz (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, 1998), 623–27; Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451) (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1972), 405–15; Oral Onur, Edirne Mevlevihanesi (İstanbul: u.p., 1999). 35 The date AH 839 is recorded as a chronogram in the bottom left line of the inscription. See Dijkema, The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne, 23–24; Tüfekçioǧlu, Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarisinde Yazı, 224–25. 36 Abdurrahman Hibr Ð, Enîsü’ l-Müsâmir Ðn: Edirne Tarihi, 1360–1650, trans. Ratip Kazancıgil (Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi, 1996), 67; Franz Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1927), 212–13.

104 | Ottoman Plovdiv

1425, because he was preoccupied with a costly and dangerous struggle to secure his throne.37 In the second half of the 1420s, Murad’s patronage was focused on his complex in Bursa (the Muradiye complex was built between 1424 and 1428), which required enormous financial resources.38 It was only in the 1430s that Murad began to commission public buildings in Rumeli, as within a short period he built Darülhadis (1434–35), Muradiye (1435–36), Üç Şerefeli (1438–47), plus medreses and public baths in Edirne; Hünkâr (Muradiye) Camii (1436) in Skopje (Ott. Üsküb); and the complex and the long bridge that gave birth to the town of Uzunköprü (1443–44).39 The building of the Muradiye mosque in Plovdiv must be regarded as part of Murad’s general program of constructing large imperial mosques in Edirne and the Balkan provincial centers such as Plovdiv and Skopje. In this respect, the mosque in Plovdiv was likely commissioned at a time when his patronage in Rumeli was at its peak. The time frame for the construction of the sultanic mosque in Plovdiv can therefore be narrowed to between the visit by de la Broquière and the completion of Muradiye in Edirne, i.e., between 1433 and 1436. The construction of the Muradiye mosque in Plovdiv in the mid-1430s indicates Murad II’s intention to restore life to the most significant urban center of Upper Thrace, after the wars of the early fifteenth century. Adorning the city with an Imperial Friday mosque also indicates the increasing importance of the city within the Ottoman provincial administrative hierarchy, as it often served as the seat of the governor-general of the province Rumeli. The process of revitalization, which must have begun shortly after 1433, aimed at altering the city by defining a more visible Muslim core, thus becoming a sign of the supremacy of the Ottoman dynasty and a statement of permanence. Built on empty land below the ruined citadel and the Christian quarters, but in close proximity to the Muslim nucleus set down by the buildings of Lala Şahin, the Muradiye laid the foundations of a new urban center around which the commercial and social activities of the reemerging city would revolve. The square (Aynalı meydanı) that naturally formed around the mosque became a nexus for the main urban arteries, running from north to south and joining it from the west. The careful selection of a focal point for the Muslim center proved highly successful. Muradiye dominated the landscape throughout the Ottoman period, and modern Plovdiv also inherited its functionality as a focus of economic, administrative, and social activities. 37 On the events of Murad II’s accession and the subsequent power struggle, see Halil İnalcık,

“Murad II,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2006); Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1481 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1990), 91–97. 38 Gabriel, Une capitale turque, 105–18; Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture, 121–23; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), 298–326; Çağaptay, The First Capital of the Ottoman Empire, 92–95. 39 Kiel, “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353–1453,” 179–83; Aptullah Kuran, “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul,” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 114–31.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 105

At first glance, it seems odd that the Ottoman rulers postponed the construction of an imperial Friday mosque in post-conquest Plovdiv for such a long time—it took about seventy years before it became a fact. Yet in comparing spatial development and royal architectural patronage in Plovdiv with other cities from the pre-Ottoman era that were significantly altered after conquest, it appears that this was roughly the usual period before the construction of a large multi-domed mosque in a city. In Bursa, for instance, conquered in 1326, it took precisely seventy years before Bayezid I commissioned the large Ulu Cami which celebrated the Ottoman victory at the Battle of Nicopolis (1396).40 Likewise, the earliest large congregational mosque in Edirne was completed in 1413—more than half a century after the city’s first conquest in 1361.41 In the nearby important city of Dimetoka (Didymoteichon), conquered around the same time, the large communal mosque that dominated the urban landscape was finished only sixty years later.42 The first sizeable imperial mosque in Skopje, a city which at that time was fully comparable in scale and magnitude to Plovdiv, was commissioned by Murad II in 1436, i.e., close to half a century after its conquest.43 Keeping in mind the Interregnum period, which for a decade brought Plovdiv not architectural patronage but destruction, one can safely assert that the time of construction of Muradiye in the city entirely corresponds to the development of analogous town centers in the Balkans under Ottoman rule. The long timespan between conquest and the construction of the imperial congregational mosques in the prominent cities of Western Anatolia and the Balkans thus illustrates that the first “benefactors” and actual developers of these towns were not the Ottoman sultans themselves, but the cities’ actual governors—in the case of Plovdiv these were the beylerbeyleri of Rumeli, who commissioned and built the first public buildings that left a visible mark on the urban tissue, and began Islamicizing the urbanscape. Lala Şahin, the earliest Ottoman governor of Plovdiv, was instructed by Murad I to revive the city and to firmly establish his power, and that of the Ottoman dynasty, in the region. The bridge over the Maritsa, intended to secure the reach of the Ottoman armies in the northern and northwestern directions, speaks 40 Bursa’s Ulu Cami was not the first establishment initiated by Bayezid I in Bursa. In 1390–95 he

commissioned and built on the outskirts of the city a complex of buildings of which a T-shaped multifunctional building, a medrese, bath, and hospital are still extant. The mausoleum of Bayezid I, which is also part of this complex, was built by his son the emir Süleyman in 1406. Kuran, The Mosque, 110–13. 41 Eski Cami in Edirne was begun by emir Süleyman in 1402 and completed in 1413 by his brother Mehmed I, who added a bedesten that was a replica of the one in Bursa (see Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture, 154–58. For further details on the spatial development of the first Ottoman capitals, see Kuran, “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals.” 42 The construction of the large mosque in Dimetoka began under Bayzed I, but was only completed by Mehmed I in 1420. Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), 136–49; Lowry, The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece, 20–22. 43 Lidiya Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç, Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri (İstanbul: ENKA, 2008), 44–51; Mustafa Özer, Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi (XIV.–XIX. yüzyıl) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006), 44–50.

106 | Ottoman Plovdiv

for the military importance of the place both strategically and institutionally, essentially as an advanced military camp with administrative capacity over most provincial affairs. Indeed, the very small number of known monumental buildings up until the 1430s may also be indicative of the character of Plovdiv in the early part of the first decades of Ottoman domination—as a powerbase in which the first governors of the province often resided, organized raids into enemy territories, and secured the lines of supply when the sultanic army campaigned westward. The lack of written sources makes it difficult to trace the details of these early transformative processes and to establish what part was due to intentional planning and what developed spontaneously. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence that the stables for the imperial camels were built on the northern bank of the Maritsa, by the bridge of Lala Şahin and near the gathering point for the army. The group of Aktav Tatars that must have settled at Plovdiv’s bridgehead on the northern bank in the 1390s, thus giving birth to an entirely new and spatially disconnected quarter, is also likely to be associated with the military character of the area and the city as a whole. Despite the anecdotal evidence about its founder, the “mosque” of the Tatar leader Aktav on the left side of the river must have served a similar function as the so-called Yıldım imareti in Edirne, built by Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402).

Şihabeddin’s time The foundation established for Plovdiv’s Muradiye Camii corresponds to the ascendancy of Şihabeddin paşa as beylerbeyi of Rumeli. Esteemed for his architectural endowments in the city, Şihabeddin stands unparalleled as its premier benefactor during the Ottoman reign: his contributions were not just grandiose in nature, but systematically sculpted Plovdiv’s urban landscape. The eunuch el-hac Şihabeddin, son of Abdullah, commonly known in records as Kula (or Kavala) Şahin,44 succeeded Sinan paşa as governor and chief commander of all Ottoman forces in Europe in AH 840 (1436–37) after serving as sancakbeyi of Arvanid (central and southern Albania) in the early 1430s.45 While details are scant about the early stages of his career, during the reign of Murad II he distinguished himself as one of the most eminent commanders in the Balkans, securing notable victories in Serbia towards the latter 44 Şihabeddin was most likely a soubriquet (lakab) of Şahin, while his patronymic Abdullah, figuring

on his pençe, indicates his non-Muslim origin. Vančo Boškov, “Aus Athos-Turcica: Eine Urkunde Şehāb ed-Dīn Şahīn Paşa’s des Wezirs und Staathalters von Rumelien, aus dem Jahre 1453,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 76 (1986): 65–72. Babinger, after Kemalpaşazade, argues for the Georgian descent of Şihabeddin: see Franz Babinger, “Von Amurath zu Amurath. Vor- und Nachspiel der Schlacht bei Varna ,” Oriens 3, no. 2 (1950): 250, note 89. The lakab Kula/Kavala and the strong ties with the Balkan aristocracy, however, might suggest a local origin. 45 Halil İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954), 84–85; passim; M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar (İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), 256.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 107

part of the 1430s.46 In the year 1440 Şihabeddin directed a siege of Belgrade, and though it did not culminate in success, he nevertheless managed to add the pivotal Serbian silver-mining hub of Novo Brdo to the list of his conquests.47 In 1442, spearheading a vast military incursion into Wallachia, Şihabeddin suffered a devastating defeat by the forces of János Hunyadi (d. 1456), which stirred discontent amongst the janissaries and eventually paved the way for Şihabeddin’s dismissal from his position as beylerbeyi of Rumeli.48 In 1443, confronted by the looming menace of the crusading forces led by King Vladislav III (r. 1434–1444) and Hunyadi, Murad II saw fit to reinstate Şihabeddin, not only as the beylerbeyi of Rumeli but also as a second vizier in the divan—a prestigious title he continued to hold even under the reign of Mehmed II.49 Having played a pivotal role in the Battle of Varna in 1444 and later in the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Şihabeddin chose to step out of the limelight, assuming in the mid-1450s a more reserved retirement position as sancakbeyi of Thessaloniki (Ott. Selânik).50 Several documents housed within the archives of the Athonite monasteries vouch for his tenure as the governor of Thessaloniki, the latest document issued by him dating from July 1457.51 Şihabeddin died in 1459, a detail echoed in an Athonite document from February 1462, penned under the authority of Thessaloniki’s sancakbeyi at the time, Hızır bey, which clearly refers to Şihabeddin as deceased.52 His remains, in all likelihood, were transported to Plovdiv, where they would have found their final resting place within the mausoleum (türbe) of the complex he had built in the city. A prolific patron of architecture, Şihabeddin must have spent his early days based primarily in Edirne, where he built the so-called Kirazlı Cami, mentioned above, 46 Ilias Kolovos, “A Biti of 1439 from the Archives of the Monastery of Xeropotamou (Mount Athos),”

Hilandarski Zbornik 11 (2004): 295–306.

47 John Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad. The Ottoman-Christian Conflict

48 49 50

51

52

from 1438–1444 (Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2012), 157–68; Elizabeth Zachariadou, “The Worrisome Wealth of the Čelnik Radić,” in Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Ménage, ed. Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (Istanbul: Isis, 1994), 383–97. Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad. The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438–1444, 286–93. İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar, 84–85. Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Another Document of Shehab Al-Din Pasha Concerning Mount Athos (1455),” in Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe Für György Hazai Zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Barbara KellnerHeinkele (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), 217–22. Vassilis Demetriades, “Athonite Documents and the Ottoman Occupation,” in Mount Athos in the 14th-16th Centuries, ed. Dora Komine-Dialete (Athens: The National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research, 1997), 49 and 63. Demetriades, 49 and 64. In the archive of the Zograf monastery (Zograf archive, 03-15.22), a ferman issued by Mehmed II in August 1462 intriguingly cites Şihabeddin as the incumbent sancakbeyi of Thessaloniki, a position he ostensibly held posthumously. Such an anomaly is perplexing: however, other irregularities within this Zograf document hint at the possibility that, while the ferman remains an authentic decree from Mehmed II, its accompanying date may be erroneous. For a detailed overview of the Athonite documents mentioning Şihabeddin and his entwinements with the Holy Mountain, see Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη, 2019, 236–37.

108 | Ottoman Plovdiv

and two other mescids that are no longer extant.53 Moreover, he commissioned several other edifices in Edirne, all close to Murad II’s new palace (Saray-i Cedid)—a public bath (Sarraçhane Hamamı), a large mansion (saray), and a bridge over the river Tunca, known locally as the Sarraçhane Köprüsü.54 He also built another hamam in the village of Tovice Mahmud (mod. Lalapaşa),55 whose revenues, together with the incomes from several other villages in the region of Edirne and multiple shops in the city itself, were bestowed on the pious foundation established in support of his buildings in Edirne.56 During his tenure in Thessaloniki, Şihabeddin developed a close association with the monastic communities of Athos. Numerous documents bearing his name reveal his role as a guardian to the monks as well as wealthy Christian nobles who sought refuge within these monastic realms. Given Şihabeddin’s illustrious military and administrative track record, coupled with his patronage of arts and architectural endeavors across the Ottoman Balkan territories, it is hardly astonishing to discover his significant architectural contributions in Plovdiv, the city in which he must have often resided during his terms as beylerbeyi of Rumeli. The public buildings in Plovdiv commissioned by Şihabeddin in the mid-fifteenth century echo the broader vision of urban transformation and rejuvenation initiated by Murad II with the construction of the grand Friday mosque in the 1430s. The Muradiye mosque anchored the emerging Muslim city in the open flat terrain below the citadel; yet, in accord with time-honored Ottoman practices, to truly metamorphose this site into a thriving commercial hub it needed to be complemented by additional public edifices. First and foremost, to function as large communal mosque serving the growing congregation in the busy commercial quarter as well as the city’s visitors, it required an adequate public bath. The building that served throughout the Ottoman period as the principal public bath of the çarşı district, known as Tahtakale 53 The 19th-century Edirne scholar Badi Efendi describes the buildings commissioned by Şihabeddin

paşa, namely the extant Kirazlı and two the vanished mescids named Kavaklı and Şihabeddin paşa. Ahmed BâdÐ Efendi, Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne: 20. Yüzyıla Kadar Osmanlı Edirne’si, ed. Niyazi Adıgüzel and Raşit Gündoğdu, vol. 1/1: Edirne‘nin Fethi. Camiler. Mescitler. Tekkeler. Medreseler. İmaretler. Mektepler. Çarşılar. Hanlar. Hamamlar. Çeşmeler. Kilise ve Havralar. Köprüler (Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi, 2014), 135–36; 156, 328. 54 The dedicatory inscription on the bridge, completed in AH 855 (1451–52), indicates that Şihabeddin retained the position of vizier during the second term of Murad II’s reign. For the text of the inscription, see Dijkema, The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne, 32–34; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), 478. For details about the bridge, see Çulpan, Türk Taş Köprüleri, 107–10. His saray, burned down in a janissary revolt, and the hamam, are no longer extant. 55 The ruins of this bath are still extant at the outskirts of the modern settlement, xy coordinates 41.837546, 26.730554. It is likely that the bath was a part of a vanished residential complex built by Şihabeddin. There is a brief description of the remains of the bath in Mustafa Özer, “EdirneLalapaşa’daki Osmalı Dönemi Eserleri,” Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 8, no. 1 (2006): 54–72. 56 Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 257–58. The document used by Gökbilgin is the detailed tahrir defteri BOA, TD 20, dating from 1485–86, ff. 59–62.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 109

Hamamı, was located about fifty meters northeast of Muradiye Camii. As mentioned above, in all probability the bath was built atop an older one, commissioned by Lala Şahin, which was damaged or destroyed during the Interregnum period. The Tahtakale bath remained operational throughout the Ottoman period until its demolition by the local municipality in the early twentieth century. Its architectural design and floor plan have never been subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny; nevertheless, the extant visual sources and the Ottoman documentary evidence indicate a typical single bath whose architectural features strongly suggest a construction date around the mid-fifteenth century.57 Evliya Çelebi remarked upon its prominence, describing it as a “famous bath that was always crowded,”58 while the twentieth-century local historian Vasil Peev wrote that the bath had a spacious disrobing space and five hot domed rooms that had a capacity of about one thousand customers daily.59

Fig. 8. Tahtakale Hamamı (foreground) and the commercial core of Plovdiv with Kurşunlu Han (background) in 1879 57 The bath was heavily damaged by a fire that devastated the old commercial quarter on the night of

June 14, 1906, and was demolished shortly afterward. Nikola Alvadžiev, Plovdivska hronika (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1971), 159. The available photographs dating from the early 1900s show tall vegetation on the roof of the bath, a sign that it was no longer in use. 58 “ve Tahtalkal’a hammâmı, her bâr izdihâm hamam-ı benâmdır”, Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217. 59 Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 222. The author was born in Plovdiv in 1887 and it is likely that he had actually used the bath, therefore presenting an eyewitness account. His father Kostaki Peev was the first elected post-Ottoman mayor of the city (December 1878 – September 1880).

110 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Though the central location of Tahtakale Hamamı within the city is indisputable, the identity of its benefactor has to date remained uncertain. A recent discovery of a copy of the endowment deed (vakfiye) of Şihabeddin paşa has shed light on this ambiguity, however, revealing him as the patron responsible for commissioning and establishing the principal bathhouse of the commercial district. The copy of Şihabeddin’s endowment is a highly complex document, housed in the Library of the University of Leipzig under call no. Cod. Arab. 121.60 Composed in Arabic, the document comprises 46 bound folia, showcasing verified copies of the original endowment deed assembled in Edirne in the period 1–10 April 1442, and also incorporates numerous subsequent additions (zeyl) detailing properties bequeathed to the foundation supporting the Şihabeddin paşa complex in Plovdiv.61 Regrettably, the document is not complete. An indeterminate number of pages, both from the commencement and the conclusion, appear to have been lost prior to its present binding. Consequently, the crucial introductory segment, which delineates the beneficiary and specifies the properties incorporated in the original endowment deed, remains absent. Similarly, the data pertaining to Şihabeddin’s Edirne endowment is not exhaustive due to the absence of pages at the codex’s terminus. The codex, which encompasses at least ten copies of endowments made by Şihabeddin throughout the 1440s and 1450s, lacks a definitive compilation date. If such a date was once indicated, it likely resided on the now-missing pages. Nevertheless, the authenticity of each copy within the codex is consistently affirmed by the signature and seal of the then-serving kadı of Edirne, Muslihuddin Mustafa ibn Mir Ali al-Niksari, which provides a basis for determining the timeframe in which these copies were crafted. Niksari (d. 1561), a distinguished figure among the sixteenth-century Ottoman ulema, occupied various educational and administrative posts across the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Serving a single term as the kadı of Edirne from October 1551 to November 1554, Niksari’s tenure undoubtedly situates the production of the copies within this period. An endowment deed penned in November/December 1452 unequivocally identifies Şihabeddin as the benefactor responsible for the construction of the Tahtakale bathhouse. The document lays out that Şihabeddin bequeathed to his medrese and imaret in Plovdiv the bath he had constructed, inclusive of all its revenues and benefits, whether derived from within or external to the structure. The bath was situated adjacent to the endowment of Haraççı Hamza Bali on one side and the land belonging to the endower on another, with streets defining its boundaries on the 60 I express my profound gratitude to Amy Singer, who, upon unearthing the pivotal document,

promptly shared this information with me. This fortuitous discovery transpired during the Digital Humanities and Ottoman Studies workshop in Vienna, 2022, when Amy and I, seated adjacently, were delving into Qalamos.net, navigating its features and scrutinizing the newly incorporated manuscript data. 61 I extend my gratitude to János Galamb for his excellent translation of the document; together, we are preparing this valuable source for publication in its entirety.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 111

remaining two sides.62 The accounting registers of Şihabeddin paşa’s pious foundation (evkaf muhasebe) further corroborate that the Tahtakale bath was indeed commissioned and constructed under Şihabeddin’s auspices.63 The records indicate that the vakıf owned Tahtakale Hamamı, and during the first half of the seventeenth century its rent generated an average annual income ranging between six to seven thousand akçe.64 Furthermore, several shops situated around the bath contributed rent to the foundation, which, in turn, consistently allocated significant amounts for the bath’s maintenance and repair.65 While documentary sources concur that Şihabeddin paşa was the patron of the bath, they offer no specific information regarding its precise construction date. However, given its close proximity to Muradiye and its role as the primary public bath of Plovdiv’s commercial district, it is tempting to infer that Tahtakale Hamamı was erected shortly after the completion of the prominent Friday mosque. It is improbable that Şihabeddin initiated the construction of the bath before his 1436–37 appointment as the Rumeli beylerbeyi when he was based in the Western Balkans. Instead, it would have been subsequent to this appointment, during his tenure as the governor and commander-in-chief of the Ottoman Balkan territories, that he would have come to Plovdiv. By the time of his inaugural visit, the Muradiye mosque would have either reached completion or been in its concluding phases of construction. The evident need for a substantial public bath to cater to the mosque’s congregation would have been evident. At first glance, it might seem peculiar that Murad II would commission such a grand sultanic mosque without a public bath attached; yet this appears consistent with Murad’s architectural approach in the 1430s. Notably, the Hünkâr mosque, erected in Skopje in 1436 and of a size akin to the mosque in Plovdiv, was similarly constructed without an accompanying hamam for its congregation.66 Furthermore, the grand double bath adjacent to Murad II’s most monumental architectural feat, the Üç Şerefeli mosque in Edirne, was incorporated into the complex

62 Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Cod. Arab. 121, ff. 14a–15a. 63 There are numerous accounting registers (muhasebe defters) of the foundation: BOA, MAD 6513

contains two registers bound together dating AH 1042–44 (1633–34); BOA MAD 749 includes five registers dating AH 1042–48 (1633–38) that were bound and mixed up together with those of other vakıfs; Bulgarian National Library, Sofia, Oriental department PD 17/12, dating from AH 1049–50 (1639–40); BOA, MAD 15134, dating from AH 1050–51 (1640–41); BOA, TSMA 5301, dating from AH 3.4.1163 (12 March 1750). For a study on the economic activities of Şihabeddin’s endowment, see Hatice Oruç and Kayhan Orbay, “Filibe’de Şehabeddin Paşa Vakfı 1632–1641 (H. 1041–1051),” Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 18 (2010): 19–57. 64 MAD 15134, f. 3a; PD 17/12, f. 2a. 65 For instance, in 1632 the administrator of the foundation spent 12,000 akçe for the restoration of the bath. MAD 749, f. 222. 66 Maximilian Hartmuth, “Building the Ottoman City: A Linear or Cumulative Process? Lessons from Fifteenth-Century Skopje,” Centre and Periphery? Islamic Architecture in Ottoman Macedonia, 1383–1520 Research Project No. 26406 Working Paper #3, n.d.

112 | Ottoman Plovdiv

over a century subsequent to its initial construction.67 Perhaps the extensive and financially demanding architectural endeavors undertaken by Murad II during the 1430s–1440s led him to forgo the concurrent construction of baths alongside certain of his mosques. Regardless, the Tahtakale bath emerged as a crucial supplement shortly after the completion of the imperial mosque in Plovdiv. The accounting registers and the vakfiye further illustrate that a significant tract of land within the commercial heartland, specifically in the Tahtakale region, belonged to the endowment initiated by Şihabeddin. This offers additional indirect evidence linking Şihabeddin’s patronage to the Tahtakale mosque, as previously discussed. Şihabeddin’s architectural endeavors in Plovdiv during the 1430s were driven by a vision of rejuvenating the district where the city’s earliest Muslim inhabitants had settled. This was an attempt to honor and perpetuate the architectural heritage of his forerunner, Lala Şahin paşa. To fully realize a central core in Plovdiv that mirrored, albeit on a reduced scale, the development seen in major Ottoman sultanic hubs like Bursa and Edirne, there was a pressing need for two additional commercial structures: these were a spacious inn or caravanserai to cater to travelers and merchants, and a covered market (bedesten) designed to house valuable commodities. While local historiography ascribes the commissioning of these two structures to Şihabeddin paşa, there exists no documentary or physical evidence to corroborate this. The accounting records of Şihabeddin’s charitable foundation make no mention of these edifices, suggesting that they might have been commissioned by other notable figures, whose identities remain elusive at this point.68 Notwithstanding the absence of direct documentary evidence, the architectural characteristics of the bedesten, and possibly the caravanserai, suggest construction in the fifteenth century. It is plausible that they were erected shortly after Murad II finalized his mosque.69 The expansive caravanserai, colloquially referred to as Kurşunlu Han (or Kuršum Han in Bulgarian), was a formidable two-story structure with a rectangular footprint. This edifice encased a spacious courtyard, at the center of which stood a sub67 The Çifte Hamam of Sokollu Mehmed paşa, built by Mimar Sinan near Murad II’s mosque in

Edirne, was only completed in 1563. Sabih Erken, “Edirne Hamamları,” Vakıflar Dergisi 10 (1973): 415–17; Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion, 2005), 79. 68 The kervansaray and the bedesten suffered from the strong earthquake of 1928. In the early 1930s the local municipality, ignoring public protests, decided to demolish the buildings. In spite of this unfortunate development the buildings were documented and exact floor plans are available. When studied together with the numerous photographs they provide a good idea about these monuments. 69 A 1489 register (BOA, TD 26, f. 64) mentions an inhabitant of the city working at the caravanserai, strongly implying that this substantial edifice had been erected prior to that year. Grigor Boykov and Mariya Kiprovska, “The Ottoman Philippopolis (Filibe) During the Second Half of the 15th c.,” Bulgarian Historical Review 3–4 (2000): 128. In private conversation, Machiel Kiel asserted that the architectural characteristics of Plovdiv’s grand caravanserai suggest a construction date possibly as late as the 17th century. However, given the absence of definitive documentary proof, and considering the caravanserai’s apt fit within the burgeoning commercial heart of Plovdiv, I currently designate it as a 15th-century edifice, pending any new evidence.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 113

Fig. 9. Bedesten (foreground) and Muradiye Camii (background) in 1892

stantial fountain catering both to travelers and their beasts of burden. The upper floor was lined with rooms, each furnished with fireplaces, designated for guests, while the ground floor chambers were allocated for the storage of merchandise and the sheltering of animals.70 The single gate, fortified with thick oak planks and adorned with nails, was situated at the northwestern corner of the building. This gate facilitated direct access to and from the expansive market street, known as Uzun Çarşı, which served as the primary urban axis, extending north from the Muradiye to the banks of the Maritsa.71 70 Margarita Harbova, Gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVIII vek (Sofia:

Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1991), 155–57.

71 The original heavy door of the caravanserai is housed at the Ethnographic museum in Plovdiv.

114 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 9. The commercial core of Ottoman Plovdiv in the mid-15th century

Located northeast of Muradiye Camii and just a few meters south of Tahtakale Hamamı, the bedesten was a substantial rectangular structure measuring 18 × 27 meters and topped by six domes. Internally, two large pillars sectioned the bedesten into six uniformly sized spaces. As noted by Evliya Çelebi, this area was reserved for the storage of valuable goods.72 The edifice featured four entrances, one on each side. Notably, the primary entrance, which faced the Uzun Çarşı, was reached via three minor streets that converged at this location.73 The closest architectural compari72 “… ve bir kârgîr binâ-yı kavî kapuları silsileli ma’mûr dur. Cemî’ i diyârın zî-kıymet tuhefleri anda

bî-kıymet bulunur”, Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217. 73 Hristo Peev, “Golemiyat bezisten v Plovdiv,” Godišnik na narodnija arheologičeski muzej Plovdiv 1 (1948): 204–7. Halil İnalcık, “The Hub of the City: The Bedestan of Istanbul,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 1 (1980): 1–17. Overview on the Ottoman bedestens in modern Bulgaria in Mehmet Tunçel, “Türk Mimarîsi’nde Bulgaristan’daki Bedesten Binaları,” in Balkanlar’ da Kültürel Etkileşim ve Türk Mimarisi Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri (17–19 Mayıs 2000, Şumnu Bulgaristan), ed. Azize Aktaş Yasa and Zeynep Zafer (Ankara: Atatürk Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2001), 725–62; Harbova, Gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVIII vek, 183–86.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 115

Map 10. The complex of Şihabeddin paşa in Plovdiv, built in 1444

Fig. 10. The complex of Şihabeddin paşa: a northern perspective with the bridge of Lala Şahin, 1890s

116 | Ottoman Plovdiv

son for the structure is the expansive six-domed bedesten constructed in the 1450s by Mehmed II in Thessaloniki:74 this further strengthens the hypothesis that Plovdiv’s covered market was likely commissioned during the mid-fifteenth century, thus being one of the ten bedesten buildings that stood in Ottoman Rumeli in the 1530s.75 Undoubtedly, Şihabeddin’s architectural endeavors within the commercial heart of the city aimed to rehabilitate the initial Islamic foothold outside the citadel of Plovdiv. This process was either initiated or significantly amplified by the construction of Murad II’s central Friday mosque. The mere existence of this edifice was potent enough to spark a recovery of the area, amplifying its importance. The supplementary infrastructure commissioned subsequently by Şihabeddin suggests deliberate or synchronized efforts to develop Plovdiv’s commercial nucleus during the latter half of the 1430s. This momentum attracted further infrastructural investments in succeeding decades, like the bedesten and caravanserai, thereby furnishing the commercial zone with a more holistic character. While Şihabeddin’s architectural endeavors were pivotal in establishing a fresh Islamic nucleus in Plovdiv, his more monumental contribution to the city’s topography was situated approximately half a kilometer north of the Muradiye, along the banks of the Maritsa river, delineating the boundary of the contemporary Muslim settlement. Şihabeddin paşa’s architectural ensemble was anchored around a T-type imaret/zaviye (currently referred to locally as “Imaret džamija”), complemented by a public bathhouse, a medrese, an inn, and the patron’s mausoleum. These structures were situated close to the river, straddling both sides of the road that, upon crossing the bridge of Lala Şahin, led southward to the Muradiye and the city’s central region. Undoubtedly, the choice of location was not accidental but was meant on the one hand to mark the end of the Ottoman town, and on the other to serve as a foretaste of it for arriving travelers. A traveler journeying along the Via Militaris from the west would have undoubtedly encountered the primary T-shaped structure, strategically positioned to face the bridge, thereby asserting the Ottoman architectural presence from afar. Unlike the structures previously discussed, the precise date of completion for Şihabeddin’s T-type imaret/zaviye, as well as most of the accompanying buildings in the complex, can be confidently determined thanks to the dedicatory inscription (kitabe) formerly situated above its entrance. The original stone inscription was 74 On the bedesten in Thessaloniki, see Mustafa Cezar, Typical Commercial Buildings of the Ottoman

Classical Period and the Ottoman Construction System (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Publications, 1983), 195–97; Lilia Sambanopoulu, “Bedesten,” in Ottoman Architecture in Greece, ed. Ersi Brouskari (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, 2008), 246–47; Pelagia Astrinidou, “Bedesten, Thessaloniki, Greece,” in Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Evangelia Hadjitryphonos (Thessaloniki: AIMOS, Society for the Study of the Medieval Architecture in the Balkans and its Preservation, 1997), 286–89. 75 İBK, MC Evr. 37/7, f. 2v.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 117

removed during restoration efforts in the 1970s and remained lost for four decades.76 In 2010, however, the inscription was rediscovered, albeit in fragments, and is now on display in the office of the local Mufti within the Muradiye mosque.77 Despite its current lamentable state, the kitabe of Şihabeddin’s imaret had been comprehensively studied in the past, and its contents documented in various academic publications, ensuring that no information has been lost.78

Fig. 11. The broken dedicatory inscription of Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye, 2011 76 In 1977 Machiel Kiel observed the inscription amidst a stack of aged tombstones within the build-

ing. I express my profound gratitude to Prof. Kiel, who generously shared his unpublished observations and research regarding the Ottoman structures in Plovdiv (henceforth referred to as Kiel’s Filibe notes and studies). These travel accounts, penned in the 1970s, are invaluable historical records. During that period, Kiel had the unique opportunity to document structures that were subsequently razed, often becoming the sole scholar to have studied some of these now-lost Ottoman edifices in the Balkans. 77 The kitabe was rediscovered by Elena Čardaklijska who spotted it amidst a pile of Ottoman tombstones behind the building. Elena Chardakliyska, “The Muradiye and Imaret Mosques in the Context of Early Ottoman Filibe: Two Case Studies” (Unpublished MA Thesis, American University in Cairo, 2006). 78 Bogdan Filov, “Zapazvaneto na imaret-džamija v Plovdiv,” Izvestija na bălgarskoto arheologičesko družestvo 2 (1911): 258; Gliša Elezović, Turski spomenici, vol. 1 (Belgrade: Zora, 1940), 1112–38; Tatarlă, “Turski kultovi sgradi i nadpisi v Bălgarija,” 593–600; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), 483; Ananiasz Zajączkowski, “Materiały do epigrafiki osmańsko-tureckiej z Bułgarii,” Rocznik Orientalystyczny 26, no. 2 (1963): 4–46; Katerina Venedikova, “Njakolko nadpisa ot osmansko vreme ot grad Plovdiv,” Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika 12 (2016): 205–23; Mikov, Džumaja džamija i Imaret džamija v Plovdiv. Istorija, specifika i săvremenno săstojanie.

118 | Ottoman Plovdiv

The inscription reveals that the T-shaped edifice, which it refers to as an elevated imaret (el-’ imareti’ l-’aliye), was commissioned by the incumbent beylerbeyi of Rumeli, el-hac Şihabeddin paşa, during Sultan Murad II’s reign.79 The completion date of the building is encoded in a chronogram at the bottom of the inscription, which reads , corresponding to the year AH 848 (span“takabal ya kadim el-ihsan” ning 29 April 1444 to 17 April 1445).80 Both Elezović and Tatarlă, through their meticulous linguistic analysis of the inscription, posit that Şihabeddin paşa commissioned the edifice to memorialize the Ottoman triumph at the Battle of Varna on 10 November 1444, a conflict wherein he had a pivotal role.81 On initial consideration, this hypothesis appears plausible, given that the tradition of channeling spoils from significant military successes into architectural endeavors was a deeply entrenched Ottoman custom: however, a closer examination of events in 1444 suggests that this hypothesis might be untenable. While the kitabe provides evidence for the Hijri year 848, aligning with the claim put forth by Elezović and Tatarlă, it is crucial to note the unequivocal identification of Murad II as the reigning Ottoman sultan at the time of its inscription. This presents a temporal discrepancy, given that Murad II had abdicated his position in favor of his son, Mehmed II, around late July or early August of 1444, and only resumed his rule in May 1446, thus complicating the acceptance of the aforementioned hypothesis.82 If, as posited by both scholars, Şihabeddin’s building was indeed commissioned to commemorate the Ottoman victory within the latter portion of the Hijri year 848—specifically, from late November 1444 to mid-April 1445—then the dedicatory inscription would undoubtedly have credited Mehmed II as the reigning sultan. However, the inscription references Murad II, firmly situating the completion of the building prior to his resignation in August and undeniably before the Battle of Varna in November 1444. Additionally, Şihabeddin’s initial endowment deed was drafted between 1st and 10th April 1442, further indicating a date of establishment that is unrelated to the significant battle. Owing to the document’s fragmented state and the absence of pages with critical 79 The title (elkab) used in the inscription for Şihabeddin, namely “emirü’l-ümera” (commander of

commanders), indicates that he was the then acting beylerbeyi.

80 Elezović, Turski spomenici, 1:1113; Tatarlă, “Turski kultovi sgradi i nadpisi v Bălgarija,” 596–97. The

use of chronograms was common practice in Ottoman monumental inscriptions. The system of assigning numeric values to Arabic letters, known as the “ebced” method, was utilized to embed dates into poetic or meaningful phrases. In a chronogram, each Arabic letter has a corresponding numeric value, and the sum of these values in a phrase would provide the Hijri year of an event, often the construction or completion of a building. This practice not only gave the date but did so in a manner that was often poetic and evocative, adding an artistic dimension to the simple act of recording time. Salâhaddin Elker, “Kitâbelerde (Ebced) Hesabının Rolü,” Vakıflar Dergisi 3 (1956): 17–25. 81 Şihabeddin was in command of the Rumeli wing in the Ottoman army. Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad. The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438–1444, 456–66; Colin Imber, The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45 (Aldershot, England; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2006), 30–31; Bistra Cvetkova, Pametna bitka na narodite (Evropejskijat jugoiztok i osmanskoto zavoevanie – kraja na XIV i părvata polovina na XV v.) (Varna: G. Bakalov, 1979), 306–13. 82 İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar, 55–65; İnalcık, “Murad II,” 168.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 119

details, discerning which components of the complex were finished by 1442 and which were still under construction is challenging. Regardless, it is plausible that the medrese had already been completed, given that the initial endowment deed outlines the salaries of its staff and the scholarships for its students.83 Subsequently, between 27 June and 6 July 1444, Şihabeddin expanded the endowment by donating the socalled Behadır çiftliği (modern-day village of Ortakçı in the Edirne region), situated in the nahiye of Pravadi, which he populated with his own slaves.84 This supplement to the original endowment deed stipulates that the revenues derived from the farm were designated for the upkeep and sustaining of the zaviye and the medrese in Plovdiv, thereby suggesting that the T-shaped imaret/zaviye was already operational at that time. Drawing from the evidence provided by the dedicatory inscription, which identifies Murad II as the reigning sultan, and the supplemental vakfiye drafted in June/July 1444, which underscores that the building was operational, it is reasonable to pinpoint the completion of the principal building within the complex to Spring 1444. Given the magnitude of the complex, its construction timeline was undoubtedly protracted. Hence, the hypothesis that the edifice was built in tribute to the Islamic victory over the crusader forces must be dismissed. Indeed, considering Şihabeddin’s many architectural contributions to Plovdiv during the 1430s, the inception of the complex’s construction could well align with this period. Positioned strategically

Fig. 12. T-type imaret/zaviye, front view, 2010 83 The chief instructor in the college (müderris) received a daily salary of 20 akçe. Universitätsbiblio-

thek Leipzig, Cod. Arab. 121, f. 4a. 84 Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Cod. Arab. 121, ff. 7b –9a.

120 | Ottoman Plovdiv

First stage: orginal

Second stage: reconstuction

Fig. 13. Development of the floor plan of Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye

Fig. 14. Elevated oratory of Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye, 2010

near the bridge of Lala Şahin, the undertaking of such a grand project would likely have been an extension of his vision for the city and the region. His subsequent reappointment as beylerbeyi of Rumeli in 1443 might have further invigorated the construction efforts. Thus, that the complex was completed between April and June 1444 appears to be a well-founded conclusion based on the evidence. The T-shaped imaret/zaviye commissioned by Şihabeddin stands as a monumental testament to Ottoman architecture in the Balkans. With its vast scale, it ranks among the most impressive structures of its kind in the region, bespeaking the par-

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 121

ticular importance of Plovdiv in the first centuries of Ottoman rule. The edifice has a five-bay porch, upheld by robust square pillars. Meticulous craftsmanship is evident in its entire construction, predominantly executed in cloisonné masonry. This attention to detail underlines the significance and grandeur associated with this architectural masterpiece. The main hall of the imaret/zaviye, nearly square with dimensions of 7.50 × 8.50 meters, boasts a sizable dome, which, resting on a pattern of Turkish triangles and stalactite pendentives, features an oculus at its pinnacle, crowned by an elegant lantern.85 The domed oratory, in the building’s central axis, is elevated by eight steps. Flanking both sides of these stairs are six niches designated for shoes (pabuçluk), suggesting that the raised eyvan, designated for prayers, was the sole section of the building adorned with carpets. In contrast, the remaining portions were paved with hexagonal bricks, elements of which remain preserved to this day. Originally, the side rooms (tabhane) were not directly accessible from the central hall. Instead, one had to pass through narrow vaulted vestibules on either side of the main entrance to reach them. These lateral rooms that accommodated important travelers and dervishes were equipped with fireplaces and niches for personal belongings that are still in situ. According to Kiel, the eastern tabhane could also be reached from the outside by a door that opened through the lateral façade. During the sixteenth century, as the structure underwent conversion to a communal mosque, the partitions separating the side rooms from the central hall were dismantled, thereby creating an expansive space to accommodate the congregation. The minaret that is accessed through the western vestibule is likely to have been an integral part of the original architectural design.86 A stone inscription placed above the main gate commemorates a repair carried out in 1814–15 by Sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–39). It is possible that in the course of this restoration, the original domed portico was covered with the simpler roof seen on nineteenth-century photographs.87 Northeast of the T-shaped building, a two-storied frame-built building hosted the kitchens (aşevi) of the imaret and the refectory, where food was distributed free of charge to those employed in the complex, travelers, and the poor.88 The upper 85 Mikov, Džumaja džamija i Imaret džamija v Plovdiv. Istorija, specifika i săvremenno săstojanie, 25. 86 Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), 480–85. 87 The text of this inscription was published by Osman Keskioğlu, “Bulgaristan’da Türk Vakıfları ve

Bali Efendinin Vakıf Paralar Hakkında Bir Mektubu,” Vakıflar Dergisi 9 (1969): 85–86.

88 The imarets in the Ottoman Empire had a clearly defined clientele who were served in the public soup

kitchens. The groups who benefited from its services were specified in the stipulations of the endowment deed. In principle, the staff of the complex, students and their instructors, ulema, wandering dervishes, gazis, and the city’s poor Muslims and non-Muslims were offered food free of charge in the imarets in Anatolia and the Balkans. Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İmâret Sitelerinin Kuruluş ve İşleyiş Tarzına Âit Araştırmalar,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23 (1963 1962): 239–96; Amy Singer, Constructing Ottoman Beneficence: An Imperial Soup Kitchen in Jerusalem (Albany: SUNY Press, 2002); Amy Singer, “Serving Up Charity: The Ottoman Public Kitchen,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35, no. 3 (2005): 481–500; Hazim Šabanović, “Dvije najstarije vakufname u Bosni,” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju, no. 2 (1952): 5–38. In a more recent contribution Lowry discusses the functions and clients of the imarets in the Ottoman Empire, argu-

122 | Ottoman Plovdiv

floor had several rooms that accommodated visitors or those in the service of the complex.89 In December 1577, the German Lutheran theologian Solomon Schweiger (d. 1622), who traveled to Istanbul with a Habsburg delegation, was received in the complex and stayed overnight. He described it as a Turkish masjid with a guesthouse or a hostel that had “many small clean rooms arranged around one after another”.90 The kitchens boasted a notably tall and expansive chimney, the dimensions of which were strikingly reminiscent of a tower. The formidable chimney of the aşevi remained intact until the late nineteenth century, as evidenced by surviving photographs from that era. The benefactor stipulated that the kitchen prepare meals twice daily, for both lunch and dinner, and serve them to all present in the imaret, regardless of their socioeconomic status or whether they were residents or travelers. The staff was comprised of the endower’s own slaves, with their manumission status determined by the significance of their roles within the complex.91 In the seventeenth century, the imaret employed 26 individuals whose salaries alone cost the vakıf more than 30,000 akçe annually, while the kitchens spent more than 200,000 akçe per year.92 To the north of the imaret’s kitchens, Şihabeddin commissioned a grand medrese, featuring twelve student cells arranged in two parallel rows. An impressive gateway on the western side provided entry, and a spacious lead-covered eyvan graced the eastern façade. Constructed entirely of cloisonné masonry, this magnificent Islamic educational institution likely stood as the largest medrese in what is now Bulgaria.93 Within the Ottoman educational hierarchy, Şihabeddin’s college was initially founded as yirmili medresesi. However, it swiftly ascended to otuzlu status during Mehmed II’s reign, and by the Süleymanic era it had transformed into a pivotal provincial educational hub and achieved the distinction of kırklı: accordingly, the daily salaries for the instructors

89

90

91 92 93

ing that they differed according to the time period and region. Heath W. Lowry, “The ‘Soup Muslims’ of the Balkans: Was There a ‘Western’ & ‘Eastern’ Ottoman Empire?,” in Beyond Dominant Paradigms in Ottoman and Middle Eastern/North African Studies: A Tribute to Rifa’at Abou-El-Haj, ed. Donald Quataert and Baki Tezcan (Istanbul: ISAM, 2010), 97–133. Food was distributed to Muslims and Christians alike until 1878. After this date the imaret gradually declined and the building fell in disrepair. Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 226. “... daselbst warn wir in ein Tuerckisch Mesgith einlosirt, welchs ist ein Kirch, bey derselben ein Gasthaus oder Hosspital gestifft, in welchem viel feine kleine und saubere Gemaechlein und Kaemmerlein nacheinander herumb seyn, in welche wir ordentlich eingetheilt wurden”. Salomon Schweigger, Ein Newe Reyßbeschreibung Auß Teutschland Nach Constantinopel Und Jerusalem: Darinn d. Gelegenheit Derselben Länder, Städt, Flecken, Gebew Etc. d. Innwohnenten Völcker Art, Sitten, Gebreuch, Trachten, Religion u. Gotteßdienst Etc., Insonderheit d. Jetzige Ware Gestalt d. H. Grabs, d. Stadt Jerusalem u. Anderer Heiligen Oerter ... ; ... Deßgleichen d. Türck. Reichs Gubernation, Policey, Hofhaltung, Nutzbarkeit d. Reysens, u. Vielerley Andern Lustigen Sachen ... ; in 3 Unterschiedl. Büchern (Nürnberg: Lantzenberger, 1613), 47. Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Cod. Arab. 121, ff. 5a–5b. For details, see Oruç and Orbay, “Filibe’de Şehabeddin Paşa Vakfı 1632–1641 (H. 1041–1051).” The other medrese in Bulgaria that had twelve cells was that of Haraççı Kara Mehmed in Köstendil. Orlin Săbev, Osmanskite učilišta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII v. (Sofija: Ljubomădrie-Hronika, 2001), 127.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 123

(müderris) in the college were set at twenty, thirty, and later, forty akçe, respectively.94 The data from a seventeenth-century accounting register of the pious foundation of Şihabeddin show that in 1636–37 the college had nine students who were entitled to a daily stipend of one akçe. The instructors’ salary in the seventeenth century had risen to sixty akçe, seemingly corresponding to the rise in the medrese’s prestige.95 The college’s building remained operational until 1878, at which point it appears to have been abandoned. This grand structure persisted for an additional fifty years, albeit in a lamentably deteriorated condition. In the late 1920s, Gertrud and Otto Rudloff captured images of the structure, incorporating several of these photographs into their article discussing Plovdiv’s architecture.96 While only a few of the photographs taken by the Rudloffs were incorporated into their published article, the German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul (DAI) and the Deutsche Fotothek hold a comprehensive collection of over 800 photographs taken by the couple. The structure of the medrese, given its age and half a century of complete neglect, was particularly susceptible to seismic activity. When an earthquake struck in April 1928, the building likely sustained significant structural damage. This might have rendered it unsafe and beyond feasible repair, especially considering the change in building standards and the urban development goals of the period. As the city sought to modernize and expand, older, damaged structures like the medrese became targets for demo-

Fig. 15. Medrese of Şihabeddin, late 1920s 94 For details and a list of some of the important instructors at this college, see Câhid Baltacı, XV-

XVI Asırlar Osmanlı Medreseleri: Teşkilât, Tarih (İstanbul: İrfan Matbaası, 1976), 141–43; Săbev, Osmanskite učilišta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII v., 222. 95 BOA, MAD 749, f. 124. 96 Gertrud Rudloff-Hille and Otto Rudloff, “Grad Plovdiv i negovite sgradi,” Izvestija na bălgarskija arheologičeski institut 8 (1934): 379–425.

124 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 16. The eyvan of Şihabeddin’s college, late 1920s

Fig. 17. Hünkâr Hamamı, late 1920s

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 125

Fig. 18. Demolition of Hünkâr Hamamı, late 1920s

lition. Thus, in the aftermath of the earthquake, amidst the city’s push for urban renewal and expansion, the once-grand educational institution was replaced with newer residential buildings and disappeared for good. A large hamam was situated opposite the T-shaped imaret/zaviye on the western side of the main road that cuts through the complex, dividing it into two seemingly equal parts. As early as 1553 the building attracted Dernschwam’s attention, who called it a nice bathhouse covered with lead.97 The bathhouse, for reasons yet to be determined, was colloquially referred to as Hünkâr Hamamı (Sultan’s or ruler’s bathhouse), despite lacking any discernible association with any of the Ottoman sovereigns of the era. A supplement to Şihabeddin’s endowment deed, dated to the period 6–15 October 1451, discloses that the hamam was constructed by Bahşi bey b. İlyas bey at an undetermined time. Şihabeddin subsequently acquired the bathhouse, and together with the villages of Vodene (mod. Gorni Voden), Panagiya (mod. Ruen), and Yavra (mod. Javrovo), he integrated them into his earlier established vakıf, thereby ensuring continued support for both the imaret and medrese in Plovdiv.98 Bahşi bey, the enigmatic figure who commissioned and oversaw the construction of the bath prior to its acquisition by Şihabeddin, is particularly intriguing. Not only did he champion the development of the bathhouse, but he also retained proprietary rights over the extensive tracts of land that surrounded the bath on three strategic 97 Hans Dernschwam von Hradiczin, Hans Dernschwam’s Tagebuch Einer Reise Nach Konstantinopel

Und Kleinasien (1553/55), ed. Franz Babinger (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1923), 20.

98 Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Cod. Arab. 121, ff. 13b –14a.

126 | Ottoman Plovdiv

fronts, with the primary thoroughfare marking the fourth demarcation. Architecturally, the building itself seamlessly integrates with the rest of the edifices, making it rather implausible to dissociate it from the overarching design ethos of the complex. Such coherence in design suggests that it was likely conceived by the same master architect who envisioned the entirety of the Şihabeddin complex. Therefore, it is probable that the bathhouse’s construction was contemporaneous with the rest of the complex in the 1440s. Bahşi bey, the benefactor, was likely a prominent figure within Şihabeddin’s inner entourage, aiming to support and enhance his patron’s architectural vision. This endeavor might have emulated an existing tradition, as evidenced by Şihabeddin’s sponsorship of a bathhouse intended to serve Muradiye Camii, an establishment championed by his sovereign, Murad II. In a subsequent strategic move, Şihabeddin acquired the bath from Bahşi bey, ensuring both the cohesiveness of his architectural complex and a consistent revenue source for its endowment. From the time of its acquisition, the bath was incorporated into the endowment. Evidence from an accounting register of Şihabeddin’s foundation, dated 1640–41, indicates that the “hamam-i cisr” (bath by the bridge), which refers to the Hünkâr Hamamı in question, was under the vakıf ’s ownership. The foundation’s administrators leased it out to a private individual for an annual sum of ten thousand akçe.99 In the course of the same financial period, the administrator of the foundation approved repair work to the bath that amounted to 2,861 akçe.100 The hamam operated throughout the Ottoman period, catering to a diverse clientele that included travelers stopping at the adjacent inn, local residents of the quarter, the students and faculty of the medrese, as well as the staff working within the complex.101 The vakıf seemed to have overlooked the maintenance of the bath in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and by 1878, when the Russian occupation forces were still present in Plovdiv, it was in pressing need of extensive restoration. The newly established province of Eastern Rumelia had an urgent need for a parliamentary building, and, in the absence of a more suitable structure, local authorities commissioned the Levantine architect Pietro Montani (d. 1887) to renovate the hamam to accommodate the local assembly temporarily until a dedicated parliamentary building could be erected.102 On 22 October 1879, the sessions of the assembly of East-

99 BOA, MAD 15134, f. 3. 100 BOA, MAD 15134, f. 7. For repairs done in 1632 and a full transliteration of the document, see

Oruç and Orbay, “Filibe’de Şehabeddin Paşa Vakfı 1632–1641 (H. 1041–1051),” 41–47.

101 Todor Zlatev, Bălgarskijat grad prez epohata na Văzraždaneto (Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo, 1955),

73–74; Harbova, Gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVIII vek, 37, 138, 146. For an overview of the bath culture in Bulgaria during the Ottoman period and an evaluation of the architectural heritage, see Lyubomir Mikov, “Ottoman Bathhouses in Bulgaria (In the Context of Bathing Culture in the Balkans and Anatolia),” Études Balkaniques 48, no. 4 (2012): 118– 51. Curiously, the author posits that the Hünkâr Hamamı dates back to the 16th century. 102 Hristo Peev, “Sgradata na oblastnoto săbranie na Iztočna Rumelija v gr. Plovdiv,” Godišnik na Narodnija archeologicheski muzej Plovdiv 1 (1948): 202–4.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 127

ern Rumelia were opened in the renovated bath of Şihabeddin paşa.103 The building served as the local parliament until 1885, when Eastern Rumelia united with the Principality of Bulgaria and the Rumelian assembly was disbanded.104 After this date, the bath was repurposed as a storage depot for the archival documents of the local law court, but without maintenance it fell into disrepair. During the 1920s, the splendid structure of Hünkâr Hamamı, which bore a striking resemblance in both size and design to Şihabeddin’s Tahtakale bath in the çarşı area, was unfortunately demolished.105 The Rudloff family, who were present in Plovdiv during that period, bore witness to its demolition and captured a rare photographic record of the process. (See Figs. 17 & 18) The complex of Şihabeddin also included a large inn, which was built on the western side of the road, to the north of the public bath. Proximate to the bridge spanning the Maritsa River, this inn often catered to merchants and travelers. Notably, since the mid-fifteenth century, this vicinity had served as the principal domicile for a merchant colony originating from Dubrovnik.106 Catharin Zen first attested to the presence of Ragusan merchants in Plovdiv 1550;107 later, in 1578, Gerlach also described this group of merchants, indicating their exact location in the city. They resided very near the inn of Şihabeddin paşa by the bridge, and used it for their commercial activities.108 The colony must have declined very rapidly, however, because when Paolo Contarini visited Plovdiv in 1580 he found only one merchant from Dubrovnik residing in the city. The rest of the group, according to him, had 103 The adaptive reuse of Ottoman-era public structures as national parliament buildings is not an

isolated phenomenon nor exclusive to Plovdiv. This trend can also be observed in other regions that were formerly under Ottoman rule. A notable example can be found in Nafplio, where a repurposed Ottoman mosque served as the first Greek parliament building. For a comprehensive exploration of this topic, see the recent study by Kalliopi Amygdalou and Elias Kolovos, “From Mosque to Parliament: The Vouleftiko (Parliament) Mosque in Nafplio and the Spatial Transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Greek State during the Greek Revolution,” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain, no. 4 (2021), https://doi.org/10.4000/bchmc.801. 104 The building for the local assembly, completed in the same year, was subsequently repurposed to house both the local historical museum and library. 105 Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 222. 106 Ekaterina Večeva, Tărgovijata na Dubrovnik s bălgarskite zemi (XVI-XVIII v.) (Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1982), 164. 107 Petar Matković, “Dva talijanska putopisa po balkanskom poluotku iz XVI. vieka: Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catharin Zen ambassador straordinario a Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno & Descizione del viaggio per terra di Constantinopoli e dalle cose principali del paese,” Starine 10 (1878): 213. 108 Stephan Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch der von zween glorwürdigsten römischen Kaysern, Maximiliano und Rudolpho, beyderseits den Andern dieses Nahmens an die ottomanische Pforte zu Constantinopel abgefertigten und durch den Wohlgebornen Herrn Hn. David Ungnad, Freiherrn zu Sonnegk und Preyburg […] mit würcklicher Erhalt- und Verlängerung des Friedens zwischen dem Ottomannischen und Römischen Kayserthum und demselben angehörigen Landen und Köngreichen glücklichst-vollbrachter Gesandtschafft (Franckfurth am Mayn: in Verlegung Johann-David Zunners, 1674), 517.

128 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 19. The inn of Şihabeddin paşa (Panayır Hanı), late 1920s

either died or returned home.109 A year later, a missionary report from May 1581 speaks of four merchant households in Plovdiv with no chapel or a priest. They used the services of a priest in Sofia and traveled to Edirne for Christmas and Easter.110 In the first half of the seventeenth century the Ragusan community in Plovdiv expanded again, reaching 20 merchants,111 but in the second half of the seventeenth century the small colony declined and after the 1670s was no longer in existence.112 The inn of Şihabeddin was known locally as Panayır Hanı, possibly indicating a regular seasonal market taking place nearby. An unoccupied area southwest of the inn, which in the late nineteenth century was converted to a garden of the resi109 Paolo Contarini, Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di M. Paolo Contarini che andava

bailo per la Repubblica Veneta alla Porta Ottomana nel 1580. Ora per la prima volta pubblicato. (Venezia: Coi Tipi di Teresa Gattei, 1856), 30. 110 Eusebius Fermendžin, Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium, vol. 18: Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica ab a. 1565 usque ad a. 1799 (Zagrabiae: Academia scientiarum et artium Slavorum meridionalium, 1887), 12. 111 Zdenko Zlatar, Dubrovnik’s Merchants and Capital in the Ottoman Empire (1520–1620): A Quantitative Study (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2011), 21. 112 Večeva, Tărgovijata na Dubrovnik a bălgarskite zemi, 170.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 129

dence of the governor of Eastern Rumelia, is the most likely location of the seasonal fair that gave the inn its name. Very little is known about the architectural features of Şihabeddin’s inn, a relatively low two-story structure that remains obscured in all late-nineteenth-century photographs. The Rudloffs photographed the entrance and part of the building in the late 1920s, just as Karastojanov did in the late nineteenth century.113 (See Fig. 16) During tumultuous periods, the Ottoman administration repurposed the edifice as a provisional detention facility, notably housing individuals apprehended in relation to the April 1876 uprising in Bulgaria. In contemporary epochs, the inn assumed diverse functions and endured until 1983. Regrettably, this important structure was razed to facilitate the construction of a parking area adjacent to the newly erected pedestrian bridge spanning the Maritsa. The exact chronology of Şihabeddin’s demise is now known thanks to the recently discovered collection of endowment deeds pertaining to his vakıfs in Plovdiv and Edirne. The endowment’s administrator, Zaganos b. Abdullah, summoned two witnesses, Hacı Ali b. Abdullah and Hacı Şirmerd b. Abdullah, to attest before the court in the presence of the custodian of the beytülmâl, mevlâna Hacı Ahmed b. Abdullah, that in the period 4–13 May 1459, when the now-deceased Hacı Şihabeddin paşa was still alive, he had legally declared and lawfully bequeathed all his slaves residing in the endowment’s villages to the imaret and medrese in Plovdiv. The court, acknowledging the testimonies, rendered a verdict in favor of the endowment, with the official document sanctioning this decision drafted in the period 21–30 July 1459.114 The individuals engaged in the case were among Şihabeddin’s most trusted manumitted slaves, holding prominent positions within the hierarchical structure of the deceased magnate’s household, a fact lending significant credibility to the chronological details presented in the document. The date of the death of the eunuch Şihabeddin, Plovdiv’s eminent architectural patron, who had emerged from the inner palace of Murad II to rise to the vizirate, occurred between mid-May 1459, when we know he was still alive, and mid-July 1459, when matters concerning his inheritance echoed in the kadı court in Edirne. Details are scant on what happened after his passing, but it is plausible that Şihabeddin’s remains found their final resting place in the mausoleum (türbe) situated adjacent to the western side of the T-shaped imaret/zaviye’s gallery. The türbe, an octagonal edifice crowned with a dome, showcases exquisite cloisonné masonry, which was revealed during the 1970s restoration. Historical images from prior periods depict the structure enshrouded in plaster. In its present state, Şihabeddin’s burial site is marked by two tombstones adorned solely with ornamental designs, devoid of any inscriptions. The same tombstones also flanked the grave in the 1920s when the Rudloffs photographed them, but, notwithstanding their fifteenth-century appearance, it is difficult to tell whether these are indeed the original stones or later 113 CDA, fond 3K, opis 7, a.e. 327, list 27. 114 Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, Cod. Arab. 121, ff. 19b –20a.

130 | Ottoman Plovdiv

additions. Given the eminent stature of Şihabeddin paşa, the absence of inscriptions on his tombstone indeed raises eyebrows. It is conceivable that the original inscribed gravestones were displaced and substituted by the two ornate stones currently in place. Alternatively, the possibility that the Plovdiv grave served merely as a cenotaph, with his actual resting place being elsewhere, should not be entirely ruled out. Whatever the case, in his lifetime Şihabeddin’s association with Plovdiv was profound. He earmarked revenues from multiple villages in the Plovdiv and Edirne regions for the upkeep of his Plovdiv complex. Additionally, income from rice fields, two bathhouses, and a plethora of properties and shops in Plovdiv, including the tanneries, also flowed into his endowments. This speaks volumes about his dual role—not just as the city’s governor, but also as a significant regional landowner. His investments were clear indicators of his commitment to nurturing his own territories, while simultaneously elevating his local stature.115 Continued research on the extant fragments of his endowment deeds promises to shed further light on his instrumental role within the city and its surrounding region. It suffices to mention that the vakfiye makes it clear that the old church within the Kuklen monastery “Sv. Sv. Kozma and Damjan” originally belonged to the summer residence of Şihabeddin.116 Being himself a eunuch, Şihabeddin left no heirs, but he decreed that the manumitted slaves in his household assume leadership over the vakıf, inheriting key roles within the foundation, while the kadıs of Plovdiv supervised their actions. Over time, this collective leadership demonstrated adept governance, and the pious foundation flourished; by the mid-sixteenth century, the most prominent villages under its jurisdiction boasted hundreds of taxpayer households.117 Şihabeddin paşa’s prolific architectural patronage during the late 1430s and the first half of the 1440s wholly reshaped the urban space of Plovdiv and laid the foundations of the emerging Ottoman provincial center. While Şihabeddin amplified the commercial nucleus, a vision likely sparked by Murad II, he was also the patron of an 115 On the vakıf of Şihabeddin, see Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 258–61;

Vera Mutafčieva, “Novi osmanski dokumenti za vakăfite pod turska vlast,” Izvestija na Dăržavnite Arhivi 6 (1962): 271–73; Vera Mutafčieva, “Za roljata na vakăfa v gradskata ikonomika na Balkanite pod turska vlast,” Izvestija na Instituta po Istorija 10 (1962): 121–43; Damjan Borisov, “Vakăfskata institucia v Rodopite prez XV-XVII vek” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Plovdiv, Plovdiv University, 2008), 164–82. İbrahim Sezgin, “Filibe’deki Şehabeddin Paşa Vakıfları,” in Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11–13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı, ed. Meral Bayrak (Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 2005), 347–55. 116 While it is widely accepted that the church is of Ottoman construction, the nature of its original purpose remains an enigma. Biserka Penkova, “Starata cărkva na Kuklenskija manastir kato primer za vzaimodejstvieto na hristijanskata i osmanskata arhitekturi ot kraja na XVI - načaloto na XVII vek,” in ∆ωρεά: k 90-letiju Éngeliny Sergeevny Smirnovoj. Sbornik statej, ed. M. A. Orlova (Moskva: Gosudarstvenyy institut iskusstvoznanija, 2022), 258–65; Damjan Borisov, “Informacijata za Severnorodopskite manastiri v osmanskite registri ot XVI v.,” in Tradicija i priemstvenost. 50 godini poluvisše i visše obrazovanije v Iztočnite Rodopi, ed. Ljudmil Spasov, Damjan Borisov, and Dimităr Dimitrov (Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2011), 335–54. 117 Borisov, “Vakăfskata institucia v Rodopite prez XV-XVII vek,” 168–77.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 131

expansive compound anchored by a T-shaped imaret/zaviye, prominently positioned at the entrance to Lala Şahin’s bridge spanning the Maritsa river. He built his complex at some distance from the Muslim urban core, thus stretching the city’s space and defining its boundaries to the north. In extending the Ottoman architectural presence to previously unoccupied outlying areas, the complex must also have served to display Ottoman lordship over the area. The imperial Muradiye mosque at the city center and Şihabeddin’s imaret complex at its northern edge were linked by a wide street (the so-called Uzun Çarşı) that became the central axis of Plovdiv’s spatial development. Evliya Çelebi noted that it ran from the bridge to the mosque of Murad II in the center, being one thousand sixty steps in length and entirely paved in the old fashion with large stones. Both sides of the city’s main street were occupied by inns and double-storied shops (dükân) that, according to the Ottoman traveler, numbered eight hundred and eighty.118 Navigating through the heart of Ottoman Plovdiv, the bustling commercial thoroughfare ventured further southward, only to suddenly shift eastward in a definitive curve delineating the city’s southernmost confines. The Ottoman initiative to artfully reshape the trajectory of this medieval path, converting it into the principal axis of the city, achieved such prominence that its layout persevered not only throughout the entire Ottoman epoch but also stands as the central spine of contemporary Plovdiv to this very day.

Fig. 20. The complex of Şihabeddin paşa, 1879

118 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı

Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 218.

132 | Ottoman Plovdiv

The Imperial residence The marked transformation of the urban landscape of Plovdiv commencing in the mid-1430s, exemplified by the monumental architectural undertakings patronized by Sultan Murad II and the beylerbeyi Şihabeddin paşa, serves as an indicator of the city’s increasing significance within the Ottoman realm. Being the frequent seat of the acting governor and the supreme military commander of the Ottoman forces in Rumeli, the city must have had an adequate residence for the governor who represented the Ottoman power in Europe. Moreover, as mentioned above, the grounds north of Plovdiv routinely functioned as an assembly point for the Ottoman army when campaigning to the Western Balkans, and thus the sultans frequently stayed in the city too.119 The recurring imperial sojourns in Plovdiv, potentially lasting weeks or even months, mandated the establishment of a suitable residence capable of accommodating the sovereign as well as his household and entourage. Archival documentation substantiates the existence of such an imperial residence, termed the saray-i ‘amire, as far back as the fifteenth century. While extant sources remain silent on the precise chronology of construction and the identity of the individual responsible for commissioning the complex, it is plausible that the saray was erected during the reign of Murad II. This conjecture aligns with the broader urban revitalization of Plovdiv undertaken in the same period, thereby rendering Murad II the most likely patron of the establishment. His son, Mehmed II, commonly credited with the sedentarization of Ottoman rulership around the newly established imperial residence in Istanbul, also made extensive use of this Plovdiv palace. Existing sources indicate frequent periods of residence in the city, underscoring the continued importance of this palace as a nexus of imperial activity. For instance, after the conquest of Constantinople, he and the sultanic chancellery spent the fall of 1453 in Plovdiv. A tahrir register of the vilâyet of Alacahisar, originally drawn up before 1446, i.e., during Mehmed II’s first reign, also contains later marginal notes of revisions and changes to the list of timar holders: the chancellery reassigned several timars, and the sultan approved the changes. Mehmed II signed the berats sanctioning the changes on 14 September 119 Several campaign itineraries that establish Plovdiv as a major stop of the imperial army on the

march to the west were published by Stéphane Yerasimos, Les voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman (XIV e –XV e siècles). Biographie, itinéraires et inventaire des lieux habités (Ankara: Imprimérie de la Société turque d’histoire, 1991), 148, 158, 167, 175. Cf. Feridun Ahmed Bey, Nüzhet-i Esrârü’ lAhyâr der-Ahbâr-ı Sefer-i Sigetvar: Sultan Süleyman’ın Son Seferi, ed. H. Ahmet Arslantürk and Günhan Börekçi (İstanbul: Zeytinburnu Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2012); M. Akif Erdoğru, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın 1532 Tarihli Alman Seferi Ruznâmesi,” Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 29, no. 1 (2014): 167–87; Mehmet İpçioğlu, “Kanuni Süleyman’ın Estergon (Esztergom) Seferi 1543,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 10, no. 10 (2015): 137–59. A study of these itineraries show that habitually the Ottoman imperial army marched westward along the left bank of the Maritsa and assembled north of the city. Contrariwise, on its return the army crossed the river at Plovdiv via Lala Şahin’s bridge. See M. Erdem Kabadayi, Piet Gerrits, and Grigor Boykov, “Geospatial Mapping of a 16th Century Transport Corridor for Southeast Europe,” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 37, no. 3 (2022): 788–812.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 133

1453 in his imperial residence in Plovdiv.120 The city also served as a frequent sanctuary for Mehmed II during the recurrent outbreaks of Bubonic plague that beleaguered Istanbul. In 1455, as part of a delegation responsible for delivering the annual tribute of Mytilene (Lesbos) to the Ottoman sovereign, Doukas journeyed to Plovdiv with the expectation of encountering Mehmed II and his court, who were ostensibly waiting there for the cessation of a plague outbreak. Upon arrival in Plovdiv, however, Doukas and his entourage discovered that Mehmed II had vacated the city, and they ultimately located the ruler in Zlatica (Ott. İzladi), thereby revealing the fluidity and unpredictability of the imperial presence in these regional hubs during times of epidemiological crisis.121 In April 1466, the Venetian Senate obtained intelligence indicating that Mehmed II was in residence at Plovdiv and was amassing a military force with the intention of advancing westward.122 Oruç’s account reveals that subsequent to Mehmed II’s Albanian campaign of 1467, the ruler once again took refuge in Plovdiv due to the resurgence of plague, prior to safely recommencing his journey back to Istanbul.123 In the summer and autumn of 1475, Mehmed II again sought to elude the plague afflicting Istanbul by relocating to various locales, among them Plovdiv, where he resided for the duration of October.124 This periodic migration to Plovdiv in times of epidemiological upheaval in the capital reiterates the city’s role as a secure and strategically important haven, further reinforcing its standing within the geopolitical and administrative frameworks of the Ottoman Empire. In any case, the construction of the imperial residence in Plovdiv likely pre-dates the mid-fifteenth century, given its extensive utilization in subsequent years. By 1489 the palace was already manifesting signs of structural wear, necessitating significant renovation efforts. During this late-1480s restoration, roofing tiles were substituted and various structural elements underwent reconstruction. The substantial scale of this endeavor is evidenced by the fact that close to a thousand masons and skilled laborers were employed across the different phases of the refurbishment process. However, the archival document furnishing these details remains conspicuously silent regarding the number of edifices constituting the sultanic residential complex. 120 İBK, MC O. 117/5, ff. 3a–4a. 121 Heath W. Lowry, “Pushing the Stone Uphill: The Impact of Bubonic Plague on Ottoman Urban

Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 23 (2003): 103; Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. An Annotated Translation of “Historia TurcoByzantina,” ed. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1975), 251. 122 Jovan Radonić, Đurađ Kastriot Skenderbeg i Arbanija u XV veku (istoriska građa) (Beograd: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1942), 183. 123 Lowry, “Pushing the Stone Uphill: The Impact of Bubonic Plague on Ottoman Urban Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” 106; Nükhet Varlık, Plague and Empire in the Early Modern Mediterranean World: The Ottoman Experience, 1347–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 136–41. Babinger considers that Mehmed II spent the entire winter there before returning to the capital in March 1468. Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978), 263–64. 124 Varlık, Plague and Empire in the Early Modern Mediterranean World: The Ottoman Experience, 1347–1600, 143–44.

134 | Ottoman Plovdiv

This absence of specific information invites further scholarly inquiry into the composition and architecture of this pivotal Ottoman imperial residence. Nonetheless, as might be expected, the saray extended beyond merely residential and administrative functions to include its own hamam. This inference is substantiated by archival records indicating the replacement of fifty of its windows (cam) during the restoration ordered by the sultan.125 Bayezid II (r. 1481–1512) took up residence in the newly refurbished Plovdiv palace during the autumn of 1499, where he was approached by the monks of Rila monastery, on behalf of whom he issued a ferman.126 His son Selim I (r. 1512–20) likewise made frequent use of the Plovdiv palace, notably spending the majority of the winter of 1518 and the religious holidays there.127 This continued utilization of the residence across successive reigns reaffirms its enduring significance as both a strategic stronghold and a center for administrative activities within the broader architecture of Ottoman imperial governance. The precise geographical location of the imperial palace in Plovdiv remains enigmatic, as archival documents do not provide explicit locational references. When the archival records were compiled, the omission of specific locational details was undoubtedly inconsequential, given that there was a single, well-known imperial residence in Plovdiv at the time. However, the present-day absence of any architectural remnants belonging to this sultanic complex complicates the task of locating it. None of the urban plans from the nineteenth century features the complex or any of its constituent edifices. This absence suggests two potential scenarios: either the saray had already vanished entirely by that time, leaving no trace in the historical or physical landscape, or, more plausibly, the complex was situated outside the confines of the nineteenth-century city. Local toponymic evidence lends credence to the hypothesis that the imperial residence was situated in a suburban locale. Specifically, the city’s westernmost and tallest hill, Džendem tepe, situated approximately 1.5 km southwest of Muradiye Camii, is labeled “Seraï Tepessi” on Lejean’s city map, which 125 The document was published by Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 125–26.

The accounting document of the repair of the imperial residence in Plovdiv was included in a large register containing accounting registers of the multiple sultanic pious foundations throughout the empire that were in need of repairs or in which construction works were ongoing. Similarly to the repair of the bridge over the river Maritsa a few years earlier, the expense for the reconstruction of the saray was met by the superintendants (emin) of Plovdiv rice tax-farms (çeltük mukata’ası). İBK, MC O. 91, ff. 263r–264a (old pagination 525–26). 126 The document is known primarily in Bulgarian literature as Süleman Çelebi’s ferman, issued in 1402. Boris Nedkov, Osmanoturska diplomatika i paleografija. II: Dokumenti i rečnik, vol. 2 (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1972), 13–14. Most recently Phokion Kotzageorgis has argued persuasively that the date of this document as used by Nedkov is wrong, and suggested 26.10–4.11.1499 instead, thus pointing to Bayezid II as the reigning sultan who issued the document. Φωκίων Κοτζαγεώργης, Επανεκτιμώντας την πρώιμη οθωμανική παλαιογραφία και διπλωματική. Εννέα έγγραφα από το αρχείο της Ιεράς Μονής Μεγάλου Μετεώρου (1394-1434) (Άγια Μετέωρα: Ιερά Βασιλική Μονή Αγίου & Μεγάλου Μετεώρου, 2022), 15–16. 127 Feridun Emecen, Zamanın İskenderi, Şarkın Fatihi: Yavuz Sultan Selim (İstanbul: Yitik Hazine Yayınları, 2010), 330–31.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 135

suggests the proximity of the residence to the hill. This supposition gains further validation from Luigi Marsigli (d. 1730), who also employs the name “Seray” for this hill, appending the observation that this appellation originates from a nearby ruined palace.128 Furthermore, cartographic evidence from the early twentieth century identifies a considerable expanse of cultivated fields to the west of Džendem tepe as Saray kırı. A minor stream, denoted in Ottoman documentary sources and early twentieth-century topographic maps as Saray çayı (mod. Părveneshka), descends from the northern foothills of the Rhodope mountains and converges with the Maritsa River to the north. This stream delineates the western perimeter of the Saray kırı area, which, according to contemporary cadastral data, spans approximately five square kilometers. This is a massive estate that occupies practically the entire western part of contemporary Plovdiv, including today’s Hristo Smirnenski quarter and the Rowing Canal in the city. The geographical boundaries of this estate are instructive. Its eastern limit approached the aforementioned hill, thus justifying its appellation, Saray tepesi. To the west, it was demarcated by the stream; its northern boundary extended to the banks of the Maritsa River; and its southern extent reached the contemporary railway line to Sofia.129 The toponymic and cartographic remnants offer critical insights into the probable location and size of the imperial residence while also shedding light on the broader spatial dynamics that characterized Plovdiv within the Ottoman imperial framework. Regarding the architectural composition of the palatial complex, extant data are lamentably scant. It is evident that a residential section was devoted to the use of the sultans and their extended households; additionally, archival materials pertaining to the palace’s renovation confirm the existence of a hamam within the complex. However, these fragments of information constitute nearly the totality of useful data that can be collated on this subject at the present time. The dearth of architectural details or descriptive accounts prevents scholars reconstructing the palatial complex in its full material and functional dimensions. This lacuna in the historical record is a compelling avenue for further research, since understanding the architectural features of such an imperial residence could offer deeper insights into the lived experiences of the Ottoman elite, as well as into the broader socio-cultural and administrative practices of the Ottoman Empire. The extant body of knowledge concerning the architectural layout of early Ottoman provincial palaces remains limited and our understanding is far from comprehensive.130 Future archaeological investigations 128 Mihail Jonov, Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Nemski i avstrijski pătepisi za Balkanite XVII–sredata

na XVIII v. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1986), 169.

129 The historical topographic maps usually place the name of the toponym in the northern part of

the estate, thus making the southern border unclear. The information about the southern border of the estate comes from the Cadastral administrative information system of the Geodesy, Cartography, and Cadastre Agency of Bulgaria. Entries about two private parcels, 56784.511.1058 and 56784.511.1059, preserved the original toponymic “Saray kăr.” 130 Gülru Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (New York: Architectural History Foundation, 1991); Kawamoto, “エディル

136 | Ottoman Plovdiv

promise to enrich our understanding of Ottoman palatial complexes constructed in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and such research could potentially illuminate the architectural and functional characteristics of the complex in Plovdiv.131 The provincial imperial palaces that were situated in rural locales and which fortuitously escaped the encroachment of twentieth-century urbanization, along with the residences of eminent dynasties of Balkan marcher lords, remain untapped reservoirs of information with the potential to illuminate the palatial architectural culture of early Ottoman rulers. These structures, if studied archaeologically, could serve as invaluable case studies, offering tangible insights into the construction techniques, aesthetic choices, and functional considerations that typified the early Ottoman provincial palatial architecture. One such case in modern Bulgaria could be the palace north of Jambol, built by Musa Çelebi in the early 1410s, when, according to Constantine Kostenečki, he took refuge in the swampy forests of Thrace after being defeated by his brother Süleyman.132 Possibly the saray was completed by the victorious Mehmed I, because Evliya Çelebi writes about it as the “palace of Sultan Mehmed and Musa Çelebi.”133 The saray was in continuous use, as evidenced by a 1538 campaign itinerary indicating that Sultan Süleyman I (r. 1520–66) spent two days at this locale during his military expedition against Suceava.134 The palace underwent renovation in 1574,135 while the large village with a mixed Muslim, Christian, and Gypsy population serving the complex was owned by the pious endowment of Süleyman’s mother, Hafsa Sultan.136 The palace endured until 1826, when the ネ旧宮殿の成立と空間構成 / The Formation of Edirne Old Palace and Its Spatial Composition”; Satoshi Kawamoto, “Before Topkapı: Istanbul Old Palace and Its Original Function,” Archivum Ottomanicum 33 (2016): 203–11; Ratip Kazancıgil, Edirne Sarayı ve Yerleşim Planı (Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği, Edirne Şubesi Yayınları, 1994); Rifat Osman, Edirne Sarayı, ed. A. Süheyl Ünver (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957); Mustafa Özer, The Ottoman Imperial Palace in Edirne (Saray-ı Cedîd-i Âmire): A Brief Introduction (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2014); Ayda Arel, “Cihannüma Kasrı ve Erken Osmanlı Saraylarında Kule Yapıları Hakkında,” in Prof. Doğan Kuban’a Armağan, ed. Ahunbay, Deniz Mazlum, and Kutgün Eyüpgiller (İstanbul: Eren, 1996), 99–116. 131 Mustafa Özer, “Edirne Sarayı (Saray-ı Cedîd-i Âmire)’ndan Günümüze Ulaşabilen Yapılar Hakkında,” Turkish Studies 9–10 (2014): 809–36; Suna Çağaptay, “Bursa Bey Sarayı: Erken Osmanlı Dönemi Sarayı Üzerine Mekânsal ve Kültürlerarası Bir İnceleme,” in Osmanlı Devleti’nin Yönetim Merkezi Bursa Bey Sarayı, ed. Serap T. Yurteser Yılmaz (Bursa: Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, 2021), 88–110. 132 Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, 151. 133 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 7. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, ed. S. Ali Kahraman, Yücel Dağlı, and Robert Dankoff (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002), 443. 134 M. Akif Erdoğru, “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın 1538 Tarihli Karaboğdan Seferi Ruznâmesi,” Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 29, no. 2 (2014): 522. 135 BOA, A.{DVNSMHM.d. 26, 789. Order dating from AH 03.07.982 (29.10.1574). 136 BOA, TD 542, 492-494. İbrahim Hakkı Konyalı, “Kanunî Sultan Süleyman’ın Annesi Hafsa Sultan’ın Vakfiyesi ve Manisa’daki Hayır Eserleri,” Vakıflar Dergisi 8 (1969): 47–56; Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 53–54.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 137

Russian army sacked the village and destroyed the imperial residence. Notably, remnants of the hamam—integral to the palace complex—were still discernible as late as the 1880s. These vestiges were documented by the Škorpil brothers, who undertook a comprehensive survey of antiquities in Thrace.137 The palatial residence of the Mihaloğlu family in Pleven, characterized as a castle-like complex anchored by a lofty stone tower and ensconced behind elevated walls, presents another compelling point of departure for scholarly investigation into the architecture and functionalities of provincial palaces belonging to both imperial and other noble households.138 While information concerning the central structures within the imperial residence in Plovdiv is scant, documentary evidence does suggest that the entire area of the saray, inclusive of its gardens, was circumscribed by an extensive trench (hendek), maintained by the local populace. A tax register from 1525 records that some residents of the nearby village of Komat (today a quarter of Plovdiv named Komatevo) were employed as servants in the palace, for which they enjoyed tax exemptions.139 The maintenance of the main buildings in the complex continued in the sixteenth century. A balance sheet demonstrates that in 1555 the harem (the domestic spaces reserved for the female members of the sultanic household) of the palace was refurbished.140 Later, the servants’ privileges in the royal residence seemed to have been disregarded by the tax collectors, who levied extraordinary taxes on them. The servants abandoned their duties, and the fencing of the saray fell into disrepair. In this 137 Karel Škorpil and Vladislav Škorpil, Nekoi beležki vărhu arheologičeskite i istoričeskite izsledovanija

v Trakija (Plovdiv: Oblastna pečarnica, 1885), 61. In 2017, in collaboration with Chavdar Kirilov, an archaeologist at the University of Sofia, we identified the site of the erstwhile palace, which is today a cultivated field approximately 1.5 km northeast of the village of Vodeničane (Ottoman: Değirmenköy). The geographical coordinates for the site are 42.551824, 26.712323. The profusion of archaeological material visible on the surface, in conjunction with a paved road leading to the specific location, suggested that future geomagnetic research could potentially disclose further details about this early palatial complex. Subsequent to this preliminary investigation, a team of archaeologists conducted a geomagnetic survey in 2018; however, the survey did not reveal any subsurface architectural features. Elena Vasileva, Stefan Bakardzhiev, and Nikola Tonkov, “Geomagnetic Survey in Saraya Locality in the Territory of Straldzha Town,” in Archaeological Discoveries and Excavations in 2018, ed. Hristo Popov (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2019), 722–24. Closer scrutiny of this study reveals a critical discrepancy: the archaeologists conducted their geomagnetic survey at a location approximately 5.5 km northwest of the actual site of the palace. This significant spatial deviation underscores the imperative for rigorous site identification and contextual verification based on extant historical maps prior to undertaking archaeological explorations. 138 Mariya Kiprovska, “Plunder and Appropriation at the Borderland: Representation, Legitimacy, and Ideological Use of Spolia by Members of the Ottoman Frontier Nobility,” in Spolia Reincarnated – Afterlives of Objects, Materials, and Spaces in Anatolia from Antiquity to the Ottoman Era, ed. Ivana Jevtić and Suzan Yalman (Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınlari, 2018), 51–69. 139 “sarayda hizmetkârlardır avarızdan muaflardır, hükümleri var” (These are servants in the palace [for which] they are exempted from paying the extraordinary levies. They presented their appointment orders). BOA, MAD 519, f. 64. 140 BOA, MAD 55, f. 172-73. The balance sheet was prepared by the acting kadı of Plovdiv, Şemseddin Çelebi.

138 | Ottoman Plovdiv

vacuum of oversight, local residents of Plovdiv, invoking claims of ancestral ownership, capitalized on the situation by cultivating lands that were integral to the palatial complex and grazing their cattle on these grounds. In the 1560s, a series of sultanic decrees aimed to redress these issues by urging the restoration of the trench encircling the saray and the re-establishment of the complex’s territorial boundaries in proximity to the city. Concurrently, these edicts sought to reinstate the tax-exempt status (mu’afiyet) for the servants hailing from the nearby village of Komat.141 In 1568 a directive was issued to the superintendent of the guards (kapucı) of the Plovdiv palace, mandating the flooding of the trenches surrounding the complex, which ought to prevent the nearby residents’ cattle from entering its territory.142 Nearly two decades subsequent to the 1568 directive, an incident transpired that vividly underscores the vulnerabilities inherent in the administration of imperial estates. In 1586 the Plovdiv saray fell victim to a raid orchestrated by a group of brigands under the leadership of a certain Emin Arif. The event was of sufficient gravity to warrant an immediate imperial response; orders were swiftly disseminated to the local subaşı (chief of policing forces) and the judicial authorities of adjacent districts, mandating the apprehension of the perpetrators.143 After this date, the imperial residence in Plovdiv ceases to appear in extant Ottoman documentary sources, raising questions regarding its subsequent fate. The unclear circumstances surrounding the decline and eventual abandonment of the imperial palace in Plovdiv raise questions that have yet to be definitively answered. Although the archival record goes silent on the saray after the 1586 brigand attack, it is reasonable to conjecture that prior to this incident the facility had already been falling into disuse, or at least was not maintained to the standards one might expect of an imperial residence. The cumulative neglect by locals, perhaps emboldened by what they perceived as a waning interest on the part of the imperial authorities, likely compounded the decline. The 1586 raid, which prompted urgent official mandates for their capture, could very well have been the death knell for the complex. The absence of any further mentions in post-1580s Ottoman archives strongly suggests that the saray may have deteriorated beyond the point of recovery, succumbing finally to ruination. Almost a century after the incident, in 1679–80, Luigi Marsigli documented the palace as already lying in ruins. Certainly, the decline of the saray in Plovdiv may have unfolded in a manner akin to a natural or socio-economic process of reclamation. Abandoned by its imperial patrons and left in disrepair, the saray would have presented an irresistible opportunity for locals, who would likely have repurposed its lands for grazing and cultivation. This would not have been an unusual or unprecedented scenario; throughout history, neglected monumental structures have 141 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973/1565-1566) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü,

1994), m. nos. 460, 1703, 1724, 1725. 6 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (972/1564-1565) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1995), m. no. 338. 142 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (976/1567–1569) (Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, 1997), m. no. 2519. 143 BOA, A.{DVNSMHM.d. 61, 10. Order dating from AH 6.8.994 (23.7.1586).

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 139

often been subsumed by the communities that surround them. The ruins of once magnificent buildings offered ready building materials. Additionally, it is worth considering the nature of the materials from which the saray was constructed: while the complex may initially have been grand, its durability would have been contingent on the materials used. Many Ottoman buildings, particularly of a residential nature, were constructed using wood—a material susceptible to decay, neglect, and most significantly, fire.144 Given the absence of legal documentation, one can only speculate about the basis upon which the residents of Plovdiv began to occupy the lands of the imperial residence, but the ownership of the estate seems to have remained in the hands of the central authority until the nineteenth century. In December 1848, the wealthy locals Stojan Čalăkov, Dimitrika Mičora, and Salčo Čomakov established a partnership and bought the lands of the former imperial residence from the Ottoman government, to create the so-called Saraj čiftlik.145 By this time, the only traces left of the imperial palace in Plovdiv were the microtoponymic indicators that attested to its prior existence.

Water for a Muslim city In the 1430s and 1440s, the architectural patronage of Murad II and Şihabeddin paşa catalyzed the urban metamorphosis of Plovdiv, leading to a transformation of the spatial order within the city’s confines. Their financial contributions led to the establishment of the Ottoman city’s commercial nucleus and extended the Islamic architectural influence northward to the banks of the Maritsa River, thereby constituting the principal axis for the urban development. Twenty years later, another mighty benefactor—who was likewise not native to the region but whose repositioning within the Ottoman governmental apparatus and subsequent life trajectory intimately bound him to it—contributed to the city’s architectural development in such a way that Plovdiv was definitively elevated to an essential provincial center of the Ottoman realm. This figure was the deposed ruler of the Anatolian principality of the İsfendiyarids, İsmail bey, who resided in Plovdiv in the 1460s and 1470s. His prodigious architectural patronage positions him as second only to Şihabeddin paşa in facilitating the architectural and urban growth of Plovdiv, thereby strengthening its role as an indispensable provincial hub within the Ottoman dominions. İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail bey descended from the Candaroğulları/Jandarid dynasty, which, after toppling the thirteenth-century local Çobanoğulları family,146 exerted 144 The wooden grand vizieral palaces in Istanbul are just one example of such residential architec-

ture made of timber that has not survived to the present. Cf. Artan, “The Making of the Sublime Porte near the Alay Köşkü and a Tour of a Grand Veziral Palace at Süleymaniye.” 145 Andreas Liberatos, Vărzoždenskijat Plovdiv: transformacija, hegemonija, nacionalizăm (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2019), 317. Liberatos refers to the original contract for the purchase, preserved in the BNL, BIA, fond 70, a.e. 142, list 159. 146 On the Çobanoğulları dynasty and its complicated relationship with the Ilkhanate rulers during the second half of the 13th century, see Bruno De Nicola, “In the Outskirts of the Ilkhanate: The

140 | Ottoman Plovdiv

hereditary rule over the strategically important principality (beylik) in northwestern Anatolia from the beginning of the fourteenth until the mid-fifteenth century. The dynasty wielded control over pivotal urban centers situated along significant trade routes, including but not limited to Kastamonu and Taşköprü. Most saliently, the principality maintained dominion over the strategically invaluable Black Sea port of Sinop. As a consequence, the İsfendiyarids were positioned to exercise considerable influence over a substantial segment of the economically lucrative slave trade, thereby amplifying its regional significance and financial potency.147 Initially, the principality was incorporated into the Ottoman state by Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402), but soon after the battle of Ankara (1402) it was restored under the rule of İsfendiyar bey (d. 1439), who profited from the support of Timur (r. 1370–1405).148 Kemaleddin İsmail bey, the grandson of İsfendiyar bey, ascended to the leadership of the beylik in 1443 following the death of his father, Taceddin İbrahim bey. In 1461 Mehmed II launched a campaign against İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail bey, compelling him to relinquish control of the strategically significant and heavily fortified fortress of Sinop.149 Caught unprepared, İsmail bey found himself compelled to acquiesce Mongols’ Relationship with the Province of Kastamonu in the Second Half of the 13th Century,” in Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period: The Ilkhanids in Anatolia, Symposium Proceedings, 21–22 May 2015, Ankara, ed. Suzan Yalman and Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu (Ankara: Koç University Press, 2019), 117–35; Bruno De Nicola, “Urban Agency in the Borderlands: Turkmen Rulers and Administrative Elites in 13th-Century Kastamonu,” Medieval Worlds 14 (2021): 155–78. 147 On the Candaroğulları dynasty, see İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1937), 121–47; Yaşar Yücel, XIII-XV. Yüzyıllar Kuzey-Batı Anadolu Tarihi: Çoban-oğulları, Candar-oğulları Beylikleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1980); Yaşar Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998); Annika Stello, “Caffa and the Slave Trade during the First Half of the Fifteenth Century,” in Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000– 1500 Ce), ed. Reuven Amitai and Christoph Cluse (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017), 375–98; Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, “Slave Hunting and Slave Redemption as a Business Enterprise: The Northern Black Sea Region in the Sixteenth to Seventeenth Centuries,” Oriente Moderno 86, no. 1 (2006): 149–59; Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, “Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Atlantic and the Black Sea: A Comparative View,” in Slavery in the Black Sea Region, c. 900–1900: Forms of Unfreedom at the Intersection between Christianity and Islam, ed. Felicia Roșu (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022), 418–42. On the collection of the pençik, i.e., the sultan’s 1/5 share of slaves, at some of the north Anatolian Black Sea ports, see Oliver Jens Schmitt and Mariya Kiprovska, “Ottoman Raiders (Akıncıs) as a Driving Force of Early Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans and the Slavery-Based Economy,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 65 (2022): 536, fnt. 114. 148 Yaşar Yücel, “Candar-oğlu Çelebi İsfendiyar Bey 1392–1439,” Tarih Arıştırmaları Dergisi 2, no. 2–3 (1964): 157–74. 149 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 191–92; Halil İnalcık, “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432–1481) and His Time,” Speculum 35, no. 3 (1960): 422; Selâhattin Tansel, Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan Mehmedʾin Siyasî ve Askerî Faaliyeti (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1953), 253–59; Yaşar Yücel, “Candar-oğulları Beyliği (1439–1461),” Belleten 34, no. 135 (1970): 373–407. For the text of the letter dispatched by Grand Vizier Mahmud Paşa during the Ottoman siege of İsmail bey in Sinop, see Cevdet Yakupoğlu and Namiq Musalı, Kastamonu Beylerinin Mektupları. Çobanoğulları ve Candaroğlları Hanedanlarına Ait Resmî Yazışmalar (Ankara: Matsa Basımevi, 2022), 177–80.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 141

to Mehmed II, who extended the fiefs of Yarhisar and İnegöl, situated near Bursa, as compensation for his capitulation. However, due to the disobedience of İsmail’s brother, Mehmed II reneged on his initial promise. Motivated in all likelihood by a desire to remove the Candaroğulları descendants from their ancestral territories— thereby mitigating the risk of potential insubordination—he designated İsmail bey as the governor of Plovdiv and granted him full ownership (mülk) of the adjacent village of Markovo, along with additional revenue streams from the region.150 The contemporary narrative sources do not shed further light on the specifics of the agreement between İsmail bey and Mehmed II concerning the former’s relocation (sürgün) to Plovdiv; nonetheless, a sixteenth-century document suggests that a specific agreement did exist between the rulers, with Mehmed II bestowing an ahdname upon İsmail bey.151 The original of the ahdname that was kept within family circles was lost, and one of İsmail bey’s grandsons consequently petitioned the sultan to reissue it, thereby disclosing portions of its original terms within the context of his own letter. If the claim of the descendant noted in the request is genuine, it appears that Mehmed II settled İsmail bey in Plovdiv and placed the city and its surroundings under his protection and care. The sultan graced İsmail bey with the sum of three million akçe and a stipend of one thousand akçe daily.152 His eldest son was appointed sancakbeyi of Sofia with revenues of 750,000 akçe; the second son became sancakbeyi of Alacahisar (mod. Kruševac) with 500,000 akçe; the third received a zeamet worth 80,000 akçe.153 The document lauds the family’s enduring history of steadfast allegiance to the Ottoman dynasty, which includes standing alongside the sultans 150 Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, 1:114–15. 151 BOA, TSMA. E. 758/54. The document is an undated letter from one of İsmail bey’s descen-

dants, addressed to Sultan Süleyman I. The events delineated in the petition allow it to be dated to the mid-16th century. Although ahdnames, bills of oath embodying a contractual accord between two parties, issued in favor of Christian actors have long been the subject of scholarly scrutiny, it remains noteworthy that comparable documents conferred upon Muslim actors, particularly the dethroned rulers of Anatolian beyliks, are relatively underexplored in the scholarly literature. For a discussion of an ahdname given to the Karamanid rulers and of Ottoman practices regarding other Muslim rulers, see Sándor Papp, “The System of Autonomous Muslim and Christian Communities, and States in the Ottoman Empire,” in The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Lovro Kunčević and Gábor Kármán (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 380–89. I am grateful to Radu Dipratu for sharing his insights on the matter. 152 According to Doukas, Mehmed II allowed İsmail “to take with him all his treasures, horses, mules and camels, and whatever else was stored in his treasuries.” Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. An Annotated Translation of “Historia Turco-Byzantina,” 259. 153 The sums stated in the document appear elevated, yet remain within the realm of plausibility, especially considering the special arrangements that existed between Mehmed II and İsmail bey. The three eldest sons were Hasan, who was imprisoned by Mehmed II during the campaign against his father (Yücel, pp. 111–13), Yahya (d. 1460, as indicated by his tombstone in Sinop, Yücel, p. 179), and Abdül Celil. Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri, 147; Yaşar Yücel, “Candaroğulları,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2000). A brother named Mahmud bey is also occasionally mentioned in the sources. Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 318, 328–30. Another son,

142 | Ottoman Plovdiv

in pivotal conflicts such as the Battle of Çaldıran (1514) and the Battle of Mohács (1526). The appointment of İsmail bey’s son as sancakbeyi of Sofia finds corroboration in the writings of Giovanni Maria Angiolello (d. ca. 1525), an enslaved Venetian of noble lineage who served as treasurer to Mehmed II. This external attestation enhances the credibility of the document authored by İsmail bey’s grandson.154 The father of Ahmed bey, the petitioner, Abdül Celil bey, is identifiable within extant Ottoman documentary sources. In 1504 Celil bey acted as zaim of Kalkandelen (mod. Tetovo);155 in 1511 he was among the Rumeli lords who brought Selim I to power;156 in 1513 he left his position as sancakbeyi of Kocaeli and was assigned to Plovdiv (Filibe);157 in 1521 he served as sancakbeyi of Midilli (Mitylini);158 and after the conquest of Rhodes (1522) he settled there and for years served as sancakbeyi of Rodos and Midilli, keeping his position after retirement.159 In Rhodes, Celil bey converted a church into a mosque bearing his name (alternatively referred to as Çukur Mescidi), undertook the repair of one of the bastions in the years 1530–31, and ultimately met his demise in the city. His tomb remains situated within the courtyard of his mosque, formerly St. Augustine’s convent.160 İsmail bey was an erudite individual who served as a generous patron across multiple disciplines—literature, art, science, and architecture—within the Black Sea principality. Among his beneficiaries were eminent Islamic scholars including Niksarlı Muhyiddin Mehmed, to whom he bequeathed a library comprising three hundred volumes.161 In the 1440s and 1450s, İsmail bey constructed a complex in his native Kastamonu. This architectural ensemble encompassed a monumental T-shaped imaret/zaviye, a medrese, a bath, and a mausoleum intended for himself, wherein his mother and other relatives were subsequently laid.162 Later, he commissioned two inns in Kastamonu—the Deve Hanı, situated near his existing complex, and the İsmail bey Hanı, located in the city’s commercial core.163 İsmail bey himself penned Abdurrahim Çelebi/Bey b. İsmail Bey İsfendiyari, appears in 1503 and 1504 in the so-called register of gifts (in’amat defteri), İBK, MC O.71, f. 3r, 167v. 154 Angiollello, Donado da Lezze, Historia Turchesca (1300–1514), ed. Ioan Ursu (Bucureşti: Carol Göbl, 1910), 28. 155 İBK, MC O.71, f. 29r. 156 H. Erdem Çıpa, Yavuz’un Kavgası: I. Selim’ in Saltanat Mücadelesi (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013), 215–20. 157 BOA, MAD 7, f. 55r. 158 BOA, TSMA. D. 9772. 159 BOA, TSMA. D. 10057 (from 1526); BOA, TSMA. D. 5246 (from 1527); BOA, TSMA. D. 8303 (from 1527-1530). 160 Elias Kolovos, “The Fortress and the Town of Rhodes According to the Ottoman Survey After the Siege of 1522,” in The 1522 Siege of Rhodes, ed. Simon Phillips (London: Routledge, 2022), 131–46. 161 Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, 1:116. 162 Halil Çetin, Candaroğlu Yurdunda Bey İmaretleri: Çankırı Kasım Bey İmareti (1430), Kastamonu İsmail Bey İmareti (1457) (Çankırı: Çankırı Belediyesi Yayınları, 2013). 163 The endowment deed of İsmail bey’s complex in Kastamonu dates from 1457. Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, 1:116.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 143

a widely disseminated treatise on the ritual aspects of Islam, entitled Hulviyyât-i Şahi, which he completed during his stay in Plovdiv.164 The dedicatory inscriptions adorning his edifices in Kastamonu, along with the endowment deed, extol İsmail bey as the “great sultan” or even the “magnificent sultan and emperor, the master of the lords of Arabia and Persia.”165 These accolades shed light on the rank, grandeur, and financial resources of the individual whom Mehmed II exiled to Plovdiv. His governorship of the city, spanning nearly two decades during the 1460s and 1470s, left a lasting mark on Plovdiv’s urbanscape. A eulogy by the court poet Hamidi-i İsfahani (d. 1500s), a beneficiary of İsmail bey’s patronage in Kastamonu, extols his deeds and contributions to the city’s built environment. İsfahani portrays his patron as a saintly figure transcending both the temporal and spiritual realms, whose arrival in the region transformed “the land of Filibe into Egypt, and Meriç into the Nile.”166 İsmail bey arrived in Plovdiv either in the latter part of 1461 or, more plausibly, in the early months of 1462 following his dethronement. Given his substantial history of architectural patronage in Anatolia, it is unsurprising that he promptly commissioned and constructed several public edifices in his new domicile. While the exact chronology of his building endeavors remains elusive, the structures he bequeathed are identifiable. Among these is the so-called İsmail Bey Camii, strategically situated on the main market thoroughfare (Uzun Çarşı), three hundred meters to the north of Muradiye at the intersection of contemporary Rayko Daskalov and Knjaz Bogoridi streets.167 In contrast to his architectural undertakings in Kastamonu, the mosque that İsmail bey established in Plovdiv was of a more modest scale—a singledomed neighborhood mescid. As of 1879 the structure was in commendable condition, a detail corroborated by the panoramic photograph taken by Dimitris Cavra. The mosque featured a modest cemetery yard, distinctly visible in Cavra’s panoramic photograph, where İsmail bey may have been interred following his death in 1479. It is clear that İsmail did not construct another mausoleum for himself beyond the one in Kastamonu; rather, he was likely laid to rest in a comparatively unadorned grave. The precise location of his final resting place remains ambiguous, a point that has generated confusion in scholarly publications. Franz Babinger, without the advantage of a specific reference, posited that İsmail bey “died in 1479 and was buried beside the now-vanished Bey mosque, which he endowed” in Plovdiv. 168 This assertion subsequently led Machiel Kiel to conclude that İsmail bey was buried in a 164 Nil Karagöz, Candaroğlu İsmail Bey’ den İbadet Tadında Tarifler Hulviyyât Sultanın Tatlıları (Ankara:

Altınordu Yayınları, 2020).

165 See Yücel, Anadolu beylikleri hakkında araştırmalar, 1:173–77 for İsmail bey’s dedicatory inscrip-

tions in Kastamonu.

166 İsmail Hikmet Ertaylan, Külliyyât-ı Divan-ı Mevlana Hamidî (İstanbul: Millî Eğitim Basımevi,

1949), 39–41.

167 Alvadžiev, Plovdivska hronika, 27. 168 Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, 192; Babinger, “Von Amurath zu Amurath. Vor-

und Nachspiel der Schlacht bei Varna ,” 234, note 20.

144 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 21. İsmail Bey Camii in 1928

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 145

türbe adjacent to the mosque he had commissioned in Plovdiv, known as Bey Camii.169 Although no mausoleum is visibly associated with İsmail bey’s mosque in the various panoramic photographs, the uncertainty surrounding the location of his final resting place is clarified by a comment from İ. H. Uzunçarşılı.170 The Turkish scholar, regrettably also without citing a source, asserts that the tombstone of İsmail was situated in Bey Mescidi, also known as İbn Kasım Mescidi, thereby unequivocally pointing to a structure located in the western part of Plovdiv rather than İsmail bey’s centrally located mosque. This seemingly unconventional choice for the final resting place of the influential former Anatolian ruler is elucidated by the symbolic significance of the location of the so-called Bey/İbn-i Kasım Camii, which was not commissioned by İsmail bey himself, as Babinger asserts, but by one of his relatives.171 The mosque constructed by İsmail bey in the city center likely vanished in the 1930s, as it had sustained severe damage during the powerful earthquake of 1928 and was never subsequently restored. A committed benefactor of science and education, İsmail bey additionally founded a primary school (mekteb), situated in a more modest edifice adjacent to his mosque.172 The educational institution, which almost certainly possessed its own diminutive library, remained operational throughout both the Ottoman era and the initial decades of independent Bulgarian governance.173 The mosque was sustained by revenues from the village of Markovo, previously granted to İsmail bey as full property, and he allocated these resources to a religious endowment established in 1467. The date of the endowment deed clearly indicates that the mosque and the mekteb in Plovdiv must have been commissioned soon after İsmail arrived in the city, thus in the period 1462–67. The original endowment deed was considered lost, but the stipulations of the founding charter are held in

Kiel, “Filibe.” Uzunçarşılı, Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri, 138. For details, see the section on Bey/İbn-i Kasım Camii, below. A hurufat defteri housed in Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi in Ankara, which kept records of different appointments made by the vakıf ’s administration (VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 226, 246), confirms that the mosque and the mekteb of İsmail bey were were located on the main market street, opposite the saraçhane that occupied the western side of the street. Overview of the registers of appointments of various religious personnel in Plovdiv, which in the later period were arranged alphabetically following the toponymy, can be found in Habibe Kazancıoğlu, Filibe: Hurûfât Defterlerine Göre Filibe Kazasındaki Vakıf Müesseseleri (1719–1834) (İstanbul: Kayıhan, 2019); Hatice Oruç, “Hurufat Defterlerinin Bulgaristan Tarihi için Önemi: Filibe Örneği,” in Bălgarija i Turcija na meždukulturnija krăstopăt: ezik, istorija, literatura (Plovdiv: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Paisij Hilendarski,” 2012), 165–84. 173 Săbev, Osmanskite učilišta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII v., 222. The information about the library of İsmail bey in Plovdiv is anecdotal and difficult to confirm, but authors who have worked on the Ottoman libraries in Bulgaria are inclined to accept the existence of such a library despite the uncertain source base. See Mihaila Stajnova, Osmanskite biblioteki v bălgarskite zemi XV–XIX vek: studii (Sofija: Narodna Biblioteka Kiril i Metodij, 1982), 155–57; Orlin Săbev, Knigata i nejnijat hram. Istorija na osmanskite biblioteki v Bălgarija (Sofija: Avangarg, 2017), passim.

169 170 171 172

146 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 11. The main commercial street of Plovdiv, 1460s–1470s

later copies housed in Ankara and Istanbul archives.174 It seems that a few years following its establishment, the endowment was nullified by Mehmed II, who confiscated its assets and allocated them to timariots. Later, Bayezid II reinstated the endowment, reaffirming the hereditary rights of İsmail’s descendants to oversee the foundation.175 Five years later, İsmail commissioned another mosque, this time in the family residence in the village of Markova (mod. Markovo). The village is located about nine kilometers south of the then-Ottoman Plovdiv, lying on a gentle terrace at the foot of the Rhodope Mountains. One of his descendants later added a public bath to this mosque, and this, together with the large family mansion, stood until the early twen174 Currently there are two known later copies of this endowment deed, originally drawn up on AH

2.1.872 (3 August 1467) and its addition (zeyl) from 1477: one housed in Ankara, VGMA, defter no. 630, s. 975, sıra no. 585, published in facsimile by Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa livâsı, (269)-(271); and another copy, prepared in 1867, housed in Istanbul, BOA, EV.VKF, dosya 1, gömlek 49. 175 Gökbilgin, 328; BOA TD 370, f. 104. The abrogation of the pious endowment of the İsfendiyaroğlu family in Plovdiv was part of a larger campaign by Mehmed II. On his so-called “land reform,” see Oktay Özel, “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II’s ‘Land Reform’ Revisited,” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 42, no. 2 (1999): 226–46; Nicoară Beldiceanu, “Recherches sur la réforme foncière de Mehmed II,” Acta Historica 4 (1965): 27–39; Bistra Cvetkova, “Sur certaines réformes du régime foncier au temp de Mehmet II,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 6, no. 1 (1963): 104–20; Halil İnalcık, “Mehmed II,” in İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1957; Halil İnalcık, “Mehmed II,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition), 1991.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 147

tieth century, when all of the buildings burned down. Likewise, İsmail established another endowment providing for the maintenance of the building and the salaries of the staff at his mosque in the village of Markova. He endowed the revenues from several water- and rice mills built near the village Kadıköy (mod. Kadievo) on the river Kriçime (mod. Văča) and also on the river Göpsu (mod. Strjama) that descends from the north and joins the Maritsa near Plovdiv. The original endowment deed of İsmail bey’s Markovo foundation was also considered lost for many years. Very recently, however, both charters were discovered in the collection of rare manuscripts of Sadberk Hanım museum in Istanbul.176 I was unable to work with the original vakfiye, but the content of the charter, drawn up on 21 March 1472, likewise survived in later copies.177 This charter also has an addition (zeyl), dating from September 1477, which stipulates the conditions for additional revenues endowed to the foundation by İsmail bey.178 The revenues are derived from two water mills and two rice mills built on the stream of Kırk Pınar (mod. Čerkezica), near the village of Kara Reis (mod. Boljarci, east of Plovdiv). It is interesting to note that this village and the area around it, which bordered the domain of Minnetoğlu Mehmed bey in Konuş, belonged to the vakıf of Muradiye in Edirne (which also supported the big mosque in Plovdiv) and was the chief supplier of rice for the needs of its imaret in Edirne. It seems unusual that İsmail bey managed to place his four revenue-raising buildings (two rice- and two water mills) on the territory held by another vakıf. It must be more than a mere coincidence that his nephew, Bayezid Çelebi, son of his brother Mahmud bey, appears in the documents as the administrator (mütevelli) of Muradiye’s foundation only a few years after İsmail bey placed his buildings on the territory of the vakıf of Murad II.179 This fact alone demonstrates the authority and influence of the İsfendiyaroğlu family in the provincial politics of Ottoman Rumeli in the second half of the fifteenth century, but it is also yet another eloquent testament to the nature of the Ottoman state-building project, in which experienced administrators and governors of former Anatolian principalities, and their descendants, were used in all levels of the Ottoman state apparatus. What makes the 1472 charter of İsmail bey’s foundation remarkable is that it indicates that he restored the city’s water-supply system and brought fresh running water to its residents. Moreover, the stipulations of his endowment deed include that the surplus of the revenues must be spent for maintenance of the water conduit. It 176 Zeren Tanındı, Yazıda Âhenk ve Renk: Sadberk Hanım Müzesi Koleksiyonundan Sanatlı Kitaplar,

Belgeler ve Hüsn-i Hatlar (İstanbul: Sadberk Hanım Müzesi, 2019), 370–71. I thank Christiane Gruber and Lale Görünür for sending me information about these documents. 177 The vakfiye, dated AH 1 Şevval 876, has two later copies – VGMA, defter no. 628, s. 449, sıra no. 233, published in facsimile by Gökbilgin, (271)-(277) and BOA, Ali Emiri, Fatih 57. VGMA, defter no. 2105, s. 354-359, sıra no. 54, contains a translation of the endowment deed, originally written in Arabic, into modern Turkish. The inventory no. of the original in Sadberk Hanım museum in Istanbul is SHM 11695. 178 VGMA, defter no. 628, s. 474, sıra no. 241. 179 Barkan, “Edirne ve Civarındaki Bazı İmaret Tesislerinin Yıllık Muhasebe Bilançoları,” 301.

148 | Ottoman Plovdiv

is plausible that İsmail bey repaired or rebuilt one of the three aqueducts that supplied water to Roman Philippopolis. Two of the Roman aqueducts gathered waters in the lands of the village of Markova, where İsmail built his family residence and a mosque. The available information on the route of İsmail bey’s aqueduct is minimal, but one can suppose that it was based on the ruined Roman infrastructure.180 Thus the water pipeline reached the tallest hill of Plovdiv Džendem/Saray from the south, from where it was directed northeast and reached the hill named Bunarcık. From this hill, the pipes of the water conduit descended into the open plain, running into sebil paired with a large covered fountain. The sebil/fountain located on the main market street, near İsmail bey’s mosque, was also probably constructed by him during the repair of the city’s water-supply system. The hurufat registers mentioned above help to identify the exact location of the sebilhane, located at the junction of Rajko Daskalov Street and 6ti Septemvri Boulevard in modern Plovdiv.181 The structure functioned for centuries, and over time it must have been repaired or rebuilt many times. The last known restoration was carried out in 1836 when, by order of Mahmud II (r. 1808–39), the treasury of the imperial foundations (evkaf-i hümayun hazinesi) provided the means for the repair or new construction of 42 fountains (çeşme) in Plovdiv.182 Two stone inscriptions commemorating these repairs are today displayed in the courtyard of Plovdiv’s history museum, and another lies in a private yard in the city. The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) photographic collection in Istanbul has more photographs taken by Rudloff and Rudloff-Hille of other such inscriptions that are today lost. During this last restoration, the Ottoman authorities replaced the original sebilhane with a beautifully decorated large fountain (şadırvan) whose lead-covered conic roof was supported on twelve marble pillars. This building, after which the main axis crossing Plovdiv east–west was named (Şadırvan sokağı, mod. 6ti Septemvri Boulevard), stood until the late 1880s or early 1890s. Its conical roof can be seen in D. Cavra’s 1879 panoramic photograph, and the building was also depicted in 1888 in an oil painting by Jan Václav Mrkvička (d. 1938) entitled “Na pazar v Plovdiv.” By 1891, when Ivan Karastojanov took his panoramic photograph of the city, the fountain had already been replaced by modern housing, and thus the last traces of the water distribution building created by İsmail bey disappeared for good.183 180 On the Roman water-supply system of Philippopolis, see Elena Kesjakova, “Vodosnabdjavane,”

in Kniga za Plovdiv, ed. Elena Kesjakova (Plovdıv: Poligraf, 1999), 73–76. In 2016, rescue excavations in the southwestern part of Plovdiv unearthed a section of a pipeline that could possibly have been part of İsmail bey’s water-supply system. Rosica Mitkova, “Spasitelno arheologičesko proučvane na mnogosloen obekt ‘Komatevsko Šose’ gr. Plovdiv,” Arheologičeski orkritija i razkopki, 2017, 337–39. 181 VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 228, 242, 248. xy coordinates: 42.1513673 24.7467372. 182 BOA, EV.d 10024, dating AH 1252 (1836-1837) is a summary accounting record of the expenses made by the Evkaf-i Hümayun for the repairs and construction of forty-two çeşmes and one şadırvan that replaced the existing sebil. 183 Alvadžiev. Plovdivska hronika, 221, states that the fountain was destroyed in 1905, because of the construction of several new houses on the spot. If the reason for demolishing the fountain is

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 149

The reconstruction of the old water-supply system, funded by İsmail bey, must have had an immediate impact on the quality of life of the residents of Plovdiv. Around the same time, other large provincial cities in the Balkans were also supplied with fresh water due to infrastructural investments made by prominent figures in Ottoman society. For instance, Yahya paşa built a pipeline and multiple fountains in Sofia, while İshakoğlu İsa bey commissioned and built an aqueduct that brought water to Skopje.184 Rebuilding the water supply infrastructure of Plovdiv in the early 1470s might therefore have been a reflection of a larger-scale effort that aimed at improving the quality of life in the principal cities in the Ottoman Balkans, and was in full accord with the major building projects being pursued in the urban centers. It provided enough running water for the construction of the numerous public fountains dispersed in the town, but more significantly it allowed the building of larger public baths that needed more running water.185 In any case, one of these baths, the large double bath known locally as Çifte Hamam, which is the largest and probably the most beautiful Ottoman public bath preserved in Bulgaria today, must have already been a fact on the urban landscape. The building, which was the only hamam in the city with both male and female sections, is located in Debbağ hisarı quarter, dominating the area below the northwestern corner of the citadel. The dedicatory inscription (kitabe) of the bath is missing, but its architectural and stylistic features bespeak a construction in the middle or the second half of the fifteenth century. The absence of a dedicatory inscription not only introduces uncertainty into the dating of Plovdiv’s largest public bath but also complicates the identification of its patron. Machiel Kiel, after exploring other possibilities, posited that only a figure of indeed correct then Alvadžiev must be wrong about the date of its destruction. In 1891 the new housing in question was already completed. 184 On Sofia’s water-supply system built by Yahya paşa, see Stefan Peychev, “Water and the City: Ottoman Sofia in the Early Modern Period,” in Living with Nature and Things. Contributions to a New Social History of the Middle Islamic Periods., ed. Bethany J. Walker and Abdelkader Al Ghouz (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020), 139–57. The original endowment deed of Yahya paşa, drawn up in 1506, is not preserved. The excellent translation with detailed comments published by Elezović is based on a later copy. Elezović, Turski spomenici, 1:420–525. Another late copy is housed in VGMA, defter no. 629, sıra no. 332, s. 415-426. An addition (zeyl) to the vakfiye was drawn up in 1509, VGMA, defter no. 629, sıra no. 333, s. 426. The content of both documents was recently analyzed by Mehmet İnbaşı, “Yahya Paşa’nın Üsküp’teki Vakıfları,” Vakıflar Dergisi 53 (2020): 9–27. On İsa bey’s water conduit in Skopje and the later additions to the watersupply system of the city done by Mustafa paşa, see Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç, Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri, 372–75. 185 Ironically, a local legend attributes to İsmail bey (more precisely to his grandfather İsfendiyar bey) a decisive role in the Ottoman conquest of Plovdiv. Far from supplying water to the developing city, the ruler of Kastamonu is depicted in the legend as the person who discovered and cut the hidden water conduit. By intercepting it İsmail bey left the defenders of the stronghold dry, and shortly afterwards they surrendered the stronghold to Lala Şahin. The text of the legend is published by Kosmas Mirtilos Apostolidis, “Prevzemaneto na Plovdiv ot turcite,” Plovdivski obštinski vestnik, October 18, 1929. and Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 95–96.

150 | Ottoman Plovdiv

İsmail bey’s magnitude could have commissioned such a grand and lavishly adorned bath.186 Despite the lack of definitive documentary evidence to establish İsmail’s patronage over Çifte Hamam, in an earlier publication the author of the present book concurred with Kiel’s argument.187 However, documentary evidence subsequently discovered points to a different patron—Gazi Balaban paşa. Multiple account registers dating between 1694 and 1738 provide clear evidence that the bath was under the control of the pious endowment established by Balaban paşa. This documentation has thus finally revealed the true patronage of the double bath in Plovdiv.188 A hüccet issued by the local judge in the context of a property dispute leaves little doubt about the precise location of the bath owned by the endowment, and even provides the name commonly used by the townsfolk at that time—Çifte Hamam.189 Given that the endowment had been in possession of the most significant bath in the city as early as 1570, along with two adjacent houses, it must have received revenues from the building since its establishment.190 The identity of the benefactor is indeed consistent with Kiel’s suggestion that it must have been a figure of significant prestige. Balaban paşa emerged as one of the most esteemed commanders and governors in the first half of the fifteenth century, ascending the ladder to join the highest echelons of the Ottoman ruling elite. He emerges in the historical records in the opening decade of the 1400s, serving as the beylerbeyi of Rumeli under Prince Süleyman during the Ottoman Interregnum.191 It is likely that, during this period, he would have frequented Plovdiv, a key battleground in the contest for control among the Ottoman princes. The details of Balaban paşa’s origins remain largely unknown, save for his conversion to Islam and his status as a eunuch, factors that suggest an upbringing within the inner palace. Likely having been a manumitted slave of Çandarlı Ali paşa, the launch of Bala186 The argument is developed in detail in Kiel’s unpublished notes. Cf. Kiel, “Filibe.” Kiel. 187 Grigor Boykov, “Anatolian Emir in Rumelia: İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey’s Architectural Patronage

and Governorship of Filibe (1460s–1470s),” Bulgarian Historical Review, no. 1–2 (2013): 137–47.

188 BOA, EV.HMH.d 839, dating 1694-1696; EV.HMH.d. 920, dating 9.4.1699; EV.HMH.d 1270,

dating 1706-1707; EV.HMH.d 1423, dating 1706-1707; TSMA.d. 8763, dating 1706; TSMA.E. 35/55, dating 1712; EV.HMH.d 1457, dating 1712-1713; EV.HMH.d 1892, dating 6.3.1715; EV.HMH.d 2191, dating 1716-1717; TSMA.E. 89/4, dating 1717-1718; EV.HMH.d 2206, dating 1718; EV.HMH.d 2280, dating 1719; EV.HMH.d 2291, dating 1719; EV.HMH.d  2468, dating 1721; EV.HMH.d 2469, dating 1721; İE.EV dosya 57, gömlek 6263, dating 1721; EV.HMH.d 2660, dating 1723; EV.HMH.d 2659, dating 1724; EV.HMH.d 2385, dating 1726; EV.HMH.d 2809, dating 1727; EV.HMH.d 2810, dating 1727; EV.HMH.d 2811, dating 1727; EV.HMH.d 3008, dating 1728; EV.HMH.d 3100, dating 1732; EV.HMH.d 3101, dating 1732; EV.HMH.d 3417, dating 1733; EV.HMH.d 3523, dating 1733; EV.HMH.d 3528, dating 1733; EV.HMH.d 3699, dating 1736; EV.HMH.d 3700, dating 1736; EV.HMH.d 3777, dating 1738. 189 BOA, İE.ADL dosya 8, gömlek 506, dating 4.5.1717. 190 BOA, TD 498, f. 561. 191 For a detailed analysis of his early career, see Phokion Kotzageorgis, Reconsidering Early Ottoman Palaeography and Diplomatics. Nine Documents from the Great Meteoron Archive (1394–1434) (Hagia Meteora: Holy Monastery of Great Meteoro, 2023), 89–92.

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 151

ban’s career must be attributed to the powerful patronage of his master, a claim supported by Balaban b. Abdullah’s signature on the founding charter of Ali paşa’s Bursa endowment in June 1405.192 Evidence of Balaban paşa’s tenure as beylerbeyi of Rumeli under Emir Süleyman is found in a handful of orders issued in his name— one favoring the Monastery of Great Lavra in Mount Athos (1405),193 and two more benefiting the Great Meteora in Thessaly (1405 and 1407).194 It was also during this period that he commissioned and built a mosque and an imaret in Edirne, located on the city’s southern fringes near the later bridge of Ekmekçioğlu Ahmed paşa over the Tunca River.195 While no extant endowment deed for Balaban paşa’s Edirne complex exists, nor are there any remnants of his buildings in modern Edirne, indirect documentary evidence confirms their existence prior to 1413.196 It is plausible that these structures were commissioned between 1402 and 1411, during Balaban’s tenure as beylerbeyi, a time when his master Süleyman Çelebi also significantly invested in architectural patronage in Edirne. Balaban’s Edirne complex was funded by revenues from a village named Akpınar (mod. Sarayakpınar), located northwest of the city in the nahiye of Üsküdar.197 In 1425, following the Ottoman annexation of the principality of Menteşe, Balaban paşa was appointed as the region’s first Ottoman governor.198 In the same year, during the Ottoman blockade of Thessaloniki, Balaban, alongside Evrenosoğlu Barak bey, undertook a raid on the Kassandra peninsula, resulting in their capture by the 192 İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Çandarlı Zade Ali Paşa Vakfiyesi, 808 H./1405–1406 M.,” Belleten 5,

no. 20 (1941): 549–76.

193 The document was first published by Demetriades, “Athonite Documents and the Ottoman

Occupation,” 41–67. The content of the document was subsequently analyzed by Raúl Estangüi Gómez, Byzance face aux ottomans. Exercice du pouvoir et contrôle du territoire sous les derniers Paléologues (milieu XIVe-milieu XVe siècle) (Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2014), 306–7. He argues that the figures referenced in Balaban’s order could well have been the Serbian noblemen Vuk and George Branković and, similar to Demetriades, identifies Şahin in the document as Şihabeddin paşa. In a later study Kotzageorgis proposes a correct reading of the document and refutes the connection to both Brankovići and Şihabeddin paşa. Phokion Kotzageorgis, “An Ottoman Document from 1405 and Its Problems,” Turcica 46 (2015): 257–78. 194 Kotzageorgis, Reconsidering Early Ottoman Palaeography and Diplomatics. Nine Documents from the Great Meteoron Archive (1394–1434), 43–53. 195 Abdurrahman HibrÐ, Enîsü’ l-MüsâmirıÐn, 31; Osman Nuri Peremeci, Edirne Tarihi (Istanbul: Edirne ve Yöresi Eski Eserleri Sevenler Kurumu, 1939), 75; Ahmed BâdÐ Efendi, Riyâz-ı Beldei Edirne, 1/1: Edirne‘nin Fethi. Camiler. Mescitler. Tekkeler. Medreseler. İmaretler. Mektepler. Çarşılar. Hanlar. Hamamlar. Çeşmeler. Kilise ve Havralar. Köprüler:115; 228; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), 376. 196 Kazancıgil developed this argument based on information in the endowment deed of Şeyh Bedreddin, drawn up in 1412–13, that mentions Balaban paşa’s building. Ratip Kazancıgil, Edirne İmaretleri (İstanbul: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi, 1991), 53–54; Gökbilgin, XV.XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 199. 197 Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 224. 198 Paul Wittek, Das Fürstentum Mentesche, Studie zur Geschichte Westkleinasiens im 13.–15. Jh. (Istanbul: Universum Druckerei, 1934), 100.

152 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Venetian forces. Balaban managed to escape his incarceration in January 1427 and returned to Ottoman service.199 By the 1430s he was back in Europe, serving as the sancakbeyi of Gelibolu, a position confirmed by his mülkname issued in August 1436.200 During his tenure, he commissioned and built a Muslim college (medrese) and a large double bath in Gelibolu, neither of which survive today.201 He later endowed this bath, a long with several shops and a lump sum of cash for the maintenance to his medrese. While the endowment charter is not extant, a tax register notes its founding date as 1442–43.202 In 1439 Balaban was reassigned to Anatolia, entrusted with the oversight of the state prison in Bedevi Çardak as a vali of Tokat.203 A few years later, the veteran governor returned to the Balkans, assuming the post of sancakbeyi of Çirmen. In the autumn of 1443 he participated in the Morava battle, a devastating defeat for the Ottoman forces, and Balaban as well as other notable lords such as Evrenosoğlu İsa bey were taken captive by the crusaders.204 In early November, Balaban paşa, apparently the highest-ranking captive, was taken to Bolvan Castle for an audience with János Hunyadi, an episode described in detail in the Gazavatname of Sultan Murad, which establishes Balaban paşa as one of the anonymous author’s possible oral sources.205 It remains uncertain when Balaban was released from captivity, but it is likely that he passed away in Edirne in AH 850/1446–47, and was laid to rest in the courtyard of his mosque.206

199 Nicolae Jorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. Nach den Quellen dargestellt, vol. 1: bis 1451.

(Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1908), 402–4; Kotzageorgis, Reconsidering Early Ottoman Palaeography and Diplomatics. Nine Documents from the Great Meteoron Archive (1394–1434), 91. 200 Anonymous, Gazavât-ı Sultân Murâd b. Mehemmed Hân. İzladi ve Varna Savaşları (1443– 1444) Üzerinde Anonim Gazavâtnâme, ed. Halil İnalcık and Mevlûd Oğuz (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1978), 95. According to İnalcık the document was signed on 16 August 1436. It must be kept in the Topkapı Sarayı Arşivi, and its old shelf mark was Sinan paşa vesikalrı no. 156, but an attempt to identify the document among those brought as digital copies to BOA gave no results. The document is not included in the list in Tahsin Öz, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinde Yemen Fatihi Sinan Paşa Arşivi,” Belleten 10, no. 37–40 (1946): 171–93. 201 Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403–1451), 490–91. 202 Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 224. 203 Anonymous, Gazavât-ı Sultân Murâd b. Mehemmed Hân. İzladi ve Varna Savaşları (1443–1444) Üzerinde Anonim Gazavâtnâme, 95. 204 For details, see Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad. The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438–1444, 329–31. Hunyadi’s letters contain further information that identify the captured Balaban as an elderly pasha and governor of Çirmen. 205 Anonymous, Gazavât-ı Sultân Murâd b. Mehemmed Hân. İzladi ve Varna Savaşları (1443–1444) Üzerinde Anonim Gazavâtnâme, 10–11. For an English translation, see Imber, The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45, 49–50. See Jefferson’s convincing argument for identifying eunuch Balaban in the gazavatname as Balaban paşa, in Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad. The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438–1444, 332. 206 All sources seem to agree on Balaban’s year of death, but none indicates the origin of this information. Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmanî, ed. Nuri Akbayar, vol. 2 (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996), 1102; Rıfat Osman, Edirne Rehnüması: Edirne Şehir Klavuzu (Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi, 1994), 104; Ahmed BâdÐ Efendi, Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne: 20. Yüzyıla Kadar

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 153

Fig. 22. The double bath (Çifte Hamam)

The establishment of an exact chronology for when Balaban paşa initiated the creation and oversaw the construction of the Çifte Hamam in Plovdiv remains an intricate riddle due to the scarcity of available information. Notwithstanding the inherent ambiguity, it is clear that the bathhouse provided a steady stream of revenue, effectively contributing to the upkeep of his complex in Edirne. Considering the historical context, the suggestion that Balaban constructed the bath at the outset of the fifteenth century, during his tenure as the beylerbeyi of Rumeli, appears to be remarkably implausible. During this turbulent time, Plovdiv was a site of intense and violent contestation by the contenders for the Ottoman throne. Given this volatile atmosphere, it appears unlikely that a benefactor would willingly channel resources into the creation of a bathhouse of such richness. A more logical period to explore for the initiation of the double bath’s construction would be after the mid-1430s, an era marked by significant attempts to restore life to the damaged city through architectural patronage. Nonetheless, during this time, Balaban would likely have been involved in another substantial venture in the coastal town of Gelibolu. As such, the 1440s emerges a more plausible period for the establishment of the Plovdiv bath. During this period, Balaban paşa may have found inspiration in the contemporaneous construction of the nearby İmaret complex funded by Şihabeddin paşa, and felt encouraged to dedicate resources towards the bath in Plovdiv. One might venture that the most probable time frame falls between 1444, the year of his presumed release from captivity, and 1446–47, the time of his demise. Confronted with the Osmanlı Edirne’si, ed. Niyazi Adıgüzel and Raşit Gündoğdu, vol. 2/1: Padişahlar. Valiler. Vezirler. Şeyhülislâmlar. Kadılar. Âlimler (Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi, 2014), 1102.

154 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 12. The vicinities of Çifte Hamam

twilight of his life, this seasoned eunuch, a veteran of numerous battles and holder of high-ranking governmental posts, must have accumulated substantial wealth and prestige, rendering him capable of financing such an elegant edifice. Endeavoring to secure a consistent income for the future upkeep of his complex in Edirne, it is plausible that this respected figure saw it fitting to sponsor the construction of the double bath in the last days of his life. At first glance, the selection of the site for this substantial double bath may seem unconventional. The establishment was not nestled within the bustling commercial district, nor was it proximate to the main market thoroughfare, which one would assume garnered significant foot traffic. Likewise, the bath’s imposing dimensions seem ill-suited for a neighborhood hamam, while the absence of a comparably sized mosque in the vicinity, whose congregation might have utilized the facility, adds to the puzzle. The bath was situated in a region that apparently was not particularly active even in the nineteenth century, let alone in the nascent Ottoman cityscape of the mid-fifteenth century. Seemingly, the sole viable explanation for the benefactor’s choice of this location would hinge on the nearness of the tanneries (debbaghane), situated north of the bath, on the banks of the Maritsa (approximately the location of today’s Sts Cyril and Methodius school and the nearby church of the same name). The tanneries, owned by the endowment of Şihabeddin paşa, and presumably retaining their location throughout the Ottoman era, would have occupied the same site at the time of bath’s construction. Most likely, their establishment at this particular

Ottoman adaptations of the urban morphology | 155

site can be traced back to the first half of the fifteenth century, when it was still an outlying area. Yet the rapidly developing Ottoman city soon enveloped the tanneries, which thus became situated between the complex of Şihabeddin paşa on the west and Durbeği hoca quarter on the east. The rationale for the positioning of the grand Çifte Hamam in the mid-1440s could be connected to the needs of the prominent guild of tanners, whose profession demanded daily bathing after work. This close tie between tanneries and large public baths is evident in the spatial hierarchy of numerous Anatolian and Balkan cities. Thus, the sizable double bath, slightly detached from the bustling commercial heart, must have served a dual purpose. On the one hand, it rendered services to the residents of the surrounding quarters that emerged during the fifteenth century (Hacı Mesud, Hacı Sinan, İbn-i Rüstem, Durbeği hoca, and Debbağ hisarı), but on the other, and more critically, it delivered a vital facility to the workers in the tanneries. The earliest tax register (tahrir defteri) of the city corroborates this assumption. In 1489 the Ottoman registrar recorded twenty-nine tanners (debbag) in the city;207 twenty-one of them, i.e., three-quarters of the tanners in Plovdiv, were residents of the quarters surrounding the double bath—Durbeği hoca, Hacı Sinan, and Debbağ hisarı.

207 BOA, TD 26.

Population geography: dynamics, spatial distribution, and density Time of growth: the second half of the fifteenth century The surge of architectural patronage in mid-fifteenth-century Plovdiv mirrors its swift urban development and the corresponding growth of its Muslim population during this period. Nevertheless, the first Muslim settlers in the city must have appeared much earlier. The Ottoman chronicles, examined in previous chapters, assert that Lala Şahin, the conqueror of Plovdiv, furnished the city with a garrison, and later installed himself there. Being the administrative and military power center for the Ottoman European provinces, and the location in which the beylerbeyi often resided, Plovdiv had accommodated a Muslim community from the moment the Ottomans took control. Information about the earliest Muslim settlers in the city is indeed scant, yet there are indications that the governing authorities endeavored to promote an influx of Muslim immigrants. According to the Ottoman narrative sources, Murad I ordered Lala Şahin, his former tutor, to establish his seat of power in the city, with the express intent of revitalizing its desolate landscape. Furthermore, his son Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402) issued a sultanic decree granting full tax immunity to all Muslim clergymen, college instructors, and medrese students resident in the city. The order of Bayezid I was acknowledged by the later Ottoman rulers, who reaffirmed the will of their predecessor. The original text of the order of Bayezid I is not extant, but a copy of a sultanic decree (biti) issued by Murad II on 6 July 1425 in confirmation of Bayezid I’s will was appended to a tahrir register dating from 1525.1 As decreed in the surviving text of Murad II’s biti, it appears that 1 BOA, MAD 519. Copies of multiple imperial decrees (hükms) that probably served the adminis-

trators who prepared the register were inserted in a disorderly fashion at the front and at the back of this register. The paper on which most of the orders were written is rotten and about half of the text is missing. Nevertheless, most of the dates are preserved and from what can be deduced from the extant parts one can state that these are documents attesting tax privileges to groups of people or individual villages. Among the partially preserved documents there are several title deeds (sinurname) of the vakıfs of Fazlullah paşa and Koca Davud paşa in the Plovdiv region, and a hükm granting tax exemption to the residents of the vakıf of Gökçe Hamza, who built and maintained the important bridge over the river Strjama (Ott. Göpsu) on the road from Plovdiv to Čirpan (Ott. Çırpan) and Stara Zagora (Ott. Eski Zağra).

158 | Ottoman Plovdiv

his grandfather, Bayezid I, had earlier bestowed full tax exemption on imams, hatibs, müezzins, şeyhs, as well as instructors and students at Muslim colleges. The wording further suggests that Murad II reasserted this earlier policy of tax exclusion. A later decree (hükm) signed by Bayezid II on 8 July 1500 testifies that both he and his predecessor Mehmed II reaffirmed the tax exemption of the Muslim clergymen in Plovdiv, granted during the reign of Bayezid I, implying that by the time of the latter’s reign a certain number of Muslims were already firmly established in Plovdiv, including members of the highest social strata of the learned elite (ulema). The extant data on the earliest buildings erected since the time of Lala Şahin up until the issuance of Murad II’s decree in 1425 makes it difficult to identify who were the envisaged learned beneficiaries of these tax exemptions and which were the buildings where they performed their services. In any case, even if one does not regard the reference to Bayezid’s earlier decree as retroactively accurate or as alluding to an actual earlier situation, the document shows that by the time of Murad II such a situation existed post factum. It certainly reinforces the conclusion that Murad II was one of the most significant benefactors of the Muslim city, and that it was during his reign that major transformations took place in the urban fabric. Indeed, the establishment of an imperial palace (possibly by Murad II himself) in the outskirts of the city as it then was, the erection of the imposing congregational Muradiye mosque at the heart of the urban center, and the monumental complex of beylerbeyi Şihabeddin paşa as well as the other structures erected under his patronage, all speak to a well-coordinated building effort that catered to the needs of an already established Muslim society within the evolving Islamic city. The learned elite of the city would have surely benefited from the construction of these impressive edifices. However, the establishment of a major Muslim urban community was not a process that unfolded in a linear, steadily upward fashion from the moment of Plovdiv’s conquest. It was, rather, a transformative journey with its own inherent dynamics, and subject to the whims and vicissitudes of time. Quantifying the Muslim population in Plovdiv during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries poses a challenge due to the scarcity of data. Nevertheless, it can be surmised that a sizable Muslim community must have already existed in the city during the Interregnum period (1402–13). Constantine Kostenečki reveals that Prince Süleyman, irritated that the tax money collected from the residents of Plovdiv was being handed to Musa Çelebi, arrested some Muslim notables in the city, intending to execute them.2 While this statement confers no quantitative insights, we may reason that if, in the 1410s, Plovdiv already had resident Muslim notables, then some quantity of ordinary Muslim taxpayers also resided there in the same period. One can also safely assume that the city’s Christian community remained resident in 2 Maximilian Braun, ed., Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarević von Konstantin dem Phi-

losophen (The Hague: Mouton, 1956), 40; Dimitris Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402–1413 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007), 153.

Population geography | 159

Plovdiv, having voluntarily surrendered to the forces of Lala Şahin, and were already being taxed by the Muslim authorities. Nevertheless, with the evidence at hand, it remains a challenge to offer more precise estimates of Plovdiv’s population in the early Ottoman period. The incessant warfare during the early-fifteenth-century succession struggles must have forced many residents of Plovdiv—Muslims and Christians alike—to take refuge in safer locations. In the course of 1410 alone the city changed hands several times as the military contingents of the Ottoman princes wreaked severe destruction and harassed the local population. First, Musa’s army intercepted Vuk Lazarević and his nephew Lazar Branković in Plovdiv, capturing and subsequently executing the two Serbian noblemen.3 A month later, Süleyman appeared before the city and gave permission to his ally George Branković to set Plovdiv on fire in order to avenge his brother’s execution. When Süleyman left the city, Musa returned and seized the tax money prepared for his rival brother. Upon hearing the news, Süleyman marched back to Plovdiv, but his brother’s army was already gone. Therefore Süleyman punished the townsfolk and taxed them again. The Muslim notables whom he intended to kill were saved thanks only to a timely intervention during a feast that the prince was holding in the hamam.4 Finally, Musa returned once more, but the local notables denied him access and enclosed themselves in the inner part of the citadel. Musa therefore attacked and took Plovdiv by force, allowing his army to pillage the city. He also ordered the execution of the local metropolitan archbishop Damjan, whose dead body was thrown from the citadel walls. Süleyman’s forces returned soon afterward and Musa abandoned Plovdiv and fled once again, this time to Stenimachos/İstanimaka (mod. Asenovgrad).5 While quantifying the extent of the devastation in the initial decades of the fifteenth century remains beyond reach, it is undeniable that it significantly dampened the population trends. In the early 1430s, when de la Broquière traversed the city, the Burgundian had the impression that it was a predominantly Christian town inhabited mainly by Orthodox Bulgarians.6 In all probability there was a Muslim commu3 During the execution an unusual incident took place. A certain Aslıhan, a Turkish individual from

Plovdiv, in the service of İlyas Paşa, attempted to save the Serbian noblemen from their fate, but his efforts were in vain. In a compassionate gesture, he offered each of the Serbians an apple, which, in the absence of a priest, was meant to serve as a form of last communion. Kujo Kuev and Georgi Petkov, Săbrani săčinenija na Konstantin Kostenečki: izsledvane i tekst (Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1986), 431. While there is no additional information available about this individual, his involvement in such a pivotal moment suggests that he held a position of significance. Consequently, it is highly plausible that he could be the namesake and founder of the eponymous quarter in the western part of Plovdiv – Aslıhan bey. 4 Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, 152–53. 5 Braun, Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarević von Konstantin dem Philosophen, 40; Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, 153. 6 Bertrandon de La Brocquière, Voyage d’outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière, ed. Charles Henri Auguste Schefer (Paris: E. Leroux, 1892), 200.

160 | Ottoman Plovdiv

nity in Plovdiv at that time, but it is conceivable that the Christian residents still outnumbered the Muslims. If de la Broquière’s account holds truth, it suggests a substantial demographic transformation of Plovdiv initiated after the mid-1430s, driven by the architectural sponsorship of Murad II and Şihabeddin paşa, which redefined the urban landscape and likely aimed to entice Muslims into the city. It is very likely that while the Muslim settlers were establishing new quarters and quickly filling up the space of the “new city” in the open plain, some of the Christians were leaving the town for the nearby Stenimachos/İstanimaka, located at the foot of the Rhodope mountains.7 Furthermore, given the perpetual shortage of settlers to re-populate post-conquest Istanbul, Mehmed II mandated a forced relocation (sürgün) of Christians from Plovdiv to Istanbul in 1460, an act that inevitably must have caused a significant reduction in their population within the Thracian city.8 In the transformative era of the mid-fifteenth century, it is apparent that the demographic shifts in Plovdiv were taking place on dual fronts: while there was a pronounced outflow of Christian inhabitants, the city simultaneously witnessed a consistent influx of Muslim settlers. These dynamics undoubtedly tilted the balance of religious representation within the city, such that within a relatively short period of only two decades— from the 1430s to the 1450s—Muslims had established a substantial majority within Plovdiv. According to data presented by Halil İnalcık, in 1455 there were already 600 Muslim households in Plovdiv as against only 50 Christian ones. The author, however, did not provide a reference to the source of Plovdiv’s population statistics he quotes for 1455. If such a source indeed exists it could potentially be indispensable for the purposes of this study.9 Given the current lack of a corroborating source in either Turkish or Bulgarian archives, one should approach the rounded population figures for Plovdiv in 1455, as presented by İnalcık, with a degree of caution. Until an orig7 On Stenimachos (Asenovgrad) in the first centuries of Ottoman rule, see Hristo Hristozov,

“Demografsko i urbanistično razvitie na Asenovgrad prez XV-XVII v. (Istanimaka, Anbelianoš i Bej kjoj),” in Stenimachos-Stanimaka-Asenovgrad: Prinos kam izučavaneto na priemstvenostta i razvitieto na socialno-ikonomičeskata i duhovna istorija na grada i regiona, ed. Grigor Boykov and Damyan Borisov (Asenovgrad: Dikov, 2014), 105–56. 8 The information about this deportation is provided by Kritovoulos: “For there were many such in Adrianople, Philippopolis, Gallipoli, and Bursa and other cities, people who had been scattered through the capture of the city or still earlier and who had settled in those cities, learned men and men of the most useful kinds, men who, profiting by their abilities, had in a short time secured a competency and become wealthy. All these, then, he transferred here, giving to some of them houses, to others building lots in whatever part of the city they preferred.” Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, trans. Charles T. Riggs (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1954), 148. Cf. Heath W. Lowry, “Pushing the Stone Uphill: The Impact of Bubonic Plague on Ottoman Urban Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 23 (2003): 37; Halil İnalcık, “The Policy of Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1970 1969): 229–49, 235–38. 9 Halil İnalcık, “Bulgaria,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition) (Leiden: Brill, 2012). In private conversation with Prof. İnalcık I had multiple occasions to ask about the source of this information. He could not recall the source of this information and kindly looked for it in his private archive but to no avail.

Population geography | 161

inal source emerges to lend credence to these figures, they must be considered as an approximation, to be taken with the usual grain of salt. In any case, by the early 1470s, when the earliest register offering a glimpse into Plovdiv’s demographic makeup was compiled, the city was largely inhabited by Muslims, with a noticeably smaller Christian minority.10 According to the available data, the city had 4 Christian and 25 Muslim quarters. The swift surge in Muslim inhabitants, coupled with the rapid expansion of the urban area between the 1430s and 1470s, signifies the success of the developmental initiatives instigated by Murad II and Şihabeddin. The register records 549 Muslim and 122 Christian taxpayer households, each of whom provided 33 akçe for the support of the akınıcı troops led by Mihaloğlu Ali bey in the Ottoman campaign against the Akkoyunlu emir Uzun Hasan.11 This register, however, is not a “classical” tahrir defteri that lists most of the taxpayers, but counts only those liable for the extraordinary tax levied by Mehmed II in support of his campaign of 1473.12 Therefore, a part of Plovdiv’s population was left out of this register, and the population figures it offers are merely indicative, even the regular taxpayers being undercounted. For instance, the Muslim clergymen who enjoyed full tax exemption granted by Bayezid I are naturally excluded from this register. According to the sultanic decree upon which the registration was undertaken, Muslim and Christian bachelors were also not liable for this extraordinary tax and therefore were not registered. Despite their imperfections, the population data from 1472 offer abundant information about the city’s dramatic transformation in the preceding half-century. As previously mentioned, the city had accommodated a Muslim population since its capture by Lala Şahin’s forces, but a drastic and rapid growth appears to have trans10 Bulgarian National Library (BNL), Oriental department, PD 17/27, ff. 1r –7a. 11 The register was drawn up in December 1472. The introduction of the document (the sultanic

decree ordering its compilation and describing the specific way of registering the taxpayers who supplied the necessary funds for the raiders and the exact amount of the levy) was first published by Boris Nedkov, Osmanoturska Diplomatika i Paleografija, vol. 2 (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1972), 175–77, and more recently analyzed by Heath W. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), 52–54. For detailed information about the register and its contents, see Mariya Kiprovska, “The Military Organization of the Akıncıs in Ottoman Rumelia” (Unpublished MA Thesis, Ankara, Bilkent University, 2004); Emine Erdoğan Özünlü and Ayşe Kayapınar, 1472 ve 1560 Tarihli Akıncı Defterleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2017). With the passing of time the binding of the register was removed and the document was torn apart, hence parts of it were catalogued under different call numbers in the Sofia Archive: PD 17/27 and OAK 94/73 respectively. These two fragments, however, do not make a complete register and evidently there are more missing parts. Some pages were misplaced by the service personnel in the archive who did the modern binding of the document. 12 On Mehmed II’s campaign against Uzun Hasan, see Halil İnalcık, “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432–1481) and His Time,” Speculum 35, no. 3 (1960): 424–25; Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978), 302–68; Selâhattin Tansel, Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan Mehmedʾin Siyasî ve Askerî Faaliyeti (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1953), 311–26; Kiprovska, “The Military Organization of the Akıncıs in Ottoman Rumelia,” 35–41.

162 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 13. Confessional distribution of quarters in 1472

pired only after the conclusion of the Interregnum period. If de la Broquière’s observation from the 1430s presenting Plovdiv as a predominantly Christian city is accurate, then the influx of Muslims to the city must have been a direct outcome of the ambitious program for its revival carried out by Murad II and Şihabeddin paşa in the 1430s and 1440s. There is no reason to doubt de la Broquière’s statement about the population of Plovdiv in the 1430s. What is more difficult to explain, however, is a similar observation made by Angiolello four decades later. Marching with Mehmed II in 1476 and stopping in the city with the imperial army, he remarked that the population of this well-inhabited town consisted primarily of Christians and some Turks.13 Although an eyewitness, Angiollelo’s account is undoubtedly incorrect because it conflicts with the data from a register taken only four years before his arrival that indicates a large Muslim majority already established in the city. 13 Angiollello, Donado da Lezze, Historia Turchesca (1300–1514), ed. Ioan Ursu (Bucureşti: Carol

Göbl, 1910), 93.

Population geography | 163

The testimony of Angiolello exemplifies the potential hazards inherent in population reconstructions based on narrative accounts and travelogues, despite the fact that the author might be a credible individual providing reliable insights on other historical facts. The register of 1472 demonstrates that the Muslim settlers not only entirely filled the space between the urban core around Muradiye Camii and Şihabeddin’s complex at the northern edge, but, following the path of the new road to Edirne, they also spread their quarters to the east, surrounding the Christian quarters within and below the citadel. Moreover, a second major urban axis departed from the square of Muradiye and roughly followed the road to Peruštica and further to the heart of the Rhodopes, so directing the urban expansion westward. The small quarter of Yakub fakıh, south of the Muradiye, established prior to the registration of 1472, indicates that the urban growth continued southward, extending the axis set in the 1430s and 1440s by Murad II and Şihabeddin paşa. A bridgehead north of the river—the sizable mahalle-i Tataran (the quarter of the Tatars) is registered as early as the 1470s. The available sources contain no information as to when these Tatars settled in the fields north of the river Maritsa and established a suburb, but a later hurufat defteri gives a clue that these must have been some of the people of the tribal leader Aktav, who arrived in the area in the late 1390s. The register mentions the mosque of Aktav, which can be identified with the building standing north of the bridge known in the later period as Hoşkadem Camii.14 Aktav, serving as one of Toktamış Han’s generals, came to Rumeli in 1398 leading a considerable troop of Tatars. This group most likely founded the neighboring town of Tatarpazarı (modern-day Pazardžik). Aktav established a village, named after him (modern-day Šišmanci), situated 22 km northeast of Plovdiv, and died shortly thereafter, prior to 1402.15 If he was indeed the patron who commissioned and built the mosque in the northern suburb of Plovdiv, this structure must have been among the earliest mosques built in the city, while the community of Crimean Tatars that settled here in the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century was among the earliest Muslim settlers in Ottoman Plovdiv. The mosque building stood until the early twentieth century, when the local authorities demolished it. Completely undocumented, its minaret served more than one photographer in capturing on film the spectacular bridge over the Maritsa, but they never pointed their cameras at the building itself. 14 VGMA, D. 1180, f. 230. Cf. Habibe Kazancıoğlu, Filibe: hurûfât defterlerine göre Filibe kazasındaki

vakif müesseseleri (1719-1834) (İstanbul: Kayıhan, 2019), 63–64; Hatice Oruç, “Hurufat defterlerinin Bulgaristan tarihi için önemi: Filibe örneği,” in Bălgarija i Turcija na meždukulturnija krăstopăt: ezik, istorija, literatura (Plovdiv: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Paisij Hilendarski,” 2012), 173, who use Aktuğ Beg/Han instead of Aktav. 15 In the second half of the 16th century the village was given in full property to the Ottoman princess Mihrimah Sultan (d. 1578) and later endowed to her pious foundation. Damjan Borisov, Spravochnik za selišta v Severna Trakiya prez XVI vek. Chast I: kazite Filibe i Tatar Pazară (Asenovgrad: Dikov, 2014), 22–23.

164 | Ottoman Plovdiv

The four Christian quarters remained in the areas they had occupied prior to the Ottoman conquest, likely assimilating a substantial proportion of the extramural populace on the eve of the Ottoman invasion. The primary and largest Christian mahalle, Hisariçi, was enclosed within the confines of the ruined citadel.16 The most significant portion of the quarter was located on the two southern hills (Taksim and Džambaz), extending to the north in a narrower stretch, almost reaching the citadel’s eastern and western gates. Northeast of it was located the quarter named Pazariçi, whose name indicates that in the pre-Ottoman medieval Plovdiv the central marketplace was situated at the northeastern side of the citadel, thus pointing to the drastic discontinuity in the development of the city during the Ottoman times.17 Southeast of this quarter, forming a long stripe that stretched along the the foot of Džambaz tepe, was located the quarter named İsklopiçe. In all probability the name reflected the Bulgarian origin of its residents, as it very likely derives from the Slavic word sklopica (a sort of a wooden vessel).18 The fourth Christian quarter, Pulat (or Polat), was located below the southern slopes of the Taksim and Džambaz hills. It occupied quite a sizable territory, as the residence of the metropolitan of Plovdiv as well as the main church in the city, St. Marina, were located within this neighborhood.19 The 1472 register lists this quarter as a village (karye) and not a neighborhood (mahalle).20 This decision by the Ottoman registrar is difficult to understand, but one possible explanation could be the medieval wall that formed the quarter’s southern border. If partially still standing at the time of registration, this wall, together with the archbishop’s fenced residence, might have left an impression of a secluded separate entity, which was therefore registered as a village. Naturally, though, it might equally be a simple mistake by the Ottoman registrar, as it appears as a quarter in all subsequent registrations. The names of Christian residents in Plovdiv indicate a population with a mixed Bulgarian and Greek origin. While some Christian inhabitants must have left the city in the preceding years, the register also indicates that several taxpayers were recent migrants from the nearby villages, such as a certain unnamed priest who came 16 Hisariçi is the name of this quarter used by all later registers. In 1472 the registrar recorded the res-

17

18 19

20

idents of this quarter as “mahalle-i gerban el-ma’ruf be dahil-i ka’le” (quarter of the infidels known [to be residing] within the citadel). BNL, Oriental department, PD 17/27, ff. 6r–7a. On transformations of market space in cities under Ottoman rule, see Alexandra Yerolympos, “Typologie et mutations des quartiers de commerce traditionnel dans les villes de la Méditerranée orientale,” in Multicultural Urban Fabric and Types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Maurice Cerasi et al. (Beirut-Würzburg: Orient-Institut; Ergon Verlag, 2007), 241–63. For further comments on the names of the quarters and their possible origin, see Vidin Sukarev, “Plovdivskite mahali prez vtorata polovina na XIX vek,” Plovdivski istoričeski forum 4, no. 1 (2020): 49–78. The permission for the repair of the “metrepoli kilisesi,” i.e., metropolitan church, located in the Pulat quarter in Plovdiv, dated 28 March 1850, leaves no doubt about the exact location of the St. Marina church and Pulat mahallesi alike. BOA, A.}MKT.UM dosya 11, gömlek 72. BNL, Oriental department, PD 17/27, f. 7a. Nevertheless, in all following registrations Pulat is an integral part of the city, listed as one of its quarters.

Population geography | 165

to Plovdiv from the nearby village Saruca (mod. Caracovo). In 1472 seven priests were serving the Christian community, which is probably a sign that most medieval churches were still functioning. The registrar rarely added patronymics of the taxpayers but indicated many artisans among the Christians: there were builders, shoemakers, grocers, dyers, potters, etc., attesting to the urban origin of the more significant portion of the Christian residents in Plovdiv in 1472. The influx of Muslims and the creation of new quarters necessitated the construction of more mosques for the needs of the community. For instance, the quarter of İsmail bey occupied the space near the mosque he had built on the main market street in the mid-1460s. A few years later, in 1472, this new quarter already had a minimum of thirteen households of craftsmen and traders.21 In the later registrations, the smaller quarter of İsmail bey was integrated into the larger one named Cüneyid and disappeared from the registers. Another example of such a newly created neighborhood is that of İbn-i Rüstem, located south of the Çifte Hamam, which in 1472 also had at least thirteen households. Likewise, it grew up around a small mosque built only a few years earlier. The patron of the mosque can be identified as a certain İskender bey, son of Abdurrahman, son of Rüstem paşa, whose endowment deed was drawn up in March 1471.22 The text of the vakfiye informs us that the patron elevated to a mosque the mescid that was built earlier by his ancestor and endowed to it the revenues from several shops and houses in the city. The identity of the patron of the mescid, Rüstem paşa, and of his grandson İskender bey, the eponymous founder of the İbn-i Rüstem quarter, remains uncertain. They both must have been military commanders of some prominence under Murad II and Mehmed II, but the available sources do not reveal any further details about their careers or lives. Several other benefactors erected small mosques for the newly established Muslim quarters. One such case is the mescid in the quarter of İbn-i Kasım, located east of the citadel and the Christian quarter İsklopiçe.23 Based on the information in the work of T. Mümtaz Yaman,24 Ayverdi attributed the construction of this mosque to a grandson of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail bey—a certain Kaya bey, son of Kasım bey.25 This assumption is incorrect, however, since there are no known heirs of İsmail bey named Kasım and Kaya. Moreover, by 1472, i.e., in İsmail bey’s lifetime, the mosque and the quarter of İbn-i Kasım were already existent, which limits the possibility that the patron was a grandson of his. Although the patron was not İsmail bey’s grandson, he was still indeed directly linked to the İsfendiyaroğlu family: the Kaya bey in ques21 BNL, Oriental department, PD 17/27, f. 6a. 22 A copy of this vakfiye is extant in the Vakıflar Arşivi in Ankara, VGMA, defter no. 633, s. 88–89,

sıra no. 33, published in facsimile by M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar (İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), (299)-(301). 23 BNL, Oriental department, PD 17/27, f. 3a. The quarter had at least 45 Muslim households in 1472. 24 Talat Mümtaz Yaman, Kastamonu Târihî (Kastamonu: Ahmed İhsan Matbaası, 1935), 167. 25 Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinde Fâtih Devri, 855–886 (1451–1481) (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1973), 272; Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Avrupa’ da Osmanlı Mimâr Ð Eserleri, vol. 4: Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982), 27.

166 | Ottoman Plovdiv

tion was İsmail bey’s first cousin, the elder son of his father’s brother Kasım. Kaya bey, a prominent figure in mid-fifteenth-century Anatolia, was known for his close ties with the Ottoman dynasty, just like many of his relatives. In AH 844/1440–41 he married one of Sultan Murad II’s daughters, and acted together with his first cousin İsmail during the blockade of Constantinople in 1452.26 After the dethronement of İsmail bey in 1461, in all likelihood Kaya bey followed him to Rumeli. The letter requesting the renewal of the ahdname granted to İsmail bey, discussed above, claims that the deposed ruler of Kastamonu came to Europe together with twenty-three of his relatives, while the additional archival data testifies that some of them occupied leading military-administrative positions in the European provinces of the empire. The patron of the mosque in Plovdiv, Kaya bey, must have been one of these family members; while it is unclear whether he received any official appointment, as many of his kin indeed did, nor how long he stayed in Plovdiv, his patronage strongly implies that he was strongly associated with the city in terms of both employment and residence. The exact date when he erected the mosque in the city is also unknown, but the period can be narrowed to the decade between 1462, when he arrived with his distinguished cousin, and 1472, when according to the register’s data it already existed. In the early 1470s, Kaya bey also commissioned and built an imaret in Malkara (Ott. Mıgalkara), endowing it with the revenues from a caravanserai and a public bath in the same town, together with several shops, a watermill, etc.27 This extensive patronage very quickly attracted more settlers, and in 1475 the quarter that formed around the imaret of Kaya bey in Malkara already had more than 100 residents.28 Around the same time, Kaya bey must have also commissioned his mosque in the Western Anatolian town Balıkesir, which also formed a quarter named after him.29 The Plovdiv mosque of Kaya bey, known locally as Bey Camii/Mescidi, was a two-storied building with a pitched roof that stood until 1932. It is difficult to tell whether this was the original architectural layout of the mosque or a result of later reconstruction, but the upper floor of the mosque housed a Muslim primary school.30 While we know close to nothing about the architectural features of Kaya Bey Camii, its location can be identified with high precision—it stood on the modern square 26 Yaşar Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998),

27

28 29

30

103–4; Yaşar Yücel, “Candar-oğulları Beyliği (1439–1461),” Belleten 34, no. 135 (1970): 378–79. There are multiple marriages between the Ottoman and İsfendiyar dynasties. See M. Çağatay Uluçay, Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992). The endowment deed of Kaya bey on behalf of his imaret in Malkara is dated AH 876 (1471–72), Yücel, “Candar-oğulları Beyliği (1439–1461),” 378; Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, 1:104; Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 330. İbrahim Sezgin, “Malkara Şehri (1475–1601),” İlmî Araştırmaları 2 (1996): 119–30. A copy of the endowment deed for this mosque is kept in the Vakıflar Arşivi in Ankara, VGMA, D. 582/1, s. 125–126, published in facsimile by Sezai Sevim, “Candaroğulları Sülalesinden Kaya Bey’in Balıkesir’deki Camisi ve Vakıfları,” Vakıflar Dergisi 23 (1994): 19–24. Vasil Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto (Plovdiv: Plovdivsko arheologičesko družestvo, 1941), 222.

Population geography | 167

Aleksandăr Malinov in the eastern part of the city.31 Moreover, the building served an essential function in Ottoman Plovdiv’s urban arrangement by defining a secondary focal point in the city’s space. While İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail bey spent resources to develop areas closer to the Ottoman commercial core, commissioning a mosque, school, and a sebil, the architectural patronage of his relative Kasımoğlu Kaya bey aimed at developing the eastern outskirts of the city. The 1460s’ building of a mosque east of the citadel, whose walls were then mostly in ruins, stimulated the emergence of a new quarter named after its patron, which in 1472 was the second largest in the city by area occupied and total population.32 It is hard to determine whether, at the time Kaya bey commissioned and built his mosque, the area was entirely uninhabited, leading to a swift influx of settlers who then formed the quarter, or if it evolved as part of an ongoing process of constructing dwellings in a proto-mahalle, which the mosque helped to solidify and define. The sole assertion that can be made with a significant degree of certainty is that the selection of the mosque’s location was carried out with great deliberation, and certainly did not stem from a random decision. Firstly, Kaya bey’s mosque became the focus of six secondary thoroughfares that spread out fanlike from the small square by the mosque. One of these arteries ran north to join the old principal road to Adrianople that crossed the northern part of the city. Another street led west directly to the citadel and the former market district of the medieval town, penetrating the once-fortified area via its eastern gate.33 Another road ran straight eastward, leaving the inhabited part of the city, thus most likely leading to the city’s agricultural grounds and nearby paddy fields. Three other arteries connected the square with the southern parts of Plovdiv and directed the traffic towards the new route to Adrianople. Secondly, and arguably better evidencing the intentional choice of location, the mosque was built literally on top of the eastern gate of the Roman-era city walls. This gate was not a simple fortification, but instead formed a ceremonial complex that incorporated the triumphal arc of emperor Hadrian. It is difficult to tell what portion of the complex was still visible during the fifteenth century or whether the memory of its political function was still alive in the early Ottoman period. Yet positioning the mosque directly on top of the ruins of 31 In 1910 a madman threw himself from the minaret of the mosque and died. After the accident, the

congregation abandoned the mosque. It gradually deteriorated until it was finally demolished in 1932. Nikola Alvadžiev, Plovdivska hronika (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1971), 27. 32 In 1472 the quarter İbn-i Kasım occupied an area of 10 ha and had at least 210 residents. The total number of residents cannot be specified with greater precision because of the character of the source, which excluded some groups of taxpayers. 33 The eastern gate of medieval Plovdiv is still in situ and largely preserved, squeezed between the church of Sts Constantine and Helen and the large 19th-century house of the wealthy local merchant Argir Kujumdžioglu, today the Ethnographic museum of the city. The dating of this gate is debated, with suggestions ranging between the early Byzantine to late medieval and even Ottoman periods. For a recent overview of the literature on the fortifications of Plovdiv, proposing a dating before the 12th century for this gate, see Kamen Stanev, “The Fortification System of Medieval Philippopolis,” Contributions to Bulgarian Archaeology 22 (2022): 147–82.

168 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Map 14. The mosque of Kaya bey (Bey Mescidi) and İbn-i Kasım quarter in 1472

the triumphal complex was unlikely a mere coincidence. The inscription of Marcus Aurelius that most certainly once adorned the imposing gate of the city was incorporated as spolia in the mosque of Kaya bey and remained there until its demolition.34 If the tomb of the Candarid beylik’s deposed ruler İsmail bey was indeed placed in this mosque’s graveyard, as claimed by Uzunçarşılı, and not in the more centrally located mosque that İsmail built himself, then the memory of the ceremonial importance of the location must have still been alive for the residents of Plovdiv, and hence for the city’s new urban and administrative elite. The fact that manumitted slaves of İsmail bey were present among the taxpayers of this quarter as late as 1489 makes the connection to the prominent former emir of Kastamonu even stronger.35 34 Ivo Topalilov, “Philippopolis. The City from the 1st to the Beginning of the 7th Century,” in Roman

and Early Byzantine Cities in Bulgaria, ed. Rumen Ivanov (Sofija: Ivraj, 2012), 142.

35 Two individuals, Saruca and Karagöz, manumitted slaves of İsmail bey, are listed among the tax-

payers of the quarter İbn-i Kasım, BOA, TD 26, p. 76.

Population geography | 169

Map 15. Remains of the Late Antique ceremonial complex at the eastern gate of Plovdiv, overlaid with the location of Kaya bey’s mosque (Bey Mescidi), and the former Ottoman street pattern

Several other patrons, such as Sinan the draper (çukacı/çuhacı) or Eyne hoca, who built small neighborhood mosques at the southeastern edge of the city, are only known by name. Their mosques disappeared prior to the mid-nineteenth century, since in the course of the eighteenth or nineteenth century the territory of the quar-

170 | Ottoman Plovdiv

ters became occupied by the expanding Bulgarian population of Plovdiv, forming the so-called Tepealtı quarter.36 A certain Hacı Mesud commissioned another mescid located in the area enclosed between the citadel and the mosque of İsmail bey. Likewise, the available sources contain no information about the patron’s identity, and similarly the mosque vanished before the nineteenth century. The 1879 panoramic photograph of Cavra covered the area where the mescid must have stood, but there are no traces of it in the photo. Another benefactor who contributed to the development of Plovdiv prior to 1472 can possibly be identified. This is the patron of the small neighborhood mosque known locally as Alaca Mescid, which gave its name to the quarter around it. The mescid and the mahalle were located west of Muradiye Camii along the narrow, steep street (mod. Antim I, str.) that climbed the northern slope of Clocktower hill (Saat tepesi).37 As far as can be observed from the extant photographs, the mosque was a small and simple structure with a pitched roof, of minor importance from an architectural point of view, but probably owed its name to the rich interior decoration. The building stood until 1910, when it was pulled down to be replaced with modern housing still standing.38 In contrast to the mosque’s modest nature, its patron appears to have been a very prominent figure in the Ottoman Balkans. The benefactor’s name can be deduced from the quarter’s name, which in the 1472 register was recorded as mahalle-i Karaca bey.39 The substitution of Karaca bey’s name with Alaca Mescid occurs only in the administrative records originating from the latter half of the sixteenth century. The Karaca bey in question was none other but the renowned commander of the Ottoman forces in Rumeli under Murad II and Mehmed II, Dayı Karaca bey.40 He replaced Şihabeddin paşa in the post of beylerbeyi of Rumeli and led the Ottoman Rumeli troops at the second battle of Kosovo (1448).41 Being the governor and commander in chief of Rumeli, Karaca bey must have been a frequent visitor to Plovdiv in the period when the Muslim part of the city was still emerging. A copy of a title deed (sinurname) of the grand vizier Çandarlı Halil paşa, who in 1451 received the village of Kriçime (mod. Kričim, southwest of Plovdiv) as a mülk, mentions Karaca 36 The exact location of these mescids is unknown, therefore they are only tentatively marked on the

plan.

37 Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 217, gives the exact location where the

38 39 40 41

mosque once stood – 8 Antim I, str. A note in the hurufat defteri dated 6 July 1773, sanctioning the appointment of a certain Abdülkerim as imam of this mosque in the place of his father Mustafa halife, refers to the mosque as “Alaca mescid dimekle cami-i şerif ” (The noble mosque known as Alaca Mescid). VGMA, D. 1180, f. 237. Ali Kemal Balkanlı, Şarkî Rumeli ve Buradaki Türkler (Ankara: Elhan Kitabevi, 1986), 118. Sofia, PD 17/27, f. 2r. Karaca bey was a maternal uncle (dayı) to Murad II’s eldest son Alaeddin Ali Çelebi (d. 1443). Halil İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954), 89, 104. Dayı Karaca bey also participated in the Battle of Varna (1444), but should not be confused with his namesake Güyeğü Karaca bey, the then beylerbeyi of Anadolu, who died on the battlefield. John Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad. The Ottoman-Christian Conflict from 1438–1444 (Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2012), 2.

Population geography | 171

bey as the acting beylerbeyi of Rumeli.42 The prominent career of Karaca bey ended abruptly with his death in 1456 during the Ottoman siege of Belgrade.43 His body was transported and buried in the Anatolian town of Mihaliç (mod. Karacabey), near Bursa. Karaca bey appears to have been a prolific patron of architecture. In Mihaliç he commissioned an imposing T-shaped imaret/zaviye that was completed in late 1456 or early 1457, after his after his unexpected death.44 The floor plan of this building, including the two vaulted vestibules leading to the lateral rooms and the location of the türbe of the patron at its western side, bears such a resemblance to Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye in Plovdiv that one speculates that Karaca bey attempted to build a replica of this building but with a more elaborate portal.45 He bestowed on this building and on another imaret that he commissioned earlier in the same town the revenues from several villages in the area of Mihaliç, landed properties, shops, etc. Moreover, the revenues from two villages in Thrace that Karaca bey populated with his own slaves were also endowed to his vakıf.46 The exact date of the construction of Karaca bey’s Alaca Mescid in Plovdiv is unknown, but in any case must have happened between the mid-1440s when he took the post of beylerbeyi of Rumeli and 1456 when he was killed near Belgrade. About twenty years later, in 1472, Karaca bey quarter had at least thirty Muslim households, most of whom were craftsmen, but there were also wealthy individuals of some prominence. In 1486 one Hacı Yusuf, son of Abdullah, resident of the Karaca bey quarter, received the tax farm (mukata’a) of some of the rice fields in the area of Plovdiv that was previously held as a prebend by the beylerbeyi of Rumeli.47 It is very 42 Halil paşa’s son İbrahim paşa, who inherited the village, later bestowed it to the pious foundation

43

44

45 46 47

that he established in support of his mosque and medrese in Istanbul. Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 423–24. The sinurname of Çandarlı Halil was published by İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar, 219–23. The document was recently analyzed in detail by Damjan Borisov, “Sinurnameto na Kričim ot sredata na XV v.,” Istorija 28, no. 6 (2020): 608–30. The date and circumstances of his death are provided on the tombstone of Karaca bey; for the text of the inscription, see Franz Taeschner, “Die Werke der Familie Dai Qarağa Beg in Brussa und Mihalitsch und deren Inschriften,” Der Islam 20 (1932): 180. The text is also available in Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinde Fâtih Devri, 855–886 (1451–1481), 776. The text of the kitabe was published by Taeschner, “Die Werke der Familie Dai Qarağa Beg in Brussa und Mihalitsch und deren Inschriften,” 179 and Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinde Fâtih Devri, 855–886 (1451–1481), 776. Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinde Fâtih Devri, 855–886 (1451–1481), 771–75. Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 238–40. Gökbilgin, 133. On rice cultivation in the Ottoman Balkans, see Georg Sjaroff, Die Rosenkultur und Rosenölindustrie in Bulgarien (Bukarest: A. Baer, 1907); Nicoară Beldiceanu and Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Riziculture dans l’Empire ottoman (XIVe-XVe siècle),” Turcica 9, no. 2–10 (1978): 9–28; Halil İnalcık, “Rice Cultivation and the Çeltükçi-Re’âyâ System in the Ottoman Empire,” Turcica 14 (1982): 69–141; Aleksandar Stojanovski, Raja so specijalni zadolženija vo Makedonija: vojnuci, sokolari, orizari i solari (Skopje: Institut za nacionalna istorija, 1990); Dragana Amedoski, “Introduction of Rice Culture in the Central Balkans (15th and 16th Century),” in State and Society in the Balkans before and after Establishment of Ottoman Rule, ed. Srđan Rudić and

172 | Ottoman Plovdiv

likely that the same person earlier established the quarter named Hacı Yusuf that appeared in the register of 1472 with 21 Muslim households. In all probability, this mahalle was integrated into the more significant Karaca bey quarter, because it disappears in the following tahrir registers. The position of the mosque of Karaca bey and its neighborhood directed the spatial expansion of the urban tissue westward, stretching from the urban core near the large Muradiye mosque along the northern slopes of Clocktower hill until it reached the vast Muslim cemetery in the depression between Clocktower hill and Bunarcık hill. The parallel street (mod. Hristo G. Danov, str.), which ran north of Karaca bey’s mosque, became the second central axis of urban growth that rapidly attracted many new settlers. By 1472 the Musalla quarter, located on the extension of this street, marking the western edge of Plovdiv until the end of the Ottoman period, was already in existence. In later times the namazgâh/musalla, i.e., the open ritual space that gave the quarter its name, was replaced by the so-called Musalla Camii. This single-domed mosque stood until the end of the nineteenth or early twentieth century and can be seen in a spectacular 180-degree panorama taken by Cavra in the 1890s from Bunarcık hill.48 The striking transformation from the 1430s to the 1470s demonstrates the surge of Anatolian urban dwellers into Plovdiv, leading to the notable territorial and spatial expansion of the emergent Muslim city. While the Christian quarters remained within the confines of the citadel and its immediate environs, dozens of recently formed Muslim quarters encircled the space of medieval Plovdiv, enclosing the Christian “island” from all sides. The rapid growth of the Muslim population continued in the following decades, although the pace of the city’s spatial enlargement Selim Aslantaş (Belgrade: The Institute of History, Belgrade; Yunus Emre Enstitüsü, Belgrade, 2017), 235–56; Özlem Sert, “Environmental History of Rice Plantations in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire between 15th and 19th Centuries and Its Potential for Climate Research,” Journal of Environmental Geography 14, no. 1–2 (2021): 1–14. For additional data on the rich taxfarm of the rice fields in the region of Plovdiv, see Aleksandar Shopov, “Cities of Rice: Risiculture and Environmental Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Balkans,” Levant, 2020, 1–15; Sefan Andreev and Elena Grozdanova, “Reisanbau und Reisgewinner (çeltükçi) im mittleren und östlichen Teil des Balkans (15. bis 18.Jh.),” Bulgarian Historical Review, no. 3–4 (2003): 54–76; Mehmet Karagöz, “Filibe Kazası Rüsum Defterleri ve XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında, Filibe-Tatar Pazarı-Göbe’de Çeltik Ziraatı,” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 14, no. 2 (2004): 361–77; Mehmet Karagöz, “1193/1779 Senesi Rüsum Defterine göre Bazarcık-Tatarpazarı’nda Pirinç Üretimi,” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 14, no. 1 (2004): 275–99. 48 The mosque was located on today’s Kočo Čestimenski square. Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 218. Balkanlı states that the lead-covered mosque was commissioned by İbrahim paşa, but he specifies neither which of the multiple individuals in Ottoman history known under this name was the patron, nor the source of this information. Moreover, the building seen on Cavra’s panorama has a pitched roof, which makes Balkanlı’s remark less credible. Balkanlı, Şarkî Rumeli ve Buradaki Türkler, 114. In any case, the mosque existed in 1633, because the vakıf of Muradiye in Edirne provided the salary for its preacher. Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Edirne ve Civarındaki Bazı İmaret Tesislerinin Yıllık Muhasebe Bilançoları,” Belgeler 1, no. 2 (1964): 372. Hurufat registers indicate later repairs, and the building seen in Cavra’s photograph must be a product of very late reconstruction. Kazancıoğlu, Filibe, 92–93.

Population geography | 173

Fig. 23. Panorama of the western part of Plovdiv with 1. Musalla mosque, 2. Aslıhan bey mosque, 3. Taşköprü mosque, 4. Hacı Ömer mosque, 1880s

naturally slowed, seemingly reaching its optimal boundaries in the 1470s and 1480s. In 1472 the inhabited parts of Plovdiv occupied an area of 114 hectares; the town had more than 3365 residents distributed across 29 Muslim and Christian quarters at an average density of 29 residents per hectare.49 All four Christian quarters had far above the then-average number of residents, which bespeaks their longevity and origins in the times before the conquest. By contrast, more than half of the Muslim quarters had a population below the average for the city in 1472, four of them having fewer than 55 residents. The low number of residents and the location of two of the quarters, namely Hacı Bunarı and Musalla, at the city’s western outskirts, strongly suggest their very recent creation, and therefore the 1472 register data must represent a snapshot of an almost nascent stage of their development. The inconsistent nature of the 1472 data debars any possibility of rigorous quantitative and spatial scrutiny; however, it still provides a firm basis for juxtaposition against later tax registers. The earliest available tahrir register that includes the taxable population of Plovdiv, dating from 1489, shows that the growth had continued in the interim years.50 Although the nature of the source of 1472 does not allow any decisive conclusion 49 See Appendices 3 and 4 for a visualization of the total population and density distribution per

quarter.

50 BOA, TD 26. This document is not the standard tahrir survey of population and taxation of the

entire sancak of Paşa, which was the later practice. Instead it selectively included information about the hasses, zaemets, timars, and vakıfs in some of the kazas of Paşa sancağı. For some reason many large settlements, like the neighboring town of Tatar Pazarcık, were left out of the register. Moreover, the binding of the document was torn and a number of pages in the front and at the back of the register were lost. Undoubtedly this is not the earliest tahrir registration of the area. Its content refers to previous registrations (defter-i atik and defter-i köhne) indicating the existence of at least two previous surveys that are either now lost or the author was unable to find.

174 | Ottoman Plovdiv

on the exact magnitude of this growth, the total population of the city had clearly increased in the seventeen years between the registrations.51 In 1489 Plovdiv had about 4629 residents, establishing it as one of the largest cities of Ottoman Rumeli. It is challenging to assemble comparative data for the late-fifteenth-century towns and cities in the Ottoman Balkans, but aggregated statistics dating from several decades later are readily available and can place Plovdiv in the larger context of the Balkan Ottoman realities. A general survey of Rumeli from the 1530s, compiled for the central administration, shows that the province had 242 towns and 25,210 villages.52 Except for the very large cities such as Adrianople (Edirne) and Thessaloniki (Selânik), the rest of the provincial urban centers in the Balkans at the beginning of the sixteenth century matched Plovdiv in population or were smaller. For instance, Nikopol (Ott. Niğbolu) had 468 Muslim and 775 Christian households; Sarajevo 1024 Muslim households; Serres 671 Muslim and 357 Christian households; Skopje 630 Muslim and 200 Christian households; Bitola (Ott. Manastır) 640 Muslim and 171 Christian households; Sofia 471 Muslim and 238 Christian households.53 The urban population data presented in the studies of Barkan and Todorov may not be entirely precise, but they still provide a reasonably good estimation of Plovdiv’s size compared to other central provincial cities in the European possessions of the Ottoman Empire.54 In the period from 1472 to 1489 the number of city quarters increased by one, reaching a total of 30, while the inhabited territory also expanded. The four Christian quarters were still present, but despite the visible general growth of the city’s population, the Christians in Plovdiv saw a sharp drop from at least 122 households (about 615 residents) in 1472 to just 80 households, 5 bachelors, and 12 widows in 1489, i.e., about 417 residents.55 It is difficult to establish the reason for the decrease in the number of Christians, but part of the loss has to be attributed to religious apostasy. Thirty-eight heads of households listed in the register were recent con51 In 1480s Plovdiv was held as zeamet by Mesih paşa (d. 1501), a high-ranking Ottoman official and

52 53

54

55

commander under Bayezid II who descended from the Byzantine Palaiologoi dynasty. During his career in the Ottoman administration he took appointments as sancakbeyi, vizier, and a grand vizier of Bayezid II. In the summer of 1485 Mesih paşa was dismissed from the office of grand vizier and lowered to the rank of subaşı of Plovdiv, where he was given a zeamet, and two years later he was reassigned as beylerbeyi of Kafa. Hedda Reindl, Männer um Bayezid: Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche Sultan Bayezids II. (1481–1512) (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1983), 283. İBB, Atatürk Kitaplığı, MC. Evr. 37/7, fol. 2v. Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys,” in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle Eastt: From the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, ed. Michael A. Cook (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 163–71; Nikolaj Todorov, The Balkan City, 1400–1900 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983), 55, 64–67. In the early 16th century Plovdiv’s population surpassed 5,400 taxpayers. A more recent overview of the urban population data is presented by Yunus Uğur, “Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700),” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 18, no. 3 (2018): 16–65. BOA, TD 26, ff. 79–81.

Population geography | 175

verts to Islam and first-generation Muslims; presumably, some of them originated from Plovdiv. Religious conversion, however, cannot be the only explanation for this sudden decline of Christians, because the loss of population—especially keeping in mind that the 1472 population data is incomplete and likely undercounts the inhabitants at that time—is far greater than the number of converts indicated in the source. It is likely that the local Christian residents continued to abandon the city, relocating to nearby settlements like the neighboring town İstanimaka/Stenimachos (Asenovgrad), or Şihabeddin paşa’s large vakıf village Kuklene (mod. Kuklen), which had much larger Christian communities at that time.56 In 1530 Kuklene had a disproportionately larger Christian population compared to Plovdiv’s: 370 Christian households, 52 bachelors, and one widow, i.e., a total Christian population of about 1900 residents.57 It is not possible to state with any certainty whether the village’s abnormally large Christian community was due to an influx of Plovdiv residents, but it appears that in 1530 the village was experiencing a population overshot, because in the subsequent registrations the number of Christian inhabitants declined drastically. The absence of sources covering the village in the 1480s makes the migration hypothesis speculative. However, circumstantial evidence linking the apparent influx of population to the village and the decline in the Christian population in Plovdiv strongly supports this view. It seems that not only did the number of ordinary Christian taxpayers in the city drop in the interim, but that the clergymen almost disappeared. Out of seven priests listed in the register of 1472 only three remained resident in the city by 1489.58 In contrast to the decrease in Christian clergymen, the register lists twenty-four imams serving in the mosques of Plovdiv. The main Friday mosque in the city, the monumental Muradiye, was staffed in 1489 with a hatib, imam, two müezzins, and

56 The area of İstanimaka had multiple monasteries, including the second largest in Bulgaria, the

Bačkovo monastery. This fact might explain the reasons behind a probable migration of Christians in this direction. For a comprehensive study on the demographic history of the region and the significance of the monasteries’ network in the lives of local Christians, see Hristo Hristozov, “Demografski i etno-religiozni procesi v rajona na Asenovgrad prez XVI v.,” Istoričeski pregled 3–4 (2012): 86–131. 57 The small Muslim community in the village numbered 36 households and 7 Muslim bachelors. The revenues of the village amounted to an astonishing 65,200 akçe. Damjan Borisov, “Vakăfskata institucia v Rodopite prez XV-XVII vek” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Plovdiv, Plovdiv University, 2008), 169; Borisov, Spravochnik za selišta v Severna Trakiya prez XVI vek. Chast I: kazite Filibe i Tatar Pazară, 186–87. 58 One of the priests was registered in the Pazariçi quarter and therefore probably served in the nearby church of Sts. Constantine and Helena, BOA TD 26, f. 80. Another resided in the İsklopiçe quarter and therefore most likely was the priest of the church Ste. Petka the Old. On the history of these churches, see Nikola Alvadžiev, Starinni čerkvi v Plovdiv (Plovdiv: Letera, 2000), 37–53; 83–100. The third priest was not registered among the taxpayers of the city, as was usually the case, but he appears some fifty pages further on in the register as part of the “timar-i Süleyman voyvoda, gulâm-i İsa bey – Yorgi papas, der nefs-i Filibe” (timar of Süleyman voyvoda, slave of İsa bey – Yorgi, priest, from the city of Filibe), f. 139.

176 | Ottoman Plovdiv

a kıyyum, whose salaries were provided by the pious foundation of Murad II.59 It appears that the tax exemption granted to the Muslim clergymen by Bayezid I, which was later reaffirmed by all reigning sultans, including Bayezid II, had had the desired effect of attracting Muslim scholars and preachers to the city. The growth of regular Muslim taxpayers also seems considerable: the register lists 791 Muslim households and 107 bachelors, roughly 4212 individuals, who constituted 87% of the total population of Plovdiv at that time. The majority of the Muslim taxpayers were craftsmen and traders who must have relocated to Plovdiv mainly from the urban centers of Anatolia, but there were also individuals from other cities in the Balkans under Ottoman control, such as Semendire (mod. Smederevo), for instance.60 A community of 36 Gypsy families appeared on the eastern outskirts of Plovdiv and formed the oldest Gypsy quarter in the city, later known locally as “Adžisan maala,” a corrupted form of the original name of the nearby Hacı Hasan mahallesi. They appear for the first time in the 1489 register, but it is difficult to assert whether the Gypsy community indeed moved to the city in the period between 1472 and 1489, or was simply excluded from the earlier registration. Apart from the Gypsy quarter at the eastern edge, a new Muslim mahalle formed around the above-mentioned mescid of Çukacı Sinan on the southern outskirts of Plovdiv. The total area of the inhabited parts of the city reached 121 hectares in 1489. By providing a spatial reference to the population statistics extracted from the Ottoman tax register, it becomes possible to make closer observations concerning the spatial distribution of the residents of Plovdiv in 1489. This approach helps identify the more densely populated areas within the urban space. The total population data demonstrate that the eastern part of the city, roughly the area dominated by the mosque of Kasımoğlu Kaya bey, attracted a large portion of the Muslim population. Being a strictly residential zone, the quarters around, to the north, and to the south of this mosque (Bahşayiş Ağa, İbn-i Kasım, and Eyne hoca) must have offered the Muslim settlers of the second half of the fifteenth century the opportunity to acquire land and build housing at very moderate prices. Unfortunately, there is no documentary evidence that allows us to track transactions in land acquisition, nor do we have a cadaster that can shed light on the actual size of the parcels in this residential area. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the population totals and density per quarter in the fifteenth century clearly indicates that individual parcels during that period were quite sizable. These parcels likely comprised one-family dwellings with large courtyards around them, which would have been cultivated to provide for the needs of the residing family. All three quarters were among the top ten most populated in the city, each having a total population above 267 residents. Simultaneously, however, they were among the largest in terms of the occupied area, Bahşayiş Ağa (12.8 ha), 59 Barkan, “Edirne ve Civarındaki Bazı İmaret Tesislerinin Yıllık Muhasebe Bilançoları,” 372. 60 BOA, TD 26, f. 68. A certain Yusuf Semendirelü, who was a resident in the centrally located

mahalle of Haraççı Hamza Bali.

Population geography | 177

and İbn-i Kasım (10 ha) being the largest in the city as it then stood: hence the very low population density in these quarters—21 per/ha in Bahşayiş Ağa and 23 per/ha in İbn-i Kasım. If one were to venture a speculative estimate of the size of parcels in these quarters, using a simple arithmetic average, it is likely that Muslim families in this part of the city owned plots ranging between 2.4 and 2.5 decares on average. This approach comes with inherent uncertainties, of course, and the actual sizes of the parcels certainly have varied. These large plots in the eastern residential part contrast with the average parcel size for the city as a whole, which in 1489 must have been a maximum of 1.5 decares. The discontinuous urban fabric of Plovdiv, allowing the existence of large private plots, bespeaks its relatively recent creation. Unfortunately, the absence of contemporary data on other cities under Ottoman rule in the Balkans currently makes it impossible to provide a comparative context for the data on Plovdiv. Still, the much higher population density of some of the quarters at the western foot of the former citadel, such as İdris hoca (183 per/ha) and İbn-i Rüstem (146 per/ha), and the much smaller average plot size, ranging between 277 and 352 m2, suggest that these were older quarters. In fact, as stated above, these neighborhoods are likely to have been situated in the area where the first Muslim colonists in the city settled, where the buildings of Lala Şahin once stood, and which were mentioned in the context of the struggles for the Ottoman throne between Musa and his brother Süleyman. A later berat for the appointment of an imam reveals that the patron of the İdris hoca quarter was one of the tutors of Sultan Mehmed II, which confirms the relatively early establishment of these quarters.61 The newly appointed imam received a salary from the surplus of the pious endowment of Şihabeddin paşa, which strongly suggests that the mosque of İdris hoca might be identical to the so-called Tahtakale Camii, discussed in detail above. (See Appendices 5 and 6) The scarcity of reliable data about the average population density in the cities of the Balkans during the first centuries of Ottoman rule also leaves Plovdiv’s data somewhat isolated. Writing about Tărnovo, the medieval capital of Bulgaria, Machiel Kiel suggested a population density before the Ottoman conquest of 130–150 inhabitants per hectare.62 Without the benefit of a reference, it is unclear what data this assumption rests upon, but these figures seem far more suitable for cities in Western Europe than for the Byzantino-Slavic regions in the Balkans and Asia Minor. The fact that the population density figures used by Kiel are grossly inflated is evident from the estimates presented in the sole study to date that focuses on the space and population structure of the cities in the period of transition between Byzantine and Otto61 BOA, C.EV. dosya 560, gömlek 28268 from 24.9.1756. 62 Machiel Kiel, “Tırnova,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet

Vakfı, 2012). Kotzageorgis tacitly accepts the same average density in his recent study on Adrianople. Φωκίων Κοτζαγεώργης, Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη. Επτά περιπτώσεις από τον νοτιοβαλκανικό χώρο, Αδριανούπολη – Σέρρες – Καστοριά – Τρίκαλα – Λάρισα – Θεσσαλονίκη – Ιωάννινα (Αθήνα: Βιβλιόραμα, 2019), 69.

178 | Ottoman Plovdiv

man rule: Anthony Bryer estimated a density of 40 residents per hectare for Istanbul in 1477 and 37 per hectare for Thessaloniki in 1478.63 Yet the exceptional size and level of development of these cities make them unsuitable for direct comparison with Plovdiv’s 1489 population densities. The differences in scale, urban structure, and historical context between these large cities and Plovdiv might lead to misleading conclusions if we were to compare their population densities directly.64 Instead, the city that corresponds best to Plovdiv, both in terms of occupied area and the total population, is Trebizond (Trabzon).65 The studies by Bryer and Lowry show that Trebizond had an inhabited area of 114 hectares, against the 121 inhabited hectares of Plovdiv, and a density of about 35 residents per hectare in 1438, which increased to 60 in 1486.66 The average density of Plovdiv’s population in 1489 was 38 residents per hectare, which fits well into the picture of a town recently mass-populated due to an influx of Muslims after the 1430s. Taken as a whole, the urban tissue of Plovdiv retained its discontinuous character throughout the entire Ottoman period, barely surpassing a density of 41 individuals per hectare towards the end of the sixteenth century. Despite the lack of proper cadastral data, it can be confidently stated that Ottoman cities in the Balkan–Anatolian realm offered several times more living space to their inhabitants when compared to their western counterparts.67 Even when transferred to the east, the western urban model of densely built-in tissue prevailed, which can be best observed by the striking contrast between Istanbul and the Genoese colony Galata. While the density of the historical peninsula in 1477 was 40 persons per hectare, the population density of Galata was five times higher, above 200 people per hectare.68 In light of this evidence, the densities proposed by Kiel for the late-medieval and early Ottoman periods must be lowered significantly to reach a more realistic level. 63 Anthony Bryer, “The Structure of the Late Byzantine Town: Diokismos and the Mesoi,” in Con-

64

65 66 67

68

tinuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, ed. Anthony Bryer and Heath W. Lowry (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986), 270–71. Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital (University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009); Heath W. Lowry, “Portrait of a City: The Population and Topography of Ottoman Selanik (Thessaloniki) in the Year 1478,” in Studies in Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, by Heath W. Lowry (Istanbul: Isis, 1992), 65–100. Heath W. Lowry, The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461–1583 (İstanbul: Isis Press, 2009). Bryer, “The Structure of the Late Byzantine Town: Diokismos and the Mesoi,” 270; Lowry, The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461–1583, 27–58. The late-15th-century population density of Kavala was 28 per hectare. Bryer, “The Structure of the Late Byzantine Town: Diokismos and the Mesoi,” 270; Velika Ivkovska, An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans: The Case Study of Kavala (Abingdon-New York: Routledge, 2020), 50–53. Nur Akın, “La fabrique urbaine et architecturale de Galata, quartier occidental d’Istanbul,” in Multicultural urban fabric and types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Maurice Cerasi (Beirut-Würzburg: Orient-Institut; Ergon Verlag in Kommission, 2007), 13–26.

Population geography | 179

Naturally, this does not mean that individual quarters were not more densely inhabited, reaching levels close to the cities of Central and Western Europe; nevertheless, the overall population distribution in the average Balkan and Central and Western Anatolian cities was much looser, corresponding to the different urban fabric of these cities. Apart from strict population data, the register of 1489 is exceptionally rich in information on the occupations of the Muslim residents in the town. The Ottoman registrar often listed the taxpayers with their professions instead of patronymics, which was the more common practice. He kept a record of more than a hundred different kinds of crafts and trades, of which the most numerous were shoemakers, tailors, tanners, grocers, saddlers, etc.69 The Ottoman city also had many goldsmiths, perfumers, soap-makers, arms producers, and indeed a good number of cooks, bakers, börekçis, and even sellers of sweets and drinks like şerbetçis, ma’cuncus, or lokmacıs. Being an important administrative and political center, the city naturally attracted different Ottoman officials, like two deputy judges (naib) who were probably expecting an appointment, scribes, secretaries of a judicial court (muhzır), superintendents, and even an akıncı officer (tovice). The occupations of 603 individuals are recorded in the 1489 register, which is indeed extraordinary; nevertheless, an analysis of the PST occupational structure of Plovdiv’s population is not attempted in this study due to the incomplete nature of the data, lacking occupational information on close to one-third of the taxpayers. Some spatial patterns of the distribution of the occupations in 1489 can nevertheless be detected. Similarly to the previous registration, virtually all registered tanners resided in the four quarters near the city tanneries and the massive double bath—Hacı Sinan, Debbağ hisarı, Durbeği hoca, and Keçeci İnebeği. Most of the butchers lived in the Tataran quarter, located north of the Maritsa, and a significant number of the bakers resided in the centrally located and densely inhabited mahalle of İdris hoca, obviously serving the nearby commercial district. The archival data from the 1470s and 1480s thus present Plovdiv as a developed city that in magnitude rivaled any of the provincial centers of the European and Anatolian domains of the empire. The rapid spatial and population growth in the second half of the fifteenth century was encouraged and perhaps even to some extent controlled by Murad II and Mehmed II and several high-ranking officials—Şihabeddin paşa, İsmail bey, Kaya bey, to name but a few—whose patronage of Islamic science and architecture reshaped the declining late-medieval city into a thriving Muslim center that appeared attractive not only to merchants and artisans but also to Muslim scholars and artists. In the 1440s Şihabeddin paşa built one of the largest medreses in the Balkans outside Edirne, and his patronage attracted Muslim scholars to the 69 Lists of the craftsmen in Plovdiv in the 15th and 16th centuries, extracted from the data in the tahrir

registers, are available in Nurullah Karta, “XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Filibe Şehrinde İktisadi Hayat ve Meslek Grupları,” Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8, no. 2 (2006): 145–73; Nurullah Karta, “XVI. Yüzyılda Filibe Kazası” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2005).

180 | Ottoman Plovdiv

town. The elevation of Plovdiv into an important intellectual center in Rumeli, however, was assisted not only by the multiple primary schools (mektebs) built in the city, but also by the construction of another medrese towards the end of the fifteenth century, which equaled that of Şihabeddin paşa in both rank and magnitude . Data concerning this medrese is scarce. Since the building disappeared prior to the nineteenth century, there is no information either about its architectural features or about its exact location. While describing the public buildings of Plovdiv in his travelogue, Evliya Çelebi did not list all of the medreses in the city, but remarked that from among them those of Şihabeddin paşa and Karagöz paşa were the most important, thus providing the name of the patron of the second large Muslim college in Plovdiv.70 Cahit Baltacı identified him as Karagöz Mehmed paşa, one of the prominent figures from the first years of the reign of Bayezid II.71 In the period 1482–83 he occupied the post of sancakbeyi of Sivas and played a decisive role in the struggle between Bayezid II and his brother Cem Sultan by seizing the castle of Ankara.72 Later, Karagöz Mehmed paşa was appointed beylerbeyi of the province of Karaman and actively participated in the warfare against the Mamluks in the mid-1480s.73 The failure to hold the region of Çukurova finally led to his execution in May/June 1486.74 The death of Karagöz Mehmed paşa in 1486 establishes a firm date before which he must have commissioned the medrese in Plovdiv. His connection to the city is still unclear, but he does indeed seem to have been the patron of the Muslim college there. Nevi’zade Ataullah (‘Ata’i) specifies that in 1557/1558, this medrese equaled in rank the college of Şihabeddin paşa, offering a daily salary of forty akçes to the instructors there.75 Documentary sources also establish that in the mid-sixteenth century, Çalık Yakub Efendi was a müderris in Karagöz paşa’s medrese in Plovdiv, receiving a salary of forty akçes.76 It is not known when this medrese disappeared, but it is likely that it was closed soon after Evliya’s visit to the city. A seventeenth-century ruznamçe register of

70 “ve cumle (---) added medrese-i dârü’l-ulûmdur. Evvelâ medrese-i Karagöz paşa, medrese-i

Şehâbeddîn paşa.” Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 217.

71 Baltacı, XV-XVI asırlar Osmanlı medreseleri, 139. Săbev, Osmanskite učilišta v bălgarskite zemi XV-

72

73 74

75 76

XVIII v., 224, considers that the patron was the janissary sekbanbaşı Karagöz Ağa, who died in 1511. The title paşa, given in the 15th century to the sancakbeyis and beylerbeyis, makes Baltacı’s hypothesis more sustainable. Reindl, Männer um Bayezid: Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche Sultan Bayezids II. (1481– 1512), 262; Halil İnalcık, “Djem,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition), n.d.; Selâhattin Tansel, Sultan II. Bâyezit’ in Siyasî Hayatı (İstanbul: MEB Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü, 1966), 39. Tansel, Sultan II. Bâyezit’ in Siyasî Hayatı, 99–103. Reindl, Männer um Bayezid: Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche Sultan Bayezids II (1481– 1512), 266; Tansel, Sultan II. Bâyezit’ in siyasî hayatı, 102–3; Mehmed Sürreyya, Sicill-i Osmani Yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, vol. 4 (İstanbul: Matba’a-i Amire, 1311), 109, gives a later date of his death, 1488. Nev’izâde Atâî, Hadâ’ iku’ l-Hakâ’ ik fî Tekmileti’ş-Şakâ’ ik: Nev’ îzâde Atâyî’nin Şakâ’ ik Zeyli, ed. Suat Donuk, vol. 1 (Istanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2017), 485. Baltacı, XV-XVI Asırlar Osmanlı Medreseleri, 139.

Population geography | 181

the Muslim colleges in Rumeli does not list the medrese of Karagöz paşa, which indicates that by then it was probably already shut.77 The trend of intensive growth attested by population data from the Ottoman taxation registers of the second half of the fifteenth century bespeaks a well-established urban morphology. The efforts to rapidly develop the city after the 1430s facilitated the formation of the basic urban tissue, which remained almost unchanged throughout the entire Ottoman period. Although the city quarters and monumental public buildings—religious, commercial, and educational—continued to expand during the sixteenth century, it is the second half of the fifteenth century that seems to have been decisive. During this time, both the street arrangements and central nodes of the Muslim city were determined, an outcome of the confluence of the spatial prevalence of the Muslim populace and the constructive efforts to cater for community needs while also facilitating expansion along the principal axes in a relatively orderly fashion.

Towards a population peak in the sixteenth century The earliest preserved “classical” tahrir register of Paşa sancağı was prepared under sultan Selim I (r. 1512–20), most likely in 1516.78 The population data from this register present Plovdiv as a prosperous, predominantly Muslim city with a population of about 5402 taxpayers.79 The inhabited part of the urban fabric expanded to 131 hectares by enlarging itself with two new quarters at Karşıyaka, the northern bridgehead. The average population density of the city in 1516 also increased, reaching 41 residents per hectare. The Christian community remained stable, showing a slight increase, but the Muslim population continued to expand rapidly. The register of 1516 lists the heads of 877 Muslim households, which equates to a ten percent growth in the three decades between the registrations. The 1516 register records an unusually large number of Muslim bachelors in Plovdiv (25% of the entire Muslim population), which in this period was more common for the Anatolian provinces, where the Muslim population was exploding, and seems less common for the Balkans.80 In this respect, most Muslim bachelors in Plovdiv were probably immigrants from Anatolia who had come to Rumeli seeking better fortune. This extraordinary situation did not last long, however, because nine years later, when the next register 77 The document lists the following medreses in Plovdiv: the medrese of Şihabeddin paşa (with a

müderris’s daily salary of 40 akçes) and the medrese of Seyyid Ali Fakıh (with salary of 25 akçes), see M. Kemal Özergin, “Eski Bir Rûznâme’ye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri,” Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 4–5 (1974): 284. 78 BOA, TD 77. This register is dated by researchers within a broad time frame, from the 1510s to the late 1520s. I find most convincing the date 1516 that was suggested by Gökbilgin. A note on page 733 provides the date 17 Muharrem 922 (21 February 1516). This is the earliest date that appears in the register, thus making Gökbilgin’s suggestion very plausible. 79 BOA, TD 77, ff. 543–60. 80 Michael Cook, Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia, 1450–1600 (London: Oxford Universty Press, 1972), 27–29.

182 | Ottoman Plovdiv

of the area was drawn up, half of these bachelors had disappeared, probably due to migration further west. The general growth of the Muslim population between the registrations of 1489 and 1516 must have also been, at least partially, a consequence of an influx from other locations. The increase that, at first glance, might be attributed to the natural growth of the Muslim community in the city was instead a result of the arrival of many new residents. Twenty-eight percent (250 individuals) of the Muslim heads of household in Plovdiv in 1516 were converts to Islam, a number that significantly exceeds the total endogenous Muslim growth in the period. Stated differently, it appears that the converts to Islam accounted for the entire Muslim population growth and compensated for the loss of Turkish residents in the period 1489–1516. The meager percentage of first-generation converts to Islam in the register from 1489 (only 4.8%) testifies that a significant part of the Muslim population of Plovdiv comprised ethnic Turks who came from Asia Minor. The situation in 1516 differed significantly, with more than a quarter of the Muslims in the city being Christian-born converts to Islam. These were, in all probability, people from the surrounding region who had left the overpopulated mountains that enclosed the plain of Upper Thrace. For instance, the high valley of Razlog, squeezed between the Rhodopes, Rila, and Pirin mountains, experienced a severe surplus of population that was constantly pushed out to the lower lands of Upper or Aegean Thrace.81 The combination of migration and religious conversion in the course of the sixteenth century led to the gradual Islamization of several other regions in the Western Rhodopes.82 Many of the migrants who came to Plovdiv before 1516 were those converts to Islam who had left the overpopulated mountains searching for better life opportunities and easier integration within the Upper and Aegean Thracian cities. Another significant change in the urban ethnic composition was the arrival of a community of Sephardic Jews in the years after 1492, who probably reached Plovdiv by way of Thessaloniki.83 The Jewish presence was not entirely new to the city, since there had been a Jewish community in Philippopolis since Antiquity. However, the extant sources and archaeological materials do not contain any specific data about Jews in the city on the eve of the Ottoman conquest. Yet Plovdiv must have had a Jewish community because, after the conquest of Constantinople in 1455, Mehmed II deported a group of thirty Jewish families from Plovdiv and settled them

81 Grigor Boykov, “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina v uslovijata na osmanska vlast (XVI-XIX v.),” in

Razlog: istorija, pamet, tradicii, ed. Aleksandăr Grebenarov (Blagoevgrad: Irin-Pirin, 2009), 53–78.

82 Hristo Hristozov, “Overcrowding the Mountains in the Ottoman Balkans. Social and Ecological

Dimensions of the Demographic Crisis in the District (Kaza) of Nevrokop during the 15th to the Early 18th Centuries,” Südost-Forschungen 78, no. 1 (2019): 39–67. 83 Lowry, “Portrait of a City: The Population and Topography of Ottoman Selanik (Thessaloniki) in the Year 1478”; Minna Rozen, Facing the Sea: The Jews of Salonika in the Ottoman Era (1430–1920) (Afula, 2011), http://www.minnarozen.co.il; Philipp Ther, The Outsiders: Refugees in Europe since 1492 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), 22–28.

Population geography | 183

in the new capital.84 The Jews deported from Plovdiv were settled in Top Yıkığı quarter, and those from Jambol (Ott. Yanbolu) and Kastoria (Ott. Kesriye) were installed near the Palace of Blachernae.85 Other groups from various cities in the Balkans, such as Ioannina (Ott. Yanina), Trikala (Ott. Tırhala), Lamia (Ott. İzdin), Štip (Ott. İştib), Kratovo (Ott. Kıratova), Prilep (Ott. Pirlepe), Loveč (Ott. Lofça), Nikopol (Ott. Niğbolu), and Sofia, were settled in Balat and other quarters.86 Indeed Mehmed II must have deported virtually all Jews residing in Plovdiv because the registers of 1472 and 1489 contain no data for the Jewish population residing in the city. At the end of the fifteenth century, after an interruption of about half a century, the Jewish community of Plovdiv was reestablished. There is no information on where the old, deported Jewish population resided before the mid-fifteenth century, but the register from 1516 lists 32 Jewish households who settled at the city’s western edge and formed a quarter on their own.87 The Jews occupied an empty area north of the slopes of the Bunarcık hill, squeezed between the larger Muslim quarters Aslıhan bey and Musalla, and remained in residence there throughout the Ottoman period. There is no explicit information about the existence of a synagogue in the first centuries of Ottoman rule in Plovdiv, as the present building only dates from the 1880s and reflects a later expansion to the north of the Jewish community in the city.88 The data in the defter of 1516 indicates that the spatial extension of the city continued, as three new neighborhoods appeared after the registration of 1489. The mahalle of Koca Hüseyin filled up the last available territory on the eastern slopes of Nevbet tepesi and the ruined citadel. In 1516 the quarter must have been very recent, since it was explicitly noted in the register as a new one.89 In all probability, it was formed around a new small mosque, of an unidentified benefactor, that in later times was locally known as the mosque of the chained well (Zincirli bunar Camii). The other new quarters, Korucu and Köprübaşı, originated from the large mahalle named Tataran and completed the suburb north of the river, known as Karşıyaka (mod. Karšjaka). Four residents of the northern suburb of Plovdiv were listed in a separate entry in the register indicating that they were tax-exempt for rendering services at the imperial camel stables.90 The stables were located in the open plain north of the city and were of high strategic importance for the Ottoman army. The vast open space north 84 Halil İnalcık, “İstanbul,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition) (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Halil

85 86 87 88 89 90

İnalcık, “Jews in the Ottoman Economy and Finances 1450–1500,” in The Islamic World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis, ed. Clifford Edmund Bosworth (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, 1989), 513. Halil İnalcık, The Survey of Istanbul 1455: The Text, English Translation, Analysis of the Text, Documents (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2012), 295–98; 328–34. İnalcık, passim; 440-444. BOA, TD 77, f. 559. The synagogue built in 1886–87 stands in good condition at 9 Tsar Kaloyan Str. BOA, TD 77, f. 552. BOA, TD, 77, f. 555: “deve ahurına hizmet ederler bunlardır ki avarızdan eminler imiş” (these individuals render services to the stables for camels, for which they are tax-exempt).

184 | Ottoman Plovdiv

of the city was one of the principal gathering points for the imperial army on campaign toward the western Balkans and Central Europe. Thus, the availability of camels, the primary vehicle of the Ottoman army, was of extreme importance for any military campaign.91 The date of construction of the sultanic camel stables is uncertain, but likely happened during the reign of Mehmed II or possibly even earlier because in the late 1480s they already needed repair.92 Many western travelers who crossed Plovdiv mentioned the large stables near the bridge of Lala Şahin on the northern bank of the river.93 Catharin Zen, the Venetian ambassador to Süleyman I, who visited the city in 1550, stated that the large stables for horses and camels were built by the grand vizier İbrahim paşa (d. 1536), which indicates a possible reconstruction in the first half of the sixteenth century, financed by the grand vizier.94 The exact date of this reconstruction, and possibly substantial extension, is unknown, but in any case must have happened in the late 1520s. In October 1530, when the Austrian envoy Benedict Curipeschitz crossed Plovdiv, he witnessed the stone-built stables on the city’s northern edge capable of housing eight hundred horses, which he likewise attributed to İbrahim paşa.95 A closer look at the register’s data on individuals affords some general observations on the residents’ professions and occupations. The increasing number of Muslim clergymen is noteworthy. The tax exemptions recognized and reaffirmed by all sultans attracted more learned men in the years between the registrations. In 1516 Plovdiv had at least three Friday preachers (hatib), 36 imams, and 23 müezzins who staffed the mosques and the mescids of the city. Moreover, among the taxpayers, one finds several dervishes, who probably refused property ownership and were marked in the registrar as being in a state of poverty (fakirü’ l-hal) and thus not liable to avarız and other extraordinary levies.96 The locations of the zaviyes and the tekkes 91 On the usage and the importance of camels in the Ottoman army, which had higher carrying

92 93

94

95 96

capacity than horses or mules, see Suraiya Faroqhi, “Camels, Wagons, and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 14, no. 4 (1982): 523–39; Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare 1500–1700 (London: University College London Press, 1999), 70–83; Halil İnalcık and Donald Quataert, eds., An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 39. The repair of the camel stables (ıstabl-i şuturan) was initiated in 1486 together with the repair of the bridge over the river Maritsa, mentioned above. İBK, MC O. 91, ff. 261r–262a. A number of these reports are summarized in Bistra Cvetkova, “Materiali za selištata i stroitelstvoto v bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVI v.,” Izvestija na Instituta po gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura 7–8 (1975): 490–95. “…Et questa citta ha timor del bassà, che è vezil et Abraim bassà, al tempo, che lui fù edificò qui grande stanze per alloggiar cavalli et camelli, che haveva qui in abbondantia, come hoggi de li ha Rusten bassà, che è vezil…,” in Petar Matković, “Dva talijanska putopisa po balkanskom poluotku iz XVI. vieka: Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catharin Zen ambassador straordinario a Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno & Descizione del viaggio per terra di Constantinopoli e dalle cose principali del paese,” Starine 10 (1878): 213. Mihail Jonov, Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Nemski i avstrijski pătepisi za Balkanite XV-XVI v. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1979), 147. For instance there was one “Hasan derviş, fakirü’ l-hal.” BOA, TD 77, f. 543.

Population geography | 185

of these dervishes are uncertain, but the register offers information about the names of some patrons of these convents. For instance, the resident of Aslıhan bey quarter, Muhiddin Halife, was a şeyh at the zaviye of Şemseddin Halife.97 There is no information about the patron’s identity, nor did the convent keep its name because, in the following register, it already appears as the zaviye of Emir Halife. A certain Mustafa, son of İsa Halife, resident in Haraççı Hamza Bali quarter, was also a şeyh of an unnamed convent. The fairly central location of this quarter, which had three mescids,98 must have made it one of the preferred residential places for the urban Muslim elite. As well as the already mentioned şeyh, the imams of the mescids of Hacı Davud, Aslıhan bey, and Çarşu, the superintendent of the imaret of Şihabeddin paşa, and the emin-i çeltük of Tavuslu also resided in this quarter. To this list one can add a certain Tursun, a relative of a kadıasker, and Ali, son of the kadı in the quarters of Musalla and Hacı Ahmed.99 Two architectural monuments that later turned into significant landmarks of the urban landscape were, in all probability, also commissioned and built between the registrations, at the turn of the fifteenth or in the first years of the sixteenth century. These are the mosque and bath of Hacı Hasanzade and the so-called Yeşiloğlu mosque, which had the tallest minaret of all the Plovdiv mosques. The mosque of Hacı Hasanzade was located to the east of the former citadel, lying on the old road to Edirne, in the large residential quarter Bahşayiş Ağa. The patron and founder of this quarter is entirely unknown, although he must have been a person of some prominence during Mehmed II’s reign or even earlier. In any case, his quarter was in existence by 1472, when it appears in the register with approximately 120 residents; it must therefore have been established earlier, probably due to the general expansion of urban fabric and the influx of Anatolian Muslim settlers after the 1430s. Later documents attest that Bahşayiş Ağa had a mosque in the quarter and established a pious endowment, but virtually nothing is known about either the mosque or the endowment.100 His son İlyas bey is better known for his zaviye and hamam built in 1486 in a Bithynian village close to Yarhisar, which might be indicative of the possible origin of the family.101 In 1455 İlyas bey appears in the sources as the sancakbeyi of the for97 BOA TD 77, f. 547. 98 BOA, TD 77, f. 543: “mahalle-i Haraççı Hamza Bali – bu mahallenin üç mescidi var” (quarter of

Haraççı Hamza Bali – this quarter has three small mosques).

99 BOA, TD 77, ff. 454–55. 100 BOA, A.}MKT.UM dosya 341, gömlek 41 (from 7.1.1859); BOA, HAT dosya 1610, gömlek 41

from 28.11.1837 deals with the appointment of a certain Doyranlı Mehmed b. Mahmud Halife as imam in Bahşayiş Ağa Camii. Kazancıoğlu, Filibe, 68. 101 The endowment deed of the complex of İlyas bey, son of Bahşayiş ağa, in Gölcük (mod. İlyasbey), Bilecik region, is kept in the Topkapı archive, BOA, TSMA.d. 7092 dating from 10.7.1492. Kepecioğlu, who first wrote about İlyas bey, claimed that he was the sancakbeyi of Avlonya, Kâmil Kepecioğlu, “Bursada Şer’i Mahkeme Sicillerinden ve Muhtelif Arşiv Kayıtlarından Toplanan Tarihi Bilgiler ve Vesikalar,” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942): 405–17. Despite İnalcık having demonstrated early on that this claim is undoubtedly incorrect (Halil İnalcık, Hicrî 835 tarihli Sûret-i

186 | Ottoman Plovdiv

mer Brankovići lands in Kosovo, the so-called vilâyet-i Vılk, along with his brother Mehmed bey, who served as a subaşı of Lab (Llap).102 The Plovdiv register from 1489 records four brothers in the service of İlyas bey residing in the neighboring İbn-i Kasım quarter who were exempt from the payment of extraordinary levies for their services rendered.103 Being territorially the largest quarter of Plovdiv, Bahşayiş Ağa mahallesi was probably in need of another mosque for its growing congregation, and therefore in the period between the end of the fifteenth and the early sixteenth century Hacı Hasanzade made his investment in this part of the city. Unlike many other Ottoman monuments that were knocked down soon after Bulgarian independence, the so-called Hacı Hasan Camii stood until rather recently. The local authorities only demolished it in 1971, which gave Machiel Kiel a chance to visit and examine the abandoned building in 1967.104 A simple mahalle mescidi, it had been considerably enlarged in the nineteenth century by integrating the antechamber into the main building. On its left side, the mosque had a low minaret, the square base of which was built of large stone blocks of antique spolia.105 The original part of the building was made of irregular cloisonné and covered with a pitched roof.106 From its architectural features, Kiel concluded that the mosque had been built in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. The closest architectural parallel to Hacı Hasan Camii in Plovdiv, according to Kiel, is the mosque of the grand vizier Atik Ali paşa within the walled part of Edirne, built in 1506.107 About 100 meters west of the mosque, the patron commissioned and built a public bath known locally by the name of Kadıasker Hamamı.108 The name of the bath allowed Kiel to positively defter-i sancak-i Arvanid (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1954), xii), it was reproduced in all subsequent publications that examined İlyas bey and his architectural patronage in Bithynia. Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinde Fâtih Devri, 855–886 (1451–1481), 289–91; Ara Altun, “Yarhisar, İlyas Bey Köyü Camisi ve Hamamı için Kısa Notlar,” [İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi] Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı 9–10 (1979–1980) (1981): 29–52; Refet Y Înanç, “Söğüt Vakıfları,” Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies 22 (2011): 55–70; Semavi Ey Îce, “İlyas Bey Camii,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2000); Gizem Kuçak Toprak, “İlyasbey/Yarhisar Köyü’nün (Bilecik) Değerleri ve Kırsal Mimari Özellikleri,” Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5, no. 2 (2020): 309–41. 102 Hamid Hadžibegić, Adem Handžić, and Ešref Kovačević, Oblast Brankovića: opširni katastarski popis iz 1455. godine (Sarajevo: Orijentalni Institut, 1972), 3, 240. 103 BOA, TD 26, f. 77. 104 Kiel, Filibe notes and studies, 50f. 105 Kiel, Filibe notes and studies, 50f. 106 Several stone inscriptions examined by Balkanlı show that the mosque saw at least three major restorations. Firstly in AH 997 (1588–89) one zaim Hacı Hüseyin repaired or rebuilt the mosque. Later in AH 1090 (1679–80) Mehmed Ağa, son of the mir-i liva Mustafa, restored the building. The last repair was carried out by el-hac Şerif Mehmed, son of Hafız Mustafa, in AH 1262 (1845–46). Balkanlı, Şarkî Rumeli ve Buradaki Türkler, 114. 107 Kiel, Filibe notes and studies, 50f. 108 Alvadžiev, Plovdivska hronika, 94; Metodi Krumov, “Kăm istorijata na Banja Trakija,” Plovdivski istoričeski forum 4 (2020): 42–47; Margarita Harbova, Gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVIII vek (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1991), 33, 134–35. In the 17th

Population geography | 187

identify the patron of these buildings in Plovdiv as the kadıasker Hacı Hasanzade.109 The register of pious endowments in Istanbul from 1546 includes the vakıf of Hacı Hasanzade, which extracted annual revenues of 6100 akçe from the hamam built in Plovdiv.110 The pious foundation was established in AH 911/1505–6 to support the mosque and the medrese in Istanbul, commissioned by the kadıasker Hacı Hasanzade Mustafa Efendi.111 He was highly influential, one of the most prominent ulema of the time: appointed by Mehmed II to the post of kadıasker of Anatolia in 1481, Hacı Hasanzade received the position of kadıasker of Rumeli in 1488, which he kept until he died in AH 911/1505–6.112 The information on Hacı Hasanzade’s administrative and scholarly career suggests that his mosque and hamam in Plovdiv must have been built in the period after his appointment as kadıasker of Rumeli in 1488 and before he died in 1505/6. Another landmark building in Plovdiv that appeared between the registrations of 1489 and 1516 was the monumental mosque of Yeşiloğlu in Muhsin hoca quarter. Located in the northern part of the city, the mosque occupied the western corner of what must have been the second busiest spot in the city after the square and the çarşı near the Muradiye. At this junction, the main commercial street (Uzun Çarşı), running from north to south, was intercepted by the long thoroughfare that crossed the entire city from east to west. The street owed its popular name (Şadırvan sokağı) to the fountain-turned-sebil built by İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail bey across the mosque of Yeşiloğlu. West of this junction was the primary market for agricultural products, used by the villagers of the surrounding rural region, which made the site crowded and busy. In all probability, this is the main reason why the large mosque was placed on this particular spot, very late in the fifteenth or in the beginning of the sixteenth century. The building stood until 1928, when a powerful earthquake demolished its minaret, which collapsed over the structure, leaving it in ruins.113 The extant photographs portray the mosque of Yeşiloğlu as a highly monumental stone building that in size almost rivaled the Muradiye, with a fine and tall minaret attached to its northern century Evliya Çelebi also mentioned a public bath named Kadıasker Hamamı. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), ed. S. Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 217. 109 Kiel, Filibe notes and studies, 50f. 110 Ömer Lûtfi Barkan and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 953 (1546) Târîhli (Istanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1970), 248; Mehmet Canatar, ed., İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 1009 (1600) Târîhli (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 2004), 386. 111 Hacı Hasanzade also commissioned and bestowed on his vakıf two baths in Bursa and one in a village near Istanbul. Ayverdi, Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinde Fâtih Devri, 855–886 (1451–1481), 273. On the location of his mosque in Istanbul, see Map 3 in Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul. 112 Elias John Wilkinson Gibb, A History of Ottoman Poetry, vol. 2 (London: Luzac, 1902), 264, note 1; 350–51. 113 Alvadžiev, Plovdivska hronika, 27, 221; Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 209, 219.

188 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 24. Hacı Hasan Hamamı and Camii in the 1910s

side. It had two rows of windows on the seemingly thick stone-built walls crowned with a pitched roof covered with tiles. In the nineteenth century the mosque received an enormous extension on its front side, clearly observable in the panoramic photographs of Ermakov, Cavra, and Karastojanov. The portico was transformed into a two-story addition covered by a separate roof integrated into the structure. The patron of this mosque was the famous scholar Yeşilzade Kadı Sinanoğlu Ahmed Riyazi,114 one of the most renowned poets of his time and a highly educated Islamic scholar who actively participated in the debates on the cash vakıfs that erupted during the sixteenth century.115 Riyazi, a native of Plovdiv, served as the kadı of the city several times, and died there during one of his terms of office. The exact date of his death is not known, but Latifi specifies that it happened during the reign of the sultan under whose rule he was writing.116 Latifi presented his work Tezkiretü’ş-şuarâ ve Tabsıra-i Nuzemâ to Süleyman I (r. 1521–66) in 1546;117 therefore, the time of Yeşilzade Riyazi’s death in Plovdiv can be restricted to the period between 1521 and 1546. Nevertheless, the data in the register of 1516 strongly suggest that the mosque of Yeşilzade must have been built much earlier, before Riyazi’s death. The mosque was located in the old Muhsin hoca quarter, which by the time the 1516 register was drawn up was also known locally as Yeşiloğlu mahallesi. The 114 Bursalı Mehmed Tahir, Osmanlı Müellifleri, trans. İsmail Özen and Fikri Yavuz, vol. 2 (İstanbul:

Meral Yayınevi, 1972), 300.

115 Mustafa İsen, Latîfî Tezkiresi (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1990), 381–82. 116 İsen, 381. 117 İsen, 381.

Population geography | 189

new name that gradually replaced the older one provides definitive evidence that the mosque of Yeşilzade was erected in Riazi’s lifetime in the years before 1516. The third significant contribution to the urbanscape made in the interim period between the tahrir registrations from 1489 and 1516 was built in close proximity to the mosque of Yeşilzade. The mosque commissioned and built by Hüseyin Ağa stood in the Cüneyid Fakıh quarter, located on the southern side of the junction between the central commercial street and the so-called Şadırvan sokak, including the former quarter and mosque of İsmail bey. Unfortunately, the location of the mosque is known only thanks to a note left in a hurufat register, since the building disappeared without a trace sometime before the mid-nineteenth century.118 Extant panoramic photographs from the 1870s and 1880s cover the area where the mosque must have stood, but the building is missing; it must already have been destroyed and replaced with residential structures. Even though this mosque’s location can be added to the digital plan of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth Ottoman Plovdiv only tentatively, the patron who commissioned the building can be identified with great certainty. This was Hüseyin Ağa, the Kapu Ağası/Bâbüssaâde Ağası of Sultan Bayezid II. The wealthy and powerful eunuch had been in Bayezid’s inner circle of trusted men since his training period as a prince in Amasya. Hüseyin Ağa was a prolific patron of architecture who left numerous edifices in Anatolia and the Balkans,

Fig. 25. Yeşiloğlu Camii in 1879. 118 VGMA, D. 1180, f. 239. Note from AH 1189/1775–76 for the appointment of a new müezzin to

the mescid of Hüseyin Ağa, located in the quarter Cüneyid Fakıh.

190 | Ottoman Plovdiv

but is probably best known for converting the church SS. Sergius and Bacchus into the so-called Küçük Aya Sofya Camii in Istanbul and for building a Halveti convent near it.119 The bedesten and the so-called Kapı Ağası (Büyük Ağa) medresesi in Amasya are among his famous buildings from the 1480s that are still standing.120 In the Balkans, the chief white eunuch built a mosque and a bath in Samokov (Ott. Samako) and another hamam in Leskovac (Ott. Leskofça), along with many shops in different Balkan cities, and collected revenues from numerous watermills, lands, and the village Çaşnigir (mod. Sadovo) in the sub-district of Filibe (Plovdiv).121 The original endowment deed of Hüseyin Ağa, dating AH 891/1486–87, and a later extended version from AH 903/1497–98, is preserved in the Topkapı archive as a nicely bound volume of 68 folia.122 The document stipulates the conditions for payments to the Plovdiv mosque’s personnel and specifies that as well as the mescid Hüseyin Ağa also built a Muslim primary school (mekteb), both located near the sarraçhane, thus corroborating the information from the hurufat defteri, placing the building in the Cüneyid Fakıh quarter.123

Forced relocation (sürgün) of Muslims to the west in the 1520s At the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, the program for rebuilding and repopulating Ottoman Plovdiv appears to have been largely completed. Several high-ranking benefactors contributed to the efforts at developing the urban tissue that began in the 1430s and continued throughout the rest of the fifteenth century. Muslim settlers came to the city en masse, either taking a long migratory route from different parts of Anatolia or coming from the overpopulated mountains in the southwestern part of today’s Bulgaria. The intensive architectural patronage and influx of population changed the city’s appearance entirely. From a 119 Semavi Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi

Araştırma Dergisi 9 (1978): 149–246; Zeynep Yürekli, “A Building between the Public and Private Realms of the Ottoman Elite: The Sufi Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Istanbul,” Muqarnas 20 (2003): 159–85; Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 210. 120 Albert Gabriel, Monuments Turcs d’Anatolie, vol. 2: Amasya-Tokat-Sîvas (Paris: Boccard, 1934), 53–56; Mustafa Cezar, Typical Commercial Buildings of the Ottoman Classical Period and the Ottoman Construction System (İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Publications, 1983), 221; Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları.” 121 Barkan and Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri, 71. 122 BOA, TSMA D. 6996 and TSMA D. 6936. Interestingly, the registrar who compiled the document translated by Barkan and Ayverdi noted that the vakfiye of Hüseyin Ağa was lost. Barkan and Ayverdi, 71. The same was repeated half a century later in another register of Istanbul pious endowments. Canatar, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri, 115. Multiple endowment deeds of the chief eunuch were obviously kept in Topkapı, but for some reason were not presented to the registrars in the 16th century. For analysis of the content of this charter and other preserved endowment deeds of Hüseyin Ağa, see İrem Gündüz Polat, “Küçük Ayasofya and the Foundation of Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin Ağa” (MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2016). 123 BOA, TSMA D. 6996, f. 9r.

Population geography | 191

town that in the 1430s gave de la Broquière the impression of being inhabited mostly by Christians, Plovdiv turned into a predominantly Muslim city, which in the second decade of the sixteenth century appears to have reached a peak in its development. The archival documents produced after this point demonstrate that the trend shifted, and the subsequent decades brought substantial changes to urban life. The next population register of Plovdiv dates only nine years after the general tahrir registration of 1516.124 Nevertheless, the form of this document differs significantly from the standard tahrirs of the period. Firstly, it did not cover all left-wing sub-districts (kaza) in Paşa sancağı, which was the normal practice, but included only the settlements from the sub-districts of Filibe (mod. Plovdiv), Saruhanbeylü (mod. Septemvri), and Samako (mod. Samokov), and several villages from the kaza of Zağra-i Eski Hisar (mod. Stara Zagora). Secondly, the register also had a significant structural inconsistency in comparison to the traditional tahrir records. The population of each village or quarter was split into two separate entries. The upper part of the record listed the residents present in the previous tahrir (1516) who had lived long enough to be included in the new one, while the lower part recorded all new taxpayers who were not present in the previous defter. The same held for the settlements’ taxation records, hence also indicating the increase or decline in revenues that had occurred since the previous registration. These unusual features make the document uniquely valuable, as it indicates that the Ottoman administration was attempting to track the changes that had taken place in the period after the registration of 1516, thus bringing the data up to date. In all probability, this defter was a draft prepared by the local kadıs upon the request of the central administration. The first and last pages of the document were torn off, therefore, if the imperial order for this registration was appended to the front of the defter, as was often the case, it has been lost too. Nonetheless, the document contains copies of several other orders and documents relevant to properties and taxation in the area, such as the imperial decree exempting the Muslim clergymen in Plovdiv from taxation discussed above. The missing front page of this defter also leaves the document without a firm compilation date. However, the information in the record clearly shows that the actual registration took place between the detailed register of 1516 (TD 77) and the large synoptic register of 1530 (TD 370). The date in the catalog of the Ottoman archives in Istanbul, AH 925/1519–20, is undoubtedly incorrect. On the one hand, this is too short a period after the previous registration of 1516, and hardly any update would have been needed; on the other hand, the changes that can be observed in the document indeed required a period longer than three years. Moreover, the defter was evidently drawn up in the reign of Süleyman I (r. 1521–66) since some of the dignitaries of his court were allotted revenues in the area. The estate (hass) of the grand vizier İbrahim paşa (d. 1536), listed in the register, allows a more precise dating of the document. İbrahim paşa was appointed to the highest administrative post of the Otto124 BOA, MAD 519.

192 | Ottoman Plovdiv

man state on 27 June 1523 and occupied it until his death on 15 March 1536, narrowing the time frame in which the defter could have been drawn up.125 In 1529 the revenues of the domain of İbrahim paşa significantly increased as his total annual income reached three million akçe.126 Clearly the register MAD 519 was compiled before this date, because it did not reflect the considerable enlargement of İbrahim paşa’s estate that took place in 1529.127 This fact limits the period of the defter’s composition to six years, i.e., between 1523 and 1529. A marginal note dating 1525 strongly suggests that the registration took place this year.128 The extraordinary character of this survey indicates that the registration must have been carried out on a special request by the central administration to meet the specific exceptional needs of the Ottoman authorities. The analysis of the data in the register seems to substantiate the supposition that there was some irregularity in the demographic processes in the region. Instead of the expected population growth of the prosperous and rapidly developing city in the nine years between registrations, the total population of Plovdiv had dropped. About half of the numerous Muslim bachelors registered in 1516 disappear in the register of 1525. The natural supposition that they had simply married and formed families can be ruled out, because the total number of Muslim households in the city dropped as well. Not only did 113 Muslim bachelors disappear in the period 1516–25, but it also seems that the Muslim community in Plovdiv lost 76 households, i.e., the 1525 register recorded 550 fewer Muslim taxpayers in comparison to that of 1516. Evidently, for the early sixteenth century, a period of overall demographic growth in the Ottoman Empire and Europe, such a drop is an unexpected and abnormal development, and is the most likely explanation for why the central administration ordered a new registration only nine years after the previous one was completed. It appears that the changes taking place in this area were so dynamic that the bureaucracy needed data that was up to date at this particular moment. Moreover, the unusual fluctuations in the population were not restricted to Plovdiv: in this period, a new Christian quarter was founded in the neighboring town of Pazardžik only to disappear five years later.129

125 M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, “Ibrahim Pasha,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition) (Leiden: Brill,

2012); İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 2: İstanbul‘un Fethinden Kanunî Sultan Süleyman‘ın Ölümüne Kadar (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998), 545–47; Hester Donaldson Jenkins, Ibrahim Pasha, Grand Vizir of Suleman the Magnificent, by Hester Donaldson Jenkins (New York: Columbia University, 1911), 34–35. 126 Gökbilgin, “Ibrahim Pasha,” 998. 127 The large icmal of 1530, on the other hand, indicated this change. In the area of Plovdiv twelve more villages were added to the hass of the grand vizier. BOA TD 370, f. 98. 128 “Karye-i Pastuşa-i Köhne, haliya hassa-i Padişah..., Muharrem 932” (Village Pastuşa Köhne [Old Pastuša], currently in the hass of the sultan, October–November 1525), BOA, MAD 519, f. 239. 129 Grigor Boykov, Tatar Pazardžik: ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraja na XVII vek. Izsledvanija i dokumenti (Sofia: Amicitia, 2008), 50–53.

Population geography | 193

The data in the large icmal defteri from 1530 confirms the appearance of an extraordinary demographic change in the 1520s.130 This synoptic register combined data from the previous registrations (1516 and 1525) for different parts of the region, and there must also have been yet another registration, after 1525 but before 1530, from which the compilers of the large defter extracted additional information. The detailed draft of this registration is not extant, but its data covering different parts of the area was incorporated in the icmal of 1530.131 Thus the information on the taxpayers of Plovdiv was refreshed in 1530, providing an excellent opportunity for closer observations of the population processes at work in the city. The synoptic register from 1530 does not allow observations of the individual taxpayers in the city, but the data in the document show a dramatic decrease in the Muslim community. After the peak in 1516, when there were 877 Muslim households and 220 bachelors, the Muslim population of the city began to decline, dropping to 801 households and 136 bachelors in 1525, and falling to merely 636 households and 126 bachelors in 1530. In only fourteen years, more than a quarter of the Muslim population in Plovdiv disappeared, bringing the population figures close to the level of the 1470s. The archival documents leave no clue as to the reasons for these dramatic changes, but the only plausible explanation for the sudden decline of Muslims in the town is a forced relocation organized or at least instigated by the Ottoman government. If the drop in Muslim residents in Plovdiv was due to their relocation, this would not be an isolated case. In the same period, nearby towns such as Pazardžik or Stara Zagora also unexpectedly lost portions of their Muslim population.132 Natural calamities and diseases can certainly be ruled out, because the other religious groups in the town remained stable without any signs of unnatural decrease. Moreover, the population of the neighboring town İstanimaka (Asenovgrad), which was almost entirely Christian, not only did not drop in the period 1516–30 but indeed slightly increased.133 The period in which the Ottoman administration produced multiple registers for parts of Upper Thrace, and when a significant portion of the Muslim population of Plovdiv and the surrounding towns disappeared from these records, concurred with the period of fast territorial expansion of the Ottoman Empire to the west. In 1521 the Ottomans conquered “the outer wall of Christendom,” the strong fortress of Belgrade, which cleared their way to Central Europe, allowing them to defeat the 130 BOA, TD 370, 85. 131 It is difficult to tell why some settlements were included in the register of 1530 with data that was

up to date, while for others the information from the mufassal of 1516 was used, but it is likely to be indicative of the greater changes that took place in some of the settlements. 132 Grigor Boykov, “Balkan City or Ottoman City? A Study on the Models of Urban Development in Ottoman Upper Thrace 15th – 17th c.,” in Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans 1-5 November 2006, Bucharest, Romania, ed. Halit Eren (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2010), 74. 133 Hristozov, “Demografsko i urbanistično razvitie na Asenovgrad prez XV-XVII v. (Istanimaka, Anbelianoš i Bej kjoj),” 115–16.

194 | Ottoman Plovdiv

medieval kingdom of Hungary (1526) and lay the first siege to Vienna in 1529.134 The rapid territorial extension was accompanied by deportations of the local Christian population from the conquered territories to Istanbul or other inner parts of the empire: one such example was the deportation of disobedient Serbs from the region of Syrmia (Sirem) and Belgrade to the Gallipoli Peninsula and Istanbul.135 Naturally, the Ottomans needed to compensate for the loss of taxpayers caused by the warfare and deportations by bringing in Muslim settlers from the older European parts of the empire. While there was an apparent shortage of individuals trained in the Islamic educational system who could administer the newly conquered territories, the Ottoman dynasty must also have sought to change the ethnic balance in some areas of the Christian western Balkans and Central Europe, thus securing the loyalty of the residents and restoring some stability in the conquered lands. The earliest preserved tahrir register of Ottoman Belgrade, dating to 1536–37, clearly shows that virtually all Muslim residents were newcomers who did not yet form mahalles, but were still registered in groups (cema’ats).136 The registrar unfortunately did not record where the settlers came from, which makes it impossible to ascertain whether the Muslims from Plovdiv were indeed amongst these Muslim colonists in Belgrade. Nevertheless, the missing part of Plovdiv’s Muslim community must have been transferred to the Western Balkans or further west to Central Europe. The detailed (mufassal) register of Buda, compiled in 1546, shows that several of the residents of the Danube city were newcomers from Plovdiv.137 A closer examination of the data in the registers of 1525 and 1530 provides further evidence that the decline of the Muslim population of Plovdiv in the period 1516–30 was not a natural process but the result of a forced relocation (sürgün) orchestrated by the central Ottoman administration. In 1525 the multiple mosques of Plovdiv were served by no less than 33 imams and 28 müezzins, and the record also provides information about four şeyhs of dervish convents. The transfer of Plovdiv’s Muslims to the west must have had a devastating effect on the everyday life of its Muslim community, because according to the data in the 1530 register, the city, which at that moment would have had about thirty mosques and mescids, was served altogether by three imams and two müezzins, while there was also one şeyh-i zaviye who most 134 Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600 (New York: Praeger Publishers,

1973), 35–38.

135 Feridun Emecen, “The History of an Early Sixteenth Century Migration – Sirem Exiles in Galli-

poli,” in Hungarian–Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent, ed. Pál Fodor and Géza Dávid (Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University and Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1994), 77–91. 136 BOA, TD 187, f. 243. Further details in Branislav Djurdjev, “Belgrade,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition) (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 137 Gyula Káldy-Nagy, Kanuni Devri Budin Tahrir Defteri (1546–1562) (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1971), 11. In this case these were several Jews from Plovdiv, as there were many other newcomers from various cities in the Balkans like Kavala, Vidin, Semendire, Edirne, Selânik, or even the capital Istanbul.

Population geography | 195

likely headed the complex of Şihabeddin paşa. The forced relocation seems not only to have interrupted the rapid demographic development of the city, carrying away more than one-quarter of the Muslims, but also stripped the city of its Muslim religious, scholarly, and intellectual elite. In all probability, the vacant positions of the clergymen were soon filled by new candidates waiting for an appointment, but the effect of these dramatic changes was a temporary setback for the city’s development. The shocking effect of the rapid changes can be best observed through the shifts in the spatial distribution of population totals and densities in the registrations from 1525 and 1530 (Appendices 9–12). In 1516 the western and central quarters of Plovdiv were more densely inhabited than those on the eastern side of the former citadel. In 1525 the western quarters such as Musalla, Hacı Ömer, and Aslıhan bey began to lose residents, partially on account of the growing number of taxpayers in the eastern quarter Bahşayiş Ağa, but the number of residents increased more substantially in the northern suburb Tataran. The process continued and perhaps even intensified, because the snapshot from 1530 shows that the western quarter had lost more population in the interim five years. The Aslıhan bey mahallesi reached a historic low in terms of the resident population, reaching a level far below the registration of 1489. The population outflow also affected some central quarters, most notably Cami-i Kebir, Cüneyid, and Muhsin hoca, where many Muslim clergymen resided, while the eastern quarter Bahşayiş Ağa remained relatively unchanged. In 1530 the northern suburban Tataran mahallesi lost all of the growth that it had registered five years earlier, indicating that it might well have been used as a temporary stop for potential colonists from other places in the Balkans or even Anatolia before they continued their journey towards the Western Balkans and Central Europe. The overall picture shows that except for the large residential quarter Bahşayiş Ağa, all other Muslim quarters lost residents in the period 1516–30, apparently due to the forced relocation. The spatial distribution of these losses was disproportional. The western and central quarters were affected much more by the process than the southern and eastern ones. It is difficult to explain the spatially uneven selection of deportees, but one can speculate that a greater part of the urban elite, the individuals more likely to be involved in administering the newly conquered regions, resided in these quarters. The forced population relocation of the late 1520s was certainly not something new to Plovdiv. In the mid-fifteenth century, Mehmed II had transferred Christian and Jewish families from the city to Istanbul, leaving virtually no Jews in the city. Nor were such deportations isolated cases, indeed the Ottoman authorities used them systematically to repopulate the newly conquered territories in the early period.138 Nev138 There exists a rich literature on the Ottoman policy of forced relocations. The “classical” stud-

ies of Barkan present rich data on the sürgüns orchestrated by the Ottomans that aimed at repopulating the depressed regions in the Balkans. By bringing Muslim Turkish settlers to the Christian Balkans, the Ottoman administration undoubtedly attempted to strengthen its authority in the region. Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu

196 | Ottoman Plovdiv

ertheless, very little is known about the forced relocations of Muslims to the Western Balkans and Central Europe that occurred under the rule of Süleyman I.139 As already mentioned, several other towns in Upper Thrace were also affected by these deportations in the late 1520s. It appears that the Ottoman administration prepared the forced relocation of the Muslim population to the newly conquered territories on a large scale, and that this affected other regions too. A recent study on the powerbase of the Evrenosoğlu dynasty, the town Yenice-i Vardar (Giannitsa) in Greek Macedonia, shows a striking similarity to the development observed in Plovdiv.140 In the immediate aftermath of the second conquest of Thessaloniki in 1432–33, Murad II forcibly relocated the greater portion of the Muslims of Yenice-i Vardar to the newly conquered city.141 The archival documents show that under the management of the members of the Evrenos dynasty, Yenice-i Vardar recovered quickly, but a century later, in 1530, it suffered another significant drop in population. Compared to the figures from the preceding register, dated 1519, the city lost close to 38% of its Muslim community while the Christian population remained stable.142 Moreover, a group of twenty-four Jewish households disappeared entirely.143 Lowry and Erünsal noticed this irregularity in the demographic processes and concluded that the only seemingly reasonable explanation for this sudden drop in population in the period between the two registers must be forced relocation of the town’s residents. Olarak Sürgünler: 1,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 11, no. 1–4 (1949–1950) (1952): 524–69; Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler: 2,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 13, no. 1–4 (1951– 1952) (1953): 56–78; Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler: 3,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15, no. 1–4 (1953–1954) (1955): 209–37; Paul Lovell Hooper, “Forced Population Transfers in Early Ottoman Imperial Strategy: A Comparative Approach” (Unpuplished BA Thesis, Princeton University, 2003)., summarizes the existing bibliography on this topic. Likewise many of the cities conquered and resettled by the Ottomans have been examined in a number of fine studies. See Lowry, The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461–1583; Heath W. Lowry, “From Lesser Wars to the Mightiest War’: The Ottoman Conquest and Transformation of Byzantine Urban Centers in the Fifteenth Century,” in Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, ed. Anthony Bryer and Heath W. Lowry (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986), 323–38; Halil İnalcık, “Istanbul: An Islamic City,” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1–23. 139 While the Western Balkans and Central Europe were the most likely destinations for the transfer of the urban population from Upper Thrace, it seems that at about the same time the rural population from the region was relocated to Danubian Bulgaria. The names of the villages Küçük Filibelüler, Büyük Filibelüler or Zağralı that appear in a register from 1550 in the sub-district of Razgrad (Hezargrad) clearly attest to this fact. Machiel Kiel, “Hrăzgrad-Hezargrad-Razgrad: The Vicissitudes of a Turkish Town in Bulgaria (Historical, Demographical, Economic and Art Historical Notes),” Turcica 21–23 (1991): 536. 140 Heath W. Lowry and İsmail E. Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: Notes & Documents (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010), 120–21. 141 Lowry and Erünsal, 120–21. 142 Lowry and Erünsal, 122. 143 Lowry and Erünsal, 122.

Population geography | 197

A detailed look at population fluctuations in other cities in the region, such as Edirne, Dimetoka, and İpsala, for the same period, shows a similar sudden loss of a considerable part of the Muslim population, which is difficult to explain except if attributed to forced relocation.144 Further studies will likely bring to light more cases of deportations of the Muslim population from the older European territories of the empire in the early Süleymanic age, and could possibly reveal the exact locations where the Muslims of Plovdiv were resettled. Relocating the urban population, among whom were many merchants and craftsmen as well as Muslim clergymen and scholars, indicates that the residents of Plovdiv may have been resettled in some of the newly conquered urban centers in the Western Balkans or Central Europe. While this hypothesis cannot currently be extended beyond speculation, it is strongly suggested by the evidence at hand.

On the path to recovery: population dynamics in the second half of the sixteenth century The forced relocations of Muslims in the 1520s most certainly impeded the overall development of Plovdiv. The negative effect of this population transfer notwithstanding, the central administration was not attempting to ruin the city’s prosperity, but it seems instead that the Ottomans had a keen sense of the abilities of the individual settlements to recover after such deportations. Evidently, the central administration was cautious in defining what portion of the inhabitants could be relocated and was flexible in making this choice. Thus, more significant and prosperous places like Plovdiv and Yenice-i Vardar provided a greater percentage of their Muslim population for the resettlement policy of Süleyman I, while smaller developing towns such as neighboring Pazardžik contributed a much smaller proportion of their residents, the Ottoman government thereby ensuring that the town would not decline after the forced relocation. The data from the following tahrir register demonstrates that Plovdiv had the necessary demographic potential for fast recovery and indicates that its Muslim population quickly reemerged. Moreover, the high-ranking Ottoman officials continued to commission public buildings there, their architectural patronage not only contributing to the recovery from the population crisis of the early sixteenth century but also boosting the further development of the urban space. The icmal register of 1530 specifies that Plovdiv by that time had four public baths. Although they are not explicitly named in the document, these baths can be identified as the previously 144 Hristo Hristozov, “The Ottoman Town of İpsala from the Second Half of the 14th to the End of

the 16th Century,” in Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation, ed. Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivaylo Lozanov (Sofia: Sofia University Press, 2017), 161–82; Stefan Dimitrov, “Demographic Characteristics of the Urban Population of Dimetoka during the XV-XVIth Centuries,” in Dünden Bugüne Batı Trakya (Western Thrace from Past to Today) (Istanbul: Şen Yıldız Yayıncılık, 2016), 335–43.

198 | Ottoman Plovdiv

examined Tahtakale Hamamı (built by Şihabeddin paşa in the late 1430s); Hünkâr Hamamı in Şihabeddin’s complex; Çifte Hamam (built by Balaban paşa in the midfifteenth century); and Kadıasker Hamamı (built by the kadıasker Hacı Hasanzade Mustafa Efendi between 1488 and 1505/1506). Moreover, the registrar recorded a total of four inns (hanat) in the city, whose existence undoubtedly points to the growing importance of trade in the thriving urban center. These commercial buildings, however, are more difficult to identify. One of these hans must have been the great caravanserai built north of the Muradiye in the second half of the fifteenth century (very likely before 1489), whose patron is unknown. A second inn was built in 1444 in the complex of Şihabeddin, located in the northern part of the city near Lala Şahin’s bridge over the Maritsa. Yet the scarcity of sources mentioning the commercial buildings in the city makes it hard to identify the patrons of the remaining two inns recorded in the 1530 defter. It is noteworthy that the register did not separately record the bedesten built in the second half of the fifteenth century. The seventeenth-century text of Evliya Çelebi lists several hans in Plovdiv, but it is unclear which ones were built before 1530 and were hence included in the icmal defteri of that time. According to Evliya, by the time of his visit to Plovdiv there were four inns in the çarşı area—Zal Paşa Hanı, Dede Hanı, Şihabeddin Paşa Hanı, and Tahtakale Hanı—as well as a fifth one, Varoş Hanı, situated by the bridge on the northern side of the river.145 The older edition of Evliya’s travelogue, however, includes yet another inn named Orta Pazar hanı that is missing in the recent academic publication by Kahraman and Dağlı based on the Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 manuscript. It seems that the Topkapı copy of the travelogue was incomplete in this specific part, a fact indicated by the editors by leaving empty spaces. Therefore, despite the modernized language used in this particular section of the nineteenth-century edition of Evliya Çelebi, it seems that it is the more credible copy that is to be preferred before the recent academic publication of the text.146 As well as the name of an additional inn, the nineteenth-century publication also included a remark missing in the Topkapı copy, according to which, near the han of Şihabeddin paşa, there was also a lead-covered caravanserai.147 It seems not only that the published editions of Evliya’s text do not match, but that the narrative itself is also somewhat confusing.148 Nevertheless, the analysis of the information can provide the names of the four inns that were in existence in 1530 and were therefore listed in the large synoptic register. One of the inns can be immediately ruled out of the list because it was commissioned after 1530. This is the so-called Zal hanı, built by Zal Mahmud paşa (d. 1577), which will be discussed in more detail below. From the remaining five inns in Evliya’s list, three were undoubt145 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı

Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217.

146 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3 (İstanbul: Dersa’det Matba’ası, 1314), 386. 147 “Şihabeddin paşa hanı, civarındaki kârbanseray dahi anundur”. Evliya Çelebi, 3:386. 148 In fact the names of the public baths provided by Evliya are also mixed up.

Population geography | 199

edly standing in 1530. These are the caravanserai in the commercial core of Plovdiv (Tahtalkale Hanı in Evliya), Şihabeddin paşa’s han in the northern part of the city, and the so-called Dede Hanı from Evliya’s list. There is no information about the identity of the patron of Dede Hanı, but amongst the schools and colleges in Plovdiv Evliya mentions that there was a certain Dede Mektebi. Above the main gate of this school, according to Evliya, there was a dedicatory plate that gave the year AH 893/1487–88 as the date of its construction.149 The school that was located in the “lower market” was undoubtedly commissioned by the same individual who also built the so-called Dede Hanı, therefore the construction date of this inn was evidently prior to the icmal from 1530, and thus it was one of the four inns listed in the register. It is difficult to state with any degree of certainty which one was the fourth han in the register. The bedesten that indisputably stood by the 1530s was not recorded in the defter, but it seems unlikely that the Ottoman registrar mixed up the two types of buildings. Instead, the fourth inn, registered in 1530, must have been one of the “proper” inns from Evliya’s list. There is no documentary or other information about an inn named Orta Pazar hanı, which makes its existence questionable. Moreover, the name does not appear in the Topkapı copy of Evliya’s travelogue; therefore it is probably safe to rule it out of the list of inns from 1530, which leaves the so-called Varoş Hanı from Evliya’s list the only possible choice. Despite the lack of precise information about the date of construction and the patron’s name, the location of this inn can be established without difficulty. If the information provided by Evliya about Varoş hanı is credible, it must have been located in the suburb on the northern bank of the Maritsa, very close to the bridge.150 In all probability, this is the same wooden inn on the northern side of the river mentioned three decades after the 1530 register by Zen and Dernschwam, but there is no other information about this inn, nor is it known when exactly it disappeared.151 The forced relocation of Plovdiv’s Muslims unquestionably slowed down the natural demographic development of the city. It appears, though, that even after such drastic changes, the city’s Muslim population recovered relatively quickly. To a great extent, this rapid revival must be attributed to the existing infrastructure and the already developed urban fabric. The commercial buildings, caravanserais, and inns, 149 Evliya provided the construction date of the mekteb both as a chronogram and in numbers – “Dedi

sene 893”. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi, 3:385. The new târîhin Bekir Hayrun cemil’ academic edition of the seyahatname, as if to add to the confusion, also gives the same chronogram and a date in numbers 982 (1574–75), thus indicating that the building was commissioned close to a century later. The editors added a footnote pointing out correctly that the chronogram does not match the date provided in figures, but themselves miscalculated the value of the chronogram to 993. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217. 150 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217. 151 Stéphane Yerasimos, Les voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman (XIV e –XV e siècles). Biographie, itinéraires et inventaire des lieux habités (Ankara: Imprimérie de la Société turque d’histoire, 1991), 50.

200 | Ottoman Plovdiv

built in the period before the sürgün, fostered the influx of both traders and artisan settlers, who sought opportunities in the biggest urban and trade center of the region. The aggregated statistics in the register from 1530 also provide data about the Friday mosques functioning in the city at that time. According to the register’s data, only three Friday mosques were functioning in the year in which the survey was carried out. This information is corroborated by the similarly small number of imams and müezzins in the city in 1530. The forced relocation of Muslims from Plovdiv had such a dramatic impact on urban life that it left only three mosques that were staffed and fit to serve the city’s Muslim congregation. In all probability, these were the largest mosques in town—the imperial Muradiye in the commercial core, the large mosque of Yeşiloğlu that was new at that moment, and the T-shaped imaret/zaviye of Şihabeddin paşa that by that time must have already been adapted to serve as a Friday mosque. All the other mosques and mescids in the Muslim quarters in 1530, of whatever size, did not have enough personnel to render services to the reduced Muslim community. The unusual situation reflected in the register of 1530 could not and did not last long. The Ottoman central administration had clearly sought a shortterm solution to secure settlers for the newly conquered territories in the west; not too long after this date, however, newly appointed imams and müezzins appeared in Plovdiv, the schools and colleges reopened, and life returned to normality. The period after the 1530s was also a time of drastic change for the entire region of Upper Thrace. The central Ottoman administration attempted to establish more robust control over these parts of the province, which were dominated by the mighty akıncı lords and their natural social allies—the mystical heterodox dervish brotherhoods. In this period, the neighboring area and the town Pazardžik were detached from the large kaza of Plovdiv and placed under the jurisdiction of its own kadı.152 The administrative reform in the region was part of a much larger ongoing process that entailed various state-led initiatives aimed at establishing more centralized rule on a provincial level and suppressing the political voice of non-Sunni Muslim communities in the empire. This long-term process, often described as Ottoman “Sunnitization,” had an uneven and complex dynamic defined by various social, political, cultural, and regional factors.153 The process went hand in hand with gradually 152 Boykov, Tatar Pazardžik: ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraja na XVII vek. Izsledvanija i dokumenti,

56–61.

153 Tijana Krstić, “State and Religion, ‘Sunnitization’ and ‘Confessionalism’ in Süleyman’s Time,”

in The Battle for Central Europe: The Siege of Szigetvár and the Death of Süleyman the Magnificent and Nicholas Zrínyi (1566), ed. Pál Fodor (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019), 65–91; Derin Terzioğlu, “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: A Historiographical Discussion,” Turcica 44 (2012): 301–38; Derin Terzioğlu, “Sufis in the Age of State-Building and Confessionalization,” in The Ottoman World, ed. Christine Woodhead (London; New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012), 86–102; Derin Terzioğlu, “Power, Patronage, and Confessionalism: Ottoman Politics Through the Eyes of a Crimean Sufi, 1580–1593,” in Political Thought and Practice in the Ottoman Empire. Halcyon Days in Crete IX - A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 9–11 January 2015, ed. Marinos Sariyannis (Rethymno: Crete University Press, 2019), 149–86.

Population geography | 201

increasing pressure on nonconformist religious groups, who were persecuted as “heretics” by the central authority and the adepts of Sunnitizing measures in the provinces.154 The deep involvement of various Sunna-minded Sufis as agents of Sunnitization in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and especially the role of the Halveti şeyhs in the process, was in many ways pivotal.155 Nathalie Clayer has demonstrated the complexity of the sixteenth-century developments that led to the gradual Sunnization of most of the Muslim population in Rumeli, emphasizing the critical role of the disciples of Sofyalı Bali Efendi (d. 1553).156 Two leading Sufi figures who originated from the region, Muslihuddin Nureddinzade (d. 1573) and Kurd Efendi (d. 1588), under the patronage of Sokollu Mehmed paşa (d. 1579), played a decisive role in the process of binding Thrace to Sunni Islam, and acted in support of the increasing centralism.157 In the early stage of his prominent career, most likely in the late 1530s and the 1540s, the influential Halveti şeyh Nureddinzade resided and preached in Pazardžik. It is difficult to tell when he moved to Plovdiv, but a sultanic order from 1556, allocating to him a daily salary from the surplus of Şihabeddin paşa’s endowment, shows that in the 1550s he already resided in Plovdiv.158 Soon after, in the late 1550s, Nurredinzade moved to Istanbul and was offered the convent of Küçük Aya Sofya, founded seven decades earlier by the same Hüseyin Ağa who was the patron of the mosque in Plovdiv’s Cüneyid Fakıh quarter.159 This act marked the beginning of a very successful career for Nureddinzade in the highest imperial circles, under the patronage of the sultan and of his old confidant the grand vizier Sokollu Mehmed paşa (d. 1579), who built him a new convent in Kadırga Limanı quarter of Istanbul.160 During his sojourn in Plovdiv in the 1550s, Nureddinzade established a Halveti convent (zaviye) in the city. The information about his convent in Plovdiv is exceptionally scarce and, in general, is limited to attesting its existence. The archival sources show that he established a pious foundation for its support, endowing a lump 154 A recent volume presents various aspects of this complex process, see Tijana Krstić and Derin

Terzioğlu, eds., Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750 (Leiden: Brill, 2020). 155 Derin Terzioğlu, “Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers in Service of the Ottoman State: The Naṣīḥatnāme of Hasan Addressed to Murad IV,” Archivum Ottomanicum 27 (2010): 241–312. 156 Nathalie Clayer, Mystiques, Etat et société: les Halvetis dans l’aire balkanique de la fin du XVe siècle à nos jours (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994), 63–112; Nathalie Clayer, “Des agents du pouvoir ottoman dans les Balkans: les Halvetis,” Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée 66, no. 1 (1992): 21–30. 157 For further details on the Sunnitizing efforts in Thrace, see Grigor Boykov, “Abdāl-Affiliated Convents and ‘Sunnitizing’ Halveti Dervishes in Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Rumeli,” in Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750, ed. Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 308–40. 158 BOA, A.{DVNSMHM.d. 2, 409. Order dating from AH 17.6.963 (8.5.1556). 159 Yürekli, “A Building between the Public and Private Realms of the Ottoman Elite,” 166. 160 Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion, 2005), 331–45; Yürekli, “A Building between the Public and Private Realms of the Ottoman Elite.”

202 | Ottoman Plovdiv

sum of cash (vakf-i nukud).161 A document dating 1596, drawn up by the administrator of the cash vakıf of Nureddinzade, a certain Abdullah, presents a brief accounting balance of the foundation, established with a lump sum of 70,000 akçe lent at 10% annual interest. The document reveals some details about the zaviye itself. It had a public soup kitchen, the foundation spending 4,900 akçe annually for the food cooked there.162 Appointments of personnel registered in a hurufat defteri show that the zaviye of Nurredinzade must have been a relatively spacious complex since, as well as the dervish convent and the public kitchens, it had a mosque served at least by one imam and one müezzin.163 Another hurufat register provides an essential clue for the exact location of Nureddinzade’s zaviye in Plovdiv. It specifies that a certain Mustafa received a berat for his appointment as imam to the mosque of Nurredinzade, which was located near the bank of the Maritsa.164 Additional information from the earlier hurufat register, pointing out that the zaviye and the mosque of Nureddinzade were built in the Hacı Ömer quarter, allows us to establish with a great degree of certainty the precise location of Nureddinzade’s convent in Plovdiv. The complex was built in a place that in the mid-sixteenth century was quite distant and isolated from the commercial part of the city. Nureddinzade’s convent and mosque stood by the river on the northwestern edge of Plovdiv in a zone that must have been uninhabited at that time. Even in nineteenth-century photographs the district looks empty. In the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, numerous Bulgarians flooded to the city and established a new Christian quarter named Maraş mahallesi, west of the convent of Nureddinzade. It is not known when the convent was abandoned or demolished, but undoubtedly the zaviye was still functioning in the mid-eighteenth century because Sultan Mustafa III (r. 1757–74) issued a berat reaffirming the post held by a certain şeyh Mustafa as zavieydar of Nureddinzade Muslihuddin Efendi’s

161 Nureddinzade was a disciple of Sofyalı Bali Efendi, who was among the vocal proponents of the

cash vakıfs, and who played a decisive role in the controversy about the legal nature of cash vakıfs that erupted in Muslim scholarly society in the Ottoman realm. In this respect, being a vigorous supporter of his tutor, it is little suspiring that Nureddinzade established a cash vakıf in support of his convent in Plovdiv. On the cash vakıfs and Bali Efendi’s involvement in the debate, see Jon E. Mandaville, “Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10, no. 3 (1979): 289–308; Osman Keskioğlu, “Bulgaristan’da Türk Vakıfları ve Bali Efendinin Vakıf Paralar Hakkında Bir Mektubu,” Vakıflar Dergisi 9 (1969): 90–94; Snježana Buzov, “The Lawgiver and His Lawmakers: The Role of Legal Discourse in the Change of Ottoman Imperial Culture” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago, 2005), 254–56. 162 BOA, TSMA D. 4319. The document is wrongly dated in the catalogue as 1611. 163 VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 225, 228, 239, 242, 248. In 1763 the imam was entitled to a daily salary of two akçe. Kazancıoğlu, Filibe, 214–15. 164 Halit Çal, “1192 Numaralı 1697–1716 Tarihli Hurufat Defterine Göre Bulgaristan’daki Türk Mimarisi,” in Balkanlar’ da Kültürel Etkileşim ve Türk Mimarisi Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri (17-19 Mayıs 2000, Şumnu - Bulgaristan), ed. Azize Aktaş Yasa and Zeynep Zafer (Ankara: Atatürk Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2001), 258.

Population geography | 203

convent.165 It is possible that the Halveti lodge of Nureddinzade was not built from scratch, but might have modified and replaced a preexisting convent of itinerant abdals who were followers of Otman Baba. Close to twenty years before the arrival of Nureddinzade in Plovdiv in 1533, the Flemish diplomat Cornelius de Schepper witnessed and described the ritual of a group of naked dervishes (ışık) singing and dancing in a garden by the river Maritsa, which signifies the common location of both convents and the probable Halveti takeover of a previous dervish lodge.166 Such replacements were not isolated cases. On the contrary, the archival documents demonstrate that they were an established practice instigated and supported by the central authorities. Numerous imperial orders reveal that beginning with the 1550s, the principal convents of non-conformist dervishes in Anatolia and the Balkans were systematically targeted by the imperial Sunnitizing policies, the resident dervishes were chased away, and the management of the lodges was handed to Sunni-minded Sufis of the Halvetiyya or Nakşibendiyya orders.167 Nureddinzade’s convent in Plovdiv likely came into being as a result of such a conversion, which might also explain the relatively modest nature of the pious endowment established for its maintenance. Despite the lack of primary sources directly attesting to the act of conversion, this seems the most likely scenario, which fits well into the general Sunnitizing dynamics of the period. The most detailed and credible physical description of Plovdiv in the second half of the sixteenth century is authored by Stephan Gerlach, who passed through the city in June 1578 on his return from Istanbul.168 The Protestant scholar was naturally attracted to and therefore focused mostly on the pre-Ottoman architectural heritage in Plovdiv and the Christians in the city. He visited the old citadel, noting that parts of the walls were still standing and visible in some places, as were a cistern on 165 BOA, C.EV. dosya 569, gömlek 28746. 166 Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, Missions Diplomatiques de Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, Dit

Scepperus, Ambassadeur de Christiern II, de Charles V, de Ferdinand Ier et de Marie, Reine de Hongrie, Gouvernante Des Pays-Bas, de 1523 à 1555, Éd. Par M. Le Bonde Saint-Genois (Bruxelles: M. Hayez, 1856), 191–92. 167 Suraiya Faroqhi, “Seyyid Gazi Revisited: The Foundation as Seen Through Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Documents,” Turcica 13 (1981): 90–122; Suraiya Faroqhi, “The Tekke of Hacı Bektaş: Social Position and Economic Activities,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 7, no. 2 (1976): 183–208; Zeynep Yürekli, Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The Politics of Bektashi Shrines in the Classical Age (Farnham, Surrey: Burlington, VT, 2012), 42–45; Ahmet Refik, On Altıncı Asırda Rafızîlik ve Bektaşilik (Istanbul: Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitaphanesi, 1932), 17–19. 168 Stephan Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch der von zween glorwürdigsten römischen Kaysern, Maximiliano und Rudolpho, beyderseits den Andern dieses Nahmens an die ottomanische Pforte zu Constantinopel abgefertigten und durch den Wohlgebornen Herrn Hn. David Ungnad, Freiherrn zu Sonnegk und Preyburg […] mit würcklicher Erhalt- und Verlängerung des Friedens zwischen dem Ottomannischen und Römischen Kayserthum und demselben angehörigen Landen und Köngreichen glücklichst-vollbrachter Gesandtschafft (Franckfurth am Mayn: in Verlegung Johann-David Zunners, 1674), 517.

204 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Nevbet tepesi and the eastern gate of the stronghold (Hisar kapija).169 Gerlach mentioned by name seven functioning orthodox churches (St. George, St. Constantine, St. Nikolas, St. Michael, St. Demetrious, Jesus Christ, Virgin Mary) and the metropolitan church of St. Marina.170 He visited the fenced residence of the metropolitan, located in the Pulat quarter, that, according to Gerlach, had several pleasant rooms and a spacious hall, all built within a lovely garden. Gerlach was unable to meet the metropolitan because the latter had gone to Istanbul at the time of his visit, but he interacted with his secretary, who proved to be an illiterate man showing more interest and proficiency in arms and hunting than matters of religion.171 The German clergyman spent the night in the inn of Şihabeddin paşa near the bridge and vividly described the rest of the complex. Near the large mosque,172 Gerlach saw the imaret that distributed food free of charge every evening to the city’s poor, the instructors and students in the nearby medrese, and numerous dervishes. All people, according to Gerlach, were offered rice, barley, and bread.173 On the “fifth hill” in the city, which is most likely Clocktower hill (Saat tepesi), Gerlach saw a brick-made baldachin tomb of a Turk that had a fountain (çesme) near it.174 In all likelihood, this was the domed open türbe that appears on a nineteenth-century photograph by Cavra. It was located in one of the oldest Muslim cemeteries in the city, which surrounded the southwestern foot of Clocktower hill, and it is likely to be identical to the domed tomb of Behlül Efendi, who, according to Evliya Çelebi, was the imam of Sultan Murad I.175 Gerlach’s information about the Christian residents of Plovdiv is interesting because its credibility can be cross-checked with Ottoman documentary sources. He states that in 1578 there were 250 Christians in the city, whose eight churches were 169 The cistern that Gerlach mentions must be the large reservoir excavated on the northern hills dat-

ing from the late middle ages (12th–14th centuries). Hristo Džambov, “Novi danni za vodosnabdjavaneto na Plovdiv prez antičnostta i srednovekovieto,” Godišnik na Narodnija archeologičeski muzej Plovdiv 6 (1968): 65–82; Kamen Stanev, “Donžon li e šternata na Nebet tepe v Plovdiv?,” Žurnal za istoričeski i arheologičeski izsledvanija 3 (2015): 66–81. 170 Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch, 517. For a discussion of the uncertain fate of the medieval churches in Plovdiv, see Kamen Stanev, “Za lokalizacijata na edna srednovekovna cărkva v Plovdiv po danni na frenskija pătešestvenik Ljofevr,” Plovdivski istoričeski forum 3 (2019): 16–23; Dimo Češmedžiev, “Starata cărkva ‘Sv. Petka’ v Plovdiv,” in Etjudi vărhu bălgarski srednovekovni kultove (Plovdiv: Bălgarsko istoričesko nasledstvo, 2019), 79–119. 171 The secretary also offered Gerlach and his companions a local alcoholic drink (rakija), despite the early hour of the visit. According to the German theologian this type of kindness was common in the region. Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch, 517. 172 Gerlach wrongly attributed the patronage of the mosque to a “great kadı”: Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch, 517. 173 Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch, 517. 174 Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch, 517. 175 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi, 3:517. The old edition once more proves superior to the Topkapı manuscript used for the new academic edition. In the Topkapı manuscript the row which provides the information about the tomb of Behlül Efendi in Plovdiv was left blank.

Population geography | 205

Fig. 26. Muslim cemetery between Saat and Bunarcık tepesi. Alleged baldachin mausoleum of Behlül Efendi at the background on the right, 1890s

served by three priests and the metropolitan himself.176 Eight years before Gerlach’s visit, the Ottoman administration prepared a new tahrir register of the region.177 The data in the register indicates that the city had 88 Christian households and two Christian bachelors in the four quarters mentioned above. Using the commonly accepted multiplier of 5 individuals per household, the Christian population of Plovdiv in 1570 can be estimated to be 442 individuals. Therefore Gerlach underestimated or was misinformed about the number of Christian residents in Plovdiv, reducing the community to almost half of its size. Gerlach’s account also makes no mention of Jews and Gypsies in the city, but despite the migration to the west in the 1520s–1530s, by 1570 the Jewish community had grown larger, having fifty households and one bachelor. The Gypsies who occupied the opposite edge of the city remained at about the same number, twenty-six households, losing seven households in the period 1530–70. The data in the tahrir register of 1570 show that the most significant changes occurred within the Muslim community of Plovdiv. After having been left almost without religious personnel for the numerous mosques and mescids in 1530, the city had undergone an astonishing recovery in the period between the two registrations. In forty years, 116 new Muslim households had settled in the city, giving a substantial boost to the Muslim community. Moreover, having had only three imams in 176 Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch, 517. 177 BOA, TD 494, dating 1570.

206 | Ottoman Plovdiv

1530 must have made Plovdiv an attractive place for ulema, and many new appointments were made in the period soon after the forced relocation. The data from the register of 1570 shows that the city had no less than 57 imams and 44 müezzins who occupied the vacant posts in the numerous mosques in the course of a dramatic influx of Muslim clergymen to the city. The register also recorded three college instructors (müderris) in the medreses of Şihabeddin paşa and Karagöz paşa and two teachers (mu’allim) in some of the mektebs in the city. It is difficult to tell how many primary schools functioned in Plovdiv in the second half of the sixteenth century, but a century later Evliya Çelebi claims that 17 mektebs offered education to Muslim children.178 In any case, the mektebs of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail bey and Hüseyin Ağa, and the so-called Dede Mektebi, mentioned above, might have been among the institutions where the two mu’allims offered instruction in 1570. The register also recorded several dervishes, Friday preachers, descendants of the Prophet, kadıs, and other Muslim elites who formed the intellectual and religious milieu, which must have prompted Evliya’s remark that although the residents of Plovdiv were people of pleasure, there were many Muslim scholars, preachers, and şeyhs, and the group of the kadıs was substantial.179 The rapid growth of the population is also reflected by the increase of the total number of city quarters, which by 1570 reached thirty-six—30 Muslim, 4 Christian, 1 Jewish, and 1 Gypsy. The occupied, inhabited area of the city increased to 134 hectares, with a population of around 4730 individuals who resided at an average density of 35 persons per hectare. A small group of merchants from Dubrovnik settled near the complex of Şihabeddin paşa, but they did not form their own quarter, nor were they included in the register. A group of servants in the imperial mail service settled on the northern bank of the Maritsa and formed the new Muslim quarter named after their profession, mahalle-i Ulakçıyan.180 178 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi, 3:385. 179 “Eğerçi ehl-i beledî ehl-i hevâdır ammâ ulemâsı ve kibâr-ı meşâyihi ve e’ imme ü hutebası gayet çokdur.

Ekseri kudat tâ’ ifesi bî-hisabbdır. Ulemâ-yı mütebahhirinden ve şu’arâ -yı mütehayyirinden erbâb-ı ma’ ârifi çokdur.” Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 218. At least four kadıs and one deputy judge (naib) resided in Plovdiv in 1570, doing their term in isolation or awaiting new appointment. The defter also included a number of scribes, tax-collectors, market supervisors, evkaf administrators, and other officials. 180 BOA, TD 494, f. 522. The twenty eight ulaks were also dispersed in many other quarters. On the functions of ulaks and the Ottoman courier system, see Colin Heywood, “Some Turkish Archival Sources for the History of the Menzilhane Network in Rumeli During the Eighteenth Century,” Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi 4–5 (July 1976): 39–55; Colin Heywood, “The Ottoman Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rumeli in the 18th Century,” in Social and Economic History of Turkey (1071–1920). Papers Presented to the First International Congress on the Social and Economic History of Turkey, Hacettepe University, Ankara, July 11-13, 1977, ed. Osman Okyar and Halil İnalcık (Ankara: Meteksan, 1980); Colin Heywood, “The Via Egnatia in the Ottoman Period: The Menzilḫānes of the Ṣol Ḳol in the Late 17th/Early 18th Century,” in The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule (1380–1699), ed. Elizabeth A. Zachariadou (Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1996),

Population geography | 207

A second population peak The data from the next tahrir registration, prepared in 1596, indicates that the city’s population had recovered entirely from the demographic shock of the first half of the century, caused by the centrally orchestrated forced relocation of its Muslim inhabitants.181 The city’s total population once again reached and even surpassed the level of 1516, when Plovdiv was at the peak of its development. At the turn of the sixteenth century the city had 1078 households and 48 bachelors, for a total population of around 5530 individuals, spread over 134 hectares, at an average density of 41 residents per hectare. The number of Muslims had increased during the quarter century between registrations, with close to one hundred households (844 in total), thus almost regaining their highest point of 1516. The increase in the total population was also due to the rapid growth in Christians, whose number almost doubled between the registrations of 1570 and 1596. The four old Christian quarters proved too small for the rapidly increasing population, and the Christians began to “colonize” the neighboring Muslim quarters. The first Christians who settled outside their traditional quarters were a group of twelve households who installed themselves in the Koca Hüseyin mahalle, which bordered the large old Christian quarter Pazariçi. This early Christian bridgehead in the Muslim quarters created a trend that developed in the course of the seventeenth century, when most Muslim quarters in the eastern part of the city accepted new Christian settlers. Over time some of these mixed quarters were entirely overtaken by Christians, and were represented in nineteenth-century sources as entirely Christian-Bulgarian areas. The dramatic increase in Plovdiv’s Christians at the turn of the sixteenth century could not have been a result of natural growth alone; it was also a consequence of a population influx from outside. This was not an isolated process, nor peculiar to Plovdiv. A similar trend can also be detected in the neighboring towns in Upper Thrace. For instance, in the period 1570–96 the Christian population of Stara Zagora dou129–44; Aleksandăr Antonov, “Vremeto e pari. Osmanskata kurierska služba v kraja na XVII i prez XVIII vek,” in Pari, dumi, pamet, ed. Raia Zaimova and Nikolaj Aretov (Sofia: Kralica Mab, 2004), 127–43; Aleksandăr Antonov, “Infrastruktura na ovladjanoto prostranstvo. Osmanski dokumenti za pătnite stancii po Diagonalnija păt (Orta Kol) ot XVI, XVII i XVIII vek,” in Etničeski i kulturni prostranstva na Balkanite. Chast I: Minaloto – istoričeski rakursi. Sbornik v čest na prof. Cvetana Georgieva, ed. Svetlana Ivanova (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2008), 206–25. 181 TKGM, KuK 65. This document has two clean copies in the Ottoman archive in Istanbul, BOA, TD 648 and BOA, TD 1001. The copy TD 1001 is far superior to TD 648. The pages of the latter register were mixed up when the document was rebound, thus quarters from one town were laid in another, villages were misplaced in different kazas etc. The document has no hüküm and date of compilation on its front page and it is commonly referred in the literature as dating from 1595 or even 1585 cf. Turan Gökçe, “Filibe Şehri Nüfusunun Dinî ve Meslekî Özellikleri (1485–1610),” in XIV. Türk Tarih Kongresi (9-13 Eylül 2002), vol. 2:1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2005), 523– 55. For detailed argumentation about the date 1596, see Boykov, Tatar Pazardžik: ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraja na XVII vek. Izsledvanija i dokumenti, 69, 74–75.

208 | Ottoman Plovdiv

bled in number,182 and the same was true for Pazardžik,183 while in the almost exclusively Christian İstanimaka as many as 130 new Christian households appeared in the interim years.184 Throughout the sixteenth century, the rural Bulgarian population from the overpopulated mountains was descending to the open plains, searching for better living conditions.185 Some of these migrants converted to Islam and settled in the towns and the cities; others retained their Christian faith and installed themselves in the villages in the plain. The end of the sixteenth century marked the beginning of a process that changed the demographic balance in the area. The higher birth rate of the Bulgarians in the mountains during the sixteenth century produced a significant population surplus that was constantly being pushed out toward the lower parts of the region. Driven by two dominant factors—high fertility, and a sudden drop of average annual temperatures, felt especially at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries—the influx of the rural Bulgarian population into the towns of Thrace was significantly increased.186 In this period the average annual temperatures dropped sensibly, triggering mass migration from the mountains. The several cold summers in the 1590s in all probability led to harvest failures in many villages located at a higher altitude in the Rhodopes or the Balkan range.187 This period of sudden climate change, known as the “Little Ice Age,” affected Anatolia more dramatically, where in combination with a range of social and economic problems it caused constant unrest for decades.188 The effect of the chang182 Boykov, “Balkan City or Ottoman City? A Study on the Models of Urban Development in Otto-

man Upper Thrace 15th – 17th c.,” 74.

183 Boykov, Tatar Pazardžik: ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraja na XVII vek. Izsledvanija i dokumenti,

69–75.

184 Hristozov, “Demografski i etno-religiozni procesi v rajona na Asenovgrad prez XVI v.,” 120–25. 185 This was not an isolated Bulgarian phenomena but a regional manifestation of a much wider process

that affected other parts of the Ottoman Empire and Europe. Oktay Özel, “Population Changes in Ottoman Anatolia during the 16th and 17th Centuries: The ‘Demographic Crisis’ Reconsidered,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, no. 2 (2004): 183–205; Oktay Özel, The Collapse of Rural Order in Ottoman Anatolia: Amasya 1576–1643 (Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2016). 186 For general observations on Bulgaria’s population dynamics in the first centuries of Ottoman rule, see Grigor Boykov, “The Human Cost of Warfare: Population Loss During the Ottoman Conquest and the Demographic History of Bulgaria in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era,” in The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans: Interpretations and Research Debates, ed. Oliver Jens Schmitt (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016), 103–66. 187 For recent studies on the drop of average temperatures in the period, see Rüdiger Glaser, “On the Course of Temperature in Central Europe since the Year 1000 A.D.,” Historical Social Research 22, no. 1 (1997): 59–87; Jürg Luterbacher, “European Seasonal and Annual Temperature Variability, Trends, and Extremes since 1500,” Science 303 (2004): 1499–1503; Momchil Panayotov et al., “Climate Signal in Tree-Ring Chronologies of Pinus Peuce and Pinus Heldreichii from the Pirin Mountains in Bulgaria,” Trees 24, no. 3 (2010): 479–90; Martin P. Tingley and Peter Huybers, “Recent Temperature Extremes at High Northern Latitudes Unprecedented in the Past 600 Years,” Nature 496, no. 7444 (2013): 201–15; Sam White, “The Real Little Ice Age,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 44, no. 3 (2014): 327–52. 188 There is a rich bibliography on the social unrest in Anatolia, commonly referred as the celâli rebellions. A recent study has examined the impact of climate change and population pressure which

Population geography | 209

ing climate and the worsening living conditions in Ottoman Rumeli are yet to be satisfactorily studied, but this process undoubtedly stimulated the migrations of the late sixteenth and entire seventeenth century.189 Alongside the growth in population, in the course of the second half of the sixteenth century the local economy also returned to its average pace. Plovdiv’s commercial infrastructure not only functioned as before, but also continued to attract patronage and investment from high-ranking Ottoman officials. As mentioned above, Evliya Çelebi referred to the Zal hanı in his list of inns in seventeenth-century Plovdiv. The name of this inn is so peculiar that the vizier Zal Mahmud paşa can be undoubtedly identified as a patron of this commercial building. A Bosnianborn devşirme, he made fast progress in the Ottoman military and administrative hierarchy, rising from kapıcıbaşı to beylerbeyi of Budin, Halep, and Anadolu. According to Peçevi, Mahmud paşa’s excellent skills in wrestling, and the crucial role he played in the strangling of Prince Mustafa in 1553, earned him the byname Zal, after the mythical Persian hero.190 After the death of the vizier Hasan paşa in 1574, Zal Mahmud married his widow Şahsultan, the daughter of Sultan Selim II, and was promoted to the vizierate. The marriage did not last long, however, as within two weeks in 1577, both husband and wife died, and following their last will the couple was buried together in Eyüb.191 Before their deaths, the Ottoman princess and the vizier had each left a written will donating one-third of their inheritance to construct a joint mosque, medrese complex, and mausoleum in Istanbul’s Eyüb. The princess begged her reigning brother, Murad III (r. 1574–95), and her royal sisters to give up their shares of the remnant of her inheritance, and selected her mother, the valide Nurbanu Sultan, as the executor of her will. Whoever occupied the grand vizierate had to oversee the thus-established endowment.192 The core of the property endowed by the princess consisted of fourteen villages in the region of Plovdiv, which she had received as a gift from her royal

were the driving forces that caused constant turmoil in the Anatolian provinces of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century. William Griswold, “Climate Change: A Possible Factor in the Social Unrest of Seventeenth Century Anatolia,” in Humanist and Scholar: Essays in Honor of Andreas Tietze, ed. Heath W. Lowry and Donald Quataert (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993), 37–57; Sam White, The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 59–73; 126–39; 260–75; Özel, The Collapse of Rural Order in Ottoman Anatolia: Amasya 1576–1643. 189 These questions are addressed in the dissertation by Hristo Hristozov, “Okrăžavaštoto prostranstvo i planinskoto naselenie v Ropopite prez XVI-XVII vek” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Sofia University, 2017). 190 İbrahim Efendi Peçevi, Tarih-i Peçevî, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Matba‘a-i ‘Amire, 1281), 441–42. 191 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 368. 192 Necipoğlu, 370–71. The endowment deed of the joint foundation of Şahsultan and Zal Mahmud is kept in the Ottoman archive in Istanbul. BOA, Evkaf 20/25, dating 1593. This long-neglected document was recently made known by the publication of Necipoğlu, who also summarized its contents.

210 | Ottoman Plovdiv

father in 1568.193 Zal Mahmud paşa’s more modest endowment consisted of shops in Ankara and Plovdiv and a hamam and a fountain equipped with its own water channel in the Macedonian town of Prilep.194 The money raised for the foundation was loaned out at interest for a year and a half, thus increasing the available funds. The chief finance minister and Zal Mahmud paşa’s council scribe Hüseyin Ağa became the administrator of the vakıf. He first built the mausoleum for the couple in Eyüb and then spent 1,251,563 akçes for the construction of an income-producing caravanserai in Plovdiv and multiple water mills in the villages belonging to the charitable foundation of Şahsultan.195 The rest of the complex in Eyüb, the mosque, two medreses, and many commercial structures were completed a decade later in 1590.196 The endowment deed of the pious foundation established posthumously by the Ottoman princess Şahsultan and her husband, the vizier Zal Mahmud paşa, leaves no doubt about the identity of the patron of the Zal hanı, which Evliya Çelebi mentioned in his travelogue about a century later. The han was commissioned on behalf of Zal Mahmud paşa by the then mütevelli of the foundation Hüseyin Ağa, most likely in 1580. Paolo Contarini, who passed through the city in the same year, witnessed and described the ongoing construction of a great caravanserai, according to him commissioned by the mother of Sultan Murad III.197 There is little doubt that the building described by the Venetian is the so-called Zal hanı, while his information on the patron also seems credible since, following the stipulations of the endowment deed, valide Nurbanu Sultan acted as an executor of her daughter’s will. Once accomplished, the inn yielded revenues to the vakıf, which supported the couple’s complex in Eyüb. This building was another contribution to the commercial core of Plovdiv and corresponded to the ongoing recovery of the city’s economic strength and demographic potential. The exact location of the building cannot be established, nor is it known when the han named after Zal Mahmud paşa disappeared. In all probability, it was one of the multiple inns built along the main market street that fell victim to the “modernization” of the city in the late nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. Another prominent figure from the Western Balkans recruited through the devşirme system, the two-time grand vizier Rüstem paşa (in office 1544–53 and 193 Evkaf defteri of 1570 lists the villages of the then mülk of Şahsultan. The villages were located

southeast of Plovdiv at the foot of the Rhodopes, including also the monastery Ste. Paraskeva near the village Muldava. BOA, TD 498, ff. 416–29. The following evkaf register of the area, dating 1596, already lists the villages as vakıf of Şahsultan. BOA, TD 470, ff. 424–40. 194 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 371; Betül Kahraman, “Vakfiyesi Işığında Şah Sultan ve Zal Mahmud Paşa Külliyesi,” FSM İlmi Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, no. 14 (2019): 151–94. 195 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 371. 196 Necipoğlu, 371. 197 “… girammo tutta la città, nella quale sono molte moschee, molti caravanserà, ed ora se ne fabbrica uno magnifico dalla madre del gransignore, che sarà cosa superb. Ha molti bagni, è piena di traffico, ha molti bazari … .” Contarini, Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli, 30.

Population geography | 211

1555–61), is also believed to have built an inn in Plovdiv.198 However, this information is ambiguous, and is based solely on Aydın Yüksel’s interpretation of Rüstem paşa’s endowment deed.199 Neither Evliya nor any documentary source known to me seems to confirm Yüksel’s assumption. Nevertheless, even without the patronage of Rüstem paşa, it is apparent that at the end of the sixteenth century, Plovdiv reached a new peak in its development. The consequences of the demographic crisis brought about by the forced relocation of Muslim population were overcome in the course of the decades, and the total population figures and average density reached a high point compared to the beginning of the century. The dry statistical data from the taxation register cannot reveal much about the social fabric, but it still testifies that the city had a vibrant society that was a mixture of craftsmen and merchants of various confessions who filled the growing commercial infrastructure. Churches as well as mosques appear to have been well staffed, and a number of learned men clearly resided in Plovdiv, thus creating an atmosphere of a real provincial center in the Ottoman realm.

Population dynamics in the early seventeenth century The turn of the sixteenth century marked a significant change in the urban landscape of the smaller neighboring town of Pazardžik that affected the demographic processes of the entire region. In 1596 the grand vizier Damad İbrahim paşa built a highly monumental double caravanserai, likely to have been the most prominent building enterprise ever undertaken in the Ottoman Balkans outside metropolitan Edirne. The building of İbrahim paşa was a complex that included an imaret, small mosque, public fountains, etc., and gave a real boost to the development of the provincial town’s economy. The population of Pazardžik increased dramatically, thanks to the sudden influx of new settlers who saw in the provincial center better trade opportunities and living conditions.200 The last “classical” tahrir register of the population of Plovdiv attests to the impact of Pazardžik’s emergence as a second major economic center in the area. The extant register is likely to be a clean, spare copy and contains no hükm and date; it has therefore been variously dated in the related literature.201 Gökbilgin was the first to point that the document must date from the period of Sultan Ahmed I’s reign (1603–17).202 198 İ. Aydın Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Devri (926–974/1520–1566)

(İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 2004), 756; Ayverdi, Avrupa’ da Osmanlı Mimâri Eserleri, 4: Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk:31. 199 Rüstem paşa’s vakfıye (VGMA D. 635, ff. 137–67) does not seem to make particular mention of Plovdiv as the town in which the grand vizier had built a caravanserai, several shops, and a bakery. The statement of Yüksel that “in the language of the local population [Filibe] is pronounced Hülbe” in order to match the graphic in the document is undoubtedly incorrect. 200 Boykov, Tatar Pazardžik: ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraja na XVII vek. Izsledvanija i dokumenti, 73–76. 201 BOA, TD 729. 202 Gökbilgin, XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 535.

212 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Later researchers who studied the register used various dates, ranging from 1603 to 1610.203 In his study on Pazardžik during the Ottoman period, Machiel Kiel offered information that is valuable for the history of Plovdiv, and which allows us to propose a more accurate date for the last tahrir of the region. According to Kiel’s findings, a compact group of Armenian settlers appeared in Plovdiv in 1610.204 After a bitter controversy with the local Greeks, the Armenian community managed to take over the church of St. George and settled at the western edge of the citadel and the area below it. The tahrir in question lists a group of twenty-one Armenian households in Plovdiv, thus indicating that the document was drawn up after 1610.205 The defter was a part of a general renewal of the provincial registers undertaken by the central administration during the reign of Ahmed I. In some regions, like Paşa sancağı, new registrations were carried out, while for other regions new copies of the preceding tahrirs were produced. For instance, the information in the last tahrir of the region of Nikopol (Niğbolu), dating from 1579–80,206 was replicated in a new tahrir without any changes. This copy is housed in the Ottoman archives in Istanbul and bears the date AH 1023/1614–15, which indicates when the renewal of the registrations in the eastern parts of Rumeli took place.207 Given that the last tahrir register, which included the population of Plovdiv, was certainly compiled after 1610 due to the presence of the Armenians, it is likely that the actual registration took place in 1614, when the central administration also ordered the prepared copy of the Nikopol register.208 203 Machiel Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık. The Development of an Ottoman Town in Central Bulgaria or the

Story of How the Bulgarians Conquered Upper Thrace Without Firing a Shot,” in Das osmanische Reich und seinen Archivalien und Chroniken, Nejat Göyünç zu Ehren, ed. Klaus Kreiser and Christoph Neumann (İstanbul; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997), 31–67; Gökçe, “Filibe Şehri Nüfusunun Dinî ve Meslekî Özellikleri (1485–1610),” 523–55. In later work the same author revised the date to 1613–14. Turan Gökçe, “XVII. Yüzyılda Filibe Şehrinin Demografik Yapısı,” in Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu, 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı, ed. Meral Bayrak (Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 2005), 49–64. 204 Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık. The Development of an Ottoman Town in Central Bulgaria or the Story of How the Bulgarians Conquered Upper Thrace Without Firing a Shot,” 44. 205 BOA, TD 729, f. 317. Kiel, who provided the information about the exact date of arrival of the Armenians in Plovdiv, did not however find the Armenian community in the register, and therefore concluded that the defter was complied before 1610. Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık”, 44. 206 The original copy of this register is extant in Tapu ve Kadastro Arşivi in Ankara, TKGM, KuK 58. For further information on the register and its data, see Nikolay Antov, The Ottoman “Wild West”: The Balkan Frontier in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017). 207 BOA, TD 718. 208 By the 1640s, when the central administration compiled highly detailed avarız registers for some parts of the empire, the information on the regions of Niğbolu and Silistre was already more than sixty years old, and therefore a new detailed registration was carried out (BOA, TD 771 and TD 775, dating AH 1052/1642–43). The information on the taxpayers of the left- and the right-wing kazas of the Paşa sancağı, however, was much fresher, which must have appeared acceptable for the central administration, and it did not produce detailed avarız defters of this region in the 1640s.

Population geography | 213

The most significant novelty concerning Plovdiv’s development in the interim (1596–1614) was the aforementioned arrival of the community of Armenians. The Armenians who migrated to Rumeli from Eastern Anatolia at the beginning of the seventeenth century were not entirely new to the city. Plovdiv had a sizable Armenian Monophysite population in the early middle ages, deported there by the Byzantine emperors during the eighth century. Nevertheless, by the Ottoman conquest, the local Greek and Slavic populations had assimilated these Monophysites and they disappeared completely.209 The arrival of the Armenians in Plovdiv in 1610 was part of a larger migratory wave of Christian and Muslim populations from the eastern parts of Anatolia towards Istanbul, Western Anatolia, and the Balkans, commonly referred to in the literature as the “Great Flight” (Büyük Kaçgun).210 The general insecurity in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, caused by the so-called Celâli revolts, the war with the Safavids, along with several years of cooler temperatures, led to widespread starvation and unleashed a migratory wave towards the west.211 Henry Shapiro has recently situated the history of Armenian migration in this process and coined the term the “Great Armenian Flight.” Studying descriptions in Armenian narrative sources in relation to the evidence derived from Ottoman documentary sources, Shapiro traces various strands of the history of the Armenians who migrated in the early seventeenth century from the region of Kemah to Rodosçuk (Tekirdağ) in modern Turkish Aegean Thrace.212 There is no explicit evidence for a direct link between the Armenian community in Plovdiv and the migrants from Kemah to Rodosçuk, but the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests this. The Armenian preacher Grigor Daranałc’i (d. 1643) rescued a relic from one of the churches in Kemah—a nail from the Holy Cross—and brought it to Rodosçuk, where it became an object of veneration.213 The relic was later moved to the Armenian church in Plovdiv, an act sug209 Ani Dančeva-Vasileva, “Armenskoto prisăstvie v Plovdiv prez Srednovekovieto,” Istoričeski pregled

5–6 (1999): 119–34.

210 Mustafa Akdağ, “Celâli İsyanlarından Büyük Kaçgunluk (1603–1606),” Tarih Araştırmaları Der-

gisi 2, no. 2 (1964): 1–49.

211 Oktay Özel, “The Reign of Violence: The Celalis c. 1550–1700,” in The Ottoman World, ed.

Christine Woodhead (London; New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012), 184–204; Özel, The Collapse of Rural Order in Ottoman Anatolia: Amasya 1576–1643; White, The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. 212 Henry R. Shapiro, “The Great Armenian Flight: Migration and Cultural Change in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Early Modern History 23, no. 1 (2019): 67–89; Henry R. Shapiro, The Rise of the Western Armenian Diaspora in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire: From Refugee Crisis to Renaissance in the 17th Century (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2022), 29–144. 213 Shapiro, The Rise of the Western Armenian Diaspora in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire, 163–64; Henry R. Shapiro, “Grigor Daranałcʿi: An Armenian Chronicler of Early Modern Mass Mobility,” in Entangled Confessionalizations? Dialogic Perspectives on the Politics of Piety and Community Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th –18th Centuries, ed. Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2022), 139–57.

214 | Ottoman Plovdiv

gesting strong historical ties between the Armenian communities in the two places. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the twenty-one Armenian households newly arrived in Plovdiv occupied the area near the then abandoned church of St. George, located just below the walls of the former citadel. The community seems to have proliferated, most likely due to the influx of further Armenian settlers. The 1624–25 register for the poll tax of non-Muslims records thirty-two households,214 and ten years later, in 1634, fifty-one cizye hanes were levied on the Armenian taxpayers in the city, which attests to significant growth in the interim.215 In the second half of the seventeenth century, after the Ottoman conquest of Kamieniec Podolski in 1672, the community grew more robust thanks to an apparent influx of new settlers. Documents from the Armenian clerical court in Lviv testify that 426 Armenian residents were forcefully relocated to Plovdiv in 1674.216 Thanks to the involvement and mediation of Abro Çelebi in 1675, Mehmed IV (r. 1648–87) granted the Armenians in the city the right to use an old Orthodox church, and the community took over the medieval Greek church. The church acquired by the Armenians was repaired many times in the later period, but kept the original name of the patron saint St. George (Surp Kevork). Evidently, both the Armenian quarter and the church occupied the same area throughout the Ottoman period, as the earliest urban plan drawn up by the Russian officer Ilinskij in 1878 marked a small Christian cemetery near the Armenian quarter that, in all likelihood, was used by the Armenian community. The emergence of the nearby town Pazardžik as a regional economic center mainly affected the Muslim community of Plovdiv. Instead of the anticipated growth, the total number of Muslim households in the city saw a sharp decrease, with Muslims dropping from about 4220 individuals in 1596 to 3600 in 1614. Undoubtedly a large portion of Plovdiv’s “missing” Muslim population relocated to the smaller, rapidly expanding neighboring town, whose own Muslim community jumped from 1435 individuals in 1596 to 2070 in 1614. Some of the old Muslim quarters, such as Köprübaşı, Ulakçıyan, and Korucu, merged again into the large quarter named Tataran that covered the area of the suburb on the northern bank of the Maritsa. Although the drop in the number of Muslims at the beginning of the seventeenth century was significant, it was not nearly as dramatic as the events in the preceding century when Plovdiv had lost a substantial portion of its Muslim residents. By 1614 most mosques and mescids in the city were functioning again, staffed by thirty imams and twenty-nine müezzins. Moreover, the register included information about 214 BOA, MAD 14176, p. 3, dating from AH 1034 (1624-1625). 215 Elena Grozdanova, ed., Turski izvori za bălgarskata istoriya (Sofia: Glavno Upravlenie na Arhivite,

2001), 19.

216 I owe this information to Dr. Marcin Majewski (Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences). I was

unable to inspect the documents attesting this 1674 migration. The Ottoman cizye registers do not show an increase in taxpayers: on the contrary, in 1688 there were only fifteen cizye hane of Armenian taxpayers. Had the relocation happened on this scale, it is indeed possible that the families who arrived to Plovdiv as result of forced relocation were tax-exempt, therefore missing from the registers.

Population geography | 215

more ulema members, such as eight college professors and several kadıs, including one labeled “kadı-i Filibe,” who was possibly the former judge of the city, expecting a new appointment. The registrar did not keep a record of the bachelors in the city and omitted to list most of the professions of the craftsmen, preferring to use patronymics instead, but he was meticulous in noting not only the ulema, but also the members of the askeri class. Thus the register lists more than one hundred cavalry and infantry soldiers, four gunners, the commander (mir-i liva) of the voynuks, and even the retired sancakbeyi of Çirmen.217 Despite the significant drop in the number of Muslims, the total population figures did not drastically change, due to the growth of the other confessions in the period between registrations as well as the influx of Armenian settlers. Indeed, the total number of inhabitants of Plovdiv actually increased, amounting to 5650 residents in 1614. The city reached its highest point regarding population density—42 individuals per hectare—and at 135 hectares occupied the largest inhabited area for the period covered in this study. Following the trend that emerged at the turn of the sixteenth century, the Christian population of Plovdiv continued to grow very rapidly. In eighteen years, the Christians in the city added one hundred new families, most certainly as a result of a migration wave to the urban center. Likewise, the significant influx of population into the city was by no means a phenomenon that only affected the development of Plovdiv. In the same period, the Christians in Stara Zagora doubled in number, while in the highly attractive town of Pazardžik the total number of Christians jumped from forty-four to one hundred households. As mentioned above, the sudden change in the climate that occurred in the period must be seen as one of the major push factors for the migrating populace. Research on the climate history of the region, based on proxy data from dendrochronological analysis of samples from Pinus heldreichii taken in the Pirin mountain (southwest of Plovdiv), demonstrates that the first two decades of the seventeenth century were extremely cold, the average annual temperatures dropping every year to reach a minimum in the mid-1620s, when the trend shifted and a decade of relatively moderate temperatures followed.218 The influx of the Christian population into the towns and cities located in the lower Thracian plain seems hardly surprising given the data about the cold weather in the region in the last decades of the sixteenth and the first two decades of the seventeenth century. The constant migration of Bulgarian Christians from the overpopulated mountains to the lower lands gradually changed the ethnoreligious balance of the region. While Christian communities were rapidly growing in lowland cities such as Plovdiv, the once prosperous highland town Razlog, whose population at the beginning of the sixteenth century surpassed that of Nicea (İznik), had shrank to about half its size by the turn of the century.219 217 Gökçe, “Filibe Şehri Nüfusunun Dinî ve Meslekî Özellikleri (1485–1610),” 547–49. 218 Panayotov et al., “Climate Signal in Tree-Ring Chronologies of Pinus Peuce and Pinus Heldreichii

from the Pirin Mountains in Bulgaria.”

219 Boykov, “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina v uslovijata na osmanska vlast (XVI-XIX v.),” 71.

216 | Ottoman Plovdiv

The register from 1614 demonstrates that the large Christian community in Plovdiv continued to expand spatially throughout the rest of the Ottoman period. The situation observed in the early seventeenth century marked the beginning of a process that completely changed the city’s demographic picture in the next two centuries. Documentary evidence shows that by the nineteenth century, Muslims were no longer the majority in Plovdiv. The Christian Bulgarians and Greeks were slowly taking over a town which, centuries earlier, had been re-created and entirely dominated by the Turkish Muslim population.220

Completing Muslim city’s urban fabric: public buildings from the late sixteenth and seventeenth century At the very end of the sixteenth or, more likely, in the first years of the seventeenth century, an unidentified patron erected one of the most important landmarks of Ottoman Plovdiv, which still dominates the landscape of the modern city—the clock tower (saat kulesi). The clock tower was built on the hill situated in the western part of the city, bordering the square of the Muradiye mosque and the urban core from the southwest. The clock tower overlooked the commercial area of Plovdiv and for centuries defined the pace of economic life in the city. Evliya Çelebi relates that the minaret-like tower set on the top of one of the hills in Plovdiv had a clock mechanism whose bell rang every day, marking midday. The sound of the clock tower was audible at a great distance from the city.221 Being the earliest Ottoman clock tower in modern Bulgaria, the tower in Plovdiv is also one of the earliest clock towers in all of Ottoman Rumeli.222 Only two clock towers in the Balkans seem to pre-date the one in Plovdiv. The earliest clock tower in the European possessions of the Ottoman Empire is the standing tower near the mosque of Sultan Murad II (Hünkâr Camii) in Skopje. In all probability, it was built in the second half of the sixteenth century, more precisely in the period 1566–72. The description of the tower left by Evliya is remarkably similar to his text depicting the clock tower in Plovdiv, which leaves the impression that he is repeating a cliché. The clock tower in Skopje was described as early as 1575 by Jacopo Soranzo, 220 Machiel Kiel, “Filibe,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet

Vakfı, 1996). Neriman Ersoy, “XIX. Yüzyılda Filibe Şehri (1839–1876)” (Unpublished PhD Dissertation, İstanbul, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2003), 38–42. 221 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 218. 222 Lyubomir Mikov, “Cultural and Historical Profile of Clock Towers in the Bulgarian Lands (17th– 19th Centuries),” Études Balkaniques 1–2 (2010): 104–26; Heath W. Lowry, “The Passing of Time: Ottoman Clock Towers in the Balkans, ca. 1570–1675,” in Yücel Dağlı Anısına: “geldi Yücel, gitti Yücel. bir nefes gibi...“, ed. Evangelia Balta et al. (İstanbul: Turkuaz, 2011), 420–38; Andreas Lyberatos, “Time and Timekeeping in the Balkans: Representations and Realities,” in Entangled Histories of the Balkans, ed. Roumen Dontchev Daskalov et al., vol. 4: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017), 257–90.

Population geography | 217

who wrote that the tower was then new and the clock measured time in western fashion from noon to midnight.223 Two weeks later, the Italian traveler reached Plovdiv but mentioned no clock tower there, which most certainly indicates a later construction date for the tower in this city.224 The other early clock tower built in the Serbian palanka Jagodina was mentioned by Wolf Andreas von Steinach, who passed through the place in 1583.225 Therefore the clock tower in Plovdiv is likely to be the third oldest in the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, the architectural layout of the tower that stands today in modern Plovdiv cannot provide any information about the initial construction date of the clock tower in the city, because the tower was completely rebuilt during the early nineteenth century. According to the in situ repair inscription, the present-day hexagonal structure results from this late reconstruction. Completed in September 1810, the new structure was built on top of the square foundations of the old tower.226 The earliest information about the clock tower in Plovdiv comes from the travel account of M. Lefebvre, who traversed the city in August 1611.227 As a secretary of the French ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Lefebvre passed through Plovdiv on the way to Istanbul.228 The group entered the city from the north, passed the square of the Muradiye mosque, and continued further southward to take the new road to Edirne and Istanbul. At the southern edge of the city, on the right-hand side of the road, i.e., west, Lefebvre spotted the clock tower that stood on the top of a high rock. According to the ambassadorial secretary, the clock marked every hour with a sound and kept time according to the French manner, twelve o’clock being midday.229 This information corresponds to the narrative of Evliya Çelebi, who, half a century later, witnessed the clock striking twelve times at noon. The clock’s mechanism must have been very primitive and imperfect, because only twelve years after the visit by Lefebvre 223 Jacopo di Francesco Soranzo, Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli fatto da M. Jacopo

Soranzo al Sultano Murad III in compagnia di M. Giovanni Correr bailo alla Porta Ottomana descritto da anonimo che fu al seguito del Soranzo, MDLXXV (Venezia: G. Merlo, 1856), 43. 224 For further details about the clock tower in Skopje, see Mustafa Özer, Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi (XIV.–XIX. yüzyıl) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006), 172–74. 225 Nikolaj Tuleškov, “Časovnikovite kuli,” Vekove, 1987, 39. 226 The inscription of the clock tower has been published by Ivan Dobrev, “Za nadpisa na ‘Sahat Tepe’ v Plovdiv,” Vekove 3 (1986): 41–44. 227 The original text Voyage de M. de Sancy, ambassadeur pour le Roi en Levant, fait par terre depuis Raguse jusques à Constantinople l’an 1611 was not accessible to me. Here I use the Bulgarian translation of the text. Bistra Cvetkova, Čuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Frenski pătepisi za Balkanite XV– XVII v. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1975), 189. 228 Emanuel Constantin Antoche, “Un ambassadeur français à la Porte ottomane : Achille de Harlay, baron de Sancy et de la Mole (1611–1619),” in Istoria ca datorie: omagiu academicianului Ioan-Aurel Pop la împlinirea vârstei de 60 de ani, ed. Ioan Bolovan and Ovidiu Ghitta (Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2015), 747–60; Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, Sinan Kuneralp, and Frédéric Hitzel, Représentants permanents de la France en Turquie (1536– 1991) et de la Turquie en France (1797–1991) (Istanbul: Isis; IFEA, 1991), 17. 229 Cvetkova, Čuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Frenski pătepisi za Balkanite XV–XVII v., 189.

218 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 27. Clock tower and baruthane, 1875

the clock was already out of action.230 Later the mechanism was repaired, and Evliya found the clock operating in good order. The clock tower must have fallen in the eighteenth century, but the cause for the destruction is not clear, nor do we know when exactly it happened. The most likely reason may be the powerful earthquake that struck the city in the second half of the eighteenth century, requiring a significant restoration of the Muradiye mosque, completed in 1784.231 Badly damaged or even leveled in the eighteenth century, it was as late as 1810 that the tower was built anew in the shape it has today. In all probability, the tower was also used as an observation and signal tower, as was the case in other towns. Immediately next to the clock tower there was gunpowder storage facility (baruthane), seen in nineteenth-century photographs. This was a small depot that did not have a military function but was, in all probability, used for the small signaling şahi guns placed near the tower. According to Evliya, these guns were fired by the local governor (nazır) every year to mark the beginning of the religious holidays.232 230 This information is provided by the Danish traveler Henrich Rantzoven who visited Plovdiv on 27

September 1623. Mikov, “Cultural and Historical Profile of Clock Towers in the Bulgarian Lands (17th–19th Centuries),” 104–5. 231 Ibrahim Tatarlă, “Turski kultovi sgradi i nadpisi v Bălgarija,” Annuaire de l’Université de Sofia, Faculté de Lettres 60 (1966): 605–8. 232 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 216.

Population geography | 219

By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the urban plan of Ottoman Plovdiv was fully developed, with several dozen Ottoman public buildings sculpting the city’s architectural appearance. Nevertheless, there was evidently still space for further architectural patronage, and several benefactors continued to erect public buildings, thus further contributing to the city’s significance. Without exception, all buildings constructed in the period aimed at supplementing the existing urban structure by providing the Muslim community with more places for worship or more public baths for their everyday needs. Unfortunately, like the rest of the Ottoman architectural heritage of Plovdiv, most of these public buildings are no longer extant, with many having vanished before being examined by scholars. This makes information about their exact construction dates or the identity of their patrons very scarce. One of the few individuals who can be positively identified as an architectural patron of Plovdiv in this period is Lutfullah Şeyhi Efendi, also known popularly as Çelebi Kadı or Kadızade Şeyhi. Born and raised in a family of high-ranking members of the ulema class, his father Bayramzade Zekeriya Efendi was promoted to şeyhü’ l-islâm, the highest religious post in the Ottoman Empire, as later was his brother, the popular poet Yahya Efendi, who occupied that illustrious position three times. Çelebi Kadı, himself a very famous poet who wrote under the name Şeyhi, was born in Istanbul in AH 972/1564–64.233 Naturally he received a high-quality education in Islamic sciences, and later obtained various appointments as a college instructor and in the provincial administration, such as the kadılık of Skopje. Çelebi Kadı was appointed to the kadıship of Plovdiv seven times,234 a post assigned to him after a term as a professor at Bayezid II’s medrese in Edirne.235 In 1596 he participated in the Ottoman campaign against Eger (Erlau/Eğri) in Hungary and was possibly appointed the molla of Eğri after the conquest.236 Naima, on the other hand, relates that when Sultan Mehmed III (r. 1595–1603) arrived in Plovdiv on 8 Zilkade 1004 (4 July 1596), leading the Ottoman army on the march toward Hungary, Çelebi Kadı, who was the then acting kadı of the city, welcomed the ruler with splendid entertainment in a large pavilion built for the occasion. The sultan was so pleased by the four-day-long festivities that he confirmed Çelebi Kadı in office for life.237 He died on 10 July 1632 and was buried in Plovdiv in a mausoleum near his mosque.238 The mosque of Çelebi Kadı was built in the northern suburb of Plovdiv, on the bank of the Maritsa, near the bridge of Lala Şahin.239 It was located east of the Hoşkadem/Aktav Camii, and its minaret can be seen in several photographs from 233 Sürreyya, Sicill-i Osmani Yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, 4:88–89. 234 Sürreyya, 4:88–89. 235 Zeynep Ayhun Özbek, “1-2 Nolu Mülâzemet Defteri (Tahlil ve Değerlendirme)” (MA, Marmara

University, 2006), 28, 136.

236 Sürreyya, Sicill-i Osmani Yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, 4:88–89. 237 Mustafa Naima, Annals of the Turkish Empire from 1591 to 1659 of the Christian Era (London: Ori-

ental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, 1832), 71–72.

238 Sürreyya, Sicill-i Osmani Yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, 4:88–89. 239 Balkanlı, Şarkî Rumeli ve Buradaki Türkler, 116.

220 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 28. Çelebi Kadı Camii and Hamamı in Karşıyaka, 1879

the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The mosque was a humble structure with a pyramidal tiled roof that stood until the first decades of the twentieth century.240 The data on the pious foundation of Çelebi Kadı from the hurufat registers confirm the exact location of his mosque.241 The archival documents also provide details about several other buildings of the same patron that are likewise no longer extant and are not documented by any other source. The multiple appointments of türbedar recorded in a register demonstrate that the mosque had an adjunct mausoleum where the body of Çelebi Kadı was laid to rest.242 To the west of his mosque, at a distance of about fifty meters, he also built a small neighborhood public bath. This hamam is mentioned in Evliya Çelebi’s list of public 240 A postcard dating 1910 is the latest available evidence for its existence. The postcard, a panoramic

view from Clocktower hill, was published in Hristo Malinov’s Nova Knižarnitsa in 1910. It is reprinted in the album by Krasimir Linkov, ed., Plovdiv predi i sega (Plovdiv: Nova Print, 2005), 42. 241 “Filibe’de Karşıyakada nehr-i Meriç kenarında vaki’ […] Çelebi kadı dimekle meşhur kadim şeyhü’l-islâm Zekeriya Efendizade Lüftullah Efendi merhumun bina ve vakıf etdüği cami-i şerif …” VGMA, D. 1180, f. 249. Cf. Kazancıoğlu, Filibe, 72–76. The author claims that Çelebi kadı built two mosques in different quarters of the city. This hypothesis is unsustained and a result of a misinterpretation of the sources. Like other works penned by Turkish historians, most notably Ayverdi and Yüksel, which aim at providing complete lists of Islamic monuments, the work of Kazancıoğlu also lists mosques that appear in the sources under more than one name as separate buildings. Naturally, without underestimating the achievements of these works, such an approach results in a substantial overcount of the Islamic monuments that were once part of the architectural landscape of the Balkans. 242 VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 230, 232, 239, 240, 241.

Population geography | 221

baths in Plovdiv,243 and is the only building of Çelebi Kadı that survived until the second half of the twentieth century. The hamam (known locally as Banya Maritsa) stood until the early 1980s, when the local authorities demolished it. A decade before being demolished, Machiel Kiel had the chance to examine the bath, which he found still operational but in a terrible state of neglect. The disrobing room of the bath is likely to have had a dome, but the numerous later repairs altered the structure considerably. The cold room (soğukluk) was a small rectangular space covered by two barrel vaults. The hot room (sıcaklık), covered with a dome measuring 7.10 m × 2.95 m, had two halevets with smaller domes. Unaware of the identity of the patron, Kiel examined the architectural features of the building and concluded that it was built at the turn of the sixteenth or at the beginning of the seventeenth century.244 The date suggested by Kiel indeed corresponds with the period in which Çelebi Kadı resided in Plovdiv, holding the post of a local kadı. Nevertheless, the sources do not provide the exact date of construction of the complex (mosque, bath, and mausoleum), nor is there information about when he established the pious foundation for maintaining the buildings and providing the salaries of the staff. In any case, this must have happened before his death in 1632, and thus the buildings of Çelebi Kadı in Plovdiv must have been erected in the course of the first two decades of the seventeenth century. The growing suburb north of the river Maritsa and the constant traffic on the busy trade route connecting the Western Balkans and Central Europe with Istanbul must have evoked the need for more places for Muslims to worship, and certainly a public bath. The mosque of Korucu Mehmed bey, in the Korucu quarter, also located north of the river, was probably built anew at about the same time, because in the mid-seventeenth century Evliya saw it as newly constructed.245 The list of Plovdiv’s new mosques in Evliya’s travelogue also includes the mosque of Anbar Kadı.246 The patron of the mosque cannot be identified, but the exact location and architectural features of the mosque can be established beyond doubt. The mosque stood until 1912, and it is mentioned by the local historians Peev and Alvadžiev.247 It was known under different names (Anbar Kadı, Anber Gazi, Ömer Gazi), and according to a story related to Alvadžiev by the local Muslim community, it was built in 1640.248 The hurufat defteri places the mosque in the northwestern part of the city in the quarter named Hacı Ömer.249 A closer look at the nineteenth-century panoramic photographs of Ermakov, Cavra, and Karastojanov allows a glimpse of this magnificent building, seen at a considerable distance from the ele243 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı

Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217.

244 Kiel. Filibe notes and studies, 51d-51e. 245 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı

Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217.

246 “…ve Anbar Kadı câmi’-i cedid, pûr-nurdur ”. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, 217. 247 Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 218; Alvadžiev, Plovdivska hronika, 27. 248 Alvadžiev, 27. 249 VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 244, 248, 249, 251.

222 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 29. Taşköprü Camii, 2015

vated point at the northwestern part of the citadel used by the photographers. The mosque appears in the photographs as a massive cubic stone building. The central hall was furnished with a cornice over which was placed a visibly smaller octagonal tambour with round windows on each side. The roof seems to have been a wooden polygonal pyramidal construction covered with tiles that imitated a dome. The mosque entrance faced the river, as its tall minaret, seemingly made of stone, was positioned on the northwestern corner of the building. The mosque of Anbar Kadı was one of several public buildings in this part of the city that were erected in the same period. About 130 m southwest of the mosque, an unknown patron in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century built one of the three mosques still standing in modern Plovdiv, the so-called Orta Mezar Camii, also known as Taşköprü Camii (the mosque of the stone bridge, despite the apparent lack of any bridge nearby). The mosque is located near one of the oldest and largest Muslim cemeteries in the city (Orta Mezar, i.e., Middle Cemetery), at the corner of one of the busiest junctions in modern Plovdiv (bul. Ruski and bul. 6ti Septemvri).250 Architecturally, the mosque of Anbar Kadı, mentioned above, appears as a cheaper replica of its predecessor in the Orta Mezar area. Likewise, in its original shape, Taşköprü Camii had a square prayer hall (13.5 m) finished by a cornice, 250 As mentioned above, in 1878 the cemetery was cleared by the Russian administration governing

the city and its space was converted into the first public park. The project for the park was prepared by the officer Ilinskij, who had also drawn the earliest modern situation plan of the city.

Population geography | 223

above which was placed an octagonal drum that supported a lead-covered dome. In 1829 the mosque was restored and considerably enlarged by a frame-built structure matching it in size that was attached to the mosque’s eastern wall.251 The minaret attached to the southern wall collapsed in 1928 during the earthquake and was never repaired. In the 1970s or 1980s the mosque’s main building was restored, and in the post-communist period it was privatized and converted into a tavern. The interior was entirely destroyed, the walls and dome covered with tasteless modern paintings, which evoked a public reaction from the Muslim community residing in the city. Recently the Regional Mufti’s Office of Plovdiv regained possession of the building, and it is expected soon to reopen for congregations, thus restoring the original function of the building. Across the street, at the western edge of a small square, is located the second stillstanding Ottoman bath in modern Plovdiv, the Orta Mezar Hamamı. It is also known as Yeni Hamam, as the bath is referred to by Evliya, or Yahudi Hamamı because it is located near the Jewish quarter of Plovdiv.252 This bath is considerably larger than the hamam of Çelebi Kadı mentioned above (32 × 14.75 m),253 but it cannot compete in size or outward appearance with the baths from the fifteenth century (Tahtakale, Hünkâr, or Çifte Hamam). The original masonry of this bath, a sort of cheaper local variation of cloisonné, is still clearly observable.254 A low pyramidal roof covered the disrobing room with a tall lantern at the top, which makes it similar to the bath of Hacı Hasanzade in the opposite part of the city. The bath functioned throughout the Ottoman period and continued to serve as the main bath of the city’s western parts until the 1970s, undergoing multiple repairs and corrections.255 The bath was standing in relatively good condition, being used as a furniture store until February 2016, when a fire caused considerable damage to the building. Machiel Kiel, who examined the building in the 1970s, concluded that based on its architectural features, the hamam must date from the late sixteenth or early sev251 The archive in Plovdiv has several photographs taken in 1968 prior to the destruction of the addi-

tion. Luckily, among these pictures there is a photograph of the now lost repair inscription once placed above the gate of the addition. The text of the inscription on the extant photograph is hardly readable, but the date 1 Muharrem 1245 (3 July 1829) is clearly visible. 252 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), 217. 253 Measurements were taken by Machiel Kiel. Kiel. Filibe notes and studies, 51c. 254 Nina Toleva-Nowak, “Eni hamam: evoljucija na funkcionalnite i prostranstveno-vremevi vzaimovrăzki,” Naučni trudove na Săjuza na uchenite v Bălgarija 6 (2020): 108–17; Nina Toleva-Nowak, “Hammam: History in Graffiti. Catalogue of Images Found in Plaster Layers in an Ottoman Bathhouse in Plovdiv,” in Artificial Intelligence: New Pathways Towards Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Vienna, ed. Wolfgang Börner, Hendrik Rohland, and Christina Karner (Heidelberg: Propylaeum, 2022), 297–300. 255 Numerous publications in the local press from the first half of the 20th century speak of repair works that kept the bath operational. I am grateful to Vladimir Balčev who provided me with a number of such newspaper publications.

224 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 30. Yeni Hamam (Yahudi Hamamı) in Orta Mezar, 1975.

enteenth century and even offered a more definitive time framework between 1580 and 1620.256 The dating proposed by Kiel can be specified even further thanks to the identification of the individual who built the Yeni Hamam. The register of Istanbul’s pious endowments once again provides valuable data on the architectural patronage in Plovdiv. The bath was included in the foundation established by Tercuman Yunus bey (d. 1551) in support of his mosque in Balat, Istanbul.257 The document leaves no doubt that this is indeed Yeni Hamam in Plovdiv, because it also specifies the quarter where the bath was located—Aslıhan bey.258 Yunus bey, originating from the Venetian port city of Modon, was an established figure in the court of Süleyman I.259 Captured as a young boy around 1500, he converted to Islam and served as an Ottoman envoy until, in 1525, he was promoted to chief dragoman (baş tercüman).260 Yunus bey held the post until 1542 and took several missions to Venice, co-authoring with Alvise Gritti a pamphlet in Italian describing the Ottoman domains, palace, army, and administration.261 The dedicatory inscription of his mosque in Istanbul shows that the 256 Kiel. Filibe notes and studies, 51d. 257 The bath brought to the vakıf of Yunus bey 7000 akçe annually. Barkan and Ayverdi, İstanbul

Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri, 417; Canatar, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri, 681.

258 Barkan and Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri, 417. 259 Bilgin Aydın, “Divan-ı Hümayun Tercümanları ve Osmanlı Kültür ve Diplomasisindeki Yerleri,”

Osmanlı Araştırmaları 29 (2007): 48.

260 Tijana Krstić, “Of Translation and Empire: Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Imperial Interpreters

as Renaissance Go-Betweens,” in The Ottoman World, ed. Christine Woodhead (London; New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012), 132–33. 261 Krstić, 133; Aydın, “Divan-ı Hümayun Tercümanları ve Osmanlı Kültür ve Diplomasisindeki Yerleri,” 51–52; Ella Natalie Rothman, The Dragoman Renaissance: Diplomatic Interpreters and the Routes of Orientalism (Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 2021), 159–60.

Population geography | 225

building was completed in AH 948/1541–42.262 His endowment deed was drawn up in the same year, 1541–42, and since it includes the so-called Yeni Hamam in Plovdiv, the building must have been built around this time. The intensive construction of public buildings in the western part of the city during the second half of the sixteenth and at the beginning of the seventeenth century testifies to the increased importance of this part of the city. The area was severely affected by the forced relocation of the Muslim population in the 1520s–1530s but it seems to have recovered quickly, and received a new impulse for development at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century. The buildings near the Orta Mezar cemetery lay on the second major thoroughfare of Plovdiv, which crossed the city from east to west and ended at the namazgâh, later replaced by the mosque of Musalla. The space between Musalla and the main commercial street, cutting the city from north to south, was gradually filled with Muslim quarters in the subsequent years. Moreover, the Jewish community, which arrived at the city at the end of the fifteenth century, established its quarter in this area at a spot which at that time was still unoccupied. In this manner, the large cemetery known as Orta Mezar, which might in the early fifteenth century have seemed remote, appears by the early seventeenth century to have been surrounded by quarters on all sides. This very fact is also the most likely explanation for the unusual name of the graveyard— the Middle graveyard. Architectural evidence demonstrates that the growth of the urban space also continued along the main axis of the city south of the Muradiye mosque. Despite the lack of documentary evidence, the available visual materials testify that the city also stretched south of its focal point and commercial core. In all probability, the city’s growth in this direction was closely related to the route of the road to Istanbul, which, after reaching the commercial center of Plovdiv, continued further south, passed between the Clocktower and Taksim hills, and finally bent east to the south of Džambaz hill. Only a few hundred meters south of the Muradiye, in the Yakub fakıh quarter, there was a mosque named after a certain Hacı Abdullah. The building is seen in a nineteenth-century gravure and in an exquisite photograph by Ermakov, taken from the vantage of the Clocktower hill. The visual evidence shows that the building in question was a single-domed local mosque. Judging from the shape of its minaret, which seems to have been brick-made, the building can be dated to the late fifteenth century, but a slightly later construction is also possible. The mosque of Hacı Abdullah that stood at the corner of the streets Alexander I and 11ti Avgust was among the victims of Plovdiv’s “modernization” and was pulled down in the first decades of the twentieth century. The building that stood at the southern edge of Plovdiv was the magnificent Alaca Cami, not to be confused with Alaca Mescid at the northern slopes of Clocktower hill. It was built near the point where the main road bending to the east continued fur262 Aydın, “Divan-ı Hümayun Tercümanları ve Osmanlı Kültür ve Diplomasisindeki Yerleri,” 52.

226 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Fig. 31. Hacı Abdullah Camii, 1875

ther to Edirne and Istanbul. Another road from the intersection continued straight south and connected Plovdiv with the nearby town of Asenovgrad, which was a starting point for a road that, cutting through the Rhodope Mountains, led to the Aegean coast. Several extant photographs of this building depict it as one of Plovdiv’s most beautiful mosques: nevertheless, the available documentary sources offer no clue about who commissioned it. The date of construction of the Alaca Cami is also unknown, but thanks to the extant photographs one can get a fairly good idea about its external appearance. Its square prayer hall (8–10 m wide, judging from the size of the people near it) was finished by a cornice. The lead-covered dome rested on an octagonal drum, which had roundish windows on four sides, and was probably a later addition. The masonry of the mosque was made of layers of cut stone and bricks that left the pleasant appearance of stripes throughout the entire structure.263 Undoubtedly this feature gave the mosque its name, Alaca (colorful), although its interior would have been quite dark because only a few small windows allowed light into the prayer hall. It is not easy to date the building with any certainty based on the available visual evidence. However, it might be a seventeenth-century construction that may have seen some later modifications, like the seemingly nineteenth-century decoration of 263 In this respect it greatly recalls the stripes of the mosque built in Eyüb by Zal Mahmud paşa and

Şahsultan, mentioned above, but there is no information about any other connection between that noble couple and Plovdiv, except for the posthumously built caravanserai.

Population geography | 227

Fig. 32. Alaca Cami, 1912

its gate. Alaca Cami survived in good shape until the second decade of the twentieth century, when it was leveled due to the construction of the new municipality building and public square in front of it.264 In examining the urban metamorphosis of Plovdiv during the Ottoman epoch, a compelling narrative emerges of architectural and socio-cultural evolution, crystallized primarily in the latter part of the sixteenth century and the dawn of the seventeenth. The cityscape was punctuated by memorable structures such as the mosque of Anbar Kadı and the Taşköprü mosque—remarkable not just for their architectural finesse but as emblems of the city’s growing Islamic cultural landscape. These edifices, in conjunction with the cleverly positioned Orta Mezar bathhouse, are testimony to the maturation of the city’s urban fabric. The prevalence of public buildings in the western quarters, particularly those close to the historically significant Orta Mezar cemetery, is suggestive of a thoughtful urbanization strategy, pivoting around principal thoroughfares and significant socio-religious landmarks. The demographic and infrastructural renaissance in the aftermath of the forced relocations of the 1520s–1530s is evidenced by the burgeoning Muslim and Jewish quarters. This spatial expansion, woven around the roads to key cities such as Istanbul, further corroborates Plovdiv’s importance in the Ottoman geopolitical framework. By the early seventeenth century the architectural tapestry and the urban morphology of Plovdiv seemed to have reached its zenith, presenting itself as an amalgam of intentional urban planning and the rich cultural imprints of its diverse residents. 264 Peev, Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto, 219.

Epilogue: toward a composite portrait of an Ottoman provincial center

Despite all the vagaries and vicissitudes of its history, the city of Plovdiv still bears traces of its multilayered past—Roman, Medieval Byzantine/Bulgarian, and Ottoman. On the verge of modernity in the late nineteenth century, and already influenced by the priorities of the newly emerging national Bulgarian state, its Ottoman urbanscape was naturally altered to meet the new phase of its urban morphological development, in line with its changing population and its new governors’ urbanistic visions; yet some of its Ottoman urban tissue was preserved, as can still be seen today in the central commercial area. As the present study has striven to show, the Ottoman phase in the development of Plovdiv’s urban fabric was similarly organized in conformity with the priorities of its new rulers, who sought to create a built and inhabited space based on Islamic principles, maintaining some parts of the inherited tissue, altering others, and developing yet others entirely afresh. The present book has attempted to trace the development of Plovdiv’s urbanscape during the first three centuries of its Ottoman period—when the Ottoman urban tissue was molded—by adopting a spatiotemporal approach that allows us to historicize its changing urban fabric both synchronically and diachronically. When examined microscopically, the urban morphological changes in early modern Ottoman Plovdiv reveal certain features which are specific to this key provincial center in the core territories of the Ottoman state; but, equally, we also discover certain other features that make substantial additions to our broader understanding of Ottoman realities in the empire’s state-formative period. In this respect, the book hopes to demonstrate, on the one hand, that a state-centric approach to Ottoman history may obscure the essential processes and dynamics that shaped those realities, and, on the other, that a regional perspective can be crucial for understanding the nature of the state and its infrastructural power. Rather than reemphasizing the center–periphery contrast, and hence running the risk of oversimplification, or of diminishing or overstating the governmental capacity of the Ottoman dynasty vis-à-vis other essential stakeholders in the orbit

230 | Ottoman Plovdiv

of the early Ottoman territorial state, the present study of Ottoman Plovdiv has hopefully revealed a complicated matrix of forces at work that should be carefully considered, in as much concrete detail as possible, before any overarching conclusions are drawn. As one of the principal administrative centers in the European provinces of the Ottoman state, and described by scholars as dominated by the forces of the Ottoman center, Plovdiv is a good testing ground for central questions such as: Who was the state? What was the state’s role in defining the direction of development in the provincial centers? What do we mean by an Ottoman militaryadministrative or governmental center? What was the character of Ottoman governmentality, and was it a well-defined and standardized strategy? First and foremost, the present study on Ottoman Plovdiv’s urban benefactors revealed that the ‘state’ was neither anonymous nor homogeneous but rather a compound agent. “Deanonymizing” these state agents brought to the fore the actors responsible for the urban reshaping – these were the city’s governors who applied their governmental skills and left a mark on the urban fabric defining the future development of the cityscape. They were all intricately connected to the city and its region; hence, besides being prominent Ottoman statesmen, they also exemplified Plovdiv’s urban elite. The city’s Ottoman conqueror, Lala Şahin paşa, a convert to Islam, a tutor to Murad I, and the army’s first commander-in-chief (beylerbeyi), was also the first Ottoman governor of Ottoman Plovdiv, and defined its broad morphological development for centuries to come. It was from his own personal retinue that the first Muslim military-administrative body in Plovdiv was selected; he developed the first Muslim bridgehead below the western gate of the medieval citadel, around which the commercial core of the new Muslim city would grow; and it was he who secured the strategic military position of the town by building a bridge across the Maritsa, simultaneously defining Plovdiv as a strategic military outpost for the Ottoman armies and defining the central axis of Ottoman Plovdiv’s urban fabric. Following in his footsteps, another Rumeli beylerbeyi, the eunuch Şihabeddin paşa, rehabilitated the core Muslim areas in the aftermath of the destructive Interregnum period. As well as being commander-in-chief of the Ottoman army, Şihabeddin paşa was also one of the chief landholders in the region, and invested the incomes of his own estates in developing the religious, commercial, and educational infrastructure of the city in which he often resided. The evidence from the study of Ottoman Plovdiv’s early urban development therefore suggests that the habitual perspective should be reversed—it was the actual governors of the city who developed the Ottoman center of Rumeli, and not the “anonymous state.” These governors were not simply following in the footsteps of the Ottoman sultan; the Ottoman sultan rather followed theirs. Only after the city acquired substantial Islamic administrative and military infrastructure did the sultan take an interest in investing and residing there. To this gallery of the city’s governors, which is by the same token a gallery of members of the Ottoman government elite, we must add portraits of the descendants

Epilogue: toward a composite portrait of an Ottoman provincial center | 231

of the Anatolian Candaroğlu dynasty, whose ruler İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail bey was assigned the governorship of Plovdiv, thence to become inseparably tied to the region after his deposition by Mehmed II. Torn from his ancestral powerbase in northwest Anatolia, and building his new residence in his zone of de facto exile, he again reshaped the urban tissue and elevated Ottoman Plovdiv to a flourishing Muslim city. Members of his dynasty penetrated all levels of the Ottoman military-administrative apparatus, and should be regarded as part and parcel of the Ottoman state, thus bearing witness once more to the composite character of the Ottoman governmental elite at large. Similarly, the urban population of Ottoman Plovdiv was not a homogeneous group but a composite of diverse communities, exemplifying both the Ottoman policy of creating an ethnically diverse urban population through strategic infrastructural choices, and the influence of regional and supraregional dynamics. The forceful relocation of Plovdiv’s Jewish community to newly conquered Istanbul in the mid-fifteenth century, and the enforced migration of the city’s Muslim elite in the 1520s, are eloquent examples of the infrastructural power of the state as wielded by two Ottoman sultans, and in both cases the urban fabric of Plovdiv, and of other cities in the Ottoman territory, was intentionally redesigned. The Crimean Tatars who settled in Upper Thrace in the late fourteenth century were among the earliest settlers in Ottoman Plovdiv, while the majority of the first Muslim settlers were ethnic Turks from Asia Minor. On the other hand, the non-Muslim citizens were reinforced by an influx of immigrants from the nearby overpopulated mountainous regions around the end of the sixteenth century, and earlier by more distant migrants as well. In the wake of the expulsion from Spain after 1492, a community of Sephardic Jews who probably came by way of Thessaloniki settled permanently in Plovdiv, while the effects of the wars in the east set in motion a westward migratory wave, and Plovdiv became home to a sizable group of Armenians at the beginning of the seventeenth century, adding to the composite character of its citizenry. Finally, besides conveying insights into the composite character of the Ottoman state, both in terms of governmental power and population structure, this study of Ottoman Plovdiv’s urban development enlightens us concerning the peripatetic nature of the Ottoman government in the formative period of the Ottoman state. The Ottoman imperial palace in Ottoman Plovdiv, probably built by Murad II and used extensively by his descendants until the first half of the sixteenth century, calls into question the idea of a permanent sultanic residence or a permanent capital city in this period. Sultanic palaces have thus far been regarded as eloquent evidence of permanent sultanic seats of power, and were hitherto considered as a prerequisite for defining a city as an Ottoman capital—Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul being cases in point. But the example of Plovdiv suggests that we should reinterpret the nature of Ottoman capital cities and governmental seats. Rather than imagining the Ottoman dynastic government as centered on a particular city, the frequent

232 | Ottoman Plovdiv

residence of the Ottoman sultan and his court at Plovdiv (arguably among other provincial towns in the Ottoman realm) is a reminder that we should perhaps conceptualize this case within the larger framework of late medieval itinerant court practices and the peripatetic lifestyle of different rulers in the Eastern Mediterranean. Further regional studies might reveal other seats of itinerant governance that the Ottoman rulers employed to exercise their rulership over their vast domains.

Appendices

234 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.1 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047440)

Appendices | 235

Appendix 1.2 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047485)

236 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.3 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047596)

Appendices | 237

Appendix 1.4 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047610)

238 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.5 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047642)

Appendices | 239

Appendix 1.6 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047662)

240 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.7 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047729)

Appendices | 241

Appendix 1.8 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10047737)

242 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.9 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048056)

Appendices | 243

Appendix 1.10 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048069)

244 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.11 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048118)

Appendices | 245

Appendix 1.12 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048118)

246 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.13 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048151)

Appendices | 247

Appendix 1.14 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048167)

248 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.15 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048197)

Appendices | 249

Appendix 1.16 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048205)

250 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 1.17 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048213)

Appendices | 251

Appendix 1.18 (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10048224)

252 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Appendix 2.1 Total population by quarter, 1472–1614 Quarter/date

1472

1489

1516

1525

1530

1570

1596

1614

Alaca mescid

150

164

157

102

91

178

230

225

Aslıhan bey

70

203

239

114

99

231

200

60

Bahşayiş Ağa

120

267

143

259

218

170

250

335

Çalık Hacı

125

96

199

122

45

110

105

80

Cami-i Kebir

160

207

221

222

187

250

310

270

Çingene

180

175

167

167

130

129

435

Çukacı Sinan

116

160

156

141

123

148

85

Cüneyid

70

100

82

52

43

80

83

70

Debbağ hisarı

105

135

141

122

92

91

85

130

Durbeği hoca

120

282

138

124

109

171

196

260

Hacı Bunarı

25

60

83

66

66

88

59

45

Hacı Davud

35

73

146

95

75

80

80

65

Hacı Mesud

65

76

88

66

46

95

62

100

Hacı Ömer

105

183

204

156

115

175

181

125

Hacı Sinan

150

188

149

143

113

101

110

120

Hacıyan

25

85

54

52

37

80

66

50

Haraççı Hamza Bali

165

211

294

266

210

192

226

190

Hisariçi

170

172

162

130

135

177

267

315

İbn-i Kasım

210

226

157

147

141

145

166

305

İbn-i Rüstem

65

98

135

104

81

30

52

10

İdris hoca

85

204

133

109

89

143

90

120

Eyne hoca

175

201

157

143

83

141

150

160

İsklopiçe

155

45

83

78

88

83

138

225

Keçeci İnebeği

155

150

Ermeni

105

135

173

112

112

165

190

Koca Hüseyin

91

120

105

110

130

85

Köprübaşı

96

148

133

120

120

0

Korucu

190

165

135

115

155

0

Muhsin hoca

115

109

269

145

125

100

147

135

Musalla

55

91

254

187

130

161

192

295

Okçular

80

118

152

134

119

95

95

60

Pazariçi

155

84

71

72

72

55

190

320

Pulat

135

116

136

131

126

62

152

190

Tataran

250

250

211

310

239

250

305

175

145

160

0

Ulakçıyan

Appendices | 253 Yahudi

160

161

166

251

270

230

Yakub fakıh

70

139

137

128

127

90

66

85

Grand Total

3365

4629

5402

4869

4060

4730

5530

5650

Appendix 2.2 Population by quarter, 1472–1614 (rough tahrir data) Quarter/date Altern. name ER

1472

1489

1516

1525

hane hane bach. wid. hane bach. wid. hane bach. wid. Alaca mescid

Mus 51

32

4

31

2

19

7

Aslıhan bey

Mus 14

39

8

49

9

22

4

Bahşayiş Ağa

Mus 24

51

12

28

3

50

9

Yeni Mescid; Mus 25 Tekke

18

6

38

9

22

12

Mus 32

41

2

40

21

43

7

33

2

1

30

10

31

1

16

2

10

2

Çalık Hacı

Karaca bey; Hacı bey, b. Kasım bey; Hacı Yusuf

Cami-i Kebir Çingene

Mix

36

Çukacı Sinan

Mus

23

Cüneyid

Cüneyid Mus 14 Fakıh; İsmail bey

35

20

Debbağ hisarı

Mus

26

5

28

1

24

2

Durbeği hoca

Mus 24

54

12

27

3

23

9

Mus 35

40

1

31

2

28

3

Hacı Bunarı

Mus 5

12

16

3

13

1

Hacı Davud

Mus 7

14

28

6

19

Eyne hoca

Veled-i Şükran

Hacı Mesud

3

Mus 13

15

1

16

8

13

1

Hacı Ömer

Bazaroğlu

Mus 21

34

13

39

9

30

6

Hacı Sinan

Kaya Mescidi Mus 30

37

3

27

14

28

3

10

4

10

2

56

14

52

6

Hacıyan

Mus 5

17

Haraççı Hamza Bali

Mus 33

41

6

Chr

34

33

2

Mus 42

44

6

Hisariçi İbn-i Kasım

Veled-i Kasım

5

32 30

2 7

25 28

5 7

254 | Ottoman Plovdiv İbn-i Rüstem

Durmuş Kadı

Mus 13

19

3 4

İdris hoca

Mus 17

40

İsklopiçe

Chr

9

Keçeci İnebeği

Mehmed Keçeci

31

Mus 31

29

25

10

26

3

16 5

3

19

9

21

4

15

3

26

5

34

3

Koca Hüseyin

Mus

17

6

22

10

Köprübaşı

Mus

18

6

29

3

Korucu

37

5

33

Mus 23

21

4

52

9

29

Musalla

Mus 11

18

1

49

9

36

7

Okçular

Hacı Ahmed Mus 16

28

12

26

4

Muhsin hoca

Mus Yeşiloğlu

Pazariçi

23

3

Chr

31

16

1

3

2

4

Pulat

Chr

27

22

Tataran

Mus 50

50

Yahudi

Jew

Yakub fakıh

Mus 14

Quarter/date ER

14

1

26 39

6 16

32 27

1530 hane bach. wid. hane

4

25

12

14 25

3

61

5

32

1

25

3

1596

1614

bach. wid. hane

bach. wid. hane

bach. wid.

6

35

3

46

45

Aslıhan bey

4

46

1

40

12

8

34

27

59/8

21

16

62

54

Mus 19

Çalık Hacı

42

10

22

Cami-i Kebir Mus 36

Mus 7

7

48

Çingene

2

26

Mix

33

2

24

9

87

Çukacı Sinan Mus 28

1

12

16

1

17

Cüneyid

Mus 7

8

16

16

3

14

Debbağ hisarı

Mus 18

2

18

1

17

Durbeği hoca Mus 20

9

34

1

39

Ermeni

3

1570

Alaca mescid Mus 17 Bahşayiş Ağa Mix

2

26 1

Chr

52 21

Eyne hoca

Mix

16

3

28

1

30

Hacı Bunarı

Mus 13

1

17

3

11

26/6 4

Hacı Davud

Mus 15

16

16

Hacı Mesud

Mus 9

1

19

12

2

20

13

Hacı Ömer

Mus 22

5

34

5

36

1

25

Hacı Sinan

Mus 22

3

20

1

22

24

Appendices | 255 Hacıyan

Mus 7

2

16

Haraççı Hamza Bali

Mus 41

5

38

2

Hisariçi

Mus 26

35

1

45

2

63

İbn-i Kasım

Mix

27

6

29

33

1

41/20

İbn-i Rüstem Mix

14

11

6

5/5

2

2

4

İdris hoca

Mix

17

İsklopiçe

Chr

17

Keçeci İnebeği

Mix

22

Koca Hüseyin

5

28

3

16

1

2

22

2

Mus 19

10

10/12 12

Köprübaşı

Mus 26

3

Korucu

Mus 27

3

Muhsin hoca Mus 25

1

12

6

10

45

1

38

18 2

14/12

17

24 31

20

25

5

32

Okçular

Mus 23

4

19

Pazariçi

Chr

14

Pulat

Chr

24

3

2

11

3

12

Tataran

Mus 47

4

50

Ulakçıyan

Mus

Yahudi

Jew

33

1

50

Yakub fakıh

Mus 25

2

18

1

29

2

27

38

2

52/7

19

12

58 2

22

64 2

61

29

45 34/4

24

Mix

3

33

23

Musalla

22/2

21

38 35

32 1

54 13

46 1

17

Appendix 2.3 List of tahrir registers, 1472–1614 No. Call no.

Hicri date

Date used in the book Plovdiv pages

Type

BNL, PD 17/27

877

1472

1b-7a

mufassal

BOA, TD 26

895

1489

64-82

mufassal

BOA, TD 77

922

1516

543-560

mufassal

BOA, MAD 519

932

1525

18-35

mufassal

BOA, TD 370

937

1530

85-86

icmal

BOA, TD 494

978

1570

518-532

mufassal

BOA, TD 648

1004

1596

274-288

mufassal

BOA, TD 1001

1004

1596

531-544

mufassal

TKGM KuK 65

1004

1596

49r-56r

mufassal

BOA, TD 729

1023

1614

305-318

mufassal

Bibliography 5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973/1565–1566). Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, 1994. 6 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (972/1564–1565). Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, 1995. 7 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (976/1567–1569). Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, 1997. Abdurrahman HibrÐ. Enîsü’ l-Müsâmir Ðn: Edirne Tarihi, 1360–1650. Translated by Ratip Kazancıgil. Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi, 1996. Abu-Lughod, Janet L. “The Islamic City—Historic Myth, Islamic Essence, and Contemporary Relevance.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 19, no. 2 (1987): 155–76. Acun, Fatma. “A Portrait of the Ottoman Cities.” The Muslim World 92, no. 3–4 (2002): 255–85. Ahmed BâdÐ Efendi. Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne: 20. Yüzyıla Kadar Osmanlı Edirne’si. Edited by Niyazi Adıgüzel and Raşit Gündoğdu. Vol. 1/1: Edirne’nin Fethi. Camiler. Mescitler. Tekkeler. Medreseler. İmaretler. Mektepler. Çarşılar. Hanlar. Hamamlar. Çeşmeler. Kilise ve Havralar. Köprüler. Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi, 2014. ———. Riyâz-ı Belde-i Edirne: 20. Yüzyıla Kadar Osmanlı Edirne’si. Edited by Niyazi Adıgüzel and Raşit Gündoğdu. Vol. 2/1: Padişahlar. Valiler. Vezirler. Şeyhülislâmlar. Kadılar. Âlimler. Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi, 2014. Akdağ, Mustafa. “Celâli İsyanlarından Büyük Kaçgunluk (1603–1606).” Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 2, no. 2 (1964): 1–49. Akın, Nur. “La fabrique urbaine et architecturale de Galata, quartier occidental d’Istanbul.” In Multicultural urban fabric and types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Maurice Cerasi, 13–26. Beirut-Würzburg: Orient-Institut; Ergon Verlag in Kommission, 2007. Altun, Ara. “Yarhisar, İlyas Bey Köyü Camisi ve Hamamı için Kısa Notlar.” [İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi] Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı 9–10 (1979–1980) (1981): 29–52. Alvadžiev, Nikola. Plovdivska hronika. Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1971. ———. Starinni čerkvi v Plovdiv. Plovdiv: Letera, 2000. Amedoski, Dragana. “Introduction of Rice Culture in the Central Balkans (15th and 16th Century).” In State and Society in the Balkans before and after Establishment of

258 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Ottoman Rule, edited by Srđan Rudić and Selim Aslantaş, 235–56. Belgrade: The Institute of History, Belgrade; Yunus Emre Enstitüsü, Belgrade, 2017. Amygdalou, Kalliopi, and Elias Kolovos. “From Mosque to Parliament: The Vouleftiko (Parliament) Mosque in Nafplio and the Spatial Transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Greek State during the Greek Revolution.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain, no. 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.4000/ bchmc.801. Andreev, Sefan, and Elena Grozdanova. “Reisanbau und Reisgewinner (çeltükçi) im mittleren und östlichen Teil des Balkans (15. bis 18.Jh.).” Bulgarian Historical Review, no. 3–4 (2003): 54–76. Angiollello. Donado da Lezze, Historia Turchesca (1300–1514). Edited by Ioan Ursu. Bucureşti: Carol Göbl, 1910. Anonymous. Anonim Osmanlı Kroniği (1299–1512). Edited by Necdet Öztürk. İstanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2000. ———. Gazavât-ı Sultân Murâd b. Mehemmed Hân. İzladi ve Varna Savaşları (1443–1444) Üzerinde Anonim Gazavâtnâme. Edited by Halil İnalcık and Mevlûd Oğuz. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1978. Antoche, Emanuel Constantin. “Un ambassadeur français à la Porte ottomane : Achille de Harlay, baron de Sancy et de la Mole (1611–1619).” In Istoria ca datorie: omagiu academicianului Ioan-Aurel Pop la împlinirea vârstei de 60 de ani, edited by Ioan Bolovan and Ovidiu Ghitta, 747–60. Cluj-Napoca: Academia Română, Centrul de Studii Transilvane, 2015. Antonov, Aleksandăr. “Infrastruktura na ovladjanoto prostranstvo. Osmanski dokumenti za pătnite stancii po Diagonalnija păt (Orta Kol) ot XVI, XVII i XVIII vek.” In Etničeski i kulturni prostranstva na Balkanite. Chast I: Minaloto – istoričeski rakursi. Sbornik v čest na prof. Cvetana Georgieva, edited by Svetlana Ivanova, 206–25. Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2008. ———. “Vremeto e pari. Osmanskata kurierska služba v kraja na XVII i prez XVIII vek.” In Pari, dumi, pamet, edited by Raia Zaimova and Nikolaj Aretov, 127–43. Sofia: Kralica Mab, 2004. Antov, Nikolay. The Ottoman “Wild West”: The Balkan Frontier in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Apostolidis, Kosmas Mirtilos. “Prevzemaneto na Plovdiv ot turcite.” Plovdivski obštinski vestnik, October 18, 1929. Arel, Ayda. “Cihannüma Kasrı ve Erken Osmanlı Saraylarında Kule Yapıları Hakkında.” In Prof. Doğan Kuban’a Armağan, edited by Ahunbay, Deniz Mazlum, and Kutgün Eyüpgiller, 99–116. İstanbul: Eren, 1996. Artan, Tülay. “The Making of the Sublime Porte near the Alay Köşkü and a Tour of a Grand Veziral Palace at Süleymaniye.” Turcica 43 (2011): 145–204. Asdracha, Catherine. La région des Rhodopes aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles: étude de géographie historique. Athens: Verlag der byzantinisch-neugriechischen Jahrbücher, 1976.

Bibliography | 259

Âşık Paşazade. Osmanoğulları’nın Tarihi. Edited by Kemal Yavuz and M. A. Yekta Saraç. İstanbul: Koç Kültür Sanat Tanıtım, 2003. Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âsıkî. “Tevâr Ðh-i Âl-i Osman.” In Osmanlı Tarihleri, edited by Çiftçioğlu N. Atsız, 1:77–319. İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949. Aşıkpaşazade. Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi (Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman). Edited by Ali Bey. İstanbul: Matba‘a-i ‘Amire, 1332. ———. Die altosmanische Chronik des ʿĀšıḳpašazāde. Auf Grund mehrerer neu entdeckter Handschriften von neuem hrsg. von Friedrich Giese. Edited by Friedrich Giese. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929. Aslanapa, Oktay. Turkish Art and Architecture. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2004. Astrinidou, Pelagia. “Bedesten, Thessaloniki, Greece.” In Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, edited by Slobodan Ćurčić and Evangelia Hadjitryphonos, 286–89. Thessaloniki: AIMOS, Society for the Study of the Medieval Architecture in the Balkans and its Preservation, 1997. Aydın, Bilgin. “Divan-ı Hümayun Tercümanları ve Osmanlı Kültür ve Diplomasisindeki Yerleri.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 29 (2007): 41–86. Ayverdi, Ekrem Hakkı. Avrupa’ da Osmanlı Mimâr Ð Eserleri. Vol. 4: Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk. İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982. ———. Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinde Fâtih Devri, 855–886 (1451–1481). İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1973. ———. Osmanlı Miʻmârîsinin İlk Devri. İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1966. ———. Osmanlı Mimarisinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri 806–855 (1403– 1451). İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1972. Babinger, Franz. Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.–15. Jahrhundert). Brünn; München; Wien: Rohrer; Callwey, 1944. ———. Die frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch: nach den Handschriften zu Oxford und Cambridge. Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heınz Lafaire, 1925. ———. Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1927. ———. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978. ———. “Von Amurath zu Amurath. Vor- und Nachspiel der Schlacht bei Varna .” Oriens 3, no. 2 (1950): 229–65. Bacqué-Grammont, Jean-Louis, Sinan Kuneralp, and Frédéric Hitzel. Représentants permanents de la France en Turquie (1536–1991) et de la Turquie en France (1797– 1991). Istanbul: Isis; IFEA, 1991. Baer, Gabriel. “The Administrative, Economic and Social Functions of Turkish Guilds.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 1, no. 1 (1970): 28–50. Balčev, Vladimir. “Dimităr Kavra – fotoletopisecăt na Plovdiv.” Pod tepeto (blog), August 10, 2015. https://podtepeto.com/besedka-za-grada/dimitr-kavra-fotoletopisect-na-plovdiv/.

260 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Balkanlı, Ali Kemal. Şarkî Rumeli ve Buradaki Türkler. Ankara: Elhan Kitabevi, 1986. Baltacı, Câhid. XV-XVI Asırlar Osmanlı Medreseleri: Teşkilât, Tarih. İstanbul: İrfan Matbaası, 1976. Barămova, Maria. Evropa, Dunav i osmancite (1396–1541). Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2014. Bárány, Attila Pál. “Burgundian Crusader Ideology in Bertrandon de La Broquière’s Le Voyage d’Outremer.” In Byzance et l’Occident III. Écrits et Manuscrits, edited by Emese Egedi-Kovács, 17–39. Budapest: Collège Eötvös József ELTE, 2016. Barkan, Ömer Lûtfi. “Edirne ve Civarındaki Bazı İmaret Tesislerinin Yıllık Muhasebe Bilançoları.” Belgeler 1, no. 2 (1964): 235–377. ———. “Essai sur les données statistiques des registres de recensement dans l’Empire ottoman aux XVe et XVIe siècles.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1, no. 1 (1957): 9–36. ———. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler: 1.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 11, no. 1–4 (1949– 1950) (1952): 524–69. ———. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler: 2.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 13, no. 1–4 (1951– 1952) (1953): 56–78. ———. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler: 3.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15, no. 1–4 (1953– 1954) (1955): 209–37. ———. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İmâret Sitelerinin Kuruluş ve İşleyiş Tarzına Âit Araştırmalar.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23 (1963 1962): 239–96. ———. “Quelques observations sur l’organisation économique et sociale des villes ottomanes des XVIe et XVIIe siècles.” In Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l’ histoire comparative des institutions, 7: La Ville 2: Institutions économiques et sociales:289–311. Bruxelles, 1955. ———. “Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys.” In Studies in the Economic History of the Middle Eastt: From the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, edited by Michael A. Cook, 163–71. London: Oxford University Press, 1970. ———. “Tarihî Demografi Araştırmaları ve Osmanlı Tarihi.” Türkiyat Mecmuası 10 (1951–1953) (1953): 1–26. Barkan, Ömer Lûtfi, and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 953 (1546) Târîhli. Istanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1970. Bayatlı, Osman. Bergama Tarihinde Türk-İslam Eserleri. İstanbul: Anıl Matbaası, 1956. Bayrakal, Sedat. Edirne’ deki Tek Kubbeli Camiler. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2001. Beaudry, Mary Carolyn. Documentary Archaeology in the New World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Bibliography | 261

Beldiceanu, Nicoară. Recherche sur la ville ottomane au XVe siècle. Étude et actes. Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1973. ———. “Recherches sur la réforme foncière de Mehmed II.” Acta Historica 4 (1965): 27–39. Beldiceanu, Nicoară, and Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr. “Riziculture dans l’Empire ottoman (XIVe-XVe siècle).” Turcica 9, no. 2–10 (1978): 9–28. Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Irène. “En marge d’un acte concernant le penğyek et les aqınğı.” Revue des études islamiques 37, no. 1 (1969): 21–47. ———. “La conquête d’Andrianople par les Turcs: la pénétration turque en Thrace et la valeur des chroniques ottomans.” Travaux et mémoires 1 (1965): 439–61. ———. “Le règne de Selim I: tournant dans la vie politique et religieuse de l’empire ottoman.” Turcica 6 (1975): 34–48. ———. “L’installation des ottomans.” In La Bithynie au Moyen Age, edited by Bernard Geyer and Jacques Lefort, 351–74. Paris: P. Lethielleux, 2003. ———. “Seyyid ‘Ali Sultan d’après les registres ottomans: l’installation de l’Islam hétérodoxe en Thrace.” In The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule (1380–1699), edited by Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, 45–66. Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1996. Ben-Bassat, Yuval. “Mass Petitions as a Way to Evaluate ‘Public Opinion’ in the Late Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire? The Case of Internal Strife among Gaza’s Elite.” Turkish Historical Review 4, no. 2 (2013): 135–52. Ben-Bassat, Yuval, and Yossi Ben-Artzi. “Cartographical Evidence of Efforts to Develop Acre during the Last Decades of Ottoman Rule: Did the Ottomans Neglect the City?” Mediterranean Historical Review 31, no. 1 (2016): 65–87. Ben-Bassat, Yuval, and Johann Buessow. “Applying Digital Methods to the Study of a Late Ottoman City: A Social and Spatial Analysis of Political Partisanship in Gaza.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 63, no. 4 (2020): 505–54. ———. “Ottoman Jerusalem, 1517–1918.” In Routledge Handbook on Jerusalem, edited by Suleiman A. Mourad, Naomi Koltun-Fromm, and Bedross Der Matossian, 113–21. London: Routledge, 2018. Bessi, Ourania. “The Topographic Reconstruction of Ottoman Dimetoka: Issues of Periodization and Morphological Development.” In Frontiers of the Ottoman Imagination: Studies in Honour of Rhoads Murphey, edited by Marios Hadjianastasis, 44–85. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Bierman, Irene A., Rifaʻat Ali Abou-El-Haj, and Donald Preziosi, eds. The Ottoman City and Its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1991. Boiadzhiev, Stefan. “Fortress near Matochina, Bulgaria.” In Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, edited by Slobodan Ćurčić and Euangelia Hadjitryphonos, 162–65. Thessaloniki: AIMOS, Society for the Study of the Medieval Architecture in the Balkans and its Preservation, 1997.

262 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Borie, Alain, Pierre Pinon, and Stéphane Yerasimos. “Tokat: essai sur l’architecture domestique et la forme urbaine.” Anatolia moderna 1 (1991): 239–73. Borisov, Damjan. “Informacijata za Severnorodopskite manastiri v osmanskite registri ot XVI v.” In Tradicija i priemstvenost. 50 godini poluvisše i visše obrazovanije v Iztočnite Rodopi, edited by Ljudmil Spasov, Damjan Borisov, and Dimităr Dimitrov, 335–54. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2011. ———. “Sinurnameto na Kričim ot sredata na XV v.” Istorija 28, no. 6 (2020): 608–30. ———. Spravochnik za selišta v Severna Trakiya prez XVI vek. Chast I: kazite Filibe i Tatar Pazară. Asenovgrad: Dikov, 2014. ———. “Vakăfskata institucia v Rodopite prez XV-XVII vek.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Plovdiv University, 2008. Boškov, Vančo. “Aus Athos-Turcica: Eine Urkunde Şehāb ed-Dīn Şahīn Paşa’s des Wezirs und Staathalters von Rumelien, aus dem Jahre 1453.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 76 (1986): 65–72. Bospačieva, Mina, and Vera Kolarova. Plovdiv – grad vǎrhu gradovete. Filipopol – Pulpudeva – Pǎldin. Sofia: Tola, 2014. Bossard, M., J. Feranec, and J. Otahel. “CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide – Addendum 2000.” Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, May 2000. Boyar, Ebru. “The Ottoman City 1500–1800.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History, edited by Peter Clark, 275–91. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Boyar, Ebru, and Kate Fleet. A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Boykov, Grigor. “Abdāl-Affiliated Convents and ‘Sunnitizing’ Halveti Dervishes in Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Rumeli.” In Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750, edited by Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu, 308–40. Leiden: Brill, 2020. ———. “Anatolian Emir in Rumelia: İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey’s Architectural Patronage and Governorship of Filibe (1460s–1470s).” Bulgarian Historical Review, no. 1–2 (2013): 137–47. ———. “Balkan City or Ottoman City? A Study on the Models of Urban Development in Ottoman Upper Thrace 15th – 17th c.” In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans 1-5 November 2006, Bucharest, Romania, edited by Halit Eren, 69–85. Istanbul: IRCICA, 2010. ———. “In Search of Vanished Ottoman Monuments in the Balkans: Minnetoğlu Mehmed Beg’s Complex in Konuş Hisarı.” In Monuments, Patrons, Contexts : Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel, edited by Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz, 47–68. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2010. ———. “Mastering the Conquered Space: Resurrection of Urban Life in Ottoman Upper Thrace (14th–17th c.).” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2013.

Bibliography | 263

———. “Politics of Religion: Spatial Modification and Transformation of Religious Infrastructures of the Southeastern European Cities in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period.” In Städte im lateinischen Westen und im griechischen Osten zwischen Spätantike und Früher Neuzeit, edited by Elisabeth Gruber, Mihailo Popović, Martin Scheutz, and Herwig Weigl, 299–312. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2016. ———. “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina v uslovijata na osmanska vlast (XVIXIX v.).” In Razlog: istorija, pamet, tradicii, edited by Aleksandăr Grebenarov, 53–78. Blagoevgrad: Irin-Pirin, 2009. ———. Tatar Pazardžik: ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraja na XVII vek. Izsledvanija i dokumenti. Sofia: Amicitia, 2008. ———. “The Human Cost of Warfare: Population Loss During the Ottoman Conquest and the Demographic History of Bulgaria in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Era.” In The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans: Interpretations and Research Debates, edited by Oliver Jens Schmitt, 103–66. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016. ———. “The T-Shaped Zaviye/İmarets of Edirne: A Key Mechanism for Ottoman Urban Morphological Transformation.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 1 (2016): 29–48. Boykov, Grigor, and Mariya Kiprovska. “The Ottoman Philippopolis (Filibe) During the Second Half of the 15th c.” Bulgarian Historical Review 3–4 (2000): 112–39. Božinova, Elena. “Spasitelno arheologičesko nabljudenie na ul. ‘Rajko Daskalov’ №82, gr. Plovdiv.” Archeologičeski otkritija i razkopki prez 2022 g., forthcoming. Braun, Maximilian, ed. Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarević von Konstantin dem Philosophen. The Hague: Mouton, 1956. Brouskari, Ersi, ed. Ottoman Architecture in Greece. Translated by Elizabeth Key Fowden. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Byzantine and PostByzantine Antiquities, 2008. Bryer, Anthony. “The Structure of the Late Byzantine Town: Diokismos and the Mesoi.” In Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, edited by Anthony Bryer and Heath W. Lowry, 263–79. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986. Budak, Samet. “The Conquests of Adrianople by the Turks: Reflections on the Ottoman Expansion in Thrace.” Der Islam 99, no. 2 (2022): 552–83. Buessow, Johann, and Yuval Ben-Bassat. “Rethinking Urban Neighborhoods in Late Ottoman Bilad Al-Sham: The Case of Gaza.” In From the Household to the Wider World: Local Perspectives on Urban Institutions in Late Ottoman Bilad al-Sham, edited by Yuval Ben-Bassat and Johann Buessow, 79–108. Tübingen: Tübingen University Press, 2023. Burmov, Aleksandăr. “Koga e zavladjan Odrin ot turcite?” In Izbrani proizvedenija v tri toma, 1:297–303. Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1968. Burmov, Aleksandır. “Türkler Edirne’yi ne vakit aldılar?” Belleten 13, no. 7 (1949): 97–106.

264 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Bursalı Mehmed Tahir. Osmanlı Müellifleri. Translated by İsmail Özen and Fikri Yavuz. Vol. 2. İstanbul: Meral Yayınevi, 1972. Buzov, Snježana. “The Lawgiver and His Lawmakers: The Role of Legal Discourse in the Change of Ottoman Imperial Culture.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, The University of Chicago, 2005. Çağaptay, Suna. “Bursa Bey Sarayı: Erken Osmanlı Dönemi Sarayı Üzerine Mekânsal ve Kültürlerarası Bir İnceleme.” In Osmanlı Devleti’nin Yönetim Merkezi Bursa Bey Sarayı, edited by Serap T. Yurteser Yılmaz, 88–110. Bursa: Bursa Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kitaplığı, 2021. ———. The First Capital of the Ottoman Empire: The Religious, Architectural, and Social History of Bursa. London: I.B. Tauris, 2021. Çal, Halit. “1192 Numaralı 1697–1716 Tarihli Hurufat Defterine Göre Bulgaristan’daki Türk Mimarisi.” In Balkanlar’ da Kültürel Etkileşim ve Türk Mimarisi Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri (17-19 Mayıs 2000, Şumnu - Bulgaristan), edited by Azize Aktaş Yasa and Zeynep Zafer, 221–88. Ankara: Atatürk Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2001. Campos, Michelle U. “Mapping Urban ‘Mixing’ and Intercommunal Relations in Late Ottoman Jerusalem: A Neighborhood Study.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 63, no. 1 (2021): 133–69. Canatar, Mehmet, ed. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 1009 (1600) Târîhli. İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 2004. Canbakal, Hülya. Society and Politics in an Ottoman Town: ʿAyntāb in the 17th Century. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Caner, Çağla. “Townscape and Building Complexes in Medieval Western Anatolia under Turkish-Islamic Culture.” In Power and Culture: Identity, Ideology, Representation, edited by Jonathan Osmond and Ausma Cimdiņa, 27–48. Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2007. Caner-Yüksel, Çağla. The Making of Western Anatolian Urban Centres: Spatial Transformation in Tire, 14th-16th Centuries. Pisa: Plus-Pisa University Press, 2010. Cantay, Gönül. “Filibe Tarihi Topografyasında Hüdavendigâr Külliyesi.” In Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Camii Konferansı Bildirileri / Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Mosque Conference Papers, edited by Celaleddin Küçük and N. Mine Yar, 25–29. İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2008. Cerasi, Maurice. La città del Levante: civiltà urbana e architettura sotto gli Ottomani nei secoli XVIII–XIX. Milano: Jaca Book, 1988. ———. “The Formation of Ottoman House Types: A Comparative Study in Interaction with Neighboring Cultures.” Muqarnas 15 (1998): 116–56. Cerasi, Maurice, Attilio Petruccioli, Adriana Sarro, and Stefan Weber, eds. Multicultural Urban Fabric and Types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean. Würzburg: Orient-Institut Beirut; Ergon Verlag, 2007. Češmedžiev, Dimo. “Starata cărkva ‘Sv. Petka’ v Plovdiv.” In Etjudi vărhu bălgarski srednovekovni kultove, 79–119. Plovdiv: Bălgarsko istoričesko nasledstvo, 2019.

Bibliography | 265

Çetin, Halil. Candaroğlu Yurdunda Bey İmaretleri: Çankırı Kasım Bey İmareti (1430), Kastamonu İsmail Bey İmareti (1457). Çankırı: Çankırı Belediyesi Yayınları, 2013. Cezar, Mustafa. Typical Commercial Buildings of the Ottoman Classical Period and the Ottoman Construction System. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Cultural Publications, 1983. Chalkokondyles, Laonikos. The Histories. Translated by Anthony Kaldellis. Vol. 1. London: Harvard University Press, 2014. Chardakliyska, Elena. “The Muradiye and Imaret Mosques in the Context of Early Ottoman Filibe: Two Case Studies.” Unpublished MA Thesis, American University in Cairo, 2006. Çıpa, H. Erdem. “Contextualizing Şeyḫ Bedreddīn: Notes on Ḫalīl b. İsmāʿīl’s Menā ḳ ıb-ı Şeyḫ Bedreddīn b. İsrāʾīl.” In Şinasi Tekin’in Anısına: Uygurlardan Osmanlıya, edited by Günay Kut and Fatma Büyükkarcı, 285–95. İstanbul: Simurg, 2005. ———. Yavuz’un Kavgası: I. Selim’ in Saltanat Mücadelesi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2013. Clayer, Nathalie. “Des agents du pouvoir ottoman dans les Balkans: les Halvetis.” Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée 66, no. 1 (1992): 21–30. ———. Mystiques, Etat et société: les Halvetis dans l’aire balkanique de la fin du XVe siècle à nos jours. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1994. Cončev, Dimităr. Arheologičeski pametnici po južnite sklonove na Panagjurska Sredna gora. Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1963. Contarini, Paolo. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di M. Paolo Contarini che andava bailo per la Repubblica Veneta alla Porta Ottomana nel 1580. Ora per la prima volta pubblicato. Venezia: Coi Tipi di Teresa Gattei, 1856. Cook, Michael. Population Pressure in Rural Anatolia, 1450–1600. London: Oxford Universty Press, 1972. Crane, Howard. “Art and Architecture, 1300–1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, 1: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453:266–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Čubrilović, Vasa, ed. Istorija Beograda. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1974. Çulpan, Cevdet. Türk Taş Köprüleri: Ortaçaǧdan Osmanlı Devri Sonuna Kadar. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1975. Cvetkova, Bistra. Čuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Frenski pătepisi za Balkanite XV–XVII v. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1975. ———. “Materiali za selištata i stroitelstvoto v bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVI v.” Izvestija na Instituta po gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura 7–8 (1975): 459–518. ———. Pametna bitka na narodite (Evropejskijat jugoiztok i osmanskoto zavoevanie – kraja na XIV i părvata polovina na XV v.). Varna: G. Bakalov, 1979. ———. “Sur certaines réformes du régime foncier au temp de Mehmet II.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 6, no. 1 (1963): 104–20.

266 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Dall’Aglio, Francesco. “The Opposition Between Bulgaria and the Latin Empire of Constantinople: A Necessary Hostility?” In Medieval Bosnia and South-East European Relations: Political, Religious, and Cultural Life at the Adriatic Crossroads, edited by Dženan Dautović, Emir O. Filipović, and Neven Isailović, 65–84. Amsterdam: Arc Humanities Press, 2019. Dančeva-Vasileva, Ani. “Armenskoto prisăstvie v Plovdiv prez Srednovekovieto.” Istoričeski pregled 5–6 (1999): 119–34. ———. Bălgarija i Latinskata imperija, 1204–1261. Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1985. ———. Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV–XIV vek). Sofia: Akademično izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov,” 2009. Dávid, Géza. “Demographic Trends of Urban Population in the 16th Century Hungary.” In Studies in Demographic and Administrative History of Ottoman Hungary, by Géza Dávid, 79–87. Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2011. De Nicola, Bruno. “In the Outskirts of the Ilkhanate: The Mongols’ Relationship with the Province of Kastamonu in the Second Half of the 13th Century.” In Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period: The Ilkhanids in Anatolia, Symposium Proceedings, 21–22 May 2015, Ankara, edited by Suzan Yalman and Filiz Yenişehirlioğlu, 117–35. Ankara: Koç University Press, 2019. ———. “Urban Agency in the Borderlands: Turkmen Rulers and Administrative Elites in 13th-Century Kastamonu.” Medieval Worlds 14 (2021): 155–78. De Nicola, Bruno, and Matthew Kinloch, eds. Urban Agencies: Reframing Anatolian and Caucasian Cities (13th –14th Centuries), Special Issue of Medieval Worlds 14 (2021): 3–207. Demetriades, Vassilis. “Athonite Documents and the Ottoman Occupation.” In Mount Athos in the 14th-16th Centuries, edited by Dora Komine-Dialete, 41–67. Athens: The National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research, 1997. Dernschwam von Hradiczin, Hans. Hans Dernschwam’s Tagebuch Einer Reise Nach Konstantinopel Und Kleinasien (1553/55). Edited by Franz Babinger. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1923. Dijkema, Fokke Theodor. The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Dimitrov, Stefan. “Demographic Characteristics of the Urban Population of Dimetoka during the XV-XVIth Centuries.” In Dünden Bugüne Batı Trakya (Western Thrace from Past to Today), 335–43. Istanbul: Şen Yıldız Yayıncılık, 2016. Dimitrova, Desislava. “Po mahalata šte gi poznaete (po primera na Filibe prez XVIXVII vek).” Godišnik na Istoričeskija fakultet na Velikotărnovskija universitet “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodij” 34 (2018): 147–62. Djurdjev, Branislav. “Belgrade.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition). Leiden: Brill, 2012. Dobrev, Ivan. “Za nadpisa na ‘Sahat Tepe’ v Plovdiv.” Vekove 3 (1986): 41–44.

Bibliography | 267

Doukas. Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. An Annotated Translation of “Historia Turco-Byzantina.” Edited by Harry J. Magoulias. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1975. Doytchinov, Grigor, and Christo Gantchev. Österreichische Architekten in Bulgarien: 1878-1918. Wien: Böhlau, 2001. Dumont, Albert. Le Balkan et l’Adriatique: Les Bulgares et les Albanais.--L’administration en Turquie.--La vie des campagnes.--Le panslavisme et l’ héllenisme. Paris: Didier et cie, 1873. Džambov, Hristo. “Novi danni za vodosnabdjavaneto na Plovdiv prez antičnostta i srednovekovieto.” Godišnik na Narodnija archeologičeski muzej Plovdiv 6 (1968): 65–82. Džambov, Ivan. Srednovekovnata krepost kraj Sopot. Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1991. Ebel, Kathryn. “Visual Sources for Urban History of the Ottoman Empire.” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3, no. 6 (2005): 457–86. Elbirlik, Leyla Kayhan. “Neighborhood and Family Lives.” In A Companion to Early Modern Istanbul, edited by Shirine Hamadeh and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, 341–64. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2021. Eldem, Edhem, Daniel Goffman, and Bruce Masters. “Introduction: Was There an Ottoman City?” In The Ottoman City between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul, edited by Edhem Eldem, Daniel Goffman, and Bruce Masters, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Elezović, Gliša. Turski spomenici. Vol. 1. Belgrade: Zora, 1940. Elker, Salâhaddin. “Kitâbelerde (Ebced) Hesabının Rolü.” Vakıflar Dergisi 3 (1956): 17–25. Emecen, Feridun. “The History of an Early Sixteenth Century Migration – Sirem Exiles in Gallipoli.” In Hungarian–Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent, edited by Pál Fodor and Géza Dávid, 77–91. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University and Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1994. ———. Zamanın İskenderi, Şarkın Fatihi: Yavuz Sultan Selim. İstanbul: Yitik Hazine Yayınları, 2010. Erder, Leyla. “The Measurement of Pre-Industrial Population Changes. The Ottoman Empire from the 15th to the 17th Century.” Middle Eastern Studies 11, no. 3 (1975): 284–301. Erdoğan Özünlü, Emine, and Ayşe Kayapınar. 1472 ve 1560 Tarihli Akıncı Defterleri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2017. Erdoğru, M. Akif. “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın 1532 Tarihli Alman Seferi Ruznâmesi.” Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 29, no. 1 (2014): 167–87. ———. “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın 1538 Tarihli Karaboğdan Seferi Ruznâmesi.” Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 29, no. 2 (2014): 515–24. Ergenç, Özer. “Osmanlı Klasik Dönemindeki «Eşraf ve A‘yan» Üzerine Bazı Bilgiler.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 3 (1982): 105–18.

268 | Ottoman Plovdiv

———. “Osmanlı Şehrindeki «Mahalle»nin İşlev ve Nitelikleri Üzerine.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 4 (1984): 69–78. ———. XVI. Yüzyılda Ankara ve Konya: Osmanlı Klasik Dönemi Kent Tarihçiliğine Katkı. Ankara: Ankara Enstitüsü Vakfı, 1995. ———. XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa: Yerleşimi, Yönetimi, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Durumu Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006. Erhan, M. Safiyüddin. “Şihabüddin Lala Şahin Paşa Hayatı, Vakıfları ve Külliyesi.” In Sultan I. Murad Hudâvendigâr ve Dönemi, edited by İsmail Selimoğlu, 196– 231. Bursa: Osmangazi Belediyesi, 2012. Erken, Sabih. “Edirne Hamamları.” Vakıflar Dergisi 10 (1973): 403–20. Ersoy, Bozkurt. “Bergama Ulu Camii.” Arkeoloji Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 4 (1988): 57– 66. Ersoy, Neriman. “XIX. Yüzyılda Filibe Şehri (1839–1876).” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2003. Ersoy-Hacısalihoğlu, Neriman. “Filibe/Plovdiv in der Zeit der Tanzimat-Reformen im 19. Jahrhundert. Administration, Bevölkerung, Wirtschaft.” Südost-Forschungen, no. 65–66 (2006): 266–91. Ertaylan, İsmail Hikmet. Külliyyât-ı Divan-ı Mevlana Hamidî. İstanbul: Millî Eğitim Basımevi, 1949. Evliya Çelebi. Seyahatnamesi. Vol. 3. İstanbul: Dersa’det Matba’ası, 1314. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap). Edited by S. Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999. ———. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 7. Kitap: Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu – Dizini. Edited by S. Ali Kahraman, Yücel Dağlı, and Robert Dankoff. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002. Eyice, Semavi. “Bertrandon de la Broquiere ve Seyahatnamesi (1432–1433).” İslam Tetkikleri Dergisi 6 (1975): 85–110. ———. “Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey Camii.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 13:462–63. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1996. ———. “İlyas Bey Camii.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 22:163– 64. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2000. ———. “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları.” Atatürk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi 9 (1978): 149–246. ———. “Sofya Yakınında İhtiman’da Gaazî Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey İmâret-Câmii.” Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 2 (1975): 49–61. Faroqhi, Suraiya. Artisans of Empire: Crafts and Craftspeople under the Ottomans. London: I.B. Tauris, 2012. ———, ed. Bread from the Lion’s Mouth: Artisans Struggling for a Livelihood in Ottoman Cities. New York: Berghahn Books, 2015. ———. “Camels, Wagons, and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 14, no. 4 (1982): 523–39.

Bibliography | 269

———. “Ottoman Population.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Suraiya N. Faroqhi and Kate Fleet, 2: The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603:356–403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. ———. “Seyyid Gazi Revisited: The Foundation as Seen Through Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Documents.” Turcica 13 (1981): 90–122. ———. “The Tekke of Hacı Bektaş: Social Position and Economic Activities.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 7, no. 2 (1976): 183–208. ———. Towns and Townsmen of Ottoman Anatolia: Trade, Crafts, and Food Production in an Urban Setting, 1520–1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Feridun Ahmed Bey. Nüzhet-i Esrârü’ l-Ahyâr der-Ahbâr-ı Sefer-i Sigetvar: Sultan Süleyman’ın Son Seferi. Edited by H. Ahmet Arslantürk and Günhan Börekçi. İstanbul: Zeytinburnu Belediyesi Kültür Yayınları, 2012. Ferlampin-Acher, Christine. “Le Voyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière : récit de pèlerinage, rapport d’espionnage ou récit de voyage ?” Travaux de littérature, no. 26 (2013): 11–22. Fermendžin, Eusebius. Monumenta spectantia historiam Slavorum Meridionalium. Vol. 18: Acta Bulgariae ecclesiastica ab a. 1565 usque ad a. 1799. Zagrabiae: Academia scientiarum et artium Slavorum meridionalium, 1887. Filiposki, Toni. “Before and after the Battle of Maritsa (1371): The Significance of the Non-Ottoman Factor in the Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans.” In The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans: Interpretations and Research Debates, edited by Oliver Jens Schmitt, 65–78. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016. Filipović, Nedim. Princ Musa i šejh Bedreddin. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1971. Filov, Bogdan. “Zapazvaneto na imaret-džamija v Plovdiv.” Izvestija na bălgarskoto arheologičesko družestvo 2 (1911): 258. Fine, John V. A. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994. Flood, Finbarr Barry, and Gülru Necipoğlu, eds. A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2017. Fraser, Benjamin. Digital Cities: The Interdisciplinary Future of the Urban Geo-Humanities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Gabriel, Albert. Monuments Turcs d’Anatolie. Vol. 2: Amasya-Tokat-Sîvas. Paris: Boccard, 1934. ———. Une capitale turque: Brousse, Bursa. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958. Gagova, Krasimira. Trakija prez Bălgarskoto Srednovekovie. Istoričeska geografija. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2002. Gerber, Haim. Economy and Society in an Ottoman City: Bursa, 1600–1700. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1988. Gerlach, Stephan. Stephan Gerlachs deß Aeltern Tage-Buch der von zween glorwürdigsten römischen Kaysern, Maximiliano und Rudolpho, beyderseits den Andern dieses

270 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Nahmens an die ottomanische Pforte zu Constantinopel abgefertigten und durch den Wohlgebornen Herrn Hn. David Ungnad, Freiherrn zu Sonnegk und Preyburg […] mit würcklicher Erhalt- und Verlängerung des Friedens zwischen dem Ottomannischen und Römischen Kayserthum und demselben angehörigen Landen und Köngreichen glücklichst-vollbrachter Gesandtschafft. Franckfurth am Mayn: in Verlegung Johann-David Zunners, 1674. Gheorghe, Adrian. The Metamorphoses of Power: Violence, Warlords, A ḳ ıncıs and the Early Ottomans (1300–1450). Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022. Gibb, Elias John Wilkinson. A History of Ottoman Poetry. Vol. 2. London: Luzac, 1902. Gjuzelev, Bojan. Albanci v iztočnite Balkani. Sofia: IMIR, 2004. Glaser, Rüdiger. “On the Course of Temperature in Central Europe since the Year 1000 A.D.” Historical Social Research 22, no. 1 (1997): 59–87. Goffman, Daniel. Izmir and the Levantine World, 1550–1650. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990. Gökbilgin, M. Tayyib. “Edirne.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 10:425–31. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1994. ———. “Ibrahim Pasha.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition). Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———. XV.-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı: Vakıflar, Mülkler, Mukataalar. İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952. Gökçe, Turan. “Filibe Şehri Nüfusunun Dinî ve Meslekî Özellikleri (1485–1610).” İn XIV. Türk Tarih Kongresi (9-13 Eylül 2002), 2:1:523–55. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2005. ———. “XVII. Yüzyılda Filibe Şehrinin Demografik Yapısı.” İn Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu, 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı, edited by Meral Bayrak, 49–64. Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 2005. Gómez, Raúl Estangüi. Byzance face aux ottomans. Exercice du pouvoir et contrôle du territoire sous les derniers Paléologues (milieu XIVe-milieu XVe siècle). Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2014. Göyünç, Nejat. “Hane Deyimi Hakkında.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 32 (1979): 331–48. Gradeva, Rossitsa. “Administrative System and Provincial Government in the Central Balkan Territories of the Ottoman Empire, 15th Century.” In Rumeli under the Ottomans, 15th-18th Centuries: Institutions and Communities, by Rossitsa Gradeva, 23–51. Istanbul: Isis Press, 2004. Grigorov, Valeri. Krepostta Krasen do Panagjurište. Sofia: Akademično izdatelstvo “Marin Drinov,” 2010. Griswold, William. “Climate Change: A Possible Factor in the Social Unrest of Seventeenth Century Anatolia.” In Humanist and Scholar: Essays in Honor of Andreas Tietze, edited by Heath W. Lowry and Donald Quataert, 37–57. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993.

Bibliography | 271

Grozdanova, Elena, ed. Turski izvori za bălgarskata istoriya. Sofia: Glavno Upravlenie na Arhivite, 2001. ———. “Za danăčnata edinica hane v demografskite proučvanija.” Istoričeski pregled 28, no. 3 (1972): 81–91. Hadžibegić, Hamid, Adem Handžić, and Ešref Kovačević. Oblast Brankovića: opširni katastarski popis iz 1455. godine. Sarajevo: Orijentalni Institut, 1972. Hamadeh, Shirine, and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu. A Companion to Early Modern Istanbul. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022. Hannavy, John. Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography. Vol. 1: A-I, Index. London: Routledge, 2008. Harbova, Margarita. Gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV–XVIII vek. Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1991. Hartmuth, Maximilian. “Building the Ottoman City: A Linear or Cumulative Process? Lessons from Fifteenth-Century Skopje.” Centre and Periphery? Islamic Architecture in Ottoman Macedonia, 1383–1520 Research Project No. 26406 Working Paper #3, n.d. ———. “Negotiating Tradition and Ambition: A Comparative Perspective on the ‘De-Ottomanization’ of the Balkan Cityscapes.” Ethnologia Balkanica 10 (2006): 15–33. Hayashi, Kayoko. “Turkey: I. The Formative Period of Turkish Urban Studies; II. From the 1940s to the 1970s; III. Recent Trends.” In Islamic Urban Studies: Historical Review and Perspective, edited by Masashi Haneda and Tōru Miura, 185– 234. London; New York: Kegan Paul International, 1994. Heywood, Colin. “Some Turkish Archival Sources for the History of the Menzilhane Network in Rumeli During the Eighteenth Century.” Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi 4–5 (July 1976): 39–55. ———. “The Ottoman Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rumeli in the 18th Century.” In Social and Economic History of Turkey (1071–1920). Papers Presented to the First International Congress on the Social and Economic History of Turkey, Hacettepe University, Ankara, July 11-13, 1977, edited by Osman Okyar and Halil İnalcık. Ankara: Meteksan, 1980. ———. “The Via Egnatia in the Ottoman Period: The Menzilḫānes of the Ṣol Ḳol in the Late 17th/Early 18th Century.” In The Via Egnatia under Ottoman Rule (1380–1699), edited by Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, 129–44. Rethymnon: Crete University Press, 1996. Hoca Sadeddin Efendi. Tacü’t Tevarih. Vol. 1. İstanbul: Tabhane-i Âmire, 1279. ———. Tâcü’t-Tevârih. Edited by İsmet Parmaksızoğlu. Vol. 1. İstanbul: Başbakanlık Kültür Müsteşarlığı Kültür Yayınları, 1974. Hochstetter, Ferdinand von. “Die geologischen Verhältnisse des östlichen Theiles der europäischen Türkei.” Jahrbuch der Kais. Kön. Geologischen Reichs-Anstalt 20, no. 4 (1870): 335–461.

272 | Ottoman Plovdiv

———. “Die geologischen Verhältnisse des östlichen Theiles der europäischen Türkei.” Jahrbuch der Kais. Kön. Geologischen Reichs-Anstalt 22, no. 4 (1872): 331–88. ———. “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869.” Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 13 (1870): 193–212. ———. “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869.” Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65–180. ———. “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869. 5. Philippopel.” Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65–80. Hofstätter, Ernst. Beiträge zur Geschichte der österreichischen Landesaufnahmen: ein Überblick der topographischen Aufnahmeverfahren, deren Ursprünge, ihrer Entwicklungen und Organisationsformen der vier österreichischen Landesaufnahmen. Wien: Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen, 1990. Hooper, Paul Lovell. “Forced Population Transfers in Early Ottoman Imperial Strategy: A Comparative Approach.” Unpuplished BA Thesis, Princeton University, 2003. Howell, Jesse. “The Ragusa Road: Mobility and Encounter in the Ottoman Balkans (1430–1700).” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2017. Hristozov, Hristo. “Demografski i etno-religiozni procesi v rajona na Asenovgrad prez XVI v.” Istoričeski pregled 3–4 (2012): 86–131. ———. “Demografsko i urbanistično razvitie na Asenovgrad prez XV-XVII v. (Istanimaka, Anbelianoš i Bej kjoj).” In Stenimachos-Stanimaka-Asenovgrad: Prinos kam izučavaneto na priemstvenostta i razvitieto na socialno-ikonomičeskata i duhovna istorija na grada i regiona, edited by Grigor Boykov and Damyan Borisov, 105– 56. Asenovgrad: Dikov, 2014. ———. “Okrăžavaštoto prostranstvo i planinskoto naselenie v Ropopite prez XVIXVII vek.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Sofia University, 2017. ———. “Overcrowding the Mountains in the Ottoman Balkans. Social and Ecological Dimensions of the Demographic Crisis in the District (Kaza) of Nevrokop during the 15th to the Early 18th Centuries.” Südost-Forschungen 78, no. 1 (2019): 39–67. ———. “The Ottoman Town of İpsala from the Second Half of the 14th to the End of the 16th Century.” In Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation, edited by Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivaylo Lozanov, 161–82. Sofia: Sofia University Press, 2017. İdris-i Bitlisî. Heşt Bihişt. Edited by Mehmet Karataş, Selim Kaya, and Yaşar Baş. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Ankara: Bitilis Eğitim ve Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları, 2008. Imber, Colin. The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45. Aldershot, England; Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2006. ———. The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1481. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1990. İnalcık, Halil. “Apolonija (Pulunija) - Tanră Jăkdăgă: kăm hronologijata na osmanskite zavoevanija po Balkanite (1354-1371).” Istoričeski pregled, no. 1–2 (2007): 16–41. ———. “Bulgaria.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition). Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Bibliography | 273

———. “Djem.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition), 2:529, n.d. ———. “Edirne’nin Fethi (1361).” In Edirne: Edirne’nin 600. Fetih Yıldönümü Armağan Kitabı, 137–59. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993. ———. Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954. ———. Hicrî 835 Tarihli Sûret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954. ———. “How to Read ‘Ashık Pasha-Zade’s History.” In Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V.L. Ménage, edited by Colin Heywood and Colin Imber, 139–56. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1994. ———. “İstanbul.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition). Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———. “Istanbul: An Islamic City.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1–23. ———. “Jews in the Ottoman Economy and Finances 1450–1500.” In The Islamic World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis, edited by Clifford Edmund Bosworth, 513–50. Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, 1989. ———. “Mehmed II.” In İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 7:506–35, 1957. ———. “Mehmed II.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition), 6:978–81, 1991. ———. “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432–1481) and His Time.” Speculum 35, no. 3 (1960): 408–27. ———. “Murad I.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 31:156–64. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2006. ———. “Murad II.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 31:164–72. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2006. ———. “Polunya (Apollunia) – Tanrı-Yıkdıgı Osmanlı Rumeli Fetihleri Kronolojisinde Düzeltmeler (1354–1371).” In Prof. Dr. Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, edited by Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ, 27–57. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 2006. ———. “Rice Cultivation and the Çeltükçi-Re’âyâ System in the Ottoman Empire.” Turcica 14 (1982): 69–141. ———. “The Conquest of Edirne 1361.” Archivum Ottomanicum 3 (1971): 185–210. ———. “The Hub of the City: The Bedestan of Istanbul.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 1 (1980): 1–17. ———. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973. ———. “The Policy of Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1970 1969): 229–49. ———. “The Rise of the Ottoman Historiography.” In Historians of the Middle East, edited by Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt, 152–67. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. ———. The Survey of Istanbul 1455: The Text, English Translation, Analysis of the Text, Documents. Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2012.

274 | Ottoman Plovdiv

İnalcık, Halil, Işıl Akbaygil, and Oktay Aslanapa, eds. İznik Throughout History. Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2003. İnalcık, Halil, and Donald Quataert, eds. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. İnbaşı, Mehmet. “Yahya Paşa’nın Üsküp’teki Vakıfları.” Vakıflar Dergisi 53 (2020): 9–27. İpçioğlu, Mehmet. “Kanuni Süleyman’ın Estergon (Esztergom) Seferi 1543.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 10, no. 10 (2015): 137–59. İsen, Mustafa. Latîfî Tezkiresi. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1990. Ivanov, Rumen, ed. Tabula Imperii Romani. Sheet K35/2 - Philippopolis. Sofia: Tendril Publishing House, 2012. Ivkovska, Velika. An Ottoman Era Town in the Balkans: The Case Study of Kavala. Abingdon-New York: Routledge, 2020. ———. “Comparative Analysis between the Istanbul House Plan Types and the Plan Types of the Ottoman Houses in the Panagia District in Kavala.” Journal of Comparative Cultural Studies in Architecture 9 (2016): 13–27. Jacoby, David. “The Catalan Company in the East: The Evolution of an Itinerant Army (1303–1311).” In The Medieval Way of War: Studies in Medieval Military History in Honor of Bernard S. Bachrach, edited by Gregory Halfond, 153–82. London: Routledge, 2015. Jägerschmid, Alexandre. Athènes et Constantinople, ou Vues et plans des villes les plus importantes de l’empire ottoman, avec un texte historique et descriptif ... Documents recueillis sur les lieux pendant les années 1825, 1826, 1827 et 1828, par M.A. Jägerschmid. Paris: Imprimerie de Firmin Didot, 1829. Jefferson, John. The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad. The OttomanChristian Conflict from 1438–1444. Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2012. Jenkins, Hester Donaldson. Ibrahim Pasha, Grand Vizir of Suleman the Magnificent, by Hester Donaldson Jenkins. New York: Columbia University, 1911. Jennings, Ronald C. “Urban Population in Anatolia in the Sixteenth Century: A Study of Kayseri, Karaman, Amasya, Trabzon, and Erzurum.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 7, no. 1 (1976): 21–57. Jireček, Constantin Josef. Die Handelstrassen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien während des Mittelalters. Prag: Verlag der Königliche böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1879. ———. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe. Eine Historisch-Geographische Studie. Prag: Verlag von F. Tempsky, 1877. Jonov, Mihail. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Nemski i avstrijski pătepisi za Balkanite XVII–sredata na XVIII v. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1986. ———. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Nemski i avstrijski pătepisi za Balkanite XV-XVI v. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1979. Jorga, Nicolae. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. Nach den Quellen dargestellt. Vol. 1: bis 1451. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1908.

Bibliography | 275

Kabadayi, M Erdem, Piet Gerrits, and Grigor Boykov. “Geospatial Mapping of a 16th Century Transport Corridor for Southeast Europe.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 37, no. 3 (2022): 788–812. Kaçan Erdoğan, Meryem. “Edirne Gazi Mihal Bey Camii ve İmareti Vakfı’na Bağlı Kaza ve Köyler.” In Trakya Üniversitesi’nin 40. Yılına Armağan, edited by Halûk Kayıcı and Orkun Akman, 57–88. Edirne: Trakya Üniversitesi, 2022. Kafadar, Cemal. Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Kafescioğlu, Çiğdem. Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. ———. “Lives and Afterlives of an Urban Institution and Its Spaces: The Early Ottoman ʿİmāret as Mosque.” In Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750, edited by Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu, 255–307. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2020. ———. “Urban Mapping in the Ottoman Empire.” In The History of Cartography. Volume 4: Cartography in the European Enlightenment, edited by Matthew H. Edney and Mary Sponberg Pedley, 1586–91. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019. Kahraman, Betül. “Vakfiyesi Işığında Şah Sultan ve Zal Mahmud Paşa Külliyesi.” FSM İlmi Araştırmalar İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, no. 14 (2019): 151–94. Káldy-Nagy, Gyula. Kanuni Devri Budin Tahrir Defteri (1546–1562). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1971. Karagöz, Mehmet. “1193/1779 Senesi Rüsum Defterine göre Bazarcık-Tatarpazarı’nda Pirinç Üretimi.” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 14, no. 1 (2004): 275–99. ———. “Filibe Kazası Rüsum Defterleri ve XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında, FilibeTatar Pazarı-Göbe’de Çeltik Ziraatı.” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 14, no. 2 (2004): 361–77. Karagöz, Nil. Candaroğlu İsmail Bey’ den İbadet Tadında Tarifler Hulviyyât Sultanın Tatlıları. Ankara: Altınordu Yayınları, 2020. Karta, Nurullah. “XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Filibe Şehrinde İktisadi Hayat ve Meslek Grupları.” Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8, no. 2 (2006): 145–73. ———. “XVI. Yüzyılda Filibe Kazası.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2005. Kaser, Karl. “The Urban Space of the Turko-Balkan City.” Balkanistic Forum 3 (2011): 63–69. ———. “Visual Studies: Their Potential for the Comparative Study of the Late Ottoman Empire.” In Ottoman Legacies in the Contemporary Mediterranean: The Balkans and the Middle East Compared, edited by Eyal Ginio and Karl Kaser, 41–58. Jerusalem: The European Forum and the Hebrew University, 2013. Kassabova, Anelia. “Identities in Frame: Photography and the Construction of a ‘National Body’ in Bulgaria (Approx. 1860 to World War I).” In Migration and Identity:

276 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Historical, Cultural and Linguistic Dimensions of Mobility in the Balkans, edited by Petko Hristov, 73–86. Sofia: Paradigma, 2012. ———. “Inclusion and Exclusion: The Role of Photography in the Nation-Building Process in Bulgaria from Approximately 1860 to World War I.” In Competing Eyes: Visual Encounters with Alterity in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Dagnosław Demski, Ildikó Kristóf, and Kamila Baraniecka-Olszewska, 112–39. Budapest: l’Harmattan, 2013. Kastritsis, Dimitris. The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402–1413. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. Katić, Tatjana. “The Sancak of Prizren in the 15th and 16th Century.” OTAM 33 (2013): 113–38. Kawamoto, Satoshi. “Before Topkapı: Istanbul Old Palace and Its Original Function.” Archivum Ottomanicum 33 (2016): 203–11. ———. “エディルネ旧宮殿の成立と空間構成 / The Formation of Edirne Old Palace and Its Spatial Composition.” Journal of Architecture and Planning 77, no. 679 (2012): 2211–17. Kaya, Alp Yücel. “Les villes ottomanes sous tension fiscale: les enjeux de l’évaluation cadastrale au XIXe siècles.” In La mesure cadastrale: estimer la valeur du foncier en Europe aux XIXe et XXe siècles, edited by Florence Bourillon and Nadine Vivier, 43–60. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2012. ———. “Politics of Property Registration: Cadastre of Izmir in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” New Europe College Regional Program Yearbook (2005-2006), n.d., 149–79. Kazancıgil, Ratip. Edirne İmaretleri. İstanbul: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi, 1991. ———. Edirne Sarayı ve Yerleşim Planı. Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği, Edirne Şubesi Yayınları, 1994. Kazancıoğlu, Habibe. Filibe: Hurûfât Defterlerine Göre Filibe Kazasındaki Vakıf Müesseseleri (1719–1834). İstanbul: Kayıhan, 2019. Kepecioğlu, Kâmil. “Bursada Şer’i Mahkeme Sicillerinden ve Muhtelif Arşiv Kayıtlarından Toplanan Tarihi Bilgiler ve Vesikalar.” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942): 405–17. Kesjakova, Elena. “Vodosnabdjavane.” In Kniga za Plovdiv, edited by Elena Kesjakova, 73–76. Plovdıv: Poligraf, 1999. Keskioğlu, Osman. “Bulgaristan’da Türk Vakıfları ve Bali Efendinin Vakıf Paralar Hakkında Bir Mektubu.” Vakıflar Dergisi 9 (1969): 81–94. Kiel, Machiel. “A Note on the History of the Frontiers of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th Century.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 66, no. 2 (1973): 351–53. ———. Bălgarija pod osmanska vlast. Săbrani săčinenija. Sofia: Tendril, 2017. ———. “Filibe.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 13:79–82. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1996. ———. “Hrăzgrad-Hezargrad-Razgrad: The Vicissitudes of a Turkish Town in Bulgaria (Historical, Demographical, Economic and Art Historical Notes).” Turcica 21–23 (1991): 495–563.

Bibliography | 277

———. “İhtiman.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 21:571–72. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2000. ———. “Tatar Pazarcık. The Development of an Ottoman Town in Central Bulgaria or the Story of How the Bulgarians Conquered Upper Thrace Without Firing a Shot.” In Das osmanische Reich und seinen Archivalien und Chroniken, Nejat Göyünç zu Ehren, edited by Klaus Kreiser and Christoph Neumann, 31–67. İstanbul; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997. ———. “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353–1453.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, edited by Kate Fleet, 1: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071–1453:138–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “The Zaviye and Külliye of Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey in İhtiman in Bulgaria, Second Oldest Ottoman Monument in the Balkans.” In Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi’nin Hâtırasına: Osmanlı Mimarlık Kültürü, edited by Hatice Aynur and A. Hilâl Uğurlu, 351–70. İstanbul: Kubbealtı, 2016. ———. “Tırnova.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 41:118–22. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2012. ———. “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: The Place of Turkish Architecture in the Process.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4, no. 2 (1989): 79–129. Kiprovska, Mariya. “Byzantine Renegade and Holy Warrior: Reassessing the Character of Köse Mihal, a Hero of the Byzantino-Ottoman Borderland.” In Defterology: Festschrift in Honor of Heath Lowry, edited by Selim Kuru and Baki Tezcan, 245–69. Special issue of Journal of Turkish Studies 40, 2013. ———. “Legend and Historicity: The Binbir Oklu Ahmed Baba Tekkesi and Its Founder.” In Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel, edited by Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz, 29–45. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2010. ———. “Pınarhisar’s Development from the Late Fourteenth to the Mid-Sixteenth Century. The Mihaloğlu Family Vakf Possessions in the Area.” In Cities in Southeastern Thrace: Continuity and Transformation, edited by Daniela Stoyanova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivaylo Lozanov, 183–207. Sofia: Sofia University Press, 2017. ———. “Plunder and Appropriation at the Borderland: Representation, Legitimacy, and Ideological Use of Spolia by Members of the Ottoman Frontier Nobility.” In Spolia Reincarnated – Afterlives of Objects, Materials, and Spaces in Anatolia from Antiquity to the Ottoman Era, edited by Ivana Jevtić and Suzan Yalman, 51–69. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınlari, 2018. ———. “Shaping the Ottoman Borderland: The Architectural Patronage of the Frontier Lords from the Mihaloğlu Family.” In Bordering Early Modern Europe, edited by Maria Baramova, Grigor Boykov, and Ivan Parvev, 185–220. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2015. ———. “The Military Organization of the Akıncıs in Ottoman Rumelia.” Unpublished MA Thesis, Bilkent University, 2004.

278 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Kissling, Hans-Joachim. “Die türkische Stadt auf dem Balkan.” In Die Stadt in Südosteuropa. Struktur und Geschichte, edited by Klaus-Detlev Grothusen, 72–83. Südosteuropa-Jahrbuch 8, 1966. Kılıç, Ayşegül. Bir Osmanlı Akıncı Beyi: Gazi Evrenos Bey. İstanbul: İthaki, 2014. ———. “Evrenos Bey’in Babası Pranko Lazarat’ın (Pranko İsa) Vakfı ve Türbesi.” GAMER 1, no. 1 (2012): 87–99. ———. “Malkoçoğlu Bali Bey ve Mezarı Hakkında.” Kafkas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 26 (2020): 747–76. Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz. “Slave Hunting and Slave Redemption as a Business Enterprise: The Northern Black Sea Region in the Sixteenth to Seventeenth Centuries.” Oriente Moderno 86, no. 1 (2006): 149–59. ———. “Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Atlantic and the Black Sea: A Comparative View.” In Slavery in the Black Sea Region, c. 900–1900: Forms of Unfreedom at the Intersection between Christianity and Islam, edited by Felicia Roșu, 418–42. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022. Kolovos, Elias. “The Fortress and the Town of Rhodes According to the Ottoman Survey After the Siege of 1522.” In The 1522 Siege of Rhodes, edited by Simon Phillips, 131–46. London: Routledge, 2022. Kolovos, Ilias. “A Biti of 1439 from the Archives of the Monastery of Xeropotamou (Mount Athos).” Hilandarski Zbornik 11 (2004): 295–306. Komov, Nikolaj V., A. K. Rodin, and V. V. Alakoz. Zemelʹnye otnošenija i zemleustrojstvo v Rossii. Moscow: Russlit, 1995. Kontolaimos, Panagiotis. “Small Place, Large Issues: Didimoteicho/Dimetoca and Early Ottoman Urban Practices in the Balkans from the Mid-Fourteenth to the End of the Fifteenth Century.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 5, no. 1 (2018): 143–67. ———. “The Transformation of Late Byzantine Adrianople to Early Ottoman Edirne.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 1 (2016): 7–27. Konyalı, İbrahim Hakkı. “Kanunî Sultan Süleyman’ın Annesi Hafsa Sultan’ın Vakfiyesi ve Manisa’daki Hayır Eserleri.” Vakıflar Dergisi 8 (1969): 47–56. Korres, Manolis, and Charalambos Bakirtizis. “Fortress of Pithion, Greece.” In Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans, 1300–1500, and Its Preservation, edited by Slobodan Ćurčić and Euangelia Hadjitryphonos, 158–61. Thessaloniki: AIMOS, Society for the Study of the Medieval Architecture in the Balkans and its Preservation, 1997. Kotzageorgis, Phokion. “An Ottoman Document from 1405 and Its Problems.” Turcica 46 (2015): 257–78. ———. “New Towns and Old Towns in the Ottoman Balkans: Two Case Studies from Northern Greece.” In Festschrift in Honor of Ioannis P. Theocharides, edited by Evangelia Balta, Georgios Salakides, and Theochares Stavrides, 273–91. Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2014.

Bibliography | 279

———. Reconsidering Early Ottoman Palaeography and Diplomatics. Nine Documents from the Great Meteoron Archive (1394–1434). Hagia Meteora: Holy Monastery of Great Meteoro, 2023. Kovács, Béla, and Gábor Timár. “The Austro-Hungarian Triangulations in the Balkan Peninsula (1855–1875).” In Cartography in Central and Eastern Europe: CEE 2009, edited by Georg Gartner and Felix Ortag, 535–44. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2010. Koyuncu, Aşkın. “Bulgaristan’da Osmanlı Maddi Kültür Mirasının Tasfiyesi (18781908).” OTAM 20 (2006): 197–243. Kritovoulos. History of Mehmed the Conqueror. Translated by Charles T. Riggs. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1954. Krstić, Tijana. Contested Conversions to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011. ———. “Of Translation and Empire: Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Imperial Interpreters as Renaissance Go-Betweens.” In The Ottoman World, edited by Christine Woodhead, 130–42. London; New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012. ———. “State and Religion, ‘Sunnitization’ and ‘Confessionalism’ in Süleyman’s Time.” In The Battle for Central Europe: The Siege of Szigetvár and the Death of Süleyman the Magnificent and Nicholas Zrínyi (1566), edited by Pál Fodor, 65–91. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019. Krstić, Tijana, and Derin Terzioğlu, eds. Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Krstikj, Aleksandra. “Values of the Historic Urban Form of Skopje’s Old Bazaar Based on Analysis of the Ottoman Urban Strategy.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Osaka University, 2013. Krstikj, Aleksandra, and Hisako Koura. “Identifying the Significance of Historic Place in Skopje’s Old Bazaar (Based on Analysis of Facility’s Location and Pimary Road in the Ottoman Urban Strategy).” Journal of Architecture and Planning 78, no. 686 (2013): 829–35. Krumov, Metodi. “Kăm istorijata na Banja Trakija.” Plovdivski istoričeski forum 4 (2020): 42–47. Kuban, Doğan. Ottoman Architecture. Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club, 2010. Kuçak Toprak, Gizem. “İlyasbey/Yarhisar Köyü’nün (Bilecik) Değerleri ve Kırsal Mimari Özellikleri.” Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5, no. 2 (2020): 309–41. Küçük, Celaleddin, and N. Mine Yar, eds. Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Camii Konferansı Bildirileri / Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Mosque Conference Papers. İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, 2008. Kuev, Kujo, and Georgi Petkov. Săbrani săčinenija na Konstantin Kostenečki: izsledvane i tekst. Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1986. Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç, Lidiya. Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri. İstanbul: ENKA, 2008.

280 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Kuran, Aptullah. “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul.” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 114–31. ———. İlk Devir Osmanlı Mimarisinde Cami. Ankara: Mimarlık Fakültesi, 1964. ———. The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Kürkçüoğlu, Kemal Edib. Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi. Ankara: Vakıflar Umum Müdürlüğü, 1962. Kyriakidis, Savvas. Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204–1453. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011. La Brocquière, Bertrandon de. Voyage d’outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière. Edited by Charles Henri Auguste Schefer. Paris: E. Leroux, 1892. Lapidus, Ira M. “Muslim Cities and Islamic Societies.” In Middle Eastern Cities. A Symposium on Ancient, Islamic, and Contemporary Middle Eastern Urbanism, edited by Ira M. Lapidus, 47–79. Berkeley: University of California, Press, 1969. Lejean, Guillaume. “Voyage en Bulgarie.” Le Tour du monde, nouveau journal des voyages 26 (1873): 113–70. ———. Voyages dans les Balkans. 1857–1870. Edited by Marie-Thérèse Lorain and Bernard Lory. Paris: Non Lieu Editions, 2011. Liakopoulos, Georgios. “The Ottoman Conquest of Thrace. Aspects of Historical Geography.” Unpublished MA Thesis, Bilkent University, 2002. Liberatos, Andreas. Vărzoždenskijat Plovdiv: transformacija, hegemonija, nacionalizăm. Sofia: Gutenberg, 2019. Linkov, Krasimir, ed. Plovdiv predi i sega. Plovdiv: Nova Print, 2005. Lory, Bernard. Le sort de l’ heritage ottoman en Bulgarie. İstanbul: Editions Isis, 1985. ———. “The Ottoman Legacy in the Balkans.” In Entangled Histories of the Balkans, edited by Roumen Daskalov and Alexander Vezenkov, 355–405. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015. Lory, Bernard, and Ivan Rusev. “Neizvesten plan na Tărnovo ot 1857 g.” Istorija 28, no. 1 (2020): 8–22. Lowry, Heath W. A Tale of Three Mosques: A Compendium of Sources for the Study of Early Twentieth Century Muslim Sanctuaries in Ottoman Selânik (1902–1903). İstanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2022. ———. “Changes in Fifteenth-Century Ottoman Peasant Taxation: The Case Study of Radilofo.” In Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, edited by Anthony Bryer and Heath W. Lowry, 23–37. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986. ———. Filling the Gaps. Whither Goes the Field of Ottoman Architectural History? Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2019. ———. Fourteenth Century Ottoman Realities: In Search of Hâcı-Gâzi Evrenos. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2012. ———. “From Lesser Wars to the Mightiest War’: The Ottoman Conquest and Transformation of Byzantine Urban Centers in the Fifteenth Century.” In Conti-

Bibliography | 281

nuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982, edited by Anthony Bryer and Heath W. Lowry, 323–38. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986. ———. In the Footsteps of the Ottomans : A Search for Sacred Spaces & Architectural Monuments in Northern Greece. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2009. ———. Ottoman Bursa in Travel Accounts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Publications, 2003. ———. Ottoman Selânik: Then & Now. A Guide to Fifty-Six Ottoman Era Monuments & Twenty Dedicatory Inscriptions on Stone in Today’s Thessaloniki. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2022. ———. “Portrait of a City: The Population and Topography of Ottoman Selanik (Thessaloniki) in the Year 1478.” In Studies in Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, by Heath W. Lowry, 65–100. Istanbul: Isis, 1992. ———. “Pushing the Stone Uphill: The Impact of Bubonic Plague on Ottoman Urban Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 23 (2003): 93–132. ———. The Evrenos Family & the City of Selânik (Thessaloniki): Who Built the Hamza Beğ Câmi’ i & Why? İstanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, 2010. ———. The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461– 1583. İstanbul: Isis Press, 2009. ———. The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003. ———. “The Ottoman Tahrir Defterleri as a Source for Social and Economic History: Pitfalls and Limitations.” In Studies in Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, by Heath W. Lowry, 3–18. Istanbul: Isis, 1992. ———. “The Passing of Time: Ottoman Clock Towers in the Balkans, ca. 1570– 1675.” In Yücel Dağlı Anısına: “geldi Yücel, gitti Yücel. bir nefes gibi...”, edited by Evangelia Balta, Yorgos Dedes, Emin Nedret İşli, and M. Sabri Koz, 420–38. İstanbul: Turkuaz, 2011. ———. The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350–1550: The Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2008. ———. “The ‘Soup Muslims’ of the Balkans: Was There a ‘Western’ & ‘Eastern’ Ottoman Empire?” In Beyond Dominant Paradigms in Ottoman and Middle Eastern/North African Studies: A Tribute to Rifa’at Abou-El-Haj, edited by Donald Quataert and Baki Tezcan, 97–133. Istanbul: ISAM, 2010. ———. Trabzon Şehrinin İslâmlaşma ve Türkleşmesi, 1461–1583. İstanbul: Boğazici Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1981. Lowry, Heath W., and İsmail E. Erünsal. The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice-i Vardar: Notes & Documents. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010.

282 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Luterbacher, Jürg. “European Seasonal and Annual Temperature Variability, Trends, and Extremes since 1500.” Science 303 (2004): 1499–1503. Lyberatos, Andreas. “Time and Timekeeping in the Balkans: Representations and Realities.” In Entangled Histories of the Balkans, edited by Roumen Dontchev Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, Tchavdar Marinov, and Alexander Vezenkov, 4: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations:257–90. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017. Madžarov, Mitko. Rimskijat păt Oescus-Philippopol. Pătni stancii i selišta. Plovdiv: Samizdat, 2005. Makas, Emily Gunzburger, and Tanja Damljanovic Conley, eds. Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires. London – New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2010. Mamatsashvili, Lika, and Herman Maes. Dimitri Ermakov, Photographer and Collector. Masters of 19th Century Photography. Tbilisi: Georgian National Museum, 2014. Mandaville, Jon E. “Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10, no. 3 (1979): 289–308. Matanov, Hristo. “Kăm văprosa za učastieto na bălgarite v Černomenskata bitka 1371 g.” In Bălgaria i Balkanite 681-1981, edited by Bistra Cvetkova, 142–54. Sofia: Săjuz na naučnite rabotnici v Bălgarija, 1982. Matanov, Hristo, and Rumjana Mihneva. Ot Galipoli do Lepanto: Balkanite, Evropa i osmanskoto našestvie, 1354–1571 g. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1988. Matković, Petar. “Dva talijanska putopisa po balkanskom poluotku iz XVI. vieka: Descrizione del viazo del Constantinopoli de ser Catharin Zen ambassador straordinario a Sultan Soliman e suo ritorno & Descizione del viaggio per terra di Constantinopoli e dalle cose principali del paese.” Starine 10 (1878): 201–56. Ménage, Victor L. “Beglerbegi.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition). Leiden: Brill, 2012. ———. Neshri’s History of the Ottomans: The Sources and Development of the Text. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. ———. “On the Recensions of Uruj’s ‘History of the Ottomans.’” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 30, no. 2 (1967): 314–22. ———. “The Beginning of Ottoman Historiography.” In Historians of the Middle East, edited by Bernard Lewis and P. M Holt, 168–79. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. Mert, Özcan. “Kırklareli Kitabeleri.” Tarih Dergisi, no. 25 (1971): 155–62. Mikov, Ljubomir. Džumaja džamija i Imaret džamija v Plovdiv. Istorija, specifika i săvremenno săstojanie. Sofia: Glavno mjuftijstvo, 2018. Mikov, Lyubomir. “Cultural and Historical Profile of Clock Towers in the Bulgarian Lands (17th–19th Centuries).” Études Balkaniques 1–2 (2010): 104–26. ———. “Ottoman Bathhouses in Bulgaria (In the Context of Bathing Culture in the Balkans and Anatolia).” Études Balkaniques 48, no. 4 (2012): 118–51. Mitkova, Rosica. “Spasitelno arheologičesko proučvane na mnogosloen obekt ‘Komatevsko Šose’ gr. Plovdiv.” Arheologičeski orkritija i razkopki, 2017, 337–39.

Bibliography | 283

Moačanin, Nenad. “The Poll-Tax and Population in the Ottoman Balkans.” In Frontiers of Ottoman Studies, edited by Colin Imber and Keiko Kiyotaki, 1:77–89. London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Moravenov, Konstantin. Pametnik za plovdivskoto christijansko naselenie v grada i za obštite zavedenija po proiznosno predanie: podaren na bălgar. Čitalište v Carigrad 1869. Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1984. Moreva, Rosica. “Stratigrafski nabljudenija vărhu srednovekovnija plast na Plovdiv.” Izvestija na Muzeite or Južna Bălgarija 21 (1995): 83–96. Moreva-Arabova, Rosica. “Danni za topografijata na srednovekovnija Plovdiv.” Godišnik na archeologicheski muzej Plovdiv 10 (2001): 100–113. Murphey, Rhoads. Ottoman Warfare 1500–1700. London: University College London Press, 1999. Mutafčiev, Petăr. Stari gradišta i drumove iz dolinite na Strema i Topolnica. Sofija: Carska pridvorna pečatnica, 1915. Mutafčieva, Vera. “Novi osmanski dokumenti za vakăfite pod turska vlast.” Izvestija na Dăržavnite Arhivi 6 (1962): 269–74. ———. “Za roljata na vakăfa v gradskata ikonomika na Balkanite pod turska vlast.” Izvestija na Instituta po Istorija 10 (1962): 121–43. Mutafova, Krasimira. Staroprestolniyat Tӑrnov v osmanoturskata knizhnina: XV-XVI vek. Veliko Tŭrnovo: Faber, 2002. Naima, Mustafa. Annals of the Turkish Empire from 1591 to 1659 of the Christian Era. London: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, 1832. Necipoğlu, Gülru. Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. New York: Architectural History Foundation, 1991. ———. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. London: Reaktion, 2005. Nedkov, Boris. Osmanoturska diplomatika i paleografija. II: Dokumenti i rečnik. Vol. 2. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1972. Neglia, Giulia Annalinda. “Some Historiographical Notes on the Islamic City with Particular Reference to the Visual Representation of the Built City.” In The City in the Islamic World, edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi, Renata Holod, Attilio Petruccioli, and André Raymond, 3–46. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Neşrî, Mehmed. Ǧihānnümā die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Mehḥemmed Neschrī. Edited by Franz Taeschner and Theodor Menzel. Vol. 1-Einleitung und Text des Cod. Menzel. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1951. ———. Ǧihānnümā die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlānā Mehḥemmed Neschrī. Edited by Franz Taeschner and Theodor Menzel. Vol. 2-Text des Cod. Manisa 1373. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1955. Neşri, Mehmed. Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi. Edited by Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed Köymen. Vol. 1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1949. ———. Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi. Edited by Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed Köymen. Vol. 2. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957.

284 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Neşrî, Mevlâna Mehmed. Cihânnümâ. Edited by Necdet Öztürk. İstanbul: Çamlıca, 2008. Nev’izâde Atâî. Hadâ’ iku’ l-Hakâ’ ik fî Tekmileti’ş-Şakâ’ ik: Nev’ îzâde Atâyî’nin Şakâ’ ik Zeyli. Edited by Suat Donuk. Vol. 1. Istanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2017. Nikov, Petăr. “Tatarobălgarski otnošenija prez srednite vekove s ogled kăm caruvaneto na Smileca.” Godišnik na Sofijskia universitet, Filosofsko-istoričeski fakultet 15–16 (1921): 1–95. ———. “Turskoto zavladjavane na Bălgarija i sădbata na poslednite Šišmanovci.” Izvestija na bălgarskoto istoričesko družestvo 7–8 (1928): 41–112. Norman, York. Islamization in Bosnia: Sarajevo’s Conversion and Socio-Economic Development, 1461–1604. London: Academica Press, 2018. Ohanian, Daniel, Z. Mehmet Başkurt, and M. Erdem Kabadayı. “An Historical Geographic Information System for Ottoman Studies. The c. 1907 Ottoman Census and Armenian Settlement in Istanbul.” Turcica 51 (2020): 255–83. Onur, Oral. Edirne Mevlevihanesi. İstanbul: u.p., 1999. Orbay, Kayhan. “Edirne Muradiyye Vakfı’nın Mali Yapısı ve Gelişimi (1598–1647).” Belleten 78, no. 283 (2014): 983–1032. Oruç b. ʿAdil. Oruç Beğ Tarihi. Edited by Necdet Öztürk. İstanbul: Çamlıca, 2014. Oruç, Hatice. “Hurufat Defterlerinin Bulgaristan Tarihi için Önemi: Filibe Örneği.” In Bălgarija i Turcija na meždukulturnija krăstopăt: ezik, istorija, literatura, 165– 84. Plovdiv: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Paisij Hilendarski,” 2012. Oruç, Hatice, and Kayhan Orbay. “Filibe’de Şehabeddin Paşa Vakfı 1632–1641 (H. 1041–1051).” Güneydoğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi 18 (2010): 19–57. Osman, Rifat. Edirne Sarayı. Edited by A. Süheyl Ünver. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957. Osman, Rıfat. Edirne Rehnüması: Edirne Şehir Klavuzu. Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi, 1994. Ostrogorski, Georgije. Serska oblast posle Dušanove smrti. Beograd: Naučno delo, 1965. Öz, Tahsin. “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinde Yemen Fatihi Sinan Paşa Arşivi.” Belleten 10, no. 37–40 (1946): 171–93. Özbek, Zeynep Ayhun. “1-2 Nolu Mülâzemet Defteri (Tahlil ve Değerlendirme).” MA, Marmara University, 2006. Özdemir, Rıfat. “Avârız ve Gerçek-hâne Sayılarının Demografik Tahminlerde Kullanılması Üzerine Bazı Bilgiler.” In X. Türk Tarih Kongresi: Ankara, 22-26 Eylül 1986. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler, 4:1581–1613. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993. Özel, Oktay. “Limits of the Almighty: Mehmed II’s ‘Land Reform’ Revisited.” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 42, no. 2 (1999): 226–46. ———. “Population Changes in Ottoman Anatolia during the 16th and 17th Centuries: The ‘Demographic Crisis’ Reconsidered.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36, no. 2 (2004): 183–205.

Bibliography | 285

———. The Collapse of Rural Order in Ottoman Anatolia: Amasya 1576–1643. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2016. ———. “The Reign of Violence: The Celalis c. 1550–1700.” In The Ottoman World, edited by Christine Woodhead, 184–204. London; New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012. Özer, Mustafa. “Edirne Sarayı (Saray-ı Cedîd-i Âmire)’ndan Günümüze Ulaşabilen Yapılar Hakkında.” Turkish Studies 9–10 (2014): 809–36. ———. “Edirne-Lalapaşa’daki Osmalı Dönemi Eserleri.” Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 8, no. 1 (2006): 54–72. ———. The Ottoman Imperial Palace in Edirne (Saray-ı Cedîd-i Âmire): A Brief Introduction. Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2014. ———. Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi (XIV.–XIX. yüzyıl). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006. Özergin, M. Kemal. “Eski Bir Rûznâme’ye Göre İstanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri.” Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 4–5 (1974): 263–90. Özkoçak, Selma. “The Urban Development of Ottoman Istanbul in the Sixteenth Century.” Unpublished PhD Dissertation, SOAS, University of London, 1997. Panayotov, Momchil, Peter Bebi, Valerie Trouet, and Steffan Yurukov. “Climate Signal in Tree-Ring Chronologies of Pinus Peuce and Pinus Heldreichii from the Pirin Mountains in Bulgaria.” Trees 24, no. 3 (2010): 479–90. Pančev, Todor. Dokumenti za bălgarskata istorija. Arhiv na Najden Gerov, 1857-1876. Vol. 1. Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1931. ———. Iz arhivata na Najden Gerov. Kniga II, korespondencija s častni lica, M-Ja. Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1914. Papp, Sándor. “The System of Autonomous Muslim and Christian Communities, and States in the Ottoman Empire.” In The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Lovro Kunčević and Gábor Kármán, 375–419. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Peçevi, İbrahim Efendi. Tarih-i Peçevî. Vol. 1. İstanbul: Matba‘a-i ‘Amire, 1281. Peev, Hristo. “Golemiyat bezisten v Plovdiv.” Godišnik na narodnija arheologičeski muzej Plovdiv 1 (1948): 204–7. ———. “Plovdivskite mahali v tursko vreme.” Plovdivski Obštinski Vestnik, January 31, 1942. ———. “Sgradata na oblastnoto săbranie na Iztočna Rumelija v gr. Plovdiv.” Godišnik na Narodnija archeologicheski muzej Plovdiv 1 (1948): 202–4. Peev, Vasil. Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastojašte. Plovdiv v minaloto. Plovdiv: Plovdivsko arheologičesko družestvo, 1941. Penkova, Biserka. “Starata cărkva na Kuklenskija manastir kato primer za vzaimodejstvieto na hristijanskata i osmanskata arhitekturi ot kraja na XVI - načaloto na XVII vek.” In ∆ωρεά: k 90-letiju Éngeliny Sergeevny Smirnovoj. Sbornik statej, edited by M. A. Orlova, 258–65. Moskva: Gosudarstvenyy institut iskusstvoznanija, 2022.

286 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Peremeci, Osman Nuri. Edirne Tarihi. Istanbul: Edirne ve Yöresi Eski Eserleri Sevenler Kurumu, 1939. Petkova, Milena. Centralnite Balkani i osmancite. Demografsko razvitie i agrarna ikonomika na Iztočnija djal na Trakijskata nizina prez XVI vek. Sofia: Gutenberg, 2020. ———. Meždu Anatolia i Rumelija. Jurucite i stopanskoto rajonirane na časti of Centralnite Balkani, sredata na XV - sredata na XVI vek. Sofia: Gutenberg, 2021. Petrova, Nedjalka, and Vladimir Balčev. Plovdivska arhivna săkrovištnica. 55 godini Bălgarski dăržavni arhivi / Plovdiv Archives Depository. 55 Years Bulgarian State Archives. Plovdiv: Vion, 2007. Peychev, Stefan. The Nature of the Ottoman City: Water Management and Urban Space in Sofia, 1380s-1910s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. ———. “Water and the City: Ottoman Sofia in the Early Modern Period.” In Living with Nature and Things. Contributions to a New Social History of the Middle Islamic Periods., edited by Bethany J. Walker and Abdelkader Al Ghouz, 139–57. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. Pinon, Pierre. “Essai de définition morphologique de la ville ottomane des XVIIIe– XIXe siècles.” In La culture urbaine des Balkans (XVe –XIXe siècles). Vol. 3: La ville dans les Balkans depuis la fin du moyen age jusqu’au debut du XXe siecle. Recueil d’etudes, edited by Verena Han and Marina Adamović, 147–55. Belgrade; Paris: Académie serbe des sciences et des arts, 1991. ———. “Essai de typologie des tissus urbains des villes ottomanes d’Anatolie et des Balkans.” In 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: “A Supra-National Heritage,” edited by Nur Akın, Afife Batur, and Selçuk Batur, 174–88. Istanbul: YEM Yayın, 2000. ———. Les villes et les maisons ottomanes. Istanbul: Isis Press, 2019. ———. “The Ottoman Cities of the Balkans.” In The City in the Islamic World, edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi, Renata Holod, Attilio Petruccioli, and André Raymond, 1:143–58. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Polat, İrem Gündüz. “Küçük Ayasofya and the Foundation of Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin Ağa.” MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2016. Popov, Atanas. Kreposti i ukrepitelni săorăženija v Krănskata srednovekovna oblast. Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1982. Popović, Mihailo. “Das Flusstal der Kriva Lakavica in spätbyzantinischer und osmanischer Zeit (1259–1600): Das Verhältnis des Ortes Konče zum Siedlungsnetz der Städte Štip und Strumica.” Revue des études byzantines 69, no. 1 (2011): 159–84. ———. Von Budapest nach Istanbul: die Via Traiana im Spiegel der Reiseliteratur des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Eudora-Verlag, 2010. Radonić, Jovan. Đurađ Kastriot Skenderbeg i Arbanija u XV veku (istoriska građa). Beograd: Srpska kraljevska akademija, 1942. Rajčev, Dimităr. Plovdiv zavinagi. Plovdiv: Agencia Seden D, 2005. Raymond, André. “Islamic City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 21, no. 1 (1994): 3–18.

Bibliography | 287

———. “The Spatial Organization of the City.” In The City in the Islamic World, edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi, Renata Holod, Attilio Petruccioli, and André Raymond, 47–70. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Refik, Ahmet. On Altıncı Asırda Rafızîlik ve Bektaşilik. Istanbul: Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitaphanesi, 1932. Reindl, Hedda. Männer um Bayezid: Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche Sultan Bayezids II. (1481–1512). Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1983. Riedler, Florian, and Nenad Stefanov, eds. The Balkan Route: Historical Transformations from Via Militaris to Autoput. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021. Rothman, Ella Natalie. The Dragoman Renaissance: Diplomatic Interpreters and the Routes of Orientalism. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 2021. Rozen, Minna. Facing the Sea: The Jews of Salonika in the Ottoman Era (1430–1920). Afula, 2011. http://www.minnarozen.co.il. Rudloff-Hille, Gertrud, and Otto Rudloff. “Grad Plovdiv i negovite sgradi.” Izvestija na bălgarskija arheologičeski institut 8 (1934): 379–425. Šabanović, Hazim. “Dvije najstarije vakufname u Bosni.” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju, no. 2 (1952): 5–38. ———. “Postanak i razvoj Sarajeva.” Radovi naučnog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 13, no. 5 (1960): 71–89. ———. “Urbani razvitak Beograda od 1521. do 1688. godine.” Godišnjak grada Beograda 17 (1970): 5–42. Săbev, Orlin. Knigata i nejnijat hram. Istorija na osmanskite biblioteki v Bălgarija. Sofija: Avangarg, 2017. ———. Osmanskite učilišta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII v. Sofija: LjubomădrieHronika, 2001. Sabev, Orlin. “The Legend of Köse Mihal: Additional Notes.” Turcica 34 (2002): 241–52. Săbev, Orlin. “Za sădbata na osmanskite vakăfski biblioteki v Bălgarija sled Osvoboždenieto.” In Vakăfite v Bălgarija, edited by Veselin Jančev, Mariya Kiprovska, and Grigor Boykov, 285–309. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski,” 2020. Şahin, İlhan. “XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Sofya-Filibe-Eski Zağra ve Tatar Pazarı’nın Nüfus ve İskan Durumu.” Türk Dünayası Araştırmaları Dergisi 48 (1987): 249–56. Şahin, İlhan, Feridun Emecen, and Yusuf Halaçoğlu. “Turkish Settlements in Rumelia (Bulgaria) in the 15th and 16th Centuries: Town and Village Population.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4, no. 2 (1989): 23–40. Şakir-Taş, Aziz Nazmi. Adrianopol’ den Edirne’ye: Edirne Civarında Osmanlı Kültür ve Bilim Muhitinin Oluşumu (XIV.-XVI. Yüzyıl). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, 2009. Samardžić, Radovan. Beograd pod turcima. Beograd: Kolarčev narodni Univerzitet, 1954. Sambanopoulu, Lilia. “Bedesten.” In Ottoman Architecture in Greece, edited by Ersi Brouskari, 246–47. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, 2008.

288 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Savov, Krum. Plovdiv prez fotoobektiva na Krum Savov. Plovdiv: Regionalen Etnografski Muzej Plovdiv, 2020. Schepper, Corneille Duplicius de. Missions Diplomatiques de Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, Dit Scepperus, Ambassadeur de Christiern II, de Charles V, de Ferdinand Ier et de Marie, Reine de Hongrie, Gouvernante Des Pays-Bas, de 1523 à 1555, Éd. Par M. Le Bonde Saint-Genois. Bruxelles: M. Hayez, 1856. Schmitt, Oliver Jens. “Between Two Worlds or a World of Its Own? The Eastern Adriatic in the Fifteenth Century.” In The Crusade in the Fifteenth Century: Converging and Competing Cultures, edited by Norman Housley, 170–86. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ———. “Der Balkan zwischen regionaler Herrschaftsbildung und osmanischer Eroberung (ca.1300 – ca.1500).” In Handbuch zur Geschichte Südosteuropas. Bd. 2: Herrschaft und Politik in Südosteuropa von 1300 bis 1800, edited by Oliver Jens Schmitt, 9–217. Oldenbourg: De Gruyter, 2021. ———. “Introduction: The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans – Research Questions and Interpretations.” In The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans: Interpretations and Research Debates, edited by Oliver Jens Schmitt, 7–45. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016. ———. “‘Sie kämpften mit den Türken, wider Willen zwar, aber es war nicht anders möglich’: Beobachtungen zur serbisch-osmanischen Verflechtung zwischen der Schacht am Amselfeld und dem Untergang des serbischen Despotats (1389– 1459).” Zeischrift für Balkanologie 58, no. 1–2 (2022): 131–52. ———. “Südosteuropa im Spätmittelalter: Akkulturierung – Integration – Inkorporation?” In Akkulturation im Mittelalter, edited by Reinhard Härtel, 81–136. Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2014. ———. “The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans and Its Historical Arenas: on the Relationship between Regional and Supraregional History.” Revue des études sudest européennes 59 (2021): 9–35. ———. “Traîtres ou champions de la survie? Les seigneurs de tendance ottomane dans les Balkans à l’époque de la conquête ottomane.” Travaux et mémoires 25, no. 1 (2021): 213–75. Schmitt, Oliver Jens, and Mariya Kiprovska. “Ottoman Raiders (Akıncıs) as a Driving Force of Early Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans and the Slavery-Based Economy.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 65 (2022): 497–582. Schweigger, Salomon. Ein Newe Reyßbeschreibung Auß Teutschland Nach Constantinopel Und Jerusalem: Darinn d. Gelegenheit Derselben Länder, Städt, Flecken, Gebew Etc. d. Innwohnenten Völcker Art, Sitten, Gebreuch, Trachten, Religion u. Gotteßdienst Etc., Insonderheit d. Jetzige Ware Gestalt d. H. Grabs, d. Stadt Jerusalem u. Anderer Heiligen Oerter ... ; ... Deßgleichen d. Türck. Reichs Gubernation, Policey, Hofhaltung, Nutzbarkeit d. Reysens, u. Vielerley Andern Lustigen Sachen ... ; in 3 Unterschiedl. Büchern. Nürnberg: Lantzenberger, 1613.

Bibliography | 289

Sert, Özlem. “Environmental History of Rice Plantations in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire between 15th and 19th Centuries and Its Potential for Climate Research.” Journal of Environmental Geography 14, no. 1–2 (2021): 1–14. Setton, Kenneth M. Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311–1388. London: Variorum, 1975. Sevim, Sezai. “Candaroğulları Sülalesinden Kaya Bey’in Balıkesir’deki Camisi ve Vakıfları.” Vakıflar Dergisi 23 (1994): 19–24. Sezgin, İbrahim. “Filibe’deki Şehabeddin Paşa Vakıfları.” İn Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11–13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı, edited by Meral Bayrak, 347–55. Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 2005. ———. “Malkara Şehri (1475–1601).” İlmî Araştırmaları 2 (1996): 119–30. ———. “Paşa Livâsı.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 34:183–84. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2007. Shapiro, Henry R. “Grigor Daranałcʿi: An Armenian Chronicler of Early Modern Mass Mobility.” In Entangled Confessionalizations? Dialogic Perspectives on the Politics of Piety and Community Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th –18th Centuries, edited by Tijana Krstić and Derin Terzioğlu, 139–57. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2022. ———. “The Great Armenian Flight: Migration and Cultural Change in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire.” Journal of Early Modern History 23, no. 1 (2019): 67–89. ———. The Rise of the Western Armenian Diaspora in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire: From Refugee Crisis to Renaissance in the 17th Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2022. Shopov, Aleksandar. “Cities of Rice: Risiculture and Environmental Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Balkans.” Levant, 2020, 1–15. Simov, Mihail. “Mapping Enemy’s Land: Russian Military Topographic Intelligence on 19th Century European Turkey.” Journal of Balkan and Black Sea Studies 2, no. 3 (2019): 45–70. Singer, Amy. Constructing Ottoman Beneficence: An Imperial Soup Kitchen in Jerusalem. Albany: SUNY Press, 2002. ———. “Edirne.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam Three, 28–35. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018. ———. “Enter, Riding on an Elephant: How to Approach Early Ottoman Edirne.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3, no. 1 (2016): 89–109. ———. “Serving Up Charity: The Ottoman Public Kitchen.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35, no. 3 (2005): 481–500. Sjaroff, Georg. Die Rosenkultur und Rosenölindustrie in Bulgarien. Bukarest: A. Baer, 1907. Škorpil, Karel, and Vladislav Škorpil. Nekoi beležki vărhu arheologičeskite i istoričeskite izsledovanija v Trakija. Plovdiv: Oblastna pečarnica, 1885.

290 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Škrivanić, Gavro A. “Bitka na Marici (26. septembra 1371. godine).” Vojnoistorijski glasnik 14 (1963): 71–94. Sokoloski, Metodi. “Le dévelopment de quelques villes dans le Sud des Balkans au XVe et XVIe siècles.” Balkanica 1 (1970): 81–106. Šopov, Aleksandar. “Falling like an Autumn Leaf: The Historical Visions of the Battle of the Maritsa/Meriç River and the Quest for a Place Called Sırp Sındığı.” MA Thesis, Sabancı University, 2007. Soranzo, Jacopo di Francesco. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo al Sultano Murad III in compagnia di M. Giovanni Correr bailo alla Porta Ottomana descritto da anonimo che fu al seguito del Soranzo, MDLXXV. Venezia: G. Merlo, 1856. Soustal, Peter. Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Vol. 6. Thrakien (Thrakē, Rodopē und Haimimontos). Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991. Stajnova, Mihaila. Osmanskite biblioteki v bălgarskite zemi XV–XIX vek: studii. Sofija: Narodna Biblioteka Kiril i Metodij, 1982. Stanev, Kamen. “Donžon li e šternata na Nebet tepe v Plovdiv?” Žurnal za istoričeski i arheologičeski izsledvanija 3 (2015): 66–81. ———. “Filipopol v sredata na XII - načaloto na XIII v. Teritorija i broj na naselenieto.” In Gradăt na Balkanite. Prostranstva, obrazi, pamet, edited by Rumjana Prešlenova, 141–67. Sofia: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 2021. ———. “The Fortification System of Medieval Philippopolis.” Contributions to Bulgarian Archaeology 22 (2022): 147–82. ———. Trakija prez Rannoto srednovekovie. Vekiko Tărnovo: Faber, 2012. ———. “Za lokalizacijata na edna srednovekovna cărkva v Plovdiv po danni na frenskija pătešestvenik Ljofevr.” Plovdivski istoričeski forum 3 (2019): 16–23. Stanev, Kamen, and Elena Božinova. “Novootkrita srednovekovna krepostna stena s porta v Plovdiv (po arheologičeski danni).” In Gradăt v bălgarskite zemi, edited by Pavel Georgiev, 359–75. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2014. Stello, Annika. “Caffa and the Slave Trade during the First Half of the Fifteenth Century.” In Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1000– 1500 Ce), edited by Reuven Amitai and Christoph Cluse, 375–98. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017. Stoicov, Emil. Iz Plovdiv v drugo vreme. Plovdiv: Žanet 45, 2011. Stojanovski, Aleksandar. Gradovite na Makedonija od krajot na XIV do XVII vek: demografski proučuvanja. Skopje: Zavod za unapreduvanje na stopanstvoto vo SRM “Samoupravna praktika,” 1981. ———. Raja so specijalni zadolženija vo Makedonija: vojnuci, sokolari, orizari i solari. Skopje: Institut za nacionalna istorija, 1990. ———. “Zaveštanieto na Evrenos-beg vo nahijata Konče.” Glasnik Instituta za Nacionalna Istorija 40, no. 1 (1996): 103–10. Stojkovski, Boris. “Bertrandon de la Broquière on Byzantium and Serbia. Richness and Decline in the Age of Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans.” In Byzanz und

Bibliography | 291

das Abendland V: Studia Byzantino-Occidentalia, edited by Erika Juhász, 175–87. Antiquitas, Byzantium, renascentia, XXXII. Budapest: Eötvös-József-Collegium, 2018. Sukarev, Vidin. “Plovdivskite mahali prez vtorata polovina na XIX vek.” Plovdivski istoričeski forum 4, no. 1 (2020): 49–78. Süreyya, Mehmed. Sicill-i Osmanî. Edited by Nuri Akbayar. Vol. 2. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996. Sürreyya, Mehmed. Sicill-i Osmani Yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye. Vol. 4. İstanbul: Matba’a-i Amire, 1311. Taeschner, Franz. “Die Werke der Familie Dai Qarağa Beg in Brussa und Mihalitsch und deren Inschriften.” Der Islam 20 (1932): 168–82. Tanındı, Zeren. Yazıda Âhenk ve Renk: Sadberk Hanım Müzesi Koleksiyonundan Sanatlı Kitaplar, Belgeler ve Hüsn-i Hatlar. İstanbul: Sadberk Hanım Müzesi, 2019. Tansel, Selâhattin. Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan Mehmedʾin Siyasî ve Askerî Faaliyeti. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1953. ———. Sultan II. Bâyezit’ in Siyasî Hayatı. İstanbul: MEB Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü, 1966. Tatarlă, Ibrahim. “Turski kultovi sgradi i nadpisi v Bălgarija.” Annuaire de l’Université de Sofia, Faculté de Lettres 60 (1966): 567–615. Terzioğlu, Derin. “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: A Historiographical Discussion.” Turcica 44 (2012): 301–38. ———. “Power, Patronage, and Confessionalism: Ottoman Politics Through the Eyes of a Crimean Sufi, 1580–1593.” In Political Thought and Practice in the Ottoman Empire. Halcyon Days in Crete IX - A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 9–11 January 2015, edited by Marinos Sariyannis, 149–86. Rethymno: Crete University Press, 2019. ———. “Sufis in the Age of State-Building and Confessionalization.” In The Ottoman World, edited by Christine Woodhead, 86–102. London; New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2012. ———. “Sunna-Minded Sufi Preachers in Service of the Ottoman State: The Na ṣīḥatnāme of Hasan Addressed to Murad IV.” Archivum Ottomanicum 27 (2010): 241–312. Ther, Philipp. The Outsiders: Refugees in Europe since 1492. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019. Tingley, Martin P., and Peter Huybers. “Recent Temperature Extremes at High Northern Latitudes Unprecedented in the Past 600 Years.” Nature 496, no. 7444 (2013): 201–15. Todorov, Nikolaj. The Balkan City, 1400–1900. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983. Todorova, Maria. “The Ottoman Legacy in the Balkans.” In Imperial Legacy: The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, edited by L. Carl Brown, 45–77. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.

292 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Tolan, John. “Bertrandon de La Broquière.” In Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, edited by David Thomas and Alex Mallet, 5: (1350–1500): 443– 46. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2013. Toleva-Nowak, Nina. “Eni hamam: evoljucija na funkcionalnite i prostranstveno-vremevi vzaimovrăzki.” Naučni trudove na Săjuza na uchenite v Bălgarija 6 (2020): 108–17. ———. “Hammam: History in Graffiti. Catalogue of Images Found in Plaster Layers in an Ottoman Bathhouse in Plovdiv.” In Artificial Intelligence: New Pathways Towards Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Vienna, edited by Wolfgang Börner, Hendrik Rohland, and Christina Karner, 297–300. Heidelberg: Propylaeum, 2022. Topalilov, Ivo. “Philippopolis. The City from the 1st to the Beginning of the 7th Century.” In Roman and Early Byzantine Cities in Bulgaria, edited by Rumen Ivanov, 363–437. Sofija: Ivraj, 2012. ———. Rimskijat Fililpopol. Topografija, gradoustrojstvo i arhitektura. Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2012. Trako, Salih. “Pretkosovski događaji u Hešt bihištu Idrisa Bitlisija.” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 20–21 (1976): 159–204. Tüfekçioǧlu, Abdülhamit. Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarisinde Yazı. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlıǧı, 2001. Tuleškov, Nikolaj. “Časovnikovite kuli.” Vekove, 1987, 39–45. Tuncel, Mehmet. Babaeski, Kırklareli ve Tekirdağ camileri. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1974. Tunçel, Mehmet. “Türk Mimarîsi’nde Bulgaristan’daki Bedesten Binaları.” In Balkanlar’ da Kültürel Etkileşim ve Türk Mimarisi Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri (17–19 Mayıs 2000, Şumnu - Bulgaristan), edited by Azize Aktaş Yasa and Zeynep Zafer, 725–62. Ankara: Atatürk Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2001. Turan, Ömer. “1877–1878 Osmanlı-Rus Savaşında Filibe’de Yıkılan Osmanlı Eserlerine dair Bir İngiliz Belgesi.” Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 25, no. 4 (1996): 241–51. Turgut, Vedat. “Vakıf Belgeleri Işığında Umur Bey ve Lala Şahin Paşa’nın Menşei ve Osmanlılar ile İttifakı’na Dair.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 47 (2016): 1–38. Uğur, Yunus. “Big Data in Ottoman Urban Studies: A Relational Approach to the Archival Data and to Socio-Spatial Analyses of an Early Modern Ottoman City.” Social Sciences-MDPI 7, no. 4 (2018): 1–12. ———. “Mapping Ottoman Cities: Socio-Spatial Definitions and Groupings (1450–1700).” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 18, no. 3 (2018): 16–65. ———. “Tarihçilikte ‘Mekânın Yeniden Keşfi’: Osmanlı Şehir Çalışmaları İçin Öneriler.” Kent Araştırmaları Dergisi 30, no. 11 (2020): 678–700. ———. “The Historical Interaction of the City with Its Mahalles. Ottoman Edirne in the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries.” PhD Dissertation, Boğaziçi University, 2014.

Bibliography | 293

Uluçay, M. Çağatay. Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992. Ünver, A. Süheyl. “Edirne Mevlevihanesi Tarihine Giriş.” In Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht, edited by Emin Nedret İşli and M. Sabri Koz, 623–27. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, 1998. ———. Edirne Murâdiye Câmiʼi: Yaptıran İkinci Sultan Murad. İstanbul: Kemal Matbaası, 1952. Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1937. ———. “Çandarlı Zade Ali Paşa Vakfiyesi, 808 H./1405–1406 M.” Belleten 5, no. 20 (1941): 549–76. ———. Osmanlı Tarihi. Vol. 1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1947. ———. Osmanlı Tarihi. Vol. 2: İstanbul’un Fethinden Kanunî Sultan Süleyman’ın Ölümüne Kadar. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998. Varlık, Nükhet. Plague and Empire in the Early Modern Mediterranean World: The Ottoman Experience, 1347–1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Vasileva, Elena, Stefan Bakardzhiev, and Nikola Tonkov. “Geomagnetic Survey in Saraya Locality in the Territory of Straldzha Town.” In Archaeological Discoveries and Excavations in 2018, edited by Hristo Popov, 722–24. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2019. Večeva, Ekaterina. Tărgovijata na Dubrovnik s bălgarskite zemi (XVI-XVIII v.). Sofija: Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite, 1982. Veinstein, Gilles. “La ville ottomane.” In Sciences sociales et phénomènes urbains dans le monde arabe: actes du colloque de l’Association de Liaison entre les Centres de recherches et documentations sur le monde arabe (ALMA), Casablanca, 30 novembre--2 décembre 1994, edited by Mohammed Naciri and André Raymond, 105–14. Casablanca: Fondation du Roi Abdul-Aziz Al-Saoud pour les études islamiques et les sciences humaines, 1997. ———. “The Ottoman Town (Fifteenth-Eighteenth Centuries).” In The City in the Islamic World, edited by Salma Khadra Jayyusi, Renata Holod, Attilio Petruccioli, and André Raymond, 205–17. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Venedikova, Katerina. “Njakolko nadpisa ot osmansko vreme ot grad Plovdiv.” Numizmatika, sfragistika i epigrafika 12 (2016): 205–23. Vezenkov, Alexander. “Entangled Geographies of the Balkans: The Boundaries of the Region and the Limits of the Discipline.” In Entangled Histories of the Balkans, edited by Roumen Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, Tchavdar Marinov, and Alexander Vezenkov, 4: Concepts, Approaches, and (Self-)Representations:115–256. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017. Wendel, Michael. Karasura: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Thrakien. Vol. 1–3. Weissbach: Beier & Beran, 2001. White, Sam. The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

294 | Ottoman Plovdiv

———. “The Real Little Ice Age.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 44, no. 3 (2014): 327–52. Wilkie, Laurie A. “Documentary Archaeology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology, edited by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry, 13–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Wittek, Paul. Das Fürstentum Mentesche, Studie zur Geschichte Westkleinasiens im 13.–15. Jh. Istanbul: Universum Druckerei, 1934. Yakupoğlu, Cevdet, and Namiq Musalı. Kastamonu Beylerinin Mektupları. Çobanoğulları ve Candaroğlları Hanedanlarına Ait Resmî Yazışmalar. Ankara: Matsa Basımevi, 2022. Yaman, Talat Mümtaz. Kastamonu Târihî. Kastamonu: Ahmed İhsan Matbaası, 1935. Yaşar, Ahmet. “19. Yüzyıl Ortalarında İstanbul’da Hanlar: Mekânsal Bir Analiz.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 61 (2023): 151–215. Yerasimos, Stéphane. Les voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman (XIV e –XV e siècles). Biographie, itinéraires et inventaire des lieux habités. Ankara: Imprimérie de la Société turque d’histoire, 1991. Yerasimos, Stéphane, Pierre Pinon, and Alain Borie. “Essais sur l’architecture domestique et la forme urbaine des villes anatoliennes, II. Afyon.” Anatolia moderna 6 (1996): 191–253. Yerolympos, Alexandra. “Typologie et mutations des quartiers de commerce traditionnel dans les villes de la Méditerranée orientale.” In Multicultural Urban Fabric and Types in the South and Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Maurice Cerasi, Attilio Petruccioli, Adriana Sarro, and Stefan Weber, 241–63. Beirut-Würzburg: Orient-Institut; Ergon Verlag, 2007. ———. Urban Transformations in the Balkans (1820–1920): Aspects of Balkan Town Planning and the Remaking of Thessaloniki. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 1996. Yi, Eunjeong. Guild Dynamics in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul: Fluidity and Leverage. Leiden - Boston: Brill, 2004. Yinanç, Refet. “Söğüt Vakıfları.” Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies 22 (2011): 55–70. Yıldırım, Onur. “Ottoman Guilds in the Early Modern Era.” International Review of Social History 53, no. 16 (2008): 73–93. Yıldırım, Rıza. “Dervishes, Waqfs, and Conquest: Notes on Early Ottoman Expansion in Thrace.” In Held in Trust: Waqf in the Islamic World, edited by Pascale Ghazaleh, 23–40. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2011. ———. Rumeli’nin Fethinde ve Türkleşmesinde Öncülük Etmiş Bir Gâzi Derviş: Seyyid Ali Sultan (Kızıldeli) ve Velâyetnâmesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007. Yücel, Yaşar. Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar. Vol. 1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998. ———. “Candar-oğlu Çelebi İsfendiyar Bey 1392–1439.” Tarih Arıştırmaları Dergisi 2, no. 2–3 (1964): 157–74.

Bibliography | 295

———. “Candaroğulları.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 7:146–49. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2000. ———. “Candar-oğulları Beyliği (1439–1461).” Belleten 34, no. 135 (1970): 373–407. ———. XIII-XV. Yüzyıllar Kuzey-Batı Anadolu Tarihi: Çoban-oğulları, Candaroğulları Beylikleri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1980. Yüksel, İ. Aydın. Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Devri (926– 974/1520–1566). İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 2004. Yürekli, Zeynep. “A Building between the Public and Private Realms of the Ottoman Elite: The Sufi Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Istanbul.” Muqarnas 20 (2003): 159–85. ———. “Architectural Patronage and the Rise of the Ottomans.” In A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture, edited by Finbarr Barry Flood and Gülru Necipoğlu, Volume 2: From the Mongols to Modernism:733–54. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2017. ———. Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The Politics of Bektashi Shrines in the Classical Age. Farnham, Surrey: Burlington, VT, 2012. Zachariadou, Elisabeth. “The Sultanic Residence and the Capital: Didymoteichon and Adrianople.” In The Ottoman Empire, the Balkans, the Greek Lands: Towards a Social and Economic History, edited by Elias Kolovos, Phokion Kotzageorgis, and Sophia Laiou, 357–61. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010. Zachariadou, Elizabeth. “Another Document of Shehab Al-Din Pasha Concerning Mount Athos (1455).” In Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe Für György Hazai Zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, 217–22. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997. ———. “The Conquest of Adrianople by the Turks.” Studi Veneziani 22 (1970): 211–17. ———. “The Worrisome Wealth of the Čelnik Radić.” In Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Ménage, edited by Colin Heywood and Colin Imber, 383–97. Istanbul: Isis, 1994. Zajączkowski, Ananiasz. “Materiały do epigrafiki osmańsko-tureckiej z Bułgarii.” Rocznik Orientalystyczny 26, no. 2 (1963): 4–46. Zaytsev, Ilya. Ottoman Manuscripts from Bulgaria in Russian Collections. On the Occasion of the 145th Anniversary of the Liberation War in the Balkans (1877). Catalogue of the Exhibition. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2022. Želeva-Martins, Dobrina, and Julij Fărgov. Istorija na bălgarskoto gradoustrojstvo XIX-XX v. Sofia: Valentin Trajanov, 2009. Zheleva-Martins, Dobrina, and Yuli Farkov. “The Role of Engineers from the Russian Army in Laying the Foundations of Contemporary Bulgarian Town Planning after the Liberation from Turkish Domination in 1878.” Études Balkaniques, no. 1–2 (1999): 75–83. Zlatar, Behija. Zlatno doba Sarajeva: XVI stoljeće. Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1996.

296 | Ottoman Plovdiv

Zlatar, Zdenko. Dubrovnik’s Merchants and Capital in the Ottoman Empire (1520– 1620): A Quantitative Study. Istanbul: Isis Press, 2011. Zlatev, Todor. Bălgarskijat grad prez epohata na Văzraždaneto. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo, 1955. Δημητριάδης, Βασίλης. Τοπογραφία της Θεσσαλονίκης κατά την εποχή της τουρκοκρατίας, 1430-1912. Θεσσαλονίκη: Εταιρεία Μακεδονικών Σπουδών, 1983. Κοτζαγεώργης, Φωκίων. Επανεκτιμώντας την πρώιμη οθωμανική παλαιογραφία και διπλωματική. Εννέα έγγραφα από το αρχείο της Ιεράς Μονής Μεγάλου Μετεώρου (13941434). Άγια Μετέωρα: Ιερά Βασιλική Μονή Αγίου & Μεγάλου Μετεώρου, 2022. ———. Πρώιμη οθωμανική πόλη. Επτά περιπτώσεις από τον νοτιοβαλκανικό χώρο, Αδριανούπολη – Σέρρες – Καστοριά – Τρίκαλα – Λάρισα – Θεσσαλονίκη – Ιωάννινα. Αθήνα: Βιβλιόραμα, 2019. Λυμπεράτος, Ανδρέας. Οικονομία, πολιτική και εθνική ιδεολογία : η διαμόρφωση των εθνικών κομμάτων στη Φιλιππούπολη του 19ου αιώνα. Ηράκλειο: Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις Κρήτης, 2009.

Index

A Abdurrahman b. Rüstem paşa 165 Abdül Celil bey (İsfendiyaroğlu) 141, 142 Abdülhamid I 100 Abdülkerim (imam of Alaca Mescid) 170 Abdullah Frères 41 Abro Çelebi 214 Adrianople (Edirne) 17, 18, 30, 32-34, 41, 56, 61-64, 66-70, 73, 74, 88, 91, 95, 98, 100, 103-108, 110-112, 119, 128-130, 147, 151154, 160, 163, 167, 172, 174, 177, 179, 185, 186, 194, 197, 211, 217, 219, 226, 231 Adžisan maala (Hacı Hasan mahallesi) 176 Aegean coast 57, 88, 226 Aenus (Enez) 56 Ahıyolu (Pomorije) 46 Ahmed bey (Mihaloğlu) 69 Ahmed bey (İsfendiyaroğlu) 142 Ahmed paşa (Ekmekçioğlu) 151 Ahmed I 211, 212 Akkoyunlu 161 Aktav (Tatar group) 106, 163 Aktav (Tatar tribal leader) 106, 163 Aktav (Hoşkadem) Camii 9, 163, 219 Alacahisar (Kruševac) 132, 141 Alaca Cami 225, 226, 227 Alaca Mescid 170, 171, 225 Albert Dumont 31 Alexandre Jägerschmid 8, 29, 30, 31, 274 Ali bey (Mihaloğlu) 161 Ali paşa (Atik) 186 Ali paşa (Çandarlı) 92, 150 Alvise Gritti 224 Amasya 189, 190, Anatolia 65, 67, 70, 71, 75, 86, 89, 93, 96, 99, 105, 110, 121, 140, 143, 152, 166, 176, 181, 187, 189, 190, 195, 203, 208, 213, 231

Anber Gazi (Anbar Kadı, Ömer Gazi) Camii 221 Angiolello, Giovanni Maria 142, 162, 163 Ankara 49, 140, 145, 146, 180, 210, 212 Arabia 143 Argir Kujumdžioglu 167 Arnavud-i zir (Dolnoslav) 93 Arvanid 106 Asenovgrad (İstanimaka/Stenimachos) 32, 41, 57, 93, 159, 160, 175, 193, 208, 226 Asia Minor 63, 177, 182, 231 Aşıkpaşazade 69, 70 Aslıhan bey Camii 9, 173 Aslıhan bey (mahalle) 159, 183, 185, 195, 224 Atanas Saatçi (photographer) 41 Athens 42 Avlonya (Vlorë) 185 Aynalı meydanı 104 B Bačkovo monastery 41, 175 Bahşayiş Ağa 176, 177, 185, 186, 195 Bahşi bey b. İlyas bey 125, 126 Balaban paşa b. Abdullah 150-153, 198 Balat 183, 224 Bali Efendi (Sofyalı) 201, 202 Balıkesir 166, 289 Banya Maritsa (Çelebi Kadı Hamamı) 9, 220, 221, 223 Barak bey (Evrenosoğlu) 151 Bayezid Çelebi (İsfendiyaroğlu) 147 Bayezid I 101, 105, 106, 140, 157, 158, 161, 176 Bayezid II 134, 146, 158, 174, 176, 180, 189, 219 Bedevi Çardak 152 Behlül Efendi (imam of Murad I) 9, 204, 205 Beklemeto (Trojan Pass) 57

298 | Ottoman Plovdiv Belgrade 17, 33, 56, 107, 171, 193, 194 Benedict Curipeschitz 184 Bergama 8, 101 Bertrandon de la Broquière 96, 99, 100, 102, 104, 159, 160, 162, 191 Bey Camii (İbn-i Kasım/Kaya Bey Camii) 8, 87, 145, 166-169, 176 Bitola 73, 174 Blachernae 183 Black Sea 29, 58, 75, 88, 140, 142 Bolvan Castle 152 Bosnia 17, 58, 72 Brysis (Pınarhisar) 64, 67-69, 277 Budin 194, 209 Bunarcık hill 9, 32, 77, 148, 172, 183, 205 Bursa 17, 29, 95, 104, 105, 112, 141, 151, 160, 171, 187, 231 Bythinia 93 C Cami-i Kebir (mahalle) 195 Candarid beylik 168 Candaroğulları 88, 139, 140-143, 166, 231 Caracovo (Saruca) 165 Catharin Zen 127, 184, 199 Cem Sultan 180 Clocktower hill (Saat tepesi) 9, 42, 77, 79, 81, 84, 170, 172, 204, 220, 225 Constantine Kostenečki (the Philosopher) 95, 99, 136, 158 Cornelius de Schepper 203 Cüneyid Fakıh (mahalle) 165, 189, 190, 195, 201 Ç Çaldıran (battle of) 142 Çalık Yakub Efendi (müderris) 180 Çaşnigir (Sadovo) 190 Çelebi Kadı (Lutfullah Şeyhi Efendi) 219-221 Çelebi Kadı Camii 9, 219, 220 Çelebi Kadı Hamamı (Banya Maritsa) 9, 220, 221, 223 Çifte Hamam (in Plovdiv) 7, 9, 149, 150, 153155, 165, 198, 223 Çifte Hamam (in Edirne) 112 Çimenlü (nahiye) 75 Çirmen 73, 74, 152, 215 Çırpan (Čirpan) 55, 58, 157 Çobanoğulları 139 Çukacı Sinan (mahalle) 176

Çukur Mescidi 142 Çukurova 180 Č Čerkezica (Kırk Pınar) 147 Černomen (battle of) 62, 67 Čirpan (Çırpan) 55, 58, 157 D Damjan (archbishop of Plovdiv) 159 Danube 57, 72, 194 Dardanelles 65 Darülhadis Camii 104 Debbağ hisarı (mahalle) 149, 155, 179 Dede Hanı 198, 199 Dede Mektebi 199, 206 Dernschwam 125, 199 Despot 57 Deve Hanı 142 Didymoteichon (Dimetoka) 15, 66, 105, 197 Dimităr Karastojanov 42 Dimitrika Mičora 139 Dimitris Cavra 8, 9, 41-43, 143, 148, 170, 172, 188, 204, 221 Dimitris Michailidis 41 Dmitri Ermakov 9, 41, 188, 221, 225 Dolnoslav (Arnavud-i zir) 93 Dospat 57 Doukas 133, 141 Drama 57 Dubrovnik 58, 127, 128, 206 Durbeği hoca (mahalle) 155, 179, 252-254 Džambaz tepe 42, 77, 80, 164, 225 Džendem (Saray) tepe 77, 134, 135, 148 Džumaja džamija (Muradiye) 8, 87, 100-106, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 126, 131, 134, 143, 147, 158, 163, 170, 172, 175, 187, 198, 200, 216, 217, 218, 225 E Eastern Balkans 60, 61, 69, 73 Eastern Mediterranean 15, 140, 164, 178, 232 Eastern Rumelia 25, 126, 127, 129 Eger (Erlau/Eğri) 219 Eltimir (Aldemir) 59 Emin Arif (brigand) 138 Emir Halife (zaviye) 185 Enez 56 Eski Cami 105

Index | 299 Eski Zağra (Stara Zagora) 55, 58, 59, 69, 70, 72, 157, 191, 193, 207, 215 Evliya Çelebi 44, 100, 109, 114, 131, 136, 180, 187, 198, 199, 204, 206, 209, 210, 211, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 223 Evrenos bey 63, 66-68, 91 Evrenosoğlu (family) 73, 196 Evtimij of Tărnovo 95 Eyne hoca 169, 176 Eyüb 209, 210, 226 F Fazlullah paşa 157 Ferdinand I 43 Ferdinand von Hochstetter 8, 33-35 Fikla (Matočina) 67 G Galata 178 Gallipoli (Gelibolu) 65, 73, 152, 153, 160, 194 Gaziler yolu 57 George Branković 151, 159 Gertrud Rudloff-Hille 43, 123, 127, 148 Giannitsa (Yenice-i Vardar) 18, 20, 196, 197 Giovanni Maria Angiolello 142, 162, 163 Gökçe Hamza 157 Gölcük (İlyasbey) 185 Göpsu (Strjama) River 57, 147, 157 Göpsu (nahiye) 75 Gorni Voden (Vodene) 125 Gornotrakijska nizina 55 Great Lavra monastery 151 Grigor Daranałc’i 213 Guillaume Lejean 8, 31-33, 77, 134 Gümülcine (Komotini) 57 H Habsburg Empire 28, 29 Hacı Abdullah Camii 9, 225, 226 Hacı Ahmed b. Abdullah 129 Hacı Ahmed (mahalle) 185 Hacı Ali b. Abdullah 129 Hacı Bunarı (mahalle) 173 Hacı Davud (mahalle) 185 Hacı Hasan Camii 9, 185, 186, 188 Hacı Hasan Hamamı 9, 185, 188, 198, 223 Hacı Hasan (mahalle) 176 Hacı Hasanzade Mustafa Efendi (kadıasker) 185-187, 198, 223 Hacı İlbegi 63, 65-69, 91

Hacı İlbegi Burgazı (Pythion) 66 Hacı İlyas (Părvomaj) 55 Hacı Mesud (mahalle) 155 Hacı Mesud Mescidi 170 Hacı Ömer Camii 9, 173 Hacı Ömer (mahalle) 195, 202, 221 Hacı Sinan (mahalle) 155, 179 Hacı Şirmerd b. Abdullah 129 Hacı Yusuf b. Abdullah 171 Hacı Yusuf (mahalle) 172 Hadrian 88, 167 Hafsa Sultan 136 Halil paşa (Çandarlı) 170, 171 Hamidi-i İsfahani 143 Hamza bey (grandson of Lala Şahin paşa) 96 Haraççı Hamza Bali 110 Haraççı Hamza Bali (mahalle) 176, 185 Heinrich Kiepert 8, 31-33 Hibri Efendi 103 Hisariçi (mahalle) 164 Hızır bey (Mihaloğlu) 64 Hoca Sadeddin Efendi 71, 92 Hoşkadem (Aktav) Camii 9, 163, 219 Hristo Smirnenski (quarter) 135 Hulviyyât-i Şahi 143 Hungary 16, 194, 219, 266 Hünkâr Hamamı 9, 124-127, 198, 223 Hünkâr (Muradiye) Camii 104, 111, 216 Hüseyin Ağa (Kapu Ağası) 189, 190, 201 Hüseyin Ağa (Kethüda of Zal Mahmud paşa) 210 Hüseyin Ağa Camii 189, 190, 201 Hüseyin Ağa Mektebi 190, 206 I Iaşi 58 İbn-i Kasım (mahalle) 8, 165, 167, 168, 176, 177, 186 İbn-i Kasım Camii (Bey Camii/Kaya Bey Camii) 8, 87, 145, 166-169, 176 İbn-i Rüstem (mahalle) 155, 165, 177 İbrahim paşa 172 İbrahim paşa (Çandarlı) 171, 192 İbrahim paşa (Pargalı) 184, 191, 192 İbrahim paşa (Damad) 211 İdris hoca (mahalle) 177, 179 İdris hoca (tutor of Mehmed II) 177 İdris-i Bitlisi 70, 71, 91, 92 Ihtimanska Sredna Gora 55 Ilinskij 8, 35-37, 49, 214, 222

300 | Ottoman Plovdiv Ilkhanate 139 İlyas bey b. Bahşayiş Ağa 185, 186 İlyasbey (Gölcük) 185 İnegöl 141 Ioannina 18, 29, 183 İpsala (Kypsela) 66, 197 İsa bey (Evrenosoğlu) 66, 152 İsfendiyar bey 140, 149 İsfendiyaroğlu 88, 139, 140, 146, 147, 165, 167, 187, 206, 231 İshak Çelebi (kadı) 92 İskeçe (Xanthi) 57 İskender bey b. Abdurrahman 165 İsklopiçe (mahalle) 164, 165, 175 İsmail bey (İsfendiyaroğlu) 139-143, 145-150, 165-168, 179, 187, 189, 231 İsmail bey (mahalle) 165 İsmail Bey Camii (in Plovdiv) 9, 143-145, 170 İsmail Bey Camii (in Markovo) 146, 147 İsmail Bey Hanı 142 İsmail Bey Mektebi 145, 206 İstanimaka (Asenovgrad/Stenimachos) 32, 41, 57, 93, 159, 160, 175, 193, 208, 226 İştib (Štip) 183 Ivan Karastojanov 8, 9, 42, 129, 148, 188, 221 İzdin (Lamia) 183 İzladi (Zlatica) 133 İznik (Nicea) 17, 215 J Jacopo Soranzo 216, 217 Jagodina 217 Jambol (Yanbolu) 91, 136, 183 János Hunyadi 107, 152 Jan Václav Mrkvička 148 Javrovo (Yavra) 125 Jerusalem 14, 19, 40, 99, 121, 122 John VI Kantakouzenos 66 Josef Václav Schnitter 8, 37, 38, 49, 50 Jovan Uglješa 66, 71 K Kadievo (Kadıköy) 147 Kadıasker Hamamı 186, 187, 198 Kadırga Limanı 201 Kafa 174 Kalkandelen (Tetovo) 142 Kaloyan (king of Bulgaria) 72 Kamenica 77 Kamieniec Podolski 214

Kapı Ağası medresesi (Amasya) 190 Karaca bey (Dayı, beylerbeyi) 170, 171 Karaca bey (mahalle) 170-172 Karacabey (Mihaliç) 171 Karacadağ (Sredna Gora) 55, 59, 75 Karagöz (manumitted slave of İsmail bey) 168 Karagöz Mehmed paşa 180 Karagöz Paşa Medresesi 180, 181, 206 Karaman 180 Karasi 66 Karlovo 32, 57, 59, 60, 91 Karşıyaka 9, 42, 181, 183, 220 Kasım bey (İsfendiyaroğlu) 165, 166 Kassandra peninsula 151 Kastamonu 88, 140, 142, 143, 149, 166, 168 Kastoria (Kesriye) 18, 183 Kâtib Çelebi 44 Kavala (Neapolis) 57, 178, 194 Kaya bey b. Kasım bey (İsfendiyaroğlu) 165, 166, 167, 179 Kaya Bey Camii (Bey Camii/İbn-i Kasım Camii) 8, 87, 145, 166-169, 176 Kaya Bey Camii (in Balıkesir) 166 Kaya Bey İmareti 166 Kazanlăk 59, 60, 91, 96 Keçeci İnebeği (mahalle) 179 Kemah 213 Kesriye (Kastoria) 18, 183 Kirazlı Cami 8, 97, 98, 107 Kirmasti (Mustafakemalpaşa) 95, 96 Kırkkilise (Saranta Eklesiai) 67, 68, 73 Kırk Pınar (Čerkezica) 147 Koca Balkan (Stara Planina) 57, 59 Koca Davud paşa 157 Koca Hüseyin (mahalle) 183, 207 Kocaeli 142 Komat (Komatevo) 137, 138 Komotini (Gümülcine) 57 Konuş (nahiye) 75 Konuş (Minnetoğlu vakıf) 147 Köprübaşı (mahalle) 183, 214 Kopsis 60 Korucu (mahalle) 183, 214, 221 Korucu Mehmed Bey Camii 221 Köse Mihal 67 Kosovo 58, 92, 170, 186 Köstendil (Kjustendil) 58, 122 Koyun tepesi (nahiye) 75 Krăn 60 Kratovo 183

Index | 301 Kričim (Kriçime) 32, 170 Kriçime suyu (Văča) 57, 147 Kruševac (Alacahisar) 132, 141 Küçük Aya Sofya Camii 190, 201 Kuklen 130, 175 Kuklen monastery 130 Kurd Efendi 201 Kurşunlu Han (Kuršum Han) 8, 109, 112 Kyiv 58 Kypsela (İpsala) 66, 197 L Lab (Llap) 186 Lalapaşa (Tovice Mahmud) 108 Lala Şahin paşa 59, 60, 65, 68-73, 84, 86, 9199, 104-106, 109, 112, 115, 116, 120, 131, 132, 149, 157-159, 161, 177, 184, 198, 219, 230 Lamia (İzdin) 183 Latifi 188 Laut (hill) 77 Lazar Branković 159 Lefebvre 217 Leskofça (Leskovac) 190 Lofça (Loveč) 57, 183 Luigi Marsigli 135, 138 Lutfullah Şeyhi Efendi (Çelebi Kadı) 219-221 M Macedonia 18, 48, 58, 111, 196 Mahmud II 121, 148 Mahmud bey (Mihaloğlu) 99 Mahmud paşa 140 Malkara (Mıgalkara) 166 Manasija monastery 95 Manastirski-Svetiilijski Eminences 55 Manuel II 64 Maraş (mahalle) 202 Marcus Aurelius 168 Maritsa (Evros/Meriç) 31, 32, 35, 42, 49, 56, 66, 77, 86, 87, 91-93, 105, 106, 113, 116, 127, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 143, 147, 154, 163, 179, 184, 198, 199, 202, 203, 206, 214, 219-221, 230 Markova (Markovo) 141, 145-148 Markovo tepe 77 Matočina (Fikla) 67 Mehmed Ağa b. mir-i liva Mustafa 186 Mehmed bey (Minnetoğlu) 98, 147

Mehmed bey b. Bahşayiş Ağa 186 Mehmed I 64, 105, 136 Mehmed II 107, 116, 118, 122, 132, 133, 140143, 146, 158, 160-162, 165, 170, 177, 179, 182-185, 187, 195, 231 Mehmed III 219 Mehmed paşa b. Lala Şahin 96 Mehmed paşa (Sokollu) 112, 201 Mesih paşa 174 Midilli (Mitylini) 142 Mihaliç (Karacabey) 171 Mihaloğlu (family) 67, 99, 137 Mihrimah Sultan 163 Mimar Sinan 112 Mıgalkara (Malkara) 166 Mladežki hălm 77 Modon 224 Mohács 142 Mount Athos 107, 151 Muhiddin Halife (şeyh) 185 Muhsin hoca (mahalle) 187, 188, 195 Murad I 61-63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 91, 92, 100, 101, 105, 157, 204, 230 Murad II 64, 99, 100, 103-108, 111, 112, 116, 118, 119, 126, 129-132, 139, 147, 157, 158, 160, 161-163, 165, 166, 170, 176, 179, 196, 216, 231 Murad III 71, 209, 210, 217, 290 Muradiye (Džumaja džamija) 8, 87, 100-106, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 126, 131, 134, 143, 147, 158, 163, 170, 172, 175, 187, 198, 200, 216-218, 225 Musa Çelebi 64, 95, 97, 136, 158, 159, 177 Musalla (mahalle) 172, 173, 183, 185, 195 Musalla Camii 9, 172, 173, 225 Muslihuddin Nureddinzade 201-203 Mustafa (Ottoman prince, d. 1553) 209 Mustafa III 202 Mustafa paşa 149 Mustafa (mir-i liva) 186 Mustafa (imam at Nuredinzade mosque) 202 Mustafakemalpaşa (Kirmasti) 95, 96 Mytilene (Lesbos) 133 N Nafplio 127 Najden Gerov 41 Neapolis (Kavala) 57, 178, 194 Neşri 69, 70, 92

302 | Ottoman Plovdiv Nevbet tepe 42, 77, 78, 84, 183, 204 Nevi’zade Ataullah (‘Ata’i) 180 Nicea (İznik) 17, 215 Nicopolis (Niğbolu) 57, 105, 174, 183, 212 Niksari (Muslihuddin Mustafa b. Mir Ali) 110 Niksarlı Muhyiddin Mehmed 142 Nile 143 Novi Pazar (Yeni Bazar) 58 Novo Brdo 107 Nurbanu Sultan 209, 210 O Ömer Gazi (Anber Gazi, Anbar Kadı,) Camii 221 Orhan I 95 Orta Mezar (mahalle) 9 Orta Mezar (cemetery) 25, 222, 225, 227 Orta Mezar Camii 222, 227 Orta Mezar Hamamı 223, 224, 227 Orta Pazar hanı 198, 199 Osman Gazi 67 Otman Baba 203 Otto Rudloff 43, 123, 127, 148 P Panagiya (Ruen) 125 Panayır Hanı 9, 128 Paolo Contarini 127, 128, 210 Părveneshka (Saray çayı) 135 Părvomaj (Hacı İlyas) 55 Pascal Sébah 41 Pazardžik (Tatarpazarı) 55, 56, 58, 75, 163, 172, 192, 193, 197, 200, 201, 207, 208, 211, 212, 214, 215 Pazariçi (mahalle) 164, 175, 207 Peçevi 209 Persia 143 Peruštica 32, 163 Philip II of Macedon 78 Philip the Good 99 Pietro Montani 126 Pirin 182, 208, 215 Pirlepe (Prilep) 183, 210 Pınarhisar (Brysis) 64, 67-69, 277 Plamen Kočev 40 Pleven (Plevne) 37, 57, 137 Pomorije (Ahıyolu) 46 Pulat (mahalle) 81, 164, 204 Pulevski 29 Pythion (Hacı İlbegi Burgazı) 66

R Razlog 182, 215 Rhodes (Rodos) 142 Rhodopes 32, 55, 57-59, 75, 80, 84, 88, 93, 135, 146, 160, 163, 182, 208, 210, 226 Rila 182 Rila monastery 134 Rodosçuk 213 Roger de Flor 72 Ruen (Panagiya) 125 Rupçoz (nahiye) 75 Russia 29, 37, 45, 46 Russian Empire 28, 29, 37 Rüstem paşa 165 Rüstem paşa (Grand Vizier) 210, 211 S Saat tepesi (Clocktower hill) 9, 42, 77, 79, 81, 84, 170, 172, 204, 220, 225 Sadberk Hanım museum 147 Şadırvan sokağı 148, 187 Sadovo (Çaşnigir) 190 Şahsultan 209, 210, 226 Sakar mountain 55 Salčo Čomakov 139 Samako (Samokov) 58, 190, 191 Saraj čiftlik 139 Sarajevo 17, 174 Saranta Eklesiai (Kırkkilise) 67, 68, 73 Saray çayı (Părveneshka) 135 Saray-i Cedid (in Edirne) 108 Saray kırı 135 Saray tepesi 77, 134, 135 Sarraçhane Hamamı 108 Sarraçhane Köprüsü 108 Saruca (Caracovo) 165 Saruca (manumitted slave of İsmail bey) 168 Saruhanbeylü (Septemvri) 191 Saruhanbeylü (nahiye) 75 Sazlijka 55 Şehadet Camii 95 Selânik (Thessaloniki) 17, 29, 67, 107, 108, 116, 151, 174, 178, 182, 194, 196, 231 Selim I 65, 134, 142, 181, 261 Selim II 209 Semendire (Smederevo) 98, 176, 194 Şemseddin Halife Zaviyesi 185 Septemvri (Septemvri) 191 Serres (Siroz) 18, 57, 66, 71, 174 Seyyid Ali Fakıh (medrese) 181

Index | 303 Şihabeddin paşa passim Silistre 212 Sinan paşa 106, 152 Sinop 88, 140, 141 Sirem (Srem) 194 Siroz (Serres) 18, 57, 66, 71, 174 Sivas 180 Skopje (Üsküb) 18, 58, 73, 88, 95, 104, 105, 111, 149, 174, 216, 217, 219 Škorpil 137 Smederevo (Semendire) 98, 176, 194 Smilec 59, 60 Solomon Schweiger 122 Southeastern Europe 60 Sredna Gora (Karacadağ) 55, 59, 75 SS. Sergius and Bacchus 190 Stara Planina (Koca Balkan) 57, 59 Stara Zagora (Eski Zağra) 55, 58, 59, 69, 70, 72, 157, 191, 193, 207, 215 St. Augustine convent 142 St. Constantine 204 St. Demetrious 204 Stefan Dušan 59 Stefan Lazarević 95, 158, 159 Stenimachos (Asenovgrad/İstanimaka) 32, 41, 57, 93, 159, 160, 175, 193, 208, 226 Stephan Gerlach 94, 127, 203-205 St. George 204, 212, 214 Štip (İştib) 183 St. Marina 164, 204 St. Michael 204 St. Nikolas 204 Stojan Čalăkov 139 Strjama (Göpsu) River 57, 147, 157 St. Sophia 64 Suceava 136 Süleyman I 136, 141, 184, 188, 191, 196, 197, 224 Süleyman Çelebi 95-97, 99, 105, 136, 150, 151, 158, 159, 177 Süleman paşa b. Orhan 64, 66, 71 Süleyman voyvoda (gulâm of İsa bey) 175 Surp Kevork 214 T Taceddin İbrahim bey (İsfendiyaroğlu) 140 Tahtakale Camii 8, 96-99, 112, 177 Tahtakale Hamamı 8, 98, 99, 108-112, 114, 127, 198, 223 Tahtalkale Hanı 198

Taksim tepe 42, 77, 79, 164, 225 Tărnovo 31, 177 Taşköprü 140 Taşköprü Camii 9, 173, 222, 227 Tataran (mahalle) 163, 179, 183, 195, 214 Tatarpazarı (Pazardžik) 55, 56, 58, 75, 163, 172, 192, 193, 197, 200, 201, 207, 208, 211, 212, 214, 215 Tbilisi 41 Tepealtı 170 Tercuman Yunus bey 224 Tetovo (Kalkandelen) 142 Theodora (daughter of Smilec) 59 Thessaloniki (Selânik) 17, 29, 67, 107, 108, 116, 151, 174, 178, 182, 194, 196, 231 Timur 140 Tırhala (Trikala) 18, 183 Toktamış Han 163 Top Yıkığı (mahalle) 183 Trabzon 17, 178 Trikala (Tırhala) 18, 183 Trojan Pass (Beklemeto) 57 Tumbite 42 Tunca 108, 151 U Üç Şerefeli Cami 104, 111 Ulakçıyan (mahalle) 206, 214 Ulu Cami (in Bergama) 8, 101 Ulu Cami (in Bursa) 105 Upper Thrace 7, 55-59, 68, 69, 74, 75, 91, 104, 182, 193, 196, 200, 207, 231 Üsküb (Skopje) 18, 58, 73, 88, 95, 104, 105, 111, 149, 174, 216, 217, 219 Üsküdar 151 Uzun Çarşı 35, 113, 114, 131, 143, 187 Uzun Hasan 161 V Văča (Kriçime suyu) 57, 147 Varna (battle of) 107, 118, 170 Varoş Hanı 198, 199 Via Egnatia 69, 73, 206 Via Militaris (Diagonalis) 32, 56, 58, 59, 68, 69, 86, 88, 91, 116, 287 Vienna 33, 37, 110, 194 Virgin Mary 204 Vize (Vizye) 64, 67, 69, 73, 74 Vılk (vilâyet) 186 Vladislav III 107

304 | Ottoman Plovdiv Vodene (Gorni Voden) 125 Vojsil 60 Vouleftiko (Parliament) Mosque 127 Vuk Branković 151 Vuk Lazarević 159 Vukašin Mrnjavčević 66 W Wallachia 107 Western Balkans 22, 60, 61, 111, 132, 194, 195197, 210, 221 Western Europe 44, 177, 179 Wolf Andreas von Steinach 217 X Xanthi (İskeçe) 57 Y Yahudi (Yeni) Hamamı 9, 223-225 Yahya Efendi 219

Yahya paşa 149 Yahya bey (İsfendiyaroğlu) 141 Yakub fakıh (mahalle) 163, 225 Yanbolu (Jambol) 91, 136, 183 Yarhisar 141, 185 Yavra (Javrovo) 125 Yeni Bazar (Novi Pazar) 58 Yenice-i Vardar (Giannitsa) 18, 20, 196, 197 Yeşiloğlu (mahalle) 188 Yeşiloğlu Camii 9, 185, 187, 189, 200 Yeşilzade Ahmed Riyazi 188, 189 Z Zaganos b. Abdullah 129 Zal Hanı 198, 209, 210 Zal Mahmud paşa 198, 209, 210, 226 Zincirli Bunar Camii 183 Zlatica (İzladi) 133

The significance of studying urban life and cities in the Balkans under Ottoman rule has long been recognized by modern academia, yet a detailed study of individual cities remains scarce. This monograph seeks to bridge this gap by delving into the rich history of Ottoman-era Plovdiv (Filibe), modern Bulgaria’s second-largest city. Drawing from the latest advancements in digital urban geo-humanities, this study positions Plovdiv as a window into the diverse human activities during the formative centuries of Ottoman governance. Moving beyond the constraints of conventional historical approaches, the book integrates spatial, architectural, and population data into a cohesive, georeferenced digital model of the city, allowing for a detailed exploration of urban landscape transformations and human presence over time and space. The book fosters a dialogue between urban space, Islamic architecture, and the city’s residents by proposing an analytical model that can serve as a potent methodological framework for studying other cities in the Balkans. Grigor Boykov is Assistant Professor at the Institute for East European History at the University of Vienna.

ISBN 978-3-7001-9364-7

9

783700

193647

Made in Europe