Grigori Bojkov

MASTERING THE CONQUERED SPACE:
RESURRECTION OF URBAN LIFE IN OTTOMAN UPPER THRACE

(14TH – 17TH C.)
A Ph.D. Dissertation
by
GRIGOR BOYKOV
Department of History
İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University
Ankara
April 2013
(14TH – 17TH C.)
Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

of
İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University
by
GRIGOR BOYKOV
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY
ANKARA
April 2013
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate in scope
and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy in History.
-------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Halil İnalcık
Supervisor
-------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Özer Ergenç
Examining Committee Member
-------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Öz
-------------------------------
Asst. Prof. Evgeni Radushev
-------------------------------
Asst. Prof. Berrak Burçak
Approval of the Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

-------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Erdal Erel
Director

ABSTRACT

(14TH – 17TH C.)
Boykov, Grigor
Ph.D., Department of History
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Halil İnalcık
April 2013
This dissertation examines several cases of urban development in the Ottoman Balkans
aiming to demonstrate the existence of an established Ottoman model for urban
modification and creation of new towns. Focusing on the morphology of four towns
rebuilt or established from scratch the dissertation finds a normative pattern in the
methods applied by the Ottomans in reclaiming urban space in the conquered territories.
The Ottoman central power and the semi-autonomous border raider commanders in the
Balkans applied a program for changing of the inherited spatial in order in the
Byzantino-Slavic cities in the Balkans through a conscious attempt for shifting of the
existing urban core away of the fortified parts. The concept for changing of the spatial
order through architectural patronage has followed a long evolutionary path and
certainly predates the Ottoman state. The T-shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviyes used
in the Ottoman urban program as colonizers of urban space constitute the important
novelty that came into being in Ottoman Bithynia and was subsequently transferred to
the Balkans.
iii

Keywords: Ottoman Balkans, urbanism, urban morphology, architectural patronage,

historical demography, Filibe (Plovdiv), Tatar Pazarcık (Pazardzik), Karlova, Konuş
iv

ÖZET
FETHEDİLEN MEKÂNIN EFENDİSİ OLMAK: OSMANLI YUKARI

TRAKYASI’NDA KENTSEL YAŞAMIN YENİDEN DOĞUŞU (14.-17. YY.)
Boykov, Grigor
Doktora, Tarih Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Halil İnalcık
Nisan 2013
Bu tez Osmanlı Balkanları’ndaki çeşitli kentsel gelişim örneklerini inceleyerek, kentsel

değişim ve yeni şehirlerin tesisi bağlamında belirli bir Osmanlı modelinin mevcut
olduğunu ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, yeniden kurulan veya baştan inşa
edilen dört kentin morfolojisi üzerine odaklanarak, Osmanlılar’ın fethedilen bölgelerdeki
kentsel alanın düzenlenmesinde kullandıkları yöntemlerde belli bir normatif örüntü
olduğu sonucuna varır. Osmanlı merkezî yönetimi ve Balkanlar’daki yarı-özerk akıncı
uc beyleri, mevcut kent merkezlerini müstahkem bölgelerden dışarıya taşımak için
bilinçli bir girişimde bulunarak, Balkanlar’daki Bizans-Slav şehirlerinin tevârüs etmiş
mevcut mekânsal düzenini değiştirmek için belli bir plan izlemişlerdir. Mekânsal
düzenin mimarî hâmilik yoluyla değişimi konusu uzun bir evrimsel yol izler ve şüphesiz
Osmanlı devletinden daha eskidir. Osmanlı kent planında mekânsal düzenin
kolonizatörleri olarak kullanılan T-biçimli ve çok işlevli imaret/zaviyeler, Osmanlı
Bitinyası’nda ortaya çıkmış ve sonrasında da Balkanlar’a aktarılmış önemli bir yeniliktir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı Balkanları, kentleşme, kentsel morfoloji, mimârî hâmilik,

tarihsel demografi, Filibe (Plovdiv), Tatar Pazarcık (Pazardzik), Karlova, Konuş.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project results from a long journey (maybe even too long) that had very
uneven and often uneasy path. This adventure could have not been possible without the
help and assistance of a number of individuals and institutions who at different stages of
my research generously offered expertise, support, and encouragement. With the risk of
inadvertently leaving someone out, I would like to thank those to whom I owe a great
deal of gratitude.
First I wish to express my appreciation to Prof. Halil İnalcık, my academic
advisor at Bilkent University, who despite the endless overwhelming work on his own
research projects, showed a great interest in my studies and generously offered his vast
expertise on the world of the Ottomans. I have immensely benefited not only from Halil
hoca’s advices, but also from his unpublished materials, which he pulled out from his
own archive and kindly shared with me. No words of appreciation can express my
gratitude to Prof. Machiel Kiel, the person who always acted as a non-formal advisor of
my dissertation, for his constant support and encouragement throughout the years. The
countless discussions and numerous field trips in Turkey and the Balkans, which we did
vi
together, were a real eye-opener for me. The little I know about Ottoman architecture I
wholly owe to Machiel Kiel – a great friend and a truly amazing scholar!
I was fortunate to enjoy the advices and suggestions of a wonderful circle of
estimated scholars from whom I benefited tremendously, offering very little in exchange.
I feel especially indebted to Prof. Heath Lowry for all the thought provoking discussions
on the early Ottoman Balkan realities, which we had over the long-lasting Bosphorus
view dinners. Moreover, he kindly agreed to read a draft of this dissertation and
provided me with very constructive criticism and feedback, thus filling important
lacunae in the text. Throughout these long years many other colleagues also offered
ideas and contributed to this work. I am privileged to count Prof. Alexander Popović and
Prof. Nathalie Clayer who were patient enough not only to listen to my confused ideas
about the role of the Halveti dervishes in the sixteenth-century social life of Rumelia, but
also offered a number of inspiring comments and supplied me with unpublished
materials and personal notes. Prof. Cornell Fleischer pointed to me an important
sixteenth-century personage that I would have otherwise overlooked, while Prof. Cemal
Kafadar made a number of very useful suggestions and additions to the theme of center-
periphery clash in the Ottoman society and its projection over the history of Tatar
Pazarcık - a small provincial town in Rumelia.
My research could not have been completed without the support, help and advice
of numerous friends. Erdem Çıpa deserves my heartfelt appreciation for always readily
critically commenting on my drafts and for being a wonderful friend who spared no
effort in helping me in more ways than one. During my years in Ankara I had the
privilege to enjoy the sincere friendship and support of Mustafa Nakeeb, Oktay Özel,
vii
Evgeni Radushev, Evgenia Kermeli, and Harun Yeni, I owe them a lot. It was at that
time that Dimitris Loupis first allowed me to make almost uncontralable use of his
Bibliotheca Lupiana, thus providing me with manuscripts and bibliography that are
otherwise completely inaccessible to me. There I also enjoyed the company of Zeynep
Yürekli, who introduced me into the history of heterodox dervishes in the Balkans and
of Vjeran Kursar with whom over a glass of good wine I had endless discussions about
the history and modern politics of the Balkans. While in Istanbul I was fortunate to be
surrounded by friends like Silvana Rachieru who made her home always open for me or
Savvas Kyriakidis from whose immense expertise on late Byzantine military history I
took unfair advantage over regular late evening discussions on the terrace of the RCAC.
To my friends in Bulgaria, who supported me in so many ways and showed me
so much kindness that I cannot explain with words, I owe a special debt of gratitude.
Maria Baramova and Ivan Parvev not only extended a friendly supporting hand at the
most difficult times and shared many of my frustrations, but also read the draft of the
dissertation and made numerous valuable suggestions. Were it not for their assistance
this project would have never been completed.
It is a true pleasure to acknowledge the generosity of several institutions that
funded my research: Bilkent University, offered me a full scholarship during my studies
in Ankara; thanks to the residential fellowship of the Research Center for Anatolian
Civilizations (RCAC) in Istanbul I did a great deal of the archival research for this
dissertation, which I later completed as a dissertation research fellow of the Turkish
Cultural Foundation; I was also generously offered an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship by
viii
the American Research Institute in Turkey (ARIT) that allowed me to complete my
research.
Last but not least, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Mariya
Kiprovska, whose miraculous ability to be at the same time a great scholar, a wonderful
wife, and a perfect mother will never lose my greatest respect. In all these years she was
not only the first critical reader of any text I have produced and constantly encouraged
me to keep going, but she also gave birth to our adorable daughter Michaela. To Mariya
I give my greatest thanks!
Needless to say all inevitable shortcomings and any faults that remain in this
study are entirely my own.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………….................. iii
ÖZET………………………………………………………………………… v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…..……………………………………………… vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS…..………………………………………………… x
ABBREVIATIONS…….……………………………………………………. xiii
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………… xiv
LIST OF FIGURES..………………………………………………………… xv
LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS….…………………………………………… xix
NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION .……..………………………………….... xx
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………………………………………...…... 1
1.1. Turko-Balkan city or Arabo-Ottoman city? Ottoman city vs.
Balkan city: continuity and change in the urban development in the
Balkans………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2. Models of urban development in the Ottoman Balkans …………. 7
1.3. “Ottomanizing” the space: was there an Ottoman program for
remodeling the cities? …………………………………………………. 14
1.4. Methodology and scopes of the study …………………………… 33
CHAPTER II: OTTOMAN FILIBE (PLOVDIV) – REBUILDING THE
METROPOLIS OF UPPER THRACE……………………………………… 39
2.1. The conquest of Filibe and its aftermath …………………….…… 39
2.2. Reviving the medieval town: Lala Şahin Paşa’s contribution…… 44
2.3. Rebuilding the metropolis of Upper Thrace: the construction of
Muradiye mosque ……………………………………………………. 51
2.4. Şihabeddin Paşa’s term as beylerbeyi of Rumili and his
architectural patronage in Filibe ……………………………………… 58
x
2.5. The vanished imperial residence (saray-i ‘amire) in Filibe ……… 75
2.6. Supplying water for a Muslim city: İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey’s
governorship of Filibe and his contribution to the development of the
city……………………………………………………………………... 79
2.7. The rapid population growth in the second half of the fifteenth
century………………………………………………………………….. 87
2.8. Reaching the peak: the development of Filibe in the early sixteenth
century ……………………………………………………………….... 106
2.9. The forced relocation (sürgün) of Muslims to the west in the 1520s
………………………………………………………………………….. 115
2.10. Resurgence of the city in the second half of the sixteenth century
…………………………………………………………………………. 124
2.11. Filibe’s complete recovery at the turn of the sixteenth century
…………………………………………………………………………. 139
2.12. Overshadowed by the smaller neighbor: population changes in
the early seventeenth century …………………………………………. 145
2.13. Ottoman public buildings in Filibe in the late sixteenth and
seventeenth century ……………………………………………………. 151
2.14 Conclusion ……………………………………………………….. 164
CHAPTER III: TATAR PAZARCIK (PAZARDŽIK) – TURNING AKINCI

POWERBASE INTO OTTOMAN TOWN…………………………………. 168
3.1. The creation of the town ………………………………………… 168
3.2. Powerbase of the peripheral forces: Tatar Pazarcık’s development
until the beginning of the sixteenth century ………………………….. 186
3.3. Subduing the “heretics” aka “Ottomanizing” the akıncı center …. 210
3.4. The dynamic spatial and population growth of Tatar Pazarcık in
the second half of the sixteenth century ……………………………… 219
CHAPTER IV: FAILED ENTERPRISE – THE UNACCOMPLISHED
TASK TO CREATE THE TOWN OF KONUŞ HISARI…………………… 244
4.1. The Founders of Konuş: The Transfer of Minnet Bey and his
Tatars from İskilip to Rumelia ………………………………………… 245
xi
4.2. Mehmed Bey’s military and administrative career ……………….. 248
4.3. Building up Minnetoğlus’ powerbase – Konuş (Konuş Hisarı) …. 254
4.4. Why Konuş never turned into a town? …………………………… 272
CHAPTER V: THE SUCCESSFUL PROJECT – THE EMERGENCE OF
THE TOWN OF KARLOVA (KARLOVO)…………………………………. 278
5.1. The region and the pre-Ottoman Kopsis ………………………….. 279

5.2. The identity of Ali Bey, son of Karlı …………………………....... 284
5.3. The pious foundation (vakıf) of Ali Bey …………………………. 293
5.4. Architectural patronage of Ali Bey and his descendents in Karlova
…………………………………………………………………………. 300
5.5. The Population of Karlova in the sixteenth century ……………… 303
5.6. The reasons behind the success of Ali Bey’s project ……………... 313
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSION……….………………….…………………. 317
TABLES……………………………………………………………………… 323
BIBLIOGRAPHY…….……………………………………………………... 325
APPENDIX………..………………………………………………………… 360
MAPS………….…………………………………………………………….. 362
CITY PLANS………………………………………………………………... 364
ILLUSTRATIONS…..………………………………………………………. 370
xii
ABBREVIATIONS
Reference works:
EI2 – Encyclopedia of Islam (Second Edition) CD ROM
TDVİA – Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi
İA – İslâm Ansiklopedisi
Archives & Institutions:

BOA – Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (İstanbul)
DAI – Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (İstanbul)
İBK, M.C. – İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Kütüphanesi (Atatürk Kitaplığı), Mu’allim
Cevdet Yazmaları (İstanbul)
TKGM – Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü, Kuyud-u Kadime Arşivi (Ankara)
Sofıa – Narodna biblioteka “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, Orientalski otdel (Sofia)
State Archive Plovdiv – Dăržavna Agentsia Arhivi, Tsentralen Dăržaven Arhiv, Plovdiv
VGMA – Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi (Ankara)
xiii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Revenues of the vakıf of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet Bey…………….. 260
Table 2. Population of the vakıf of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet Bey in 1570…… 265
Table 3. Population of the vakıf of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet Bey in 1596…… 271
Table 4. Revenues of the vakıf of Ali Bey, son of Karlı in the period 1516-1596 .. 307
Table 5. Population of the vakıf of Ali Bey, son of Karlı in the period 1516-1596 309
Table 6. Population of Filibe (1472-1614) ………………………………………………. 323

Table 7. Population of Tatar Pazarcık (1472-1614)………………………………. 324
xiv

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1 The late Medieval wall attached to the south edge of the citadel of
Philippopolis …………………………………………………………………….. 370
Fig. 2 Citadel of Philippopolis …………………………………………………… 370
Fig. 3 Citadel of Philippopolis …………………………………………………… 370
Fig. 4 Byzantine round tower on the eastern wall of the citadel of Philippopolis
……………………………………………………………………………………. 371
Fig. 5 Eastern gate of the citadel of Philippopolis ………………………………. 371
Fig. 6 The wooden bridge over the river Maritsa in Filibe ……………............... 372
Fig. 7 The wooden bridge over the river Maritsa in Filibe ……………............... 372
Fig. 8 Tahtakale mosque in Filibe ……………………………………………….. 373
Fig. 9 Tahtakale mosque in Filibe ……………………………………………….. 373
Fig. 10 Şihabeddin Paşa’s Kirazlı mosque in Edirne …………………................ 374
Fig. 11 Şihabeddin Paşa’s Kirazlı mosque in Edirne …………………............... 374
Fig. 12 Floor plan of Muradiye mosque in Filibe ………………………………. 375
Fig. 13 Floor plan of Ulu camii in Bergama ……………………………………. 375
Fig. 14 The central part of Filibe ……………………………………………….. 375
Fig. 15 Muradiye mosque in Filibe ………………………………………….…. 376
Fig. 16 Muradiye mosque in Filibe …………………………………………….. 376
Fig. 17 Tahtakale hamamı in Filibe …………………………………………….. 376
Fig. 18 Tahtakale hamamı and the kervansaray (Kurşun han) in Filibe ………. 377
Fig. 19 Plan of the kervansaray (Kurşun han), 1911…………………………… 377
Fig. 20 Plan of the kervansaray (Kurşun han) …………………………………. 377
xv

Fig. 21 The kervansaray (Kurşun han), condition prior the earthquake of 1928
…………………………………………………………………......................... 378
Fig. 22 The kervansaray (Kurşun han) after the earthquake ………………….. 378
Fig. 23 The kervansaray (Kurşun han) after the earthquake ………………….. 378
Fig. 24 The kervansaray (Kurşun han) after the earthquake …………………. 378
Fig. 25 Reconstruction of the bedesten in Filibe ……………………………… 379
Fig. 26 Floor plan of the bedesten …………………………………………….. 379
Fig. 27 Bedesten in Filibe ……………………………………………………… 379
Fig. 28 Original dedicatory inscription of Şihabeddin Paşa’s imaret/zaviye in
Filibe ……………………………………………………………………………. 380
Fig. 29 Floor plan of Şihabeddin Paşa’s imaret/zaviye …………………........... 380
Fig. 30 Interior of Şihabeddin Paşa’s imaret/zaviye ……………………........... 381
Fig. 31 The complex of Şihabeddin Paşa by the river Maritsa ……….............. 381
Fig. 32 The mausoleum and imaret/zaviye of Şihabeddin Paşa ………………. 382
Fig. 33 Medrese of Şihabeddin Paşa in Filibe ………………………………… 382
Fig. 34 Medrese of Şihabeddin Paşa ………………………………………….. 383
Fig. 35 Floor plan of Hünkâr hamamı ………………………………………… 383
Fig. 36 Hünkâr hamamı in Filibe ……………………………………………… 383
Fig. 37 The destruction of Hünkâr hamamı …………………………………… 384
Fig. 38 The tombstone of Şihabeddin Paşa ……………………………………. 384
Fig. 39 The tombstone of Şihabeddin Paşa ……………………………………. 384
Fig. 40 The mosque of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey in Filibe …………………… 385
Fig. 41 The mosque of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey after the earthquake of 1928
…………………………………………………………………........................... 385
Fig. 42 The conic roof of the sebil/şadırvan ……………………………………. 386
Fig. 43 Oil painting by J. V. Mrkvička showing the sebil/şadırvan in Filibe…… 386
Fig. 44 Çifte hamamı in Filibe …………………………………………............. 387
Fig. 45 Çifte hamamı in Filibe …………………………………………............. 387
xvi

Fig. 46 Floor plan of Çifte hamamı …………………………………….............. 387
Fig. 47 Western parts of Filibe ………………………………………................. 388
Fig. 48 Yeşiloğlu mosque in Filibe ……………………………………………… 388
Fig. 49 Domed baldachin and Muslim cemetery at the southwestern foot of the
Saat tepesi …………………………………………………................................. 389
Fig. 50 Clock tower in Filibe …………………………………………................ 389
Fig. 51 Clock tower and Muradiye mosque …………………………………….. 390
Fig. 52 Clock tower and Muradiye mosque …………………………………….. 390
Fig. 53 Clock tower and the gunpowder depot (baruthane) ……………............. 391
Fig. 54 Mosque of Çelebi Kadı on the northern bank of the river
Maritsa………………………………………………………................................. 391
Fig. 55 Mosque of Çelebi Kadı on the northern bank of the river Maritsa ….…... 392
Fig. 56 Floor plan of the hamam of Çelebi Kadı (Banya Maritsa) in Filibe …….. 392
Fig. 57 Mosque of Anbar Kadı in Filibe …………………………………………. 393
Fig. 58 Mosque of Anbar Kadı in Filibe …………………………………………. 393
Fig. 59 Orta Mezar (Taşköprü) mosque in Filibe ………………………………… 394
Fig. 63 Orta Mezar (Taşköprü) mosque, main entrance of the nineteenth century
addition …………………………………………………………………………… 396
Fig. 64 Floor plan of Orta Mezar (Yeni) hamamı ………………………………. 396
Fig. 65 The mosque of Hacı Abdullah in Filibe …………………………………. 397
Fig. 66 Mosque of Hacı Abdullah (minaret and dome) …………………………. 397
Fig. 67 Southern parts of Filibe and Alaca mosque ……………………………… 398
Fig. 68 Alaca mosque in Filibe ………………………………………................... 398
Fig. 69 Alaca mosque in Filibe ………………………………………................... 399
Fig. 70 Paşa hamamı in Tatar Pazarcık …………………………………………. 399
xvii

Fig. 71 3D plastic reconstruction of the kervansaray of Damad İbrahim Paşa in
Tatar Pazarcık …………………………………………………………………….. 400
Fig. 72 3D plastic reconstruction of the kervansaray of Damad İbrahim Paşa in
Tatar Pazarcık …………………………………………………………………….. 400
Fig. 73 İbrahim Paşa’s kervansaray in ruins in 1877 …………………………….. 401
Fig. 74 Scenes from the fights between Russian and Ottoman armies on the
streets of Tatar Pazarcık …………………………………………........................ 401
Fig. 75 The market area in Tatar Pazarcık with Nazır Mehmed Ağa mosque …. 402
Fig. 76 Eski Cami’i in Tatar Pazarcık ……………………………………………. 402
Fig. 77 The place of the vanished complex of Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey in Konuş
……………………………………………………………………………………... 403
Fig. 78 The place of the vanished complex of Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey in Konuş
……………………………………………………………………………………... 403
Fig. 79 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) and the plain of Göpsa ………….. 404
Fig. 80 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) and the plain of Göpsa …………. 404
Fig. 81 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) …………………………………… 405
Fig. 82 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) …………………………………… 405
Figs. 83-84 Plan of the excavated parts of the citadel of Kopsis and suggested
reconstruction ……………………………………………………………………... 406
Fig. 85 Dedicatory inscription of Ali Bey’s mosque in Karlova ………............... 407
Fig. 86 The mosque of Ali Bey in Karlova ………………………………………. 407
Fig. 87 Floor plan of the mosque of Ali Bey …………………………………….. 408
Fig. 88 Porch of the mosque of Ali Bey in Karlova ……………………………… 408
th
Fig. 89 Floor plan of the 16 -century public bath in Karlova ………………….. 409
Fig. 90 Clock tower and the market place in Karlova …………………………… 409
Fig. 91 Clock tower and the market place in Karlova ……………………………. 409
Fig. 92 Red mosque in Karlova …………………………………………………... 410
Fig. 93 Red mosque in Karlova …………………………………………………... 410
xviii

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS
Map 1. Ottoman Balkans ……………………………………………................... 362

Map 2. The valley of the River Göpsu and the region of Kopsis ……................. 363
Plan 1. City plan of Filibe drawn by the author after the plans of Ilinskiy (1878)
and Schnitter (1891), supplemented with data from Ottoman documentary
sources ……………………………………………………………………………. 364
Plan 2. City plan of Filibe drawn by G. Lejean (1867) ………………................. 365
Plan 3. City plan of Filibe drawn by Ferdinand von Hochstetter (1869) ……….. 366
Plan 4. City plan of Plovdiv, showing the likely location of the Ottoman saray,
drawn after S. Shishkov (1926) …………………………………………………. 366
Plan 5. City plan of Tatar Pazarcık, drawn by the author after Batakliev (1923) &
Kiel (1995) …………………………………………………................................ 367
Plan 6. Plan of the urban core of the town of Karlova (after D. Popov, 1967) ….. 368
Plan 7. City plan of Karlova (after D. Popov, 1967) …………………................. 369
xix

NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION
Titles in Cyrillic script (Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian) are transliterated in Latin

characters as follows:
Symbols Cyrillic letters

ž ж
z з
y й
h х
ts ц
ch ч
sh ш
sht щ
ă ъ
yu ю
ya я
yi ы
xx

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Turko-Balkan city or Arabo-Ottoman city? Ottoman city vs. Balkan city: continuity
and change in the urban development in the Balkans
The towns and cities in the Ottoman realm and various aspects of urban life have
long attracted scholarly attention. A growing number of fine studies examined the
demography, the architecture, the spatial order and urban morphology of the cities
controlled by the Ottoman dynasty thus adding valuable details to our general
understanding of the urban development in the Empire. Modern historiography
traditionally makes a division between the cities in the Arabic-speaking parts of the
Ottoman state and those in the “core provinces”, i.e. Anatolia and Rumelia (Asia Minor
and the Balkans).1 Even this discrimination, however, as general as it is, is questioned in

1
The cities of the Mashriq and the Maghreb that focused mainly the attention of the French school of the
past were on their own a subject of ongoing scholarly debate. The concept of the “Islamic city” in the
early French tradition was criticized in a growing number of modern publications. Ira Lapidus. Muslim
Cities in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967); André Raymond. “Islamic
1

recent studies which voiced for a revision of the traditionalist division between the urban
centers spread over the vast territory of three continents that was unified and held by the
Ottomans for several centuries. Indicating that the classification was solely based on
ethno-cultural grounds, Pierre Pinon, who derived evidence from the architectural
typologies, housing and the urban fabric, argued that the real division between the cities
in the Ottoman Empire must not be seen as a clear-cut split between the Arab and the
core provinces, but that there existed a rather lose line that divided the ‘Turko-Balkan’
and ‘Arabo-Ottoman’ worlds and their cities respectively.2 The dividing line, in Pinon’s
view, crosses Anatolia, approximately linking Antalya with Erzurum, thus contrasting
the Arabo-Ottoman part (where Seljuq architecture is present, but more notably where
“the Byzantine substratum was early covered over by Arab and Seljuq conquests”) to the
Turko-Balkan part (roughly from Bithynia to the western Balkans) in which “the
Byzantine dominance persisted the longest”. 3 Halil İnalcık’s pioneering studies on
Istanbul stressed on the existence of a strong Islamic tradition in organizing the urban

City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 21:6
(1994): 3-18; Eugen Wirth. Die orientalische Stadt im islamischen Vorderasien und Nordafrika:
stadtische Bausubstanz und raumliche Ordnung, Wirtschaftsleben und soziale Organisation (Mainz:
Phillip von Zabern, 2002); Gilles Veinstein. “La ville ottomane.” in Mohamed Naciri and André Raymond
(eds.), 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 (Casablanca: Fondation du Roi Abdul-Aziz Al-Saoud pour les études
islamiques et les sciences humaines, 1997), 105-114. Overview of the discussion to date in the
Introduction “Was there an Ottoman City?.” in Edhem Eldem, Daniel Goffman, Bruce Masters (eds.), The
Ottoman City Between East and West, Aleppo, İzmir, İstanbul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999), 1-16.
2
Pierre Pinon. “Essai de définition morphologique de la ville ottomane des XVIIIe–XIXe siècles.” in
Verena Han, Marina Adamović (eds.), La culture urbaine des Balkans, 3, La ville des Balkans depuis la
fin du Moyen Age jusqu’au début du XXe siècle (Paris–Belgrade: Académie Serbe des Sciences et des Arts,
Institut des Études Balkaniques, 1991), 147–155; idem. “Essai de typologie des tissus urbains des villes
ottomanes d’Anatolie et des Balkans,” in 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: a Supra-National Heritage
(Istanbul: YEM Yayin 2000), 174-188; idem. “Ottoman cities of the Balkans.” in Salma K. Jayyusi et al.
(eds.), The City in the Islamic World, vol. 1 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2008), 146-147.
3
Pinon, “Ottoman cities of the Balkans”, 147.
2

space and voiced for a more balanced approach that reconcile the “over-idealized
interpretation of Islamic social institutions” and “totally ignoring the determining role of
Islamic norms”.4
The argument that the existence of earlier Arabo-Seljuqid or Byzantine bases
defined the division between the Ottoman cities with regard to their architectural and
spatial development seems quite valid and it was also adopted by other historians who
wrote recently on the urban development in the Ottoman Empire.5 Nevertheless, the
historiography dealing with the Ottoman city to date has not advanced enough to allow a
well-developed debate on the subject. Instead, as it was justly pointed in the introductive
sentence of Veinstein’s contribution to the debate, “the present state of our knowledge,
dealing with Ottoman town consists primarily of pondering the very notion of ‘Ottoman
town’, not only in terms of contents, but also of application”.6
General studies on the transition of the Byzantino-Slavic urban centers in the
Balkans after they fell into the hands of the Ottoman rulers and their subsequent
development and transformation in the emerging Muslim empire are extremely scarce.
The national Balkan historiographies argued mostly over the continuity of local urban
tradition as opposed to the novelties brought by the Ottomans. Scholars who contributed
to the discussion on the nature of the ‘Balkan city’ or the ‘Ottoman city in the Balkans’,

4
Halil İnalcık. “Istanbul: an Islamic City.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1-23; idem. “Fatih, Fetih
ve İstanbul’un Yeniden İnşası.” Dünya Kenti İstanbul. İstanbul World City (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt
Yayınları, 1996), 22-37; idem. “The Ottoman Survey of 1455 and the Conquest of Istanbul.”550. Yılında
Fetih ve İstanbul/The Conquest and Istanbul in the 550th Anniversary (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007),
1-14;
5
Gilles Veinstein. “The Ottoman Town (Fifteenth-Eighteenth Centuries).” in Jayyusi et al. (eds.),
The City in the Islamic World, 216. Similar view is also supported by Fatma Acun. “A Portrait of the
Ottoman Cities.” Muslim World 92:3-4 (2002): 255-286.
6
Veinstein. “The Ottoman Town”, 205.
3

perhaps most often lead by national sentiment, were inclined to overemphasize all
aspects of the thesis of their preference, turning a blind eye to the argumentation that
contradicted it.
It is perhaps accurate to state that the debate over the nature of the ‘Balkan city’
was triggered in the 1950s by the Turkish historian Ömer Lütfi Barkan. He accentuated
on the decisive role played by the Ottoman rulers in remodeling of the urban centers in
the European possessions of the Empire. In Barkan’s view in the post-conquest years, as
a result of purposeful state policy and the implementation of sultans’ will, who “had at
their disposal all of the Empire’s resources”, the development of urban life in the
Balkans was significantly shifted. 7 The central role of the Ottoman state in the
revitalization and even re-creation of the cities in the Balkans on the one hand was
implemented through conscious efforts for remodeling the inherited spatial order by
constructing a large communal mosque, equipped with a multitude of other buildings
that rendered social services to the locals and by clearly defining a new market area
(çarşı). On the other hand, in Barkan’s view, the central power was also responsible for
providing settlers to the thus modified cities by encouraging or often even by
orchestrating a mass immigration of Anatolian Turks into the Balkan urban centers.
Applying this policy in a systematic manner the Ottoman central authority secured the
rapid development of all cities lying on the strategic or commercial routes in the Balkans.
Thus, the population of all important cities in the region turned predominantly Muslim

7
Ömer Lütfi Barkan. “Quelques observations sur l’organization économique et sociale des villes
Ottomanes des XVI et XVI siècles.” Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'histoire comparative des
institutions, vol. 7, La Ville 2: Institutions économiques et sociales (Bruxelles: De Boeck Université,
1955), 291
4

and therefore Turkish. 8 Emphasizing the decisive role of the sultans in the urban
development and the creation of new towns in the Ottoman Balkans, Barkan neglected
the importance of other dominant figures (such as the akıncı uc beyis) in the process and
completely overruled the spontaneous emergence of new towns.9 Moreover, the impact
and the importance of conversion to Islam of local Christian population in Barkan’s
thesis was brought to a minimum. This theme was later developed even further by the
Turkish nationalist historiography claiming that all Muslims residing in the cities in the
Balkans in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were virtually all ethnic Turks.10
In the second half of the twentieth century Barkan’s thesis that portrayed a
drastic discontinuity of urban life in the Ottoman Balkans was criticized by the
Bulgarian Marxist-nationalist historiography. Nikolai Todorov developed a
diametrically different hypothesis that insisted on the large degree of continuity between
the medieval Byzantino-Slavic and Ottoman urban tradition. 11 Minimizing, if not
disregarding, the role of Anatolian Turkish settlers in the Balkan cities, Todorov
emphasized the role of religious conversion as the main factor that explains the apparent
overwhelming Muslim majority in some of the larger cities. Moreover, in this author’s
view, the masses of Turkish settlers that appeared in the Balkans in the fifteenth and

8
Barkan, “Quelques observations sur l’organization économique et sociale”, 290, 294; idem. “Quelques
remarques sur la constitution sociale et démographique des villes balkaniques au cours des XVe et XVIe
siècles.” Istanbul à la jonction des cultures balkaniques, méditerranéennes, slaves et orientales, aux XVIe-
XIXe siècles (Bucarest: Association Internationale d’ Études du Sud-Est Européen, 1977), 279-301.
9
“il ne s’agit généralment pas de formations spontanées, mais de produits de la volonté des Empereurs”.
Barkan, “Quelques observations sur l’organization économique et sociale”, 291.
10
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 4:2 (1989):
23-40. İlhan Şahin. “XV. ve XVI. Yüz Yılda Sofya-Filibe-Eski Zağra ve Tatar Pazarı’nın Nüfus ve İskân
Durumu.” Türk Dünyası Arıştırmaları 48 (1987): 249-256.
11
Nikolai Todorov. “Po niakoi văprosi na balkanskiya grad prez XV-XVII v.” Istoricheski Pregled 1
(1962): 32-58.
5

sixteenth centuries were almost exclusively semi-nomadic Turkomans (Yürüks) who had
no connection to the urban life in the Ottoman Balkans.12 In his capital work on the
‘Balkan city’, that still remains the only monographic study on this topic, Todorov fully
developed his argumentation for continuity of local urban tradition pointing to the
existence of a multitude of towns and cities in the Balkans in which the Christian
population had a significant majority over the Muslims. The cities in which the Muslims
prevailed, largely a result of conversion to Islam in his mind-frame, were those located
on the strategically important spots in which the Ottoman authorities wished to establish
stronger control and thus securing unconditional loyalty by enforcing the Muslim
element.13 This view was adopted by the Bulgarian historiography and turned into a
standard frame-work within which was interpreted the additional data presented in a
number of later studies.14 In spite of the unquestionable merits of the research conducted
by the Balkan historians in the past decades, which offered abundant data for many
towns in Ottoman Rumelia, they did not step too far out of the Barkan-Todorov
discourse, which appears to have been fueled more by nationalistic emotions rather than
genuine academic controversy.15

12
Nikolai Todorov. Balkanskiyat grad XV-XIX v.: sotsialno-ikonomichesko i demografsko razvitie (Sofia:
Nauka i Izkustvo, 1972), 45-46.
13
Todorov, Balkanskiyat grad, 49-59.
14
Petăr Koledarov. “Kăm văprosa za razvitieto na selishtnata mreža i neynite elementi v sredishtnata i
iztochnata chast na Balkanite ot VII do XVIII v.” Izvestiya na Istituta za Istoriya 18 (1967): 89-146;
Zdravko Plyakov. “Za demografskiya oblik na bălgarskiya grad prez XV - sredata na XVII vek.”
Istoricheski Pregled 5 (1968): 29-47; Strashimir Dimitrov. “Za priemstvenostta v razvitieto na Balkanskite
gradove prez XV-XVI vek,” Balkanistika 2 (1987): 5-17; Svetlana Ivanova. “Gradovete v bălgarskite
zemi prez XV vek.” in Boryana Hristova (ed.), Bălgarskiyat petnadeseti vek: sbornik s dokladi za
bălgarskata i obshta kulturna istoriya prez XV vek (Sofia: Narodna Biblioteka “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy,
1993), 53-65.
15
Certainly more nuanced studies were also published like these of Aleksandar Stojanovski. Gradovite na
Makedonija od krajot na XIV do XVII vek: demografski proučuvanja (Skopje: Zavod za unapreduvanje na
6

1.2. Models of urban development in the Ottoman Balkans
What seems apparent to an unbiased eye is the fact that in spite of building
strong theoretical cases both Barkan’s and Todorov’s views on the development of the
urban centers in the Balkans seem very limiting and rigid. As probably often happens
with pioneering works of this kind, based on very limited amount of sources, the two
conflicting hypotheses present generalized models of Ottoman urbanization policies and
practice that involves a great deal of oversimplification. When this theoretical
framework, however, is tested into practical research over individual regions of the
Ottoman Balkans one inevitably faces a much more complex picture which to a great
extend questions the usability of the construct proposed by Barkan or Todorov.
In a lengthy contribution that focused on the urban development of a limited part
of the Ottoman Balkans (namely the territory of modern Bulgaria) the Dutch historian
Machiel Kiel argued that the views of both Barkan and Todorov can be seen as “valid in
a restricted number of cases”, but they merely represent a “simplified version of a much
richer reality”.16 He concluded that there was no uniform pattern of urban development
in Ottoman Bulgaria because the historical conditions and local circumstances differed
from one district to the other. The best way for studying the urbanization processes of

stopanstvoto vo SRM "Samoupravna praktika", 1981) or Adem Handžić. “O formiraniu nekih gradskih
naselja u Bosni u XVI stoljeću,” Prilozi za Orijentalnu Filologiju 25 (1975): 133-168 who emphasized the
important role of state supported pious endowments in the process of establishing new cities in Bosnia etc.
16
Machiel Kiel. “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: the Place of Turkish Architecture
in the Process.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4:2 (1989): 81-83. This study was published as a
book in Turkish translation Bulgaristan’da Osmanlı Dönemi Kentsel Gelişmesi ve Mimari Anıtlar (Ankara:
Kültür Bakanlığı, 2000).
7

the Ottoman-time Balkans in Kiel’s view is examining it province by province thus
acknowledging the diverse circumstances of local history, which shaped the
development of the cities there.17 He therefore suggested that “with a bit of unavoidable
simplification, the towns of Ottoman Bulgaria may be divided into five groups according
to the way they emerged”.18
Sharing Kiel’s conviction that the models of urban development in the Ottoman
Balkans can be best observed through a systematic study on different regions I suggest
below a modified and extended version of his selection of urbanization models that in all
probability can serve as a framework for the development of Ottoman cities not only for
the territory of modern Bulgaria, but it can also be applied, with all due skepticism, to
the entire Balkan Peninsula under Ottoman rule.
1. Cities that were fully developed urban centers in the pre-Ottoman period,
which after the conquest had mixed population, thus continuity went alongside
modification. The earliest Muslim settlers appeared soon after the conquest, but the
Christian population remained in majority, or at least there was a sizable Christian
community in the entire Ottoman period. Although the urban space was slightly
modified through the construction of some Islamic buildings (or converting existing
ones) the degree of continuity of the inherited Byzantino-Slavic urban fabric clearly

17
Kiel, “Urban Development”, 83. Testing Kiel’s view on the urban development in Bulgaria I extended
his argumentation farther pointing that studying even much smaller territory (Upper Thrace) demonstrates
a great diversity of urban models. Grigor Boykov. “Balkan City or Ottoman City? A Study on the Models
of Urban Development in Ottoman Upper Thrace (15th – 17th c.).” in Halit Eren and Sadık Ünay (eds.),
Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans, 1-5 November
2005, Bucharest, Romania (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2010), 69-86.
18
Kiel, “Urban Development”, 83.
8

prevailed. This group fits well in Todorov’s thesis: Silistra19, Niğbolu (mod. Nikopol)20,
Tărnovo 21 , Lofça (mod. Lovech) 22 , Vidin 23 , Varna 24 and the smaller Black Sea cost
towns like Misivri (mod. Nesebăr), Süzebolu (mod. Sozopol), Ahıyolu (mod. Pomorie)25,
etc.
2. Cities that emerged at the foot of pre-Ottoman castles. They had mixed
population and their development was promoted by the construction of some important
Ottoman public buildings. This group lays at the “edge” of Todorov’s thesis, since
continuity and change went alongside: Prevadi (mod. Provadiya)26, Aydos (mod. Aytos),

19
Strashimir Dimitrov. Istoriya na Dobrudža, vol. 3 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1988), 15-39;
Machiel Kiel. “Silistra” in TDVİA; Stefka Părveva. “Bălgari na služba v osmanskata armiya: voenni i
voennopomoshtni zadălženiya na graskoto naselenie v Nikopol i Silistra prez XVII vek” in Elena
Grozdanova et al. (eds.), Konflikti i kontrasti ‘zad kadăr’ v bălgarskoto obshtestvo prez XV-XVIII vek
(Sofia: Gutenberg, 2003), 226-254.
20
Rumen Kovachev. Opis na Nikopolskiya sandžak ot 80-te godini na XV vek (Sofia: Narodna Biblioteka
“Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, 1997); idem. “Nikopol Sancak at the Beginning of the 16th Century according
to the Istanbul Ottoman Archive.” In Meral Bayrak et al. (eds.), Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet
Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı (Eskişehir: Osmangazi
Üniversitesi, 2005), 65-76; Krasimira Mutafova. “Nikopol v osmanskite registri ot XVI v.” in “Bălgariya,
zemya na blaženi”… in memoriam professoris Iordani Andreevi (Veliko Tărnovo: Ivis, 2010), 514–534;
Stefka Părveva. “Demografskiyat oblik na gr. Nikopol prez 1693 g.” in 300 godini Chiprovsko văstaniye:
prinos kăm istoriyata na bălgarite prez XVII v. (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1988), 25-41.
21
Krasimira Mutafova. Staroprestolniyat Tărnov v osmanoturskata knižnina (Veliko Tărnovo: Faber,
2002).
22
Machiel Kiel. “Lofça” in TDVİA.
23
Vera Mutafchieva. “Vidin i Vidinsko prez XV-XVI vek. Predgovor.” in Dušanka Bojanić-Lukač. Vidin
i Vidinskiyat sandžak prez XV-XVI vek (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1975), 5-49. Bistra Cvetkova. “Za
etnicheskia i demografski oblik na Vidin prez XVI v.” Izvestiya na etnografskia institut s muzey 7 (1964):
11-24; Kiel, “Urban Development”, 101-105.
24
Svetlana Ivanova. “Varna during the Late Middle Ages - Regional versus National History.” Etudes
Balkaniques 2 (2004): 109-143.
25
Elena Grozdanova and Stefan Andreev. “Die Städte an der bulgarischen Schwarzmeerküste (Ende des
15. bis zum 18. Jh.).” Bulgarian Historical Review 2 (1987): 15-33.
26
Machiel Kiel. “Pravadi” in TDVİA. idem “The heart of Bulgaria: population and settlement history of
the districts of Provadija, Novi Pazar and Shoumen from the late-Middle Ages till the end of the Ottoman
period.” in Bayrak, Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu, 15-38.
9

Karınabad (mod. Karnobat)27, Ruşcuk (mod. Ruse)28, Ziştovi (mod. Svishtov)29, İvraca
(mod. Vratsa), Samokov30 etc.
3. Byzantino-Bulgarian cities that have been entirely repopulated and
recreated by the Ottomans. They had predominantly Muslim population and their space
was completely remodeled in accordance with the ‘Ottoman tradition’. This group fits
well in the thesis of Barkan and represents cities with insignificant continuity in their
urban development: Sofia31, Filibe (mod. Plovdiv)32, Eski Zağra (mod. Stara Zagora)33,
Yambol34, Şumnu (mod. Shumen)35, Köstendil36, etc. The development of these cities

27
Machiel Kiel. “The Vakıfname of Rakkas Sinan Beg in Karnobat (Karın-abad) and the Ottoman
Colonization of Bulgarian Thrace (14th-15th Century).” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 1 (1980): 15-31. Elena
Grozdanova. “Karnobat i Karnobatskia kray prez XV-XVIII v. in Delcho Todorov (ed.), Istoriya i kultura
na Karnobatskiya kray vol. 3 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1993), 5-28; Kiel, Urban
Development, 92-93.
28
Teodora Bakardjieva. “Ruse and the Ruse Region in the Context of Demographic Processes in the
Lower Danube Region.” in Bayrak, Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu, 39-48; Teodora Bakardjieva and
Stoyan Yordanov. Ruse: prostranstvo i istoriya (kraya na XIV v. – 70-te godini na XIX v.).
Gradoustroystvo, infrastruktura, obekti (Ruse: Avangardprint, 2001); Rumen Kovachev. “Novi svedeniya
za Ruse i selishtata v Rusensko ot Istanbulskia osmanski arhiv (XVI i XVII v.).” in Evgeni Radushev,
Zara Kostova and Valeri Stoyanov (eds.), Studia in Honorem Professoris Verae Mutafčieva (Sofia:
Amicitia, 2001), 225-240; Kiel, “Urban Development”, 102-105.
29
Machiel Kiel. “Svishtov i rayonăt prez XV-XIX vek. Poselishtna istoriya, istoricheska demografiya i
posleditsite ot voynite v edna ravninna oblast na Dunavska Bălgariya.” in Rossitsa Gradeva (ed.), Sădbata
na myusulmanskite obshtnosti na Balkanite, vol. 7 (Sofia: IMIR, 2001), 547-570. Mariyana Drumeva.
“Demografsko-ikonomicheskiyat oblik na Svishtov do nachaloto na Bălgarskoto Văzraždane.” Dialog 4
(2010): 45-78.
30
Rumen Kovachev. Samokov i samokovskata kaza prez XVI vek, spored opisi ot Istanbulskia osmanski
arhiv (Sofia: Narodna Biblioteka “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, 2001); Machiel Kiel. “Samakov” in TDVİA.
31
Svetlana Ivanova. “Sofia” in EI2. Kiel, “Urban Development”, 116-121.
32
For detailed bibliography on Filibe (Plovdiv) see Chapter Two.
33
Boykov, “Balkan City or Ottoman City”, 74-75; Kiel, “Urban Development”, 91-92.
34
Kiel, “Urban Development”, 89-91.
35
Machiel Kiel. “Şumnu” in TDVİA; Nikolay Antov. Imperial Expansion, Colonization, and Conversion
to Islam in the Islamic World’s ‘Wilds West’: the Formation of the Muslim Community in Ottoman
Deliorman (N. E. Bulgaria), 15th – 16th cc. (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 2011),
310-330.
36
Machiel Kiel. “Ottoman Kyustendil in the 15th and 16th Centuries. Ottoman Administrative Documents
from the Turkish Archives versus Myths and Assumptions in the Work of Jordan Ivanov.” Izvestiya na
Istoricheskiya Muzey - Kyustendil 5 (1993): 141-169.
10

and the drastic change of their urban structure was either a result of the purposeful state
policy or due to the architectural patronage of high ranking Ottoman dignitaries.
4. Ottoman cities that have been created ex nihilo either by the Ottoman
sultans or by other prominent figures who may have been executing the will of the
central power, but also may have been attempting to promote their own estates (power-
bases) not necessarily in accordance with the will of the central authority. This group
also corresponds to Barkan’s thesis with the only notable difference that he attributed the
emergence of all towns to the will of the sultans. The importance of the towns created by
the mighty border commanders (the akıncı uc beyis), who often did not act in agreement
with the central power clearly deserve explicit attention: İhtiman 37 , Plevne (mod.
Pleven) 38 , Hezargrad (mod. Razgrad) 39 , Tatar Pazarcık (mod. Pazardžik) 40 , Cisr-i

41
Mustafa Paşa (mod. Svilengrad), Harmanlı (mod. Harmanli) , Hasköy (mod.
Haskovo) 42 , Karlova (mod. Karlovo) 43 , Kazanlık 44 and Yenice-i Zağra (mod. Nova
Zagora)45, etc.

37
Machiel Kiel. “İhtiman” in TDVİA, vol. 21; idem. “Four Provincial Imarets in the Balkans and the
Sources About Them” in Nina Ergin, Christoph Neumann and A. Singer (eds.), Feeding People, Feeding
Power: Imarets in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul: Eren, 2007), 97-120; Rumen Kovachev. “Opisi za
istoriyata na grad Ihtiman ot XVI-XVII vek.” in Svetlana Ivanova (ed.), Etnicheski i kulturni prostranstva
na Balkanite. Chast I: Minaloto – istoricheski rakursi (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment
Ohridski”, 2008), 226-243.
38
Machiel Kiel. “Plevna” in EI2; Kiel, “Urban Development”, 108-112. Rumen Kovachev. “Novi
osmanoturski opisi za selishtata i naselenieto v Plevensko prez părvata polovina na XVI vek.” in Mihail
Grăncharov (ed.), 730 godini grad Pleven i myastoto mu v natsionalnata istoriya i kultura (Pleven:
Regionalen Istoricheski Muzey, 2002), 99-139.
39
Machiel Kiel. “Hrazgrad-Hezargrad-Razgrad: The Vicissitudes of a Turkish Town in Bulgaria
(Historical, Demographical, Economic and Art Historical Notes).” Turcica 21-23 (1991): 495-562. Antov,
Ottoman Deliorman, 282-309.
40
For detailed bibliography on Tatar Pazarcık (Pazardžik) see Chapter Three.
41
Nedyalko Dimov (ed.), Istoriya na grad Harmanli ot drevnostta do 1989 g. (Sofia: Zlaten zmey, 2010),
51-75.
42
Sıddık Çalık. Çirmen Sancağı Örneğinde Balkanlar'da Osmanlı Düzeni (15.-16. Yüzyıllar) (Ankara:
Bosna-Hersek Dostları Vakfı, 2005), 79-83, 166-167; Şahin-Emecen-Halaçoğlu. “Turkish Settlements in
11

5. Pre-Ottoman Byzantine or Bulgarian towns that remained almost
unaffected by Turkish colonization or religious conversion. They preserved almost
exclusively their Christian population and the Islamic architecture had insignificant
impact on their development: İstanimaka (mod. Asenovgrad) 46 , Mehomiye (mod.
Razlog)47, etc.
6. New towns that developed to a great degree spontaneously, emerging
from villages. Some of them growing very quickly, others expending slowly in a long-
lasting process. They had mostly Muslim population, but very modest presence of
Islamic architecture: Hacıoğlu Pazarı (mod. Dobrich)48, Osman Pazarı (mod. Omurtag)49,
Eski Cuma’ (mod. Tărgovishte) 50 , Yeni Pazarı (mod. Novi Pazar), Selvi (mod.
Sevlievo)51, Yenice-i Çırpan (mod. Chirpan)52, Dupniçe (mod. Dupnitsa)53, etc.
7. Towns that developed mostly spontaneously in the course of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries emerging from Bulgarian villages due to a

Rumelia”, 38-40; 491. Yusuf Halaçoğlu. “XVI. Asırda Çirmen Sancağı’nın Sosyal ve Demografik Tarihi.”
in X. Türk Tarih Kongresi Ankara: 22-26 Eylül 1986, Kongreye Sonulan Bildiriler, vol. 4 (Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu, 1993), 1795-1801; Ivan Dobrev. Haskovo v minaloto: Srednovekovie i Văzraždane,
dokumentalni statii (Haskovo: u.p., 1992).
43
For detailed bibliography on Karlova (Karlovo) see Chapter Five.
44
Machiel Kiel. “Kazanlık” in TDVİA, vol. 25; Çalık, Çirmen Sancağı, 83-85, 1667-168.
45
Çalık, Çirmen Sancağı, 85-87.
46
Grigor Boykov. Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace: A Case Study on Filibe, Tatar
Pazarcık, and İstanimaka (unpublished M.A. Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, 2004), 90-100.
47
Grigor Boykov. “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina v usloviyata na osmanska vlast.” in Alexader
Grebenarov et al. (eds.), Razlog, istoriya, traditsii, pamet (Blagoevgrad: Irin-Pirin, 2009), 53-78.
48
Strashimir Dimitrov et al. (eds.), Istoriya na grad Tolbuhin (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1968).
49
Krasimira Mutafova, Mariya Kalitsin and Stefan Andreev. Izvori za istoriyata na grad Omurtag. Tom 1:
Osmanski dokumenti XV-XVIII v. (Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2009).
50
Machiel Kiel. Eski Cuma (Tărgovište)” in TDVİA; idem. “Urban Development”, 112-114; Antov,
Ottoman Deliorman, 342-350.
51
Machiel Kiel. “La diffusion de l'Islam dans les campagnes bulgares à l'époque ottomane (XVe-XIXe s):
colonisation et conversion.” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 66:1 (1992): 39-53.
52
Çalık, Çirmen Sancağı, 87-88, 170-172.
53
Hristo Matanov. Văznikvane i oblik na Kyustendilski sandžak (Sofia: IF-94, 2000), 110-136; Kiel,
“Urban Development”, 123-125.
12

favorable taxation regime and the concentration of certain crafts and industries there:
Dryanovo, Gabrovo 54 , Tryavna 55 , Elena, Kotel, Teteven 56 , Zlatitsa 57 , Koprivshtitsa,
Panagyurishte, Kalofer, etc.
8. The last group can probably unite the towns from the medieval Bulgarian
period, which in Ottoman times declined and were reduced to villages, or even
disappeared: Çernovi (Cherven – a seat of Orthodox metropolitan in pre-Ottoman
times)58, Kaliakra and Karvuna (important towns of the north Black Sea cost in the late
Middle Ages, capitals of the so-called despotate of Dobrudža) 59 , Rahova (important
medieval port town on the Danube, sacked by the crusader army in 1396), etc.
The eight groups mentioned above, marking the main trends of urban
development in Ottoman Bulgaria, are certainly far from being exhaustive and only
designate the processes at a very large scale. Indicating the specificities of the transition
of the individual towns from Bulgarian/Byzantine to Ottoman power each of the groups
can be expanded with a multitude of sub-divisions that will represent better the
development of the cities in Bulgaria under Ottoman rule. When the specificities of the

54
Rumen Kovachev. “Naselenieto na Gabrovo ot sredata na XV do kraya na XVII v. Demografski aspekti
i imenna sistema.” Istoricheski Pregled 2 (1991): 52-63.
55
Machiel Kiel. “Zur Gründung und Frühgeschichte der Stadt Trjavna in Bulgarien. Unbenützte
osmanische administrative Quellen aus den Archiven von Istanbul, Ankara und Sofia über Gründung und
Entwicklung Trjavnas 1565-1702. Ein Beitrag zur Entmythologisierung der Geschichte Bulgariens.”
Münchner Zeitschrift für Balkankunde 7-8 (1991): 191-218.
56
Bistra Cvetkova. “Teteven i tetevensko prez osmanskoto vladichestvo.” in Ivan Undžiev (ed.), Teteven
(Sofia: Otechestven Front, 1977), 26-41.
57
Machiel Kiel. “İzladi/Zlatitsa: Population Changes, Colonisation and Islamisation in a Bulgarian
Mountain Canton, 15th-19th centuries.” in Radushev, Studia in Honorem Professoris Verae Mutafčieva,
175-187.
58
Antov, Ottoman Deliorman, 331-342; Stoyan Yordanov. “Arheologicheski svidetelstva za grad Cherven
ot osmanskia period.” Izvestiya na Regionalniya Istoricheski Muzey – Ruse 9 (2005): 124-131; idem.
“Episkopskata rezidentsia v Cherven prez rannia osmanski period.” Arheologia 47 (2006): 78-88.
59
Georgi Atanasov. Dobrudžanskoto despotstvo: kăm politicheskata, tzăkovnata, stopanskata i kulturnata
istoriya na Dobrudža prez XIV vek (Veliko Tărnovo: Faber, 2009) and the rich bibliography included in
this study.
13

entire Balkan Peninsula are taken into account the picture of the development of the
Ottoman cities in the region turns even more diverse, but with a few notable
supplements (towns under special regulations like the mining centers, the Dalmatian
cities, etc.) the framework presented above can certainly be applied in the attempts of
drawing a more general picture of the appearance of the Balkan city in Ottoman times.
Undoubtedly, this is by far not an easy task since as rightfully pointed by Edhem,
Goffman, and Masters many studies on cities in the Ottoman Balkans have been
published, but they are often using different techniques and most notably they are
written in virtually all local languages.60
1.3. “Ottomanizing” the space: was there an Ottoman program for remodeling the cities?
As important as it is, the fact that the development of the cities in the Ottoman
Balkans varied from an uninterrupted continuity of the existing Byzantino-Slavic
infrastructure to a complete modification and recreation of the urban centers, however,
does not cast much light on the question of how the Ottomans changed the space of the
existing cities that they chose to modify. Was there a repetitive pattern that can be
regarded as a program or a system for ‘Ottomanizing’ the cities that they mastered? In
case Ottoman program for modifying the space of some of the conquered cities indeed

60
Eldem, Goffman, Masters, The Ottoman City Between East and West, 8, note 16.
14

existed what was the driving force that inspired the change? Was it always the will of
the almighty Ottoman rulers, as suggested by Barkan, or there were other important
factors and players too? Lastly, was the program for changing the spatial order of the
pre-Ottoman cities also employed when the Ottomans came to create cities on their own?
Answering these questions, may it be partially, is of primary importance for this study,
since it deals with the urban development of settlements that have been either
completely recreated or were established ex nihilo in the Ottoman period.
Evidently the way in which the Ottomans built their cities, or remodeled the
inherited ones was not static, but it was a rather complex system that changed with time
and was naturally influenced by a number of factors. Nevertheless, the scholarship to
date seems to agree on the fact that in Ottomans’ perception the Turko-Balkan cities of
their realm (or at least the larger and important centers) must have had a big
congregational Friday mosque (in majority of the cases a sultanic establishment) and a
clearly defined market area (çarşı). As much as this opinion seems valid it appears that it
only reflects a later stage of the development of the Ottoman urbanizing concept. In its
nascent period, i.e. when the Ottomans took possession of the first larger Byzantine
urban centers in Bithynia and made their first steps on Balkan soil, they sought to
propagate their supremacy over the city through the construction of a different type of
building, a T-shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviye (for want of a better term) placed out
of the confines of the walled parts of these cities.
The multifunctional buildings that had a floor plan of reversed “T” were
variously referred to in their dedicatory inscriptions, endowment deeds, and other
15

contemporary sources by terms such as imaret, zaviye, or tekke sometimes used
interchangeably even in a single source. Entrusted to sheikhs, they combined in a single
structure an elevated oratory in an either vaulted or a domed open space (eyvan), a
domed central hall, and two to four side-rooms/guestrooms (tabhanes) that were
equipped with fire places, shelves for storing personal belongings, etc. The tabhanes that
served as temporary lodging facilities were usually accessed through the central hall or
specially designed vestibule, but also in a multitude of cases doors opening at the lateral
facades provided direct access from outside. The domed central hall and the adjacent
prayer eyvan laid on the same axis, but were purposely divided in elevation. In most
cases the oratory stood about a meter higher from the ground level and was accessed
through several steps. Special niches, meant to hold the shoes of the worshippers
(pabuçluks) that were placed near the stairs, clearly indicate that the only part of these
buildings that was originally carpeted and therefore used for prayers was actually the
elevated eyvan while the rest of the space must have been used for other purposes.61
The exact functions of these building are still debated in scholarly works but one
may fairly safely assume that on the one hand, they provided ritual space while on the
other, offered shelter to important travelers and esteemed itinerant dervishes such as

61
On the spatial arrangement and architectural layout of these buildings, referred to differently in the
related scholarship as “T-type mosques”, “eyvan mosques (cross axial mosques)”, “mosques with zaviyes”,
“Bursa-type mosques”, etc. see Aptullah Kuran. The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture (Chicago and
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), 71-135; Semavi Eyice. “İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dini-
içtimai Müessesesi Zâviyeler ve Zâviyeli-camiler.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23: 1-
2 (1962-963): 3-80; Sedat Emir. Erken Osmanlı Mimarlığında Çok-işlevli Yapılar: Kentsel Kolonizasyon
Yapıları Olarak Zâviyeler, vols. 1-2 (Izmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1994); Doğan Kuban. Osmanlı Mimarisi
(Istanbul: Yem Yayın, 2007), 75-122. For an up-do-date survey of the standing T-shaped buildings and a
detailed discussion of the existing literature see Zeynep Oğuz. Multi-functional Buildings of T-type in
Ottoman Context: a Network of Identity and Territorialization. (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, 2006).
16

Otman Baba for example. In many instances they also functioned as convents of
influential Anatolian and Rumelian mystics. Recent studies argued that in some cases
the T-shaped multifunctional buildings were used as housing by the mighty border
commanders (such as Evrenos Bey) and were only subsequently transformed into
charitable institutions (imarets) that distributed food to poor and clearly defined clientele.
It is difficult to trace the building type that was the exact architectural
predecessor of the T-shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviyes of the Ottomans. Recent
scholarship maintains that the older view, according to which the T-shaped buildings
originated from the four-eyvan Turkic medreses in Central Asia 62 , falls short in
explaining the phenomenon and points that the persistent element of these buildings is
comprised of two spaces of different elevation that makes the parallel with the dervish
lodges (hankâhs) of the Ilkhanid period Anatolia more plausible.63 In any case this type
of buildings emerged together with the Ottoman state and their construction was almost
exclusively restricted to the Ottoman realm. 64 In Sedat Emir’s view the T-shaped
multifunctional buildings followed an evolutionary development from the Anatolian Sufi
convents and also served as “urban colonizers”.65
The fact that after the Mongol invasion in Anatolia in the mid-thirteenth century
the centralized authority of the Seljuk sultans was replaced with that of the local
aristocratic elites, who acted to a great extent as independent rulers and accordingly

62
Eyice, “Zâviyeler ve Zâviyeli-camiler”, 14-17; Kuran, The Mosque, 72-77.
63
Emir, Çok-işlevli Yapılar, vol. 1, 15-16; Oğuz, Multi-functional Buildings of T-type, 18-20.
64
The spread of this type of buildings in the Anatolian principalities is likely to be after an Ottoman
influence: Germiyanoğlu Yakub Çelebi in Kütahya (1411), Candaroğlu/İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey in
Kastamonu (1454); Uzun Hasan in Malatya (second half of the 15th c.), etc. Eyice, “Zâviyeler ve Zâviyeli-
camiler”, 32-51; Oğuz, Multi-functional Buildings of T-type, 14-16.
65
Emir, Çok-işlevli Yapılar, vol. 1, 15.
17

sought representation, makes Emir’s hypothesis about the role of the T-shaped buildings
in remodeling urban landscape quite viable. Howard Crane and Ethel Sara Wolper
argued that the dramatic changes in political power of the mid-thirteenth and early
fourteenth-century Anatolia resulted in a significant shift in patronage patterns, in which
powerful local emirs replaced the sultans as principal sponsors of architecture. 66
Moreover, not only the central authority gave way to the local elites as principal patrons
of architecture in the cities of Central and Eastern Asia Minor, but also the types of the
supported institutions changed drastically. Rather than building fortifications, mosques,
or caravanserais, the local lords focused their patronage on medreses, tombs of Sufi
saints, and – most notably – dervish lodges.67 It appears that the local emirs sought to
transform the hierarchy of city space and to modify the existing spatial order through a
conscious attempt to shift the urban core away from the old Seljuk centre. 68 The
instrument of this urban transformation was the patronage of dervish lodges built near
city gates or market areas. They seem to have manifested the newly established alliance
between the local rulers and the itinerant Anatolian dervishes, who had enormous
influence over the local Turcoman population alienated from the Sunni practices
promoted by the Seljuk central power.69

66
Howard Crane. “Notes on Saldjûq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia.” Journal of
the Economic and Social History of the Orient 36: 1 (1993): 1-57; Ethel Sara Wolper. Cities and Saints:
Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia (University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2003).
67
Ethel Sara Wolper. “Politics of Patronage: Political Change and the Construction of Dervish Lodges in
Sivas.” Muqarnas 12 (1995): 39-47.
68
Wolper, “Politics of Patronage”, 41-43.
69
Wolper, “Politics of Patronage”, 40-41.
18

The first Ottoman rulers, essentially no different than any local Anatolian emir of
that time, inherited the established tradition in seeking representation through
architectural patronage that aimed at changing the existing spatial order of the cities.70
The notable difference between Osman Gazi (1299-1324) and his son Orhan (1324-1362)
and the rest of the local rulers of Anatolia was the fact that the Ottoman state emerged at
the edge of the then Muslim world and its territorial expansion was only directed toward
Byzantium. Consequently the Byzantine cities that fell in Ottoman hands completely
lacked the Seljuk base of their eastern counterparts therefore the rulers from the
emerging dynasty of Osman seized cities built in accordance with different urban
tradition and spatial order. The Ottomans had to introduce the first Islamic symbols into
previously entirely Christian environment of the Bithynian cities revived during the
Laskarids rule of the Nicaean Empire. It seems that it was in this very early formative
period that the Ottoman rulers proved skilled enough in establishing a compromising
existential mode between the two seemingly confronting sides under the rulership of the
house of Osman. These were the frontier elite warriors, who embraced gaza (holy war
against the infidels and misbelievers) as their leading ideology, the ahi brotherhoods,
and the wandering dervishes, who dominated the spiritual life of the Turcoman subjects
that roughly made the Muslim strata in the then Ottoman society on the one hand and the

70
For recent overview of the architectural changes that took place in the post-Seljuk Anatolian
principalities (beyliks) see Howard Crane. “Art and Architecture.” in Kate Fleet (ed.), The Cambridge
History of Turkey. Volume I: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071-1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009), 266-277.
19

local non-Muslim population of the conquered towns and cities of Asia Minor on the
other.71
It was in this early stage that the Ottomans adopted a distinct way for remodeling
the Byzantine cities, which shifted the hierarchy of space and embodied a statement of
permanency of the ruling dynasty. A repetitive pattern that can be observed in most
urban centers reshaped by the Ottomans provides a firm ground in portraying the efforts
of the rulers of the Ottoman state in this direction as a purposeful program in which the
multifunctional T-shaped buildings played a key role. On the one hand, the conquerors
installed themselves within the walled parts of the Byzantine cities, where in the
majority of the cases a cathedral church was converted to a Friday mosque, thus not only
providing the Muslim congregation with a place for worship, but also displaying the
triumph of Islam. Soon after this act several smaller mosques (mahalle mescids) and a
bathhouse (hamam), needed for the ritual ablutions, were also established in the walled
parts of the larger cities. These changes, however, as drastic as they may seem at a first
glance, did not have a significant impact over the inherited spatial order. The important
difference, on the other hand, was made with the erection of a multifunctional T-shaped
imaret/zaviye the construction of which in the majority of the cases has begun
simultaneously or shortly after the conquest of the city. These buildings, as a rule, were
placed outside the confines of the Byzantine citadel and were built in close relation to
other buildings such as soup kitchens (imarets), baths, medreses, etc. and were even

71
Certainly the picture of the border society in the early Ottoman state is by far more complex. See Cemal
Kafadar. Between Two Worlds: the Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1995).
20

often fenced by a protective wall. The location where the first Ottoman buildings that
‘colonized’ the space beyond the protected parts of the city was always selected with
utmost care. Organically integrated in city’s topography the complexes of the T-shaped
imaret/zaviyes extended the Ottoman presence to previously unoccupied areas and set
the direction for expansion of the Muslim city. Ideally these complexes were meant to
shift the focus of economic life in the city. Supplemented by commercial infrastructure
the quarters that emerged around the earliest T-shaped buildings were often
subsequently transformed into new urban core and main market district (çarşı) of the
expanding Muslim city. The erection of a large imperial mosque (Ulu Cami’) on this
spot sanctioned the completion of the process of transformation and the materialization
of a fully developed Ottoman model for a new commercial core in the remodeled city.
Once the central part was established new complexes of T-shaped buildings defined the
outer boundaries of the Ottoman city. Depending on the city’s magnitude one or up to a
dozen of T-shaped buildings, placed at the important road arteries, surrounded the new
urban core. Extending the Ottoman architectural presence to outlaying uninhabited areas
the T-shaped imaret/zaviyes became the key mechanism for encouraging urban growth
in the preferred direction. Moreover, they must have also played the role of a dignified
preview of the city for those coming in, therefore whenever their patrons were the rulers
they were lavishly decorated imposing structures. While the patronage of Ulu Camis,
which marked the new urban core in a sound display of the triumph of Islam over
Christian lands remained reserved for the Ottoman rulers, the construction of T-shaped
imaret/zaviyes was by no means only a sultanic prerogative. On the contrary, the
21

tradition of the early sultans in establishing bridgeheads in a predominantly Christian
environment through the erection of T-shaped multifunctional buildings was adopted by
the people who constituted the driving force of the Ottoman advance in the Balkans, the
border raider commanders, and implemented in the zones under their influence.
Looking for practical examples in support of the framework that was set forth
above, one must simply follow the Ottoman advance in Western Asia Minor and the
Balkans and trace in chronological order the erection of the principal Ottoman buildings
in the conquered cities. Examining the structures that focused the patronage of the
sultans and other grandees in consecutive sequence, regardless whether they are standing
or are now lost, reveals quite clearly the Ottoman program for remodeling the inherited
urban space. After the conquest of Bursa in 132672, for instance, Orhan converted the
Byzantine monastery of St. Elias, located inside the castle (today’s Tophane), and laid
his father’s body in a baptistery there (later to become known as Gümüşlü Kümbet). He
also constructed a royal residence for himself, a small mosque and a bath in the
approximate vicinity of the saray (1337) as about the same time several other mahalle
mescids were erected within the walled city.73 Once settled within the stronghold of
Bursa, Orhan commissioned a T-shaped imaret/zaviye (completed in 1339-1340) along

72
On the lengthy blockade and conquest of Bursa see Halil İnalcık. “Osmanlı Beyliğini Kurucusu Osman
Beg.” Belleten 71:261 (2007): 479-537; idem. “Osmanlı Sultanı Orhan (1324-1362): Avrupa’da
Yerleşme.” Belleten 73:266 (2009): 77-107. Cf. Heath Lowry. Ottoman Bursa in travel accounts
(Bloomington, Indiana: University of Indiana: Ottoman & Modern Turkish Studies Publications, 2003).
73
Albert Gabriel. Une capitale turque Brousse-Bursa (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958), 23-51; Ekrem Hakkı
Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mimârîsinin İlk Devri, 630-805 (1230-1402) (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası), 58-89. The
mosque of Orhan is likely to have been replaced by the Şehadet Cami, built by Murad I. Orhan’s much
debated dedicatory inscription sits above the entrance of this mosque, but due to the nineteenth-century
restoration today the mosque preserved little from the original look of Murad I’s structure. See Heath
Lowry. The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State University of New York Press), 33-44 for
detailed bibliography and discussion to date. For a brief survey of early Ottoman architecture in Bursa see
Crane, “Art and Architecture”, 276-277.
22

with several other service buildings on empty, flat terrain only a few hundred meters east
of the elevated citadel (today’s Taşkapı district).74 Contrary to Gabriel’s argument that
the growing Muslim population of Bursa must have caused the construction of Orhan’s
complex, it was rather the T-shaped multifunctional building that gathered settlers for a
new Muslim urban core.75 It seems apparent that Orhan aimed at establishing a new
Muslim institution on previously unoccupied and, what at the time must have appeared,
isolated location. The protective wall, which fenced the complex of Orhan, clearly
attests to this fact.
The program of Orhan for expending the boundaries of Ottoman Bursa outside
the citadel apparently was very successful. Orhan’s successor Murad I and his tutor Lala
Şahin contributed for the consolidation of the new market district and erected
commercial infrastructure of primary importance for its development: the Kapan hanı
and the so-called Bezir hanı, which is no longer extant.76 Nevertheless, the final mark on
the urban landscape that truly elevated the area east of the citadel as Bursa’s new
commercial core came into sight only seven decades after the Ottomans seized the city.
Celebrating the triumph of Islam over the crusading army lead by king Sigismund
(1387-1437) at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396, Bayezid I (1389-1402) commissioned the

74
Apart from the T-shaped imaret/zaviye, Orhan’s complex included a medrese demolished in the
nineteenth century to create space for the city hall in Bursa, an imaret, which stood until the 1950s, the so-
called Bey Hanı, and a hamam whose male section survived and is known today as Aynalı Çarşı. The
complex was sacked by the Karamanid Emir Mehmed Beg in 1413 and repaired/rebuilt by Bayezid Paşa,
the vizier of Mehmed I (1413-1421), in 1417. Emir, Çok-işlevli Yapılar, vol. 2, 18-50. Gabriel, Une
capitale turque, 43.
75
Gabriel, Une capitale turque, 43. For further details on Bursa’s spatial, demographic and ecomic
development see the fine study of Özer Ergenç. XVI. XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa: Yerleşimi, Yönetimi,
Ekonomik ve Sosyal Durumu Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006).
76
Bezir hanı, built by Lala Şahin Paşa in the second half of the fourteenth century stood until the early
1900s when damaged by a great fire in the commercial district it was demolished.
23

enormous Ulu Cami’ of Bursa. The monumentality of this imperial mosque clearly
indicates not only the increasing importance of the most significant urban center of the
Ottomans at that time, but it also embodied the claim of the dynasty for permanent
rulership over the lands that formerly belonged to Christendom.77
The efforts to promote the new urban core did not undermine the tendency of
expending the space of Bursa. Once more the T-shaped multifunctional buildings and
their complexes were used by the Ottoman rulers as colonizers that stretched the
territory of the city. In 1365-1366 Orhan’s son Murad I commissioned such a complex
located about two kilometers west of the citadel of Bursa in the then rather isolated and
remote suburb of Çekirge. Three decades later his successor Bayezid I also completed a
complex centered on a T-shape imaret/zaviye, thus setting the northeastern boundaries of
the city. Standing east of the stream Gökdere, one and a half kilometers distant from the
center, at the time of its construction the so-called Yıldırım complex must have appeared
as distant and isolated as the one of his father in Çekirge. After the turbulent decade
following Bayezid I’s defeat at the battle of Ankara (1402) Mehmed I manifested the
consolidation of his rulership by becoming a patron of one of the richest T-shaped
imaret/zaviye complexes (in regard of decoration or ornamentation) that was ever
constructed by the Ottomans (1419-1421). The magnificent Yeşil complex, centered on
a massive T-shaped building with two tabhanes on each side, was also placed at a
considerable distance from the urban core of Bursa and the very new at that time great

77
Further details on the spatial arrangement of Bursa in the first centuries of Ottoman rule in Aptullah
Kuran. “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul.” Muqarnas 13 (1996):
114-131; Oya Pancaroğlu. “Architecture, Landscape, and Patronage in Bursa: The Making of an Ottoman
Capital City.” Turskish Studies Association Bulletin 20:1 (1995): 40-55.
24

mosque. More than a kilometer southeast of Ulu Cami’, the complex of Mehmed I was
certainly built on an empty spot on the eastern bank of the Gökdere.
The latest T-shaped building in Bursa, subject to royal patronage, was Murad II’s
complex, located west of the citadel, more than one and a half kilometers distant from
the city center. It was built between 1424 and 1428 and just like the complex of his
father it must have been meant to celebrate the triumph of Murad II over the pretenders
for the throne. Tracing the rest of the T-shaped imaret/zaviyes in Bursa, built by
Ottoman dignitaries such as Timurtaş Paşa (1404), Baba İshak/Ebu İshak Kazeruni
(restored by Mehmed II in 1479, but certainly much earlier establishment), and Hamza
Bey (1461), one can clearly envisage a well pronounced circle with the great mosque of
Bayezid I and the urban core in its center and a multitude of complexes centered on T-
shaped buildings placed in the periphery.78
Bursa’s development was by all means exceptional, because it focused the
attention and architectural patronage of virtually all Ottoman sultans prior to the
conquest of Constantinople. Nevertheless, the pattern of Bursa’s spatial development
can also be observed in many other localities, which certainly bespeaks of an established
system (or more precisely of a system in a process of developing) used by the Ottomans
for remodeling the space of the conquered cities. When Nicaea (İznik) fell into Ottoman
hands in 133179, apart from converting the church of St. Sophia that was located in the
core of the city immediately after the conquest, Orhan ordered the construction of a T-

78
See Oğuz, Multi-functional Buildings of T-type, 112-115 for a complete list of T-shaped buildings and
the plans of Bursa included in Gabriel.
79
Halil İnalcık. “The struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines for Nicaea.” in Işıl Akbaygil et al
(eds.), İznik throughout history (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası, 2003), 59-83.
25

shaped imaret/zaviye outside the fortified Byzantine city, next to the Yenişehir Gate on
the road toward Bursa. Oktay Aslanapa, who excavated the now ruined imaret and bath
of Orhan in an olive-tree forest near Yenişehir Gate, claims that the complex was
commissioned by Orhan even prior to the conquest of İznik80. This view, also shared by
other respectful scholars, seems to conflict the available sources. On the one hand, the
unearthed dedicatory plate of the imaret provides the date 1335, i.e. four years after the
conquest, on the other - the narrative tradition also seems to agree with this fact. 81
According to the chronicler Aşıkpaşazade, when Orhan seized the city he converted the
Great church into a Friday mosque, a monastery was made a medrese and at the exit of
Yenişehir gate he commissioned an imaret, which was entrusted to Hacı Hasan, a
disciple of sheikh Ede Bali.82 When the building of the imaret was completed, Orhan
served the first meal with his own hands on the night of its opening, which clearly
indicates the great significance of the earliest Ottoman establishment in İznik.83
Placing the T-shaped building outside the fortified city demonstrates the
aspiration of Orhan to leave a visible imprint on the urban landscape, just as he will do

80
Oktay Aslanapa. “İznik’te Sultan Orhan İmâret Câmii Kazısı 1963-1964.” Sanat Tarihi Yılığı (1964-
1965): 16-31; idem. “Turkish Architecture at Iznik.” in Akbaygil, İznik throughout history, 223-226.
81
The dedicatory inscription was found broken into pieces in the course of the excavations as parts of it
are missing. Nevertheless, the date Şevval 735 A.H. (1335) can be undoubtedly deducted. Abdülhamit
Tüfekçioğlu. Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarîsinde Yazı (Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001), 19-22.
82
According to the narrative tradition Ede Bali, a prominent figure from Vefa’i-Baba’i mystical order was
a father-in-law of Orhan’s father Osman Gazi. Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 128-129.
83
Aşıkpaşazade Tarihi. Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. Ed. by Ali Bey (İstanbul: Matba’a-i Amire, 1332/1916), 42-
43: “He [Orhan Gazi] established an imaret (soup kitchen) at the edge of the Yenişehir Gate [ ... ] When
the doors of the imaret were first opened and its first food prepared, it was distributed by the blessed hands
of Orhan Gazi himself. He served as the imaret's apprentice on the opening evening.” Translation quoted
after Heath Lowry. “The ‘Soup Muslims’ of the Balkans: Was There a ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ Ottoman
Empire.” in Donald Quataert and Baki Tezcan (eds.), Beyond Dominant Paradigms in Ottoman and the
Middle Eastern/North African Studies: A Tribute to Rifa’at Abou-El-Haj. Special issue of Osmanlı
Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies 36 (2010), 102-104.
26

four years later in his capital Bursa.84 What makes İznik quite different from Bursa is the
enormous size of the fortified city. It seems that Ottomans never managed to provide
enough settlers for the large territory of the Hellenistic city, enclosed by a double wall.85
In spite of this fact it seems that the Ottoman method for colonizing the space was still
implemented. The only notable difference was that in this case the Ottomans had to
colonize the empty space lying between the walls of the sizable city and the converted
cathedral of St. Sophia that naturally fulfilled the role of the main congregational
mosque in the urban core.86 It was Orhan’s son Murad I who commissioned the next T-
shaped imaret/zaviye near the eastern gate of the city. Commemorating his royal mother
Murad I’s spectacular Nilüfer imareti in İznik was completed in May 1388.87 About that
time the son of Murad I, Yakub Çelebi also completed a T-shaped multifunctional
building that was placed at the southern edge of the city. 88 The location of these
buildings shows that in the second half of the fourteenth century the largest part of the
city remained unoccupied, therefore expansion beyond the city walls was not only

84
Two more T-shaped buildings in the region are associated with Orhan. He commissioned a zaviye for
Postinpuş Baba (prior to 1348) near the town of Yenişehir and an imaret in the town of Bilecik (most
likely 1330s), seized earlier by his father Osman Gazi. Both of the buildings had extramural location. For
details see Oğuz, Multi-functional Buildings of T-type, 21-23. On the functions of some of these early
Ottoman establishments in the region see Heath Lowry. “Random Musings on the Origins of Ottoman
Charity: From Mekece to Bursa, İznik and Beyond.” in Nina Ergin, Christoph Neumann and Amy Singer
(eds.), Feeding People, Feeding Power. Imarets in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul: Eren, 2007), 69-79.
85
Heath Lowry. “Ottoman İznik (Nicaea): Through the Eyes of Travelers & as Recorded in
Administrative Documents, 1331-1923.” in idem. Defterology Revisited: Studies on the 15th & 16th
Century Ottoman Society (Istanbul: ISIS Press, 2008), 109-209.
86
İznik is not unique in this respect. A century later when the Ottomans established control over the
second largest city of the medieval Balkans, Thessaloniki (Selânik), they faced a very similar spatial issue.
However, unlike İznik that never regained its population, Selânik was a densely populated metropolis
throughout the Ottoman period and the inherited urban fabric was organically integrated by the Ottomans.
Alexandra Yerolympos. Urban Transformations in the Balkans (1820-1920): Aspects of Balkan Town
Planning and the Remaking of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 1996).
87
Franz Teaschner. “Das Nilufer-'Imaret in Isnik und seine Bauinschrift”. Islam 20 (1932): 127-137.
88
Yakub Çelebi was killed by his brother Bayezid I on the battlefield of Kosovo, therefore the building
must have been commissioned prior to 1389.
27

unnecessary, but also unthinkable. Orhan’s imaret placed outside the city walls, as
ambitious as it was, appears to have stayed somewhat too distant and it is probably not
by mischance that it is the only T-shaped building in İznik that is not standing today.
The imaret/zaviyes of Murad I and his son Yakub, together with a number of
neighborhood mosques (some of them magnificent buildings patronized by Ottoman
grandees such as the Çandarlıs, others of more modest nature like Hacı Özbek’s)
transformed the architectural order of İznik keeping a close tie with the inherited urban
fabric.
Turning to the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans one can notice that the same
repetitive pattern was implemented by the new masters on the European soil too. Very
little is known about the changes that took place in Adrianople (Edirne) immediately
after Murad I took possession of it in 1361. 89 Moreover, all the buildings he
commissioned had an unfortunate fate and did not make it to the present day.
Nevertheless, one can assert that like his father in İznik, Murad I converted a large
church located in the walled part of the city into the mosque of Aya Sofya, thus
displaying the triumph of Islam and providing the Muslim community with a Friday
mosque. Promulgating Edirne as his capital, Murad I ordered the construction of a royal
palace and a number of service buildings, which in fact must have been the first
Ottoman establishments outside the walls of the old Byzantine Adrianople. However,

89
The date of the conquest of Adrianople is debated, but the present work sides with Halil İnalcık. “The
Conquest of Edirne (1361).” Archivum Ottomanicum 3 (1971): 185-210. For other opinions, arguing for a
later date of the fall of Adrianople into Ottoman hands, see 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): 439-461; Elizabeth Zachariadou. “The Conquest of Adrianople by the
Turks” Studi Veneziani 22 (1970): 211-217; Aleksandır Burmov. “Türkler Edirne’yi ne Vakit Aldılar.”
Belleten 13 (1949): 79-106.
28

neither the converted church of St. Sofia, photographed in the nineteenth century,90 nor
Murad I’s palace, pulled down in the sixteenth century in order to clear out space for the
construction of the magnificent Selimiye mosque, are extant today.91 At the turn of the
fourteenth century Murad I’s successor Bayezid I in a ‘Bursa manner’ placed a T-shaped
imaret/zaviye at a considerable distance from the walled parts thus stretching the
Ottoman presence beyond Edirne’s natural border – the Tunca River.92 Sultan Bayezid
I’s Edirne edifice certainly lacked the grandeur of his Bursa complex, built a few years
earlier, but it set an important trend. More accurately this building rather transferred to
European soil the Ottoman system for colonizing the urban space that was established in
Anatolia in the preceding decades. In the course of the next forty years four more T-
shaped imaret/zaviye-centered complexes commissioned respectively by Gazi Mihal
(1421),93 the beylerbeyi Yusuf Paşa (1429),94 Sultan Murad II (1435)95, and Mezid Bey
(1441)96 appeared at the outskirts of Edirne. Placed at the periphery of the city these
buildings encircled the newly established Ottoman city while a new commercial core

90
The Byzantine church of St. Sophia stood within the walled part of Edirne until the early twentieth
century. For a recent study on this building and a reprint of the 1888 photograph taken by Gh. Léchine,
Russian consul in the city, see Robert Ousterhout and Charalambos Bakirtzis. The Byzantine monuments
of the Evros/Meriç River Valley (Thessaloniki: European Center for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine
Monuments, 2007), 167-71.
91
Abdurrahman Hıbrî. Enîsü’l-müsâmîrin: Edirne tarihi, 1360-1650. Ed. Ratip Kazancıgil. (Edirne: Türk
Kütüphaneciler Derneği Yayınları, 1996), 14; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mimârîsinin İlk Devri, 295.
92
Aptullah Kuran. “Edirne’de Yıldırım Camii.” Belleten 27:111 (1964): 419-438; Ayverdi, Osmanlı
mimârîsinin ilk devri, 484-494; Oktay Aslanapa. Edirne’de Osmanlı Devri Abideleri (İstanbul: Üçler
Basımevi, 1949), 2-6.
93
Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855 (1403-1451)
(Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 19892), 386-93; Kuran, The mosque, 86-87.
94
Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 377-381; Kuran, The mosque, 89-90.
95
Suheyl Ünver. “Edirne Mevlevihanesi Tarihine Giriş.” in Emin Nedret İşli and M. Sabri Koz (eds.),
Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1998), 623-627; Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sultan
Murad Devri, 405-415; Kuran, The mosque, 124-125.
96
Ratip Kazancıgil. Edirne imaretleri (İstanbul: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Yayınları, 1991), 45-49;
29

was also set out of the fortified Byzantine town. The growing importance of Edirne as a
capital of the Ottoman state appealed for the construction of an imperial great mosque. It
was commissioned by Bayezid I’s sons in the first decade of the fifteenth century and
thus imitating Bursa’s development the commercial district of Edirne shifted to a new
location outside the walled town.97
Edirne’s “Ottomanization” greatly resembles the transformation of Bursa in the
fourteenth century. A new urban core emerged around an imperial mosque and several
commercial buildings, while a number of T-shaped imaret/zaviyes patronized by the
rulers or high ranking dignitaries surrounded the city thus marking its outer boundaries.
Two decades after Eski Cami’ was completed Murad II commissioned a new imperial
mosque in the central part of the city, the so-called Üç Şerefeli mosque, which not only
elevated Edirne’s magnitude, but also experimented with forms and revolutionized the
design and construction techniques of the great imperial mosques of the Ottomans.98
The function of the T-shaped buildings as the earliest ‘colonizers’ of the space
beyond the walled parts of the towns seized by the Ottomans was adopted and widely
used by the mighty akıncı commanders in the Balkans. These dynasties of elite warriors
not only constituted the driving force of the Ottoman conquest in the region, but they
also ruled and administered the territories under their control semi-autonomously.
Recognizing the leadership of the house of Osman, the lords of the marches have
naturally adopted the method of remodeling the urban order established by the ruling

97
98
Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 422-62; Godfrey Goodwin. A History of the Ottoman
Architecture (London: Thames & Hudson, 20032), 97-102.
30

dynasty and implemented it in their own domains. For instance the leader of the
Ottoman advance along the Aegean cost of Thrace and Macedonia, Gazi Evrenos Bey,
commissioned and built a T-shaped multifunctional building soon after he seized the city
of Gümülcine (mod. Komotini). The building located below the Byzantine citadel that is
in fact the oldest standing Ottoman monument in the Balkans in all probability was used
as a residence by Evrenos Bey prior he relocated his powerbase westward and the
building begun its service as an imaret. 99 Likewise, the first Muslim buildings in
Ottoman Üsküb (mod. Skopje), the capital of the modern state of Macedonia, were
commissioned by the conqueror and actual master of the city – Paşa Yiğit Bey. Placing
his buildings below the pre-Ottoman citadel Paşa Yiğit instigated a development of the
Muslim city that replicated at a smaller scale the transformation of Bursa. The complex
that reclaimed the territory lying beyond the citadel soon turned into a new commercial
district, while the descendents of the conqueror commissioned new T-shaped buildings
that stretched the boundaries of the Muslim city.100
In Balkan context the T-shaped imaret/zaviyes were used not only as colonizers
of the space of the cities, transformed by the Ottoman rulers or the semi-independent

99
Machiel Kiel. “The Oldest Monuments of Ottoman-Turkish Architecture in the Balkans: the Imaret and
the Mosque of Ghazi Evrenos Bey in Gümülcine (Komotini) and the Evrenos Bey Khan in the Village of
Ilıca/Loutra in Greek Thrace (1370-1390).” Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı 12 (1983): 117-138; Heath Lowry. The
Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350-1550: the Conquest, Settlement & Infrastructural Development of
Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Publications, 2008), 41-47.
100
On the building of Paşa Yiğit, also known as Meddah Baba Cami’, and his nearby bath and other
service buildings, none of which remained standing today, see Lidiya Kumbaracı-Bogoyeviç. Üsküp’te
Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri (İstanbul: ENKA, 2008), 168-171; Mustafa Özer. Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi
(XIV.-XIX. yüzyıl) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006), 187-188; Gliša Elezović. Turski spomenici u
Skoplju (Beograd: Rodoljub, 1927), 4-9. For an argument that the earliest establishment in Skopje was
indeed a T-shaped imaret/zaviye see Grigor Boykov. “Reshaping Urban Space in the Ottoman Balkans: a
Study on the Architectural Development of Edirne, Plovdiv, and Skopje (14th – 15th centuries).” in
Maximilian Hartmuth (ed.), Centres and Peripheries in Ottoman Architecture: Rediscovering a Balkan
Heritage (Sarajevo: Cultural Heritage Without Borders, 2011), 41-45.
31

lords of the marches, but also turned into a key element of the border lords’ program for
establishing new towns. The powerbase of the descendents of Köse Mihal, the town of
İhtiman in Central Bulgaria, for instance, came into being thanks to the construction of a
T-shaped imaret/zaviye and a number of other service buildings commissioned by
Mahmud Bey at the turn of the fourteenth century. 101 Half a century later when
İshakoğlu İsa Bey built for himself a powerbase at the Bosnian uc (border zone), modern
Sarajevo, he applied the already established system for urban planning by placing a
communal mosque and commercial infrastructure at the point which had to become a
new urban core while the outer boundaries of the settlement were designated with a T-
shaped imaret/zaviye.102
Examining the way in which some of the cities in the Ottoman realm were
transformed one can detect a repetitive pattern that is common enough to be regarded as
an established system of remodeling the urban space. Most often the space beyond the
fortified town seized by the Ottomans was firstly colonized by a complex centered on T-
shaped multifunctional buildings. Later, the growing city space reclaimed this complex

101
On the development of the town of İhtiman built anew a few kilometers from the abandoned medieval
stronghold of Shtipone see Kiel, “İhtiman” in TDVİA; Semavi Eyice. “Sofya Yakınında İhtiman’da Gazi
Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey İmâret-Camii.” Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 2 (1975): 49-61.
102
Vladislav Skarić. “Postanak Sarajeva i njegov teritorijalni razvitak u 15. i 16. vjeku.” Glasnik
Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 41:2 (1929): 41-55; Hazim Šabanović. “Postanak i razvoj Sarajeva.”
Radovi naučnog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 13:5 (1960): 71-89; Behija Zlatar. Zlatno Doba Sarajeva
(XVI. Stoljeće) (Sarajevo: Svetlost, 1996), 25-38. İsa Bey’s original buildings were destroyed during the
Austrian assault on the city, but the endowment deed of his zaviye strongly suggests that it was a T-shaped
multifunctional building. It must have had three wings, including also a courtyard, and a stable and had to
provide services to the poor Muslims (fukarai’l-muslimin), theology students (talebetu’l-‘ilm), decedents
of the Prophet (sadat), warriors of the faith (guzat) and the travelers (enbai’l-sebil). See Hazim Šabanović.
“Dvije najstarije vakufname u Bosni.” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 2 (1951): 7-29; Mehmed
Mujezinović. “Musafirhana i tekija Isa-Bega Ishakovića u Sarajevu.” Naše Starine 3 (1956): 245-52; Ines
Aščerić. “Neke napomene o problemima iz historije Isa-Begove tekije.” Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju
52-53 (2002-2003): 339-350.
32

incorporating it into the newly formed urban core, the commercial district (çarşı), while
new T-shaped buildings extended the Ottoman presence and urban boundaries to father
previously unoccupied locations. It is likely that this system, which manifested itself
under the Ottomans, comes as a result of longer evolutionary path which began with the
dissolution of the centralized Seljuk rule in Anatolia. Adopted and developed by the
early Ottoman rulers, the method for remodeling the spatial order of the Anatolian cities
under Ottoman rule was transferred to the Balkans and further elaborated by the central
authority and the powerful raider commanders alike. Moreover, it seems that in many
instances when new towns were created ex nihilo the Ottomans applied the same system
in which a communal mosque (either patronized by the sultan or another grandee) and a
number of commercial buildings designated the urban center while one or multiple T-
shaped imaret/zaviyes placed on the main road arteries marked the outskirts of the town
and encouraged its development in a thus determined direction.
1.3. Methodology and scopes of the study
This study focuses on the time of transition from the medieval Byzantino-
Bulgarian domination of the region of Upper Thrace (roughly modern central Bulgaria)
to Ottoman rule, thus covering the period from the mid-fourteenth to the early
seventeenth century, when modification of examined the urban centers was largely
33

completed. More specifically the chief interest of this research concentrates on the
methods applied by the Ottomans in mastering and modifying the space of the urban
centers in the chosen region and the subsequent development of the cities that were
either conquered or established by the Ottomans. Examining in detail the history of
several settlements in a relatively small territory (about 3 000 sq km) the present study
aims at demonstrating the great diversity of local circumstances that to a great degree
predetermined the approach of the Ottoman rulers. The region in question was
devastated and to a large degree depopulated in the period before the Ottoman conquest,
therefore it offers excellent opportunity for studying the methods of urban
transformation and the revitalization of the unoccupied territories applied by Ottomans.
All four settlements studied in this dissertation clearly belong to the type of the
development that had insignificant continuity of the inherited Christian base, which
makes them close to the thesis of Barkan, examined above. The largest and most
important among them was the natural center of the region for centuries, the city of
Philippopolis. The large Roman metropolis suffered the devastating barbaric incursions
in the early medieval period and the constant struggle for control between Bulgaria and
Byzantium in the late middle ages, which reduced the once magnificent city to the
confines of its stronghold. After the conquest the Ottomans, i.e. the central authority and
the high ranking officials, rebuilt Filibe in a systematic manner and provided enough
settlers to elevate the city as one of the largest and most important urban centers in the
European domains of the Empire. In this respect the development of Filibe can fit well
34

into group three (Byzantino-Bulgarian cities that have been entrely repopulated and
reshaped by the Ottomans) of the typology offered above.
The rest of the settlements the development of which is examined in close detail
in this study were all created from scratch in the Ottoman period. In general they all fall
into group four (Ottoman cities created ex nihilo in the Ottoman period) of the suggested
typology, but also showed significant variations in their emergence, development and
current state. Tatar Pazarcık was the most successful Ottoman establishment in Upper
Thrace. It owed its formation and promotion however not to the will and support of the
sultans, but to the creative energy of the mighty border lords (akıncı uc beyis) of the
Balkans. Established at the turn of the fourteenth century as a small colony of Crimean
Tatars the emerging settlement was promoted by several dynasties of raider commanders
who patronized architecture and probably also encouraged migration. On the one hand,
the strategic location and growing importance of the town, and the deepening conflict
between the periphery forces and the consolidating centralism on the other, inspired the
Süleymanic-age central administration to take restrictive measures in securing closer
sultanic control over the development of the town. The shift in power supremacy
dominating the development of the town also determined a shift in architectural
patronage, as the Ottoman officials supported by the central power came to replace the
influential border lords in architectural benefaction and therefore became the leading
factor directing the spatial development of Tatar Pazarcık.
While Tatar Pazarcık was an example of the ultimate Ottoman success the third
case study presented here examines the story of a complete failure of an attempt for
35

creating a new town. In contrast with Tatar Pazarcık, supported by several established
families of border lords, the vanished town of Konuş was a result of the efforts of a
single individual. Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey, himself a highly influential figure in the
Ottoman fifteenth-century border society, attempted to promote a new urban center in
his family domain. Unlike his fellow-akıncı commanders, however, he lacked the
necessary resources and failed in securing the vitally needed support for his enterprise
on behalf of the other dynasties. Despite being a complete failure the attempt of
Mehmed Bey to create and promote a new urban settlement on his own is worthy of
studying since it offers an excellent base for closer observations on the Ottoman society
of that time and adds important details about the way in which more successful
establishments of the periphery forces (İhtiman, Plevne, Yenice-i Vardar, Yenişehir, etc.)
came into being.
The last case of urban development examined in this dissertation deals with the
emergence of the town of Karlova that dominated the valley of the Göpsu River (mod.
Stryama) throughout the Ottoman period. Like Konuş, this town also seems to have been
established by a single individual in an ambition to develop his hereditary estate. The
chief difference between the two, however, consists of the existence of a strong pre-
Ottoman tradition that was skillfully used by Karlıoğlu Ali Bey in order to develop the
town. Created from scratch, the town of Karlova and his founder enjoyed the advantage
of an established medieval tradition in governing the region of Göpsa, which was
inherited in Ottoman times. In this respect the town can be seen also as a shift of the
traditional seat of power in the area to a new location, thus its development can be fit in
36

group four, i.e. newly created towns, but also it bears most of the distinctive features of
type two, which unifies the settlements that developed in Ottoman times near medieval
Bulgarian or Byzantine castles.
The present study aims to demonstrate the diversity of the development of the
urban centers in Ottoman Upper Thrace that were either remodeled or created ex nihilo
by applying a rarely used approach. Unlike most of the publications to date that focused
on one of the aspects of urban life in the Balkans, such as demography, architecture,
economy, institutions, social life, etc. this dissertation focuses on a much wider range of
themes. Based on a large variety of narrative and documentary sources, the study
combines observations on the topography, urban fabric, demographic fluctuations,
architecture and spatial development of the cities in question. Examining all these
aspects of urban history in conjunction with empire-wide or local social peculiarities, the
study attempts to provide a comprehensive picture of the transformation and adoption of
the conquered space in accordance with the Ottoman urbanizing program. May it be not
entirely innovative, this approach can offer an adequate presentation of the large variety
of factors that influenced the development of the cities in the region under study.
Moreover, if adapted and applied at a larger scale it can supply a much needed
methodology for studying the cities of the Balkans under Ottoman rule.
The main difficulty in applying this method arises from the scarcity of
information on the urban morphology in this early period. All reliable city plans that can
serve for observations on the development of the street networks and the spatial structure
date only from the second half of the nineteenth century therefore whenever possible the
37

data that they contain was used retrospectively. Moreover, a great deal of the Ottoman
architecture, which not only played a significant social role in the period of question, but
also set the important landmarks on the urban landscape, has vanished in the time of the
Balkan national states. Partially this notable lack of information was compensated by the
extant visual materials, but still data for a good number of important public buildings
that set forth the urban appearance was virtually ‘dug up’ from the documentary and
narrative sources. Frequently using the methods of ‘archival/documentary archeology’ in
revealing the location and the importance of long vanished buildings appeared to be the
only clue for understanding the development of the urban centers, examined in this
dissertation.
In contrast with the shortage of primary sources on the architectural and spatial
development of the studied cities one is confronted with defeating masses of archival
documents, produced by the central Ottoman administration. Navigating through these
varying in nature and typology sources is uneasy task, especially when examined in
conjunction with the data from the diverse European and Ottoman narrative texts.
Nevertheless, they constitute the primary source of information for this study as their
contents is explored to the best of the author’s capabilities. This said, in regard of the
complicated paleography of the documentary sources and the elaborate language often
used by the authors of the narratives, mistakes and wrong conclusions, based on misread
and misunderstood passages are possible, if not unavoidable.
38

CHAPTER II
OTTOMAN FILIBE: REBUILDING THE METROPOLIS OF
UPPER THRACE
2.1. The conquest of Filibe and its aftermath
Situated on the medieval highway that crossed diagonally the Balkans, the
Roman Via Militaris, the Byzantino-Bulgarian city of Philippopolis surrendered to the
forces of Lala Şahin Paşa in the first half of the 1360s only a few years after the
Ottomans took possession of Adrianople (Ott. Edirne) in 1361. 103 The earliest raids
toward the principal centers of Upper Thrace - Philippopolis and Vereya - begun

103
Halil İnalcık. “The Conquest of Edirne (1361).” Archivum Ottomanicum 3 (1971): 185-210. For other
opinions, arguing for a later date of the fall of Adrianople into Ottoman hands, see 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): 439-461; Elizabeth Zachariadou. “The Conquest of
Adrianople by the Turks” Studi Veneziani 22 (1970): 211-217. Aleksandır Burmov. “Türkler Edirne’yi ne
Vakit Aldılar.” Belleten 13 (1949): 79-106.
39

immediately after the Ottoman conquest of Edirne, but Lala Şahin managed to establish
full control over these cities only a couple of years later. 104 Although the narrative
sources at hand disagree on the exact date of the Ottoman conquest of Philippopolis the
widely accepted date for the fall of the city, taken after a short siege, is 1364.105
The most detailed and probably the most reliable account of the Ottoman
conquest of the town was incorporated by İdris-i Bitlisi in his Heşt Bihişt (Eight
Heavens), but in the related bibliography it is better known after Hoca Sadeddin’s more
accessible later version of it.106 The narrative of İdris interpolates an account according
to which prior relocating to Anatolia Murad I (1362-1389) ordered the Rumelian Beys to
further the Ottoman advance in Europe assigning to Lala Şahin the conquest of Filibe.107
The Christian commander of the garrison at Philippopolis, in all probability a Bulgarian
nobleman, retreated to the stronghold without confronting the Muslim forces and after a
short siege he delivered the city to Lala Şahin. In exchange for the surrender the
Christian commander negotiated safe passage for him and his family to the lands of the

104
Halil İnalcık. “Polunya (Appolunia) – Tanrı-Yıkdıgı Osmanlı Rumeli Fetihleri Kronolojisinde
Düzelrmeler (1345-1371).” in Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ (ed.) Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu’na Armağan (İstanbul:
İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 2006), 46.
105
Halil İnalcık. “Murad I” in TDVİA. Further details and discussion of the bibliography to date in Grigor
Boykov. Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace: A Case Study on Filibe, Tatar Pazarcık, and
İstanimaka (unpublished M.A. Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, 2004), 29-37.
106
I am indebted to Prof. H. İnalcık who pointed to me the connection and provided me with his notes
from the unpublished original work of İdris, written in Persian. A translation into Ottoman Turkish of
İdris-i Bitlisi’s text was recently made available by Mehmed Karataş, Selim Kaya and Yaşar Baş (eds.),
İdris-i Bitlisî. Haşt Bihişt, vol. 1 (Ankara: Bitilis Eğitim ve Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları, 2008), 312-313.
Hoca Sadeddin Efendi. Tac-üt-Tevârih, vol. 1 ([Istanbul]: Tabhane-yi Âmire, 1279/1863), 76-77.
107
Hoca Sadeddin, 76, unjustifiably complimented the account of İdris adding the conquest of the already
taken town of Zagra (Eski Zağra) among the tasks given to Lala Şahin by Murad I prior to his departure
for Anatolia.
40

Serbian despot (the ruler of Serres Jovan Uglješa Mrnjavčević, d. 1371) as well as
guarantees for the life and property of the residents of the Thracian metropolis.108
The lifeless resistance of the city to the forces of Lala Şahin must be attributed to
the fact that in the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Philippopolis was
conquered so many times that its residents and defenders were already accustomed to
surrender to any larger detachment that appeared before its walls. In this period the city
changed hands no less than fifteen times as some of the takeovers were accompanied by
long lasting sieges and violent devastations. 109 When the Ottomans seized the city,
which they renamed to Filibe, its appearance was a mere shadow of the once
magnificent Roman and early medieval urban center. Archaeological evidence shows
that the waves of destructive invasions had reduced the pre-Ottoman Philippopolis to the
confines of its stronghold, built on the top of three interconnected volcanic hills (Plan 1).
Its outer walls, streets and residential parts laid for many years in total disrepair as the
territory below the citadel was most likely uninhabited.110 Ottoman archival documents

108
İdris-i Bitlisî, 312. The date A.H. 760/1358-1359 for the conquest of Filibe provided by the editors of
Heşt Bihişt is undoubtedly a mistake either of the eighteenth-century translator Abdülbakî Sa’adî or of the
editors. The correct date must read A.H. 765/1363-1364 as it becomes apparent from the next account of
İdris. Granting safe conduit and guarantees for the local population’s property (ahd ü eman) was a method
widely used by the Ottomans in their expansion in the Balkans. See Halil İnalcık. “Ottoman Methods of
Conquest”, Studia Islamica [2] 3 (1954): 103-129.
109
After the reemergence of the Danubian Bulgarian kingdom in 1185 Philippopolis and its environs
became a bitterly contested territory claimed by Bulgarians, Byzantines, Crusaders etc. who raided and
pillaged the area multiple times. Peter Soustal. Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Thrakien (Thrake, Rodope und
Haimimontos) (Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), 399-404. Boykov,
Demographic Features, 21-26.
110
For a recent overview of the bibliography and results from excavations of pre-Ottoman Philippopolis
see Ani Dancheva-Vasileva. Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV-XIV vek) (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo
“Prof. Marin Drinov”, 2009), 143-190 and 214-237; Kamen Stanev. “Philipopol ot nachaloto na VII do
nachaloto na IX vek.” Minalo 2 (2011): 20-36. In the course of 2011 eight excavation sites explored
different parts of the outer Roman and early Byzantine Philippopolis. None of them found material that
can be dated post-thirteenth century. I am grateful to Elena Bozhinova and Kamen Stanev who allowed
me to visit these sites and were kind enough to share the information with me.
41

from the fifteenth century seem to corroborate the archaeological data. One century after
the Ottomans took possession of Filibe, its Christian quarters were still limited to the
citadel and to the areas lying immediately below the fortified parts, leaving the flat open
plain to the new Muslim settlers.111 (Fig. 1-5)
The narrative sources relating the conquest of the city contain no information on
the exact number of the first Muslims who settled in Filibe after its capture, but İdris
asserts that Lala Şahin left a garrison singled out from among his entrusted people as he
himself led the rest of the Ottoman forces back to Edirne. Later, according to the
chronicler, Murad I granted the city and the region of Filibe as a prebend to Lala Şahin
and asked him to return there and revive the depressed city.112
Relocating to Filibe, thus transferring the Ottoman Rumelian seat of power there,
the beylerbeyi of Rumili Lala Şahin Paşa must have subdued the smaller strongholds in
the belonging area in the course of next few years.113 The raids along the Via Militaris
and northward of Filibe certainly requested better and safer infrastructure for crossing
the wild waters of the river Maritsa (Ott. Meriç). Building a bridge over the biggest river
crossing Upper Thrace, which allowed his retinues to raid the area and return without
any difficulties, must have been among the first steps undertaken by Lala Şahin in his
attempts to revive the old medieval urban center. İdris relates that Lala Şahin spent a

111
Grigor Boykov. “Etno-religiozniyat oblik na osmanskia grad Filibe – kraya na XV – nachaloto na XVI
vek” in: Evgeniy Radushev and Stefka Fetvadžieva (eds.), Balkanski identichnosti, Vol. 3 (Sofia: Institut
za izsledvane na integratsiata, 2003), 137-138; Machiel Kiel. “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the
Turkish Period: the Place of Turkish Architecture in the Process.” International Journal of Turkish Studies
4:2 (1989): 87-89.
112
İdris-i Bitlisî, 312.
113
On Şahin son of Abdülmuin, the tutor (lala) of Murad I and his appointment as the first beylerbeyi of
Rumili see İnalcık, “Murad I”; Victor Ménage. “Beglerbegi” in EI2; İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı. Osmanlı
Tarihi, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1947), 572-573.
42

large sum in gold for the construction of the long and wide wooden bridge over the
Maritsa and that for its maintenance and repairs in the future he bestowed from his own
slaves and appointed a superintendent (nazır-i emin) to secure its proper usage.114 (Figs.
6-7) Three decades later the bridge must have been carried away by the spring waters of
the river Maritsa, as in 1389 ahead of the Ottoman vanguard Çandarlı Ali Paşa was
detained in Filibe by the overflowing river, which allowed no crossing for two whole
months. 115 The bridge over the Maritsa was repaired quickly afterward, because the
main body of the army marching toward Kosovo was assembled under Murad I’s
command near Filibe and crossed the river without any troubles.116 It seems that due to
its high strategic importance the maintenance of the wooden bridge in Filibe was taken
up by the Ottoman central power, because in later occasions when it was damaged by
the wild spring waters the expenses for its repair were covered by the central treasury.117
Moreover, in the course of the sixteenth or seventeenth century the residents of a village
named Arnavud-i zir (mod. Dolnoslav, near Asenovgrad) were assigned the task of
regular supply of materials and maintenance of the bridge in Filibe for which they were

114
İdris-i Bitlisî, 312-313. For further details on the bridge Cevdet Çulpan. Türk Taş Köprüleri (Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu, 20022), 96-97.
115
Mehmed Neşrî. Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi. Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed A. Köymen (eds.)
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 259.
116
İdris and Hoca Sadeddin present an account that slightly differs from the more detailed and reliable
Kosovanâme incorporated in Neşri’s chronicle. According to İdris/Sadeddin it was Murad who was
detained for several days by the high waters of the Maritsa. İdris-i Bitlisî, 387-388; Hoca Sadeddin, 115.
117
İBK, M.C. O. 91, ff. 261r-262a contains an accounting record of a repair of the bridge done in 1486.
Under the supervision of the kadı İshak Çelebi the emins of the state mukata’a of the rice fields
surrounding Filibe provided the necessary money for the repair. The register of important financial matters
(maliye ahkâm) BOA, MAD 2775, f. 429 contains an order dating 11 January 1566 that notified the local
kadı of Filibe about the great strategic importance of the bridge to the Ottoman army and instructed him to
assemble all materials needed for the repair of the bridge.
43

tax-exempted from extraordinary levies (avarız-i divaniye) and delivered the rest of their
taxes as a lump sum (maktu’).118
2.2. Reviving the medieval town: Lala Şahin Paşa’s contribution
The wooden bridge over the river Maritsa is the only edifice of Lala Şahin in
Filibe that thanks to the Ottoman narratives is certainly identifiable. Nevertheless, the
circumstantial evidence assembled below strongly suggests that he also became a patron
of the earliest Ottoman public buildings in the city. Considering similar cases such as
Bursa and İznik, captured by sultan Orhan; Gümülcine (Komotini), conquered and
controlled by Evrenos Bey; or Üsküb (Skopje), dominated by Paşa Yiğit Bey and his
descendents, discussed above, one can fairly safely assume that Lala Şahin and a tiny
group of his closest companions installed themselves among the Christians in the
fortified town, while the greater part of the Muslim newcomers settled outside the walls
of Filibe. Extending this analogy even farther, one would expect that soon after the

118
The village was established in the 1520s by Christian Albanians who settled southeast of Filibe at the
foot of the Rhodopes. BOA, MAD 519, f. 102 contains a record about the arrival of the first five Albanian
settlers. On migration of the Albanians in the sixteenth century toward the eastern parts of the Balkans see
Boyan Guzelev. Albantsi v iztochnite Balkani (Sofia: IMIR, 2004). Pages 98-99 contain brief information
on the village of interest. In the mid-sixteenth century the village was endowed to the large pious
foundation of Süleymaniye, See Kemal Edib Kürkçüoğlu. Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi (Ankara: Resimli Posta
Matbaası, 1962), 65. A rare example of eighteenth-century tahrir registration specifies that the residents of
the village paid their dues (the pall-tax, tithes, ispençe) as a lump sum (ber vech-i maktu’) in exchange of
providing wood materials (döşeme tahtaları) for the repairs of the bridge in Filibe. Moreover, seventy
three individuals from the village served as permanent maintenance workers (köprücüler). The text
specifies that this is an old arrangement that was copied in the new census. TKGM, Vakf-i Cedid 123, f. 8a,
dating 11 October 1713.
44

conquest Lala Şahin has commissioned a T-shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviye
together with a public bath, located below the citadel of the old city, this being a clearly
observable trend common to the spatial development of most of the newly conquered
Ottoman urban centers.
The cases examined in the introduction show that the conqueror and/or the
person entrusted with the control of the newly captured city in Anatolia or in the Balkans
was most often also the patron of the first Muslim buildings there. These earliest
structures, built below the walled parts of the conquered city, were as a rule T-shaped
imaret/zaviyes, the “colonizers” of the space beyond the fortified town, which in the
majority of the cases were built together with a public bath as sometimes an inn for the
merchants and other commercial and educational infrastructure was also added to the so-
formed complex. Depending on the “method of conquest” of the pre-Ottoman urban
centers, the conquerors either converted to a mosque one of the principal churches of the
cities taken by force, thus displaying their unambiguous triumph over the place, or left
the existing Christian infrastructure in the cities delivered without resistance almost
intact.
As Filibe was not taken by assault but rather surrendered voluntarily to the
Ottoman forces one can assume that none of the existing churches located within the
stronghold was converted into a mosque119, but the architectural patronage that aimed at

119
While it is certain that at the eve of the Ottoman conquest the city had several churches it is not
possible to establish with certainty their total number and how many of them were operational in the mid-
fourteenth century. The present day Orthodox churches located within the citadel are reconstructed in the
nineteenth century thus their medieval foundations are in most cases covered. Nevertheless, an Ottoman
register from 1472 lists 7 priests among the Christian taxpayers of Filibe, which makes it plausible to
suggest that at that time there were at least 7 Orthodox churches in the city, to which number should
45

reviving the city was taken out of the confines of the citadel. It plausible that soon after
the Ottomans took control over the city, it was its actual conqueror and governor, Lala
Şahin, who commissioned the first Muslim public buildings there. Placed outside the
fortified hills the new buildings ought not only to respond to the immediate needs of the
small Muslim community, but also to leave an imprint on the urban landscape,
displaying the permanent intensions of the conquerors.120
Based on the available sources however, it is hard to provide firm evidence that
unambiguously proves the existence of a complex commissioned specifically by Lala
Şahin. The uncertainty is due not only to the lack of any documentary evidence from this
early period pointing him as a patron, but also to the disappearance of the majority of the
Ottoman buildings in modern Plovdiv, which deprives researchers of the possibility for
closer observation.
Nonetheless, there are some hints which, although not specifying the patronage
of Lala Şahin, clearly attest the existence of Muslim public buildings outside the citadel
of Filibe as early as the 1410s and thus allow such a hypothesis. The narrative of
Constantine the Philosopher, also known as Kostenečki, describing the disruptive war
for control over Filibe during the so-called Interregnum period in the early 1400s,

possibly be added the metropolitan church, served by the metropolitan himself, who certainly was
exempted from taxation and therefore not recorded among the Christians in 1472. On the other hand, when
Stephan Gerlach visited Filibe in 1578 he explicitly noted eight functioning churches in Filibe. It is
realistic, therefore, to suggest that all or most of the medieval churches in the city witnessed by Gerlach,
were operational at the time of the Ottoman conquest. On the history of the churches in the city see Nikola
Alvadžiev. Starinni cherkvi v Plovdiv (Plovdiv: Letera, 2000).
120
The idea that the Ottoman public architecture was also meant as a statement of permanency is among
the main themes in Heath Lowry. The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350-1550: the Conquest,
Settlement & Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece (Istanbul : Bahçeşehir University
Publications, 2008).
46

mentions a public bath (hamam) in the city, used by emir Süleyman for one of his
numerous feasts.121 There are at least two important points that can be derived from the
account of Constantine: firstly, it clearly implies the extramural location of the hamam
used by Süleyman; secondly, it is very likely that the bath in question did not stand alone,
but was part of a larger complex. Looking for an analogy in the other Ottoman cities
reshaped after the conquest, it seems plausible to suggest that the bath mentioned by
Constantine was in fact 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 over it. The fact that the bath and the rest of the buildings were located outside
the walled town, as was the case in most other urban centers modified by the Ottomans,
greatly supports this argument. It is therefore logical to assume that the conqueror and
first governor of Filibe, Lala Şahin, a man with undeniable authority and considerable
resources at his disposal, was the one who commissioned the earliest Ottoman public
buildings providing for the basic needs of the Muslims in the city. Moreover, Lala Şahin
proved to have been a generous patron of architecture even prior to his arrival to Filibe.
In the first Ottoman capital Bursa he built a medrese, located in the Tophane area, very
close to Şehadet mosque originally built by Orhan I122 and a mosque, a zaviye and a
mausoleum for himself in the modern town of Mustafakemalpaşa (ancient

121
Konstantin dem Philosophen. Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarević. Translated and
edited by Maximilian Braun (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1956), 39-40; For these particular events and
the struggle for control over Filibe between Süleyman and Musa see Dimitris Kastritsis. The Sons of
Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402-13 (Leiden: Brill, 2007),
152-153; Nedim Filipović. Princ Musa i šejh Bedreddin (Sarajevo, "Svjetlost," 1971), 102-131.
122
Albert Gabriel. Une capitale turque: Brousse, Bursa (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958), 155-156.
47

Kirmasti/Kremastre). 123 Were the buildings in Filibe indeed commissioned by Lala
Şahin, this must have happened in the period between the mid-1360s, when the city was
conquered, and mid-1380s, which witnessed the presumable death of Lala Şahin.124
The fate of these early Ottoman buildings is unclear, but there is a distinct chance
that they did not survive the first decade of the fifteenth century, falling victims to the
struggle between the two pretenders for the Ottoman throne, in the course of which
Filibe changed hands several times and which was accompanied by severe devastation
on both sides. The walls of the citadel that were heavily damaged in course of the war, in
1433 were still lying down in ruins and were never repaired afterward.125 The buildings
of Lala Şahin must have been located west from the citadel, occupying the flat terrain
immediately beneath the fortifications, which was also the most likely place for assault
on the stronghold. This fact greatly increases the possibility that they have been
destroyed or heavily damaged during the Interregnum by the armies of either Musa or of
his brother Süleyman.
Studying the available nineteenth-century photographs and the earliest modern
city plans of Filibe, one can notice that at the location where Lala Şahin’s buildings are

123
Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’mârîsinin İlk Devri (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1966), 190-
197.
124
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 Rumili. İnalcık. “Murad I”, 159; Uzunçarşılı,
Osmanlı Tarihi, 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 intestines, 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 hereditary basis by his son Mehmed Paşa and grandson Hamza Bey who are
belied to have also commissioned a mosque in the town of Mustafakemalpaşa.
125
The ruined walls of the stronghold were visited by Bertrandon de la Broquière. Voyage d'Outremer, Ch.
Schefer (ed.) (Paris: Ernst Leroux, 1842), 200.
48

likely to have stood indeed there was a mosque and a bit westward - a public bath too.126
The mosque was known locally as the Tahtakale camii127 and from what is observable
on the available photographs it clearly dated from the fifteenth century.128 (Figs. 8-9)
The mosque was a typical mahalle mescidi from that period, being a square stone
building with a lead-covered dome placed above octagonal drum (no. 6 on Plan 1).129
The public bath of the same name (Tahtakale hamamı), that will be examined in detail
below, was also a typical construction from the mid-fifteenth century, located about fifty
meters westward. (no. 26 on Plan 1)
In fact, the observations made on the basis of the visual materials corroborate
with the evidence from later Ottoman documentary sources which reveal that both of the
buildings were indeed commissioned by the mid-fifteenth-century beylerbeyi of Rumili
Hacı Şihabeddin Paşa. 130 Moreover, comparing the external appearance of Tahtakale
mosque in Filibe and the so-called Kirazlı camii in Edirne, built by him in 1436-1437,
proves a striking resemblance.131 (Figs. 10-11) The plot of land in the area where the

126
There are two large panoramic photographs of Filibe taken by the local photographers Dimitris Cavra
and Ivan Karastoyanov that date respectively to 1879 and 1892 and a number of single photographs by the
same authors. Detailed list of the earliest city plans of Filibe in Dobrina Želeva-Martins and Yuliy Fărgov.
Istoriya na bălgarskoto gradoustroystvo XIX-XX v. (Sofia: Valentin Trayanov, 2009), 57-85. To this list
must be added a very detailed plan of the city drawn up by the Viennese geologist Ferdinand von
Hochstetter. "Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869." Mitteilungen der K. und K. Geographischen
Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65-180.
127
“Tahtakale” is a colloquial version of the Arabic “tahtü’l-ka’lâ”, i.e. below the castle.
128
This mosque stood until the early twentieth century, occupying the northern edge of the then grain
market (today’s corner of boulevard Tzar Boris III and Benkovski Street). Vasil Peev. Grad Plovdiv –
minalo i nastoyashte. Plovdiv v minaloto (Plovdiv: Plovdivsko arheologichesko družestvo, 1941), 219.
129
Aptullah Kuran. The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press,1968), 29-47.
130
For details on these documents and Şihabeddin’s extensive architectural patronage in Filibe see the
related section below.
131
The dedicatory inscription of Şihabeddin’s mosque in Edirne is published by Fokke Dijkema. The
Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 24-25 and
Abdülhamit Tüfekçioğlu. Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarîsinde Yazı (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001),
49

buildings in Filibe were erected was certainly in possession of Şihabeddin, because he
later endowed it to his pious foundation. Therefore, one can speculate that the area
where the earliest Muslim community in Filibe settled was held by the acting beylerbeyi
of Rumili, a tradition that began with Lala Şahin. Should this were indeed the case it is
arguable that Şihabeddin Paşa repaired or more likely rebuilt the earliest Ottoman
buildings in the city erected by his predecessor. They were most probably commissioned
by Lala Şahin in the second half of the fourteenth century, but were badly damaged
during the military actions in the early fifteenth century. About two decades later in a
process of general renewal of Filibe Şihabeddin reshaped Lala Şahin’s imaret/zaviye into
a small communal mosque, which explains the fifteenth-century appearance of this
monument on the extant photographs. 132 The bath that according to Constantine’s
account emir Süleyman used was most likely the Tahtakale hamamı which, judging
from its size and architectural features, must have also been completely rebuilt by
Şihabeddin. The restoration of the earliest Ottoman buildings in Filibe on the other hand
is a clear indication of the general revival that the depressed city was undergoing thanks
to the extensive efforts on the part of sultan Murad II (1421-44 and 1446-51) and the
then acting beylerbeyi of Rumili Şihabeddin Paşa.

232-234. On the building see Kuran, The Mosque, 41-42; Sedat Bayrakal. Edirne'deki Tek Kubbeli
Camiler (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001), 31-36.
132
The non-extant building of Lala Şahin should not have been much larger in size than the Tahtakale
mosque that most probably 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 Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey İmâret-
Camii.”Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 2 (1975): 49-61; idem. “Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey Camii” in
TDVİA; Machiel Kiel. “İhtiman” in TDVİA; Mariya Kiprovska. “Ruins of Past Glory: the Earliest Standing
Ottoman Building in Bulgaria” on-line publication for the Ottoman Architectural Heritage in Bulgaria:
http://www.oahb.org/category/ihtiman/.
50

2.3. Rebuilding the metropolis of Upper Thrace: the construction of Muradiye mosque
It appears that whatever the achievements of Lala Şahin in reviving the city of
Filibe were, they seem to have been erased during the destructive Interregnum period.
Two decades later, in 1433, when the Burgundian knight Bertrandon de la Broquière
visited the city, the signs of the war were still clearly observable. The walls of the citadel
were in ruins and the general impression that the account of the Burgundian leaves is
that the city still did not recover from the destructions in the preceding decades. 133
Undoubtedly in 1430s Filibe already had a sizable Muslim community, which by that
time could have been equal in number to the Christians in the city, but its presence was
not visible enough since de la Broquière noted that the majority of the residents were
orthodox Bulgarians. 134 He did not spot any noteworthy Ottoman building, which
suggests that no such building existed by 1433, otherwise a careful observer like the
Burgundian knight would have noted it.135
It appears that de la Broquière crossed the city just prior the beginning of Murad
II’s ambitious project for its revival. Probably the most valuable side of the account of
the Burgundian is the fact that he did not mention the large Muradiye mosque (known
locally as Džumaya džamiya) in Filibe. Therefore one can fairly safely assume that in

133
Broquière, Voyage d'Outremer, 200.
134
“…et est peuplée ceste diete ville en grande partie de Vulgaires qui tiennent la loy greguesque”.
135
De la Broquière was not solely a pilgrim, but was also charged with the detailed observation of
Ottoman provinces with regard to a possible military action. In modern times he would certainly be
labeled a spy.
51

1433 the mosque was not yet standing. The Muradiye is a massive, imposing structure
which still dominates the urban landscape of modern Plovdiv, had it been present in
1433 it would undoubtedly have attracted de la Broquière’s attention from a distance.
(no. 1 on Plan 1) 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. Thus, the
chance that Muradiye could have remained unspotted by the Burgundian is virtually
non-existent.
The construction date of the large congregational mosque Muradiye, the heart of
the Ottoman Filibe, is a subject of scholarly debates. 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 major
restoration done by sultan Abdülhamid I (1774-1789), which bears no information about
the original date of construction of the mosque. 136 Moreover, contributing for the
confusion of modern researchers, the Ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi, who visited Filibe
in the mid-seventeenth century, stated quite confidently that the mosque was built by
“the conqueror of Edirne, gazi Hüdavendigâr sultan Murad Han [I]”.137 This short and
undoubtedly incorrect remark has inclined a number of authors to regard the Muradiye
mosque in Filibe as founded by Murad I.138

136
The inscription commemorating the restoration completed on 5th July 1784 (27 Ş’aban 1199 A.H.) was
studied and published by İbrahim Tatarlı. “Turski kultovi sgradi i nadpisi v Bălgaria.” Annuaire de
l’Université de Sofia, Faculté de Lettres 60 (1966): 605-608.
137
Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (eds.), Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi. Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305
Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap) (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 217.
138
Oktay Aslanapa. Turkish Art and Architecture (Ankara: Ataturk Culture Centre Publications, 2004),
195; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi’mârîsinin İlk Devri, 295-303; idem. Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimari Eserleri. IV.
Cild – Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk (İstanbul: İstabul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982), 38-41. The recent
52

Despite the claim of the renowned seventeenth-century Ottoman traveler the
main mosque of Filibe, whose closest architectural predecessor is Ulu Camii in Bergama
(built by Bayezid I in 1398-1399), clearly appears to have been built in the fifteenth
century.139 (Figs. 12-13) Muradiye mosque in Filibe, a typical example of the so-called
ulu cami’ (great mosque) type, is a massive rectangle (40x30 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 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 which can be seen on 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. (Figs. 14-16)
If this massive imposing structure, seen from quite afar at that time, indeed did
not exist in 1433, then its construction must have began shortly after de la Broquière’s
visit, because evidence from the Ottoman documentary sources shows that by 1436
Muradiye in Filibe already existed. Contrary to the common Ottoman practice, the
largest communal mosque in Ottoman Filibe did not have its own pious foundation
providing for its maintenance and the salaries of the staff. Instead, the mosque in Filibe

restoration of Muradiye that took place in the period 2006-2008 was marked by a conference devoted to
the architectural features and history of the building. With only one notable exception all papers in the
published proceedings of the conference regard Muradiye as a fourteenth-century building commissioned
by Murad I. Celaleddin Küçük and N. Mine Yar (eds.), Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Camii Konferansı
Bildirileri/Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Mosque Conference Papers (İstanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi,
n.d). 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
Küçük and Yar, Cuma Camii Konferansı, 25-29.
139
On the mosque in Bergama see Bozkurt Ersoy. “Bergama Ulu Camii.” Arkeoloji Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 4
(1988): 57-66; Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi’mârîsinin İlk Devri, 373-378.
53

was supported by the large vakıf established by Sultan Murad II on behalf of the T-
shaped imaret/zaviye (also known as Muradiye mosque) which he built on 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 on the salaries of
the staff and resources spent for the maintenance of the mosque in Filibe.140
According to the date encrypted in its original dedicatory inscription still in situ
above its entrance, Muradiye in Edirne, which served as a mevlevihane141, was built in
A.H. 839 (1435-1436).142 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 mosque in
Filibe was included in the foundation established by Murad II for the support of his
complex in Edirne, undoubtedly bespeaks that it must have been built around the same
time and in any case prior to 1436. The short remark by Hibri Efendi, an early

140
Machiel Kiel. “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353-1453.” in Kate Fleet
(ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey. Volume I: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071-1453 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 176 first pointed to the muhasebe defteri providing these important
details. In spite of being published half-a-century ago the document remained overlooked by the art and
architectural historians. Ömer Barkan. “Edirne ve Civarındaki Bazı İmâret Tesislerinin Yıllık Muhasebe
Bilânçoları” Belgeler 1:1-2 (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 Filibe. The part of
the archival collection of the Topkapı Palace which was recently made available in the Başbakanlık Arşivi
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 1600-01) or BOA, TSMA 1681 (dating from 1670-71) etc.
141
Suheyl Ünver. “Edirne Mevlevihanesi Tarihine Giriş.” in Emin Nedret İşli and M. Sabri Koz (eds.),
Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1998), 623-627; Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi.
Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855 (1403-1451) (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih
Cemiyeti, 19892), 405-415.
142
The date A.H. 839 is recorded as a chronogram in the bottom left line of the inscription. See Dijkema,
Ottoman Inscriptions in Edirne, 23-24; Tüfekçioğlu, Erken Dönem Yazı, 224-225.
54

seventeenth-century historian of Edirne, which explicitly attributes the old mosque in
Filibe to the buildings commissioned by Murad II, adds strength to this argument.143
As there is no doubt that Murad II commissioned the mosque in Filibe the
sources at hand also allow clarifying its precise date of construction. Apparently Murad
II is unlikely to have built the mosque in Filibe prior to 1425 because he was
preoccupied in a costly and dangerous struggle to secure his throne.144 In the second half
of the 1420s Murad’s patronage was focused on his complex in Bursa (Muradiye
complex was built between 1424 and 1428) the construction of which required
enormous financial resources. 145 It was only in the 1430s that Murad began to
commission public buildings in Rumelia as for a very short period he built Darü’l-hadis
(1434-1435), Muradiye (1435-1436), Üç Şerefeli (1438-1447), plus medreses and public
baths in Edirne; Hünkâr (Muradiye) mosque (1436) in Üsküb (Skopje); and the complex
and the long bridge that gave birth to the town of Uzunköprü (1443-1444) 146 . The
Muradiye mosque in Filibe must be regarded as part of Murad’s general program of
constructing large imperial mosques in the capital Edirne and also in the provincial
centers such as Filibe and Üsküb. In this respect it is very likely that the mosque in
Filibe was commissioned when his patronage in Rumelia was at its peak. The time-
frame for the construction of the imperial mosque in Filibe can be closed between de la

143
Abdurrahman Hibrî. Enîsü’l-müsâmirîn – Edirne Tarihi, 1360-1650, Ratip Kazancıgil (ed.) (Edirne:
Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği, 1996), 67.
144
On the events of Murad II’s accession and the subsequent power struggle see Halil İnalcık. “Murad II”
in TDVİA; Colin Imber. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481 (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990), 91-97.
145
Gabriel, Une capitale turque, 105-118; Kuran, The Mosque, 121-123. Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sutan
Murad Devri, 298-326.
146
Kiel, “The Incorporation of the Balkans”, 179-183.
55

Broquière’s visit to the city and the completion of Muradiye in Edirne, i.e. between 1433
and 1436.
The construction of Muradiye mosque in Filibe in the mid-1430s indicates
Murrad II’s intentions to bring back to life the most important urban center of Upper
Thrace. The process of revitalization, which must have begun shortly after 1433, aimed
at redesigning the space of the city by setting a definitive and more visible Muslim core
thus becoming a token of the supremacy of the Ottoman dynasty and a statement of
permanence. Build on empty land below the ruined citadel and the Christian quarters the
Muradiye laid the foundations of entirely new urban center that had to attract the
commercial and the social activities of the reemerging city. The square that was
naturally formed around the mosque turned into a point of distribution for the main
street arteries, running from north to south and joining it from the west. (see Plan 1) The
careful selection of a focal point for the new Muslim center proved to be extremely
successful. Muradiye not only dominated the landscape of Filibe throughout the
Ottoman period, but its functionality as a focus of the economic, administrative and
social activities of the city was also inherited by modern Plovdiv.
At a first glance it seems that the Ottomans postponed the construction of an
imperial Friday mosque in post-conquest Filibe for quite a long time – it took about
seventy years prior it became a fact. Nonetheless, comparing the spatial development
and the Ottoman architectural patronage in Filibe to other cities from the pre-Ottoman
era that were redesigned after the conquest one can argue that this was about the usual
time-period before the construction of a large multi-domed mosque in a city. For
56

instance, in Bursa (conquered in 1326) it took exactly seventy years until Bayezid I
commissioned the large Ulu Cami’, which celebrated the Ottoman victory at the battle of
Nicopolis (1396).147 Likewise, the earliest large congregational mosque in the Ottoman
European capital Edirne was completed in 1413 - more than half-a-century after the
148
conquest of the city in 1361. In the nearby important city of Dimetoka
(Didymoteichon), also captured in 1361, the large communal mosque that dominated the
urban landscape was finished only sixty years later.149 The first large imperial mosque in
Skopje, a city that at that time was fully comparable in scale and magnitude to Filibe,
was commissioned by Murad II in 1436, i.e. close to half-a-century after the conquest.150
Keeping in mind the Interregnum period that for a decade brought to Filibe severe
destruction instead of architectural patronage one can fairly safely assert that the time of
construction of Muradiye in the city fully corresponds to the development of the
analogical urban centers in the Balkans under Ottoman rule.

147
Bursa’s Ulu Cami’ was not the first establishment initiated by Bayezid I in Bursa. In 1390-1395 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 emir Süleyman in 1406. Kuran, The Mosque, 110-
113.
148
Eski Cami in Edirne was began by emir Süleyman in 1402 and completed in 1413 by his brother
Mehmed I, who added a bedesten, replica of the one in Bursa (see Kuran, The Mosque, 154-158. Further
details on the spatial development of the first Ottoman capitals in Aptullah Kuran. “A Spatial Study of
Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul.” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 114-131.
149
The construction of the large mosque in Dimetoka was began by Bayzed I, but it was only completed
by Mehmed I in 1420. Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sutan Murad Devri, 136-149; Lowry, The Shaping of the
Ottoman Balkans, 20-22.
150
Mustafa Özer. Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi (XIV.-XIX. yüzyıl) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006), 44-50;
Lidiya Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç. Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri (İstanbul: ENKA, 2008), 44-51.
57

2.4. Şihabeddin Paşa’s term as beylerbeyi of Rumili and his architectural patronage in
Filibe
The construction of Muradiye mosque concurred with the appointment to the
post of Rumelian beylerbeyi of Şihabeddin Paşa, whose extensive patronage of
architecture in Filibe not only made him the greatest benefactor of the city in Ottoman
times, but also significantly contributed for the thorough reshaping of the urban space.
The eunuch el-hac Şihabeddin, son of Abdullah, often referred to by the narrative
sources as Kula (or Kavala) Şahin,151 after a term as sancakbeyi of Arvanid in the early
1430s, replaced Sinan Paşa on the post of governor and commander of all Ottoman
forces in Europe in A.H. 840 (1436-1437). 152 He made a name as one of the most
prominent commanders in the early fifteenth-century Balkans and was a highly
influential figure during the second half of Murad II’s reign. In 1441 Şihabeddin
conquered the important Serbian silver-mining center of Novo Brdo, but on the next
year he suffered a devastating defeat in Transylvania, which caused his dismissal. In
1443 facing the threat of the crusading army lead by the young king Vladislav III (1434-
1444) and Janos Hunyadi, Murad II reinstalled Şihabeddin as beylerbeyi of Rumili and
as a second vizier in the divan, a position that his kept under Mehmed II too.153 The

151
Şihabeddin was most likely a soubriquet (lakab) of Şahin while his patronymic Adbullah indicates his
non-Muslim origin.
152
Halil İnalcık. Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar (Ankara: TTK, 1954), 84-85, passim.; M.
Tayib Gökbilgin. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası (İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), 256.
153
İnalcık. Fatih Devri, 84-85.
58

latest documentary evidence of Şihabeddin’s activity in Rumelia dates from 1455.154
Soon after that date he most probably retired and died in Filibe.
Being a prolific patron of architecture, Şihabeddin must have spent his early days
in Edirne, where he built the so-called Kirazlı camii, mentioned above and two other
mescids that are no longer extant.155 Moreover, he commissioned in Edirne a public bath,
a large mansion (saray), and a bridge over the river Tunca, known locally as the
Sarraçhane köprüsü.156 He also built a hamam in the village of Tovice Mahmud that was
bestowed together with several other villages in the region of Edirne and multiple shops
in the city itself to the pious foundation created in support of his buildings in Edirne.157
Şihabeddin also appears to have been actively connected with the Athonite monasteries
acting as protector of the monks and the rich Christian aristocrats who took shelter there,
as it is reflected in several document issued under his name.158

154
Elizabeth Zachariadou. “Another Document of Shehab al-Din Pasha concerning Mount Athos (1455).”
in Barbara Kellner-Heinkele and Peter Zieme (eds.), Studia Ottomanica: Festgabe für György Hazai zum
65. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), 217-222.
155
The nineteenth-century Edirne scholar Badi Efendi, notes that Şihabeddin’s mosque was built in a
quarter named after him that was located near the arasta of Selimiye. Serap Küçük. Ahmed Bâdî Efendi
ve Edirne Yapıları (unpublished M.A. thesis, Trakya University, Edirne, 1995), 92. The now vanished
mescids were named Kavaklı and Şihabeddin Paşa respectively.
156
The dedicatory inscription of the bridge, completed in A.H. 855 (1451-1452), 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, Ottoman Inscriptions in Edirne, 32-34; Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sutan Murad Devri, 478.
Details about the bridge in Çulpan, Taş Köprüleri, 107-110. His saray, burned down in a janissary revolt
and the hamam are no longer extant.
157
Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 257-258. The document used by Gökbilgin is the detailed tahrir
defteri BOA, TD 20, dating 1485-1486, ff. 59-62.
158
Elizabeth Zachariadou. “The Worrisome Wealth of the Čelnik Radić.” in Colin Heywood and Colin
Imber (eds.), Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L. Ménage (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1994),
383-397; Vančo Boškov. "Aus Athos Turcica: Eine Urkunde Šehab ed-Din Šahin Paşa's, des Wesirs und
Statthalters von Rumelien; aus dem Jahre 1453.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 76
(1986): 65-72; Elias Kolovos."A Biti of 1439 from the Archives of the Monastery of Xeropotamou
(Mount Athos)."Hilandarski Zbornik 11 (2004): 295-306.
59

In regard of Şihabeddin’s successful military and administrative career during
which he acted as supporter of art and architecture in the Ottoman Balkan provinces it is
hardly surprising that he also appears to have been an active patron of architecture in
Filibe, the city in which he must have often resided in the course of his terms as
beylerbeyi of Rumili. The public buildings in Filibe commissioned by Şihabeddin in the
mid-fifteenth century were clearly in accordance with the general program for spatial
modification and revival of the city that began with the construction of Murad II’s large
Friday mosque in the mid-1430s.
The Muradiye in Filibe indeed defined the new center of the emerging Muslim
city in the opened flat plain below the citadel, but in order that it truly turned into a new
commercial core in accordance with the established Ottoman tradition, it needed to be
supplemented by several other public buildings. First and foremost, the large communal
mosque that had to serve the growing congregation of the busy commercial quarter as
well as the city’s visitors necessitated an adequate public bath. The building which
served as the main public bath of the çarşı district throughout Ottoman period, known as
Tahtakale hamamı, was located about fifty meters northeast of Muradiye mosque. (no.
26 on Plan 1) It was pointed above, that this bath in all probability was built atop of an
older one, commissioned by the first governor of Filibe, Lala Şahin Paşa, which was
razed to the ground during the Interregnum period. The Tahtakale bath was functioning
throughout the Ottoman period and was destroyed by local municipality in the beginning
of the twentieth century, thus its architecture and floor plan was never scholarly
examined in detail. Nevertheless, the extant nineteenth-century photographs and
60

Ottoman documentary evidence strongly suggest a construction date in the mid-fifteenth
century.159 (Figs. 17-18) Evliya Çelebi noted that it was a “famous bath that was always
crowded”160 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 per one day and night.161
Evidence from the accounting registers of the pious foundation of Şihabeddin
Paşa (evkaf muhasebes), demonstrate convincingly that it was him who commissioned
and built this bath.162 The documents reveal that the vakıf was clearly in possession of
the Tahtakale hamamı the rent of which in the first half of the seventeenth century
yielded average annual revenue of about six to seven thousand akçes.163 Moreover, a
number of shops surrounding the bath were accruing rent to the foundation, which on the
other hand regularly expended large sums for its maintenance and repair works.164
While being unanimous on the fact that the patron of the bath was Şihabeddin
Paşa the documentary sources contain no clue for the exact date of construction of this
building. Nonetheless, its proximity to Muradiye and the fact that this was the main

159
The bath was heavily damaged by a night fire that devastated the old commercial quarter in 14 June
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 the bath was no longer in use.
160
“ve Tahtalkal’a hammâmı, her bâr izdihâm hamam-ı benâmdır”, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3,
217.
161
Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 222. The author was born in Plovdiv in 1887 and there is a good chance that he
used the services of the bath. His father Kostaki Peev was the first elected post-Ottoman mayor of the city.
162
There are numerous accounting registers (muhasebe defters) of this pious foundation – BOA, MAD
6513 contains two registers bound together dating A.H. 1042-1044 (1633-1634); BOA MAD 749 includes
five registers dating A.H. 1042-1048 (1633-1638) that were bound and mixed up together with other
vakıfs; Sofia, PD 17/12, dating from A.H. 1049-1050 (1639-1640); BOA, MAD 15134, dating from A.H.
1050-1051 (1640-1641); BOA, TSMA 5301, dating from A.H. 3.4.1163 (12 March 1750).
163
MAD 15134, f. 3a; PD 17/12, f. 2a.
164
For instance in 1632 the administrator of the foundation spent 12 000 akçes the repair of the bath.
MAD 749, f. 222.
61

public bath of the commercial area of Filibe strongly suggest that Tahtakale hamamı was
built soon after the completion of the large Friday mosque. It is unlikely that Şihabeddin
commissioned the bath prior his appointment to the post of Rumelian beylerbeyi in
1436-1437. On the contrary, it must have been after this date that he came to the city as
part of his duties of governor and commander-in-chief of the Ottoman Balkan provinces.
By the time of his arrival in Filibe Muradiye mosque was already completed and the
necessity of an adequate public bath was most likely apparent.
At first it might seem strange that Murad II commissioned such a large sultanic
mosque without the benefit of a public bath, what was otherwise the established practice,
but it is noteworthy that his Hünkâr mosque in Üsküb (1436) that is fully comparable in
scale to the mosque in Filibe was also built without a nearby hamam for its congregation.
Moreover, the magnificent double bath near Murad II’s most monumental building, the
innovative Üç Şerefeli Camii in Edirne, was added to the complex more than one
century later. 165 It might have been because of the extensive and highly costly
architectural patronage of Murad II in the 1430s-1440s that made him give up the
construction of baths near some of his mosques. In any case the Tahtakale bath was the
much needed addition which Şihabeddin provided soon after the imperial mosque in
Filibe was completed.
In regard of the fact that Şihabeddin possessed a large portion of the land in the
commercial district of the town that was known as Tahtakale and that he built the bath
located in this quarter, it is also very probable that the Tahtakale mosque, mentioned

165
The çifte hamamı of Sokollu Mehmed Paşa, built by Mimar Sinan near Murad II’s mosque in Edirne,
was only completed in 1563. Salih Erken. “Edirne Hamamları.” Vakıflar Dergisi 10 (1973): 415-417.
62

above, was also commissioned and built by him on the foundations of earlier structure,
erected by Lala Şahin. The available photographs depict Tahtakale cami’ as a small
communal mosque that bears distinguishable fifteenth-century features. (Figs. 8-9 & no.
6 on Plan 1).
It appears that Şihabeddin’s architectural patronage in Filibe of the 1430s aimed
at reviving the area where the first Muslims in the city settled thus restoring the
architectural legacy of his predecessor Lala Şahin Paşa. Nevertheless, the completion of
the core of Filibe that imitated at a smaller scale the development of the first Ottoman
capitals Bursa and Edirne needed two more types of commercial buildings – a large inn
or kervansaray for the travelers and merchants and a covered market (bedesten) that had
to accommodate the valuable goods. The local historiographic tradition attributes the
construction of these two building also to Şihabeddin Paşa, but there is no documentary
or other reliable evidence that supports this claim. The accounting registers of
Şihabeddin’s pious foundation contain no information about these buildings therefore in
all probability they must have been commissioned by another prominent figure that
currently cannot be identified.166 Nevertheless, the architectural features of the bedesten
and possibly of the kervansaray too indicate construction in the fifteenth century, very
likely soon after Murad II completed his mosque.167

166
The magnificent kervansaray and the bedesten suffered from the strong earthquake of 1928. In the
early 1930s the local municipality reached a decision for their destruction. In spite of this unfortunate
decision the buildings were documented and exact building plans are now available. When studied
together with the numerous photographs they provide fairly good idea about these monuments. (Figs 19-
27)
167
A register of 1489 (BOA, TD 26, f. 64) provides the name of a Filibe resident who was occupied in the
kervansaray that strongly suggests that the massive building was completed earlier. Grigor Boykov and
Mariya Kiprovska. “The Ottoman Philippopolis (Filibe) during the Seconf Half of the 15th c.” Bulgarian
63

The large lead-covered kervansaray (known locally as Kurşun han) was a
massive two-storied building that roughly had a square plan. The structure enclosed a
wide courtyard in the middle of which there was a big fountain for the travelers and their
pack animals. (no. 32 on Plan 1) The rooms, equipped with fireplaces that
accommodated the visitors were distributed on the upper floor, while the cells on the
ground floor were reserved for the goods and the animals of the travelers.168 The only
nail-studded gate made of thick oak planks opened at the northwestern corner of the
building thus allowing direct access to the long market street (Uzun çarşı), which
constituted the main axis of the city stretching up northward of Muradiye to the bank of
the Maritsa River.169
The bedesten was built northeast of Muradiye mosque only a few meters south of
the Tahtakale hamamı. (no. 33 on Plan 1) It was a massive rectangular building with six
domes that occupied an area of five hundred square meters. Two massive pillars divided
the internal space of the bedesten into six equal in size spaces, where according to
Evliya Çelebi all valuable goods were kept.170 The building had four gates, one on each
side, as the main entrance facing the Uzun çarşı was accessed through three smaller

Historical Review 3-4 (2000): 128. In private discussions Prof. Machiel Kiel insisted that the architectural
features of the great kervansaray in Filibe point to a much later date of construction, possibly in the
seventeenth century. Despite the lack of any documentary evidence the kervansaray seems a logical
addition to the development of the commercial core of Filibe in the fifteenth century. Nevertheless, in light
of new evidence this thesis may be revised.
168
Margarita Harbova. Gradoustroystvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV-XVIII vek (Sofia:
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1991), 155-157.
169
The original heavy gate of the kervansaray is housed at the local Ethnographic museum.
170
“… ve bir kârgîr binâ-yı kavî kapuları silsileli ma’mûr dur. Cemî’i diyârın zî-kıymet tuhefleri anda bî-
kıymet bulunur”, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 217.
64

streets that joined at this point.171 The closest architectural parallel of the building is the
massive six-domed bedesten built in 1450s by Mehmed II in Thessaloniki, which
reaffirms the hypothesis that the covered market in Filibe must have been commissioned
in the mid-fifteenth century.172
The architectural patronage of Şihabeddin in the late 1430s aimed at reviving the
oldest Muslim parts of the city and developing its newly settled commercial core. While
the Muradiye and the surrounding buildings shaped the new center of Filibe,
Şihabeddin’s much larger contribution to the urban landscape was placed about half a
kilometer north of the Muradiye on the banks of the river Maritsa and marked the edge
of the Muslim town. The complex built by Şihabeddin Paşa consisted of a T-shaped
imaret/zaviye, today known locally as “imaret džamiya”, a public bath, a medrese, an
inn and a mausoleum of the patron. They were built near the river, occupying both sides
of the road, which crossing the bridge of Lala Şahin ran southward towards Muradiye
and the central part of the town. Undoubtedly, the choice of location was not fortuitous,
but was rather meant to mark the end of the Ottoman town on the one hand and to serve
as a foretaste of it for those coming in on the other. A traveler on the Via Militaris road

171
Hristo Peev. “Golemiyat bezisten v Plovdiv.” Godishnik na narodniya arheologicheski muzey Plovdiv
1 (1948): 204-207. 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 Azize Aktaş Yasa and Zeynep Zafer
(eds.), Balkanlar’da Kültürel Etkileşim ve Türk Mimarisi Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri (17-19
Mayıs 2000, Şumnu - Bulgaristan) (Ankara: Atatürk Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı,
2001), 725-762. Harbova. Gradoustroystvo i arhitektura, 183-186.
172
On the bedesten in Thessaloniki see Pelagia Astrinidou. “Bedesten, Thessaloniki, Greece.” in Slobodan
Ćurčić and Evangelia Hadjitryphonos (eds.), Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans 1300-1500 and
its Preservation (Thessaloniki : Aimos, 1997), 286-289; Lilia Sambanopoulu. “Bedesten” in Esri
Brouskari (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in Greece (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture – Directorate of
Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, 2008), 246-247.
65

coming from the west would have inevitably been confronted by the main T-shaped
building, which faced the bridge, thus displaying the Ottoman presence at a distance.
In contrast to all buildings mentioned above, the date of completion of
Şihabeddin’s T-shaped imaret/zaviye in Filibe and the rest of the buildings in the
complex can be established with a great degree of certainty thanks to the dedicatory
inscription (kitabe) that was once placed above its entrance. In the course of the
restoration of the building during the 1970s the inscription was removed and
disappeared ever since.173 Recently the original inscription was rediscovered broken into
pieces and it is currently placed on display near the entrance of the building.174 (Fig. 28)
Nevertheless, the kitabe was satisfactorily studied and its translation was published in
several scholarly works.175
The text of the plate indicates that the T-shaped building, referred to in the
inscription as an elevated imaret (el-‘imareti’l-‘aliye), was built by the acting beylerbeyi

173
In 1977 Machiel Kiel found the inscription lying on a pile of old tombstones inside the building. I am
very indebted to Prof. Kiel who kindly offered me his unpublished notes and studies on the Ottoman
monuments in Filibe (hereafter Kiel. Filibe notes and studies). These travel notes constitute on their own a
historical source of great value since in the 1970s Prof. Kiel had the chance to document buildings that
were demolished afterwards thus in many cases he was the only scholar who examined some of the no
longer extant Ottoman monuments in the Balkans.
174
The kitabe was discovered by Elena Chardakliyska who spotted it under the pile of Ottoman
tombstones behind the building. It is likely that the missing pieces of the plate are still buried under the
heavy tombstones. Some of these tombstones were studied by Kiel in the 1970s, but the originals
disappeared afterwards. Behind Şihabeddin’s building presently there are no less than fifty Ottoman
tombstones, piled on top of each other, that still await scholarly attention. My own observations show that
in the past ten years about one quarter of the Ottoman tombstones piled behind the building disappeared.
Removing the more elaborate examples of the tombstones the thieves allowed the rediscovering of the
original dedicatory plate.
175
Bogdan Filov. “Zapazvaneto na imaret-džamiya v Plovdiv.” Izvestiya na bălgarskoto arheologichesko
družestvo 2 (1911): 258; Gliša Elezović. Turski spomenici, vol. 1, part 1 (Belgrade: Zora, 1940), 1112-
1138; Tatarlı, “Turski kultovi sgradi”, 593-600; Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sutan Murad Devri, 483.
66

of Rumili el-hac Şihabeddin Paşa during the reign of sultan Murad II.176 The date in
which the building was completed is encrypted in a chronogram at the bottom line that
gives the year A.H. 848 (29 April 1444 – 17 April 1445). 177 The claims made by
Elezović and Tatarlı that this building was commissioned by Şihabeddin in order to
commemorate the Ottoman victory at the battle of Varna (10 November 1444) in which
he played a decisive role do not seem to hold ground. The information of the kitabe
provides the Hijri year 848 that indeed makes this assumption possible, but it also
clearly indicates Murad II as the reigning Ottoman sultan. Murad, however, abdicated in
favor of his son Mehmed II in late June or early August 1444 therefore Şihabeddin’s
complex was certainly finished prior the battle of Varna. 178 The construction of the
buildings of Şihabeddin near the bridge of Lala Şahin in Filibe must have began about a
year earlier, probably when he was reappointed as beylerbeyi of Rumili and completed
in the period April – July 1444.
The T-shaped imaret/zaviye of Şihabeddin is among the largest and the most
monumental buildings of this type in the Ottoman Balkans. (no. 9 on Plan 1) A five-bay
porch supported by square pillars precedes the main entrance of the building that was
done completely in cloisonné masonry. The main hall of the imaret/zaviye, roughly a
square of 8.65 – 9.90 m, is covered by the resting on Turkish triangles large dome that
has an oculus, crowned with a lantern. (Fig. 29) The domed oratory lying on the main
axis of the building is elevated eight steps from the ground as six niches for shoes

176
The title emirü’l-ümera (the emir of the emirs) clearly indicates the fact that he was the acting
beylerbeyi.
177
Elezović. Turski spomenici, 1113; Tatarlı, “Turski kultovi sgradi”, 596-597.
178
İnalcık. Fatih Devri, 55-65; İnalcık, “Murad II”, 168.
67

(pabuçluk) occupy both sides of the stairs. (Fig. 30) The niches clearly indicate that the
elevated eyvan used for prayers was the only carpeted part of the building, while the rest
of it was paved with hexagonal bricks. Originally the side-rooms (tabhanes) could not
be accessed directly from the central hall, but they were attained through narrow vaulted
vestibules on each side of the main gate. The two lateral rooms that accommodated
important travelers and dervishes were equipped with fire places and niches for personal
belongings that are still in situ. The eastern tabhane was also attainable from the outside
by a door opened at the lateral facade. In the sixteenth century, when the building was
converted to a communal mosque, the walls separating the side-rooms and the central
hall were removed thus opening wider space for the congregation. The minaret that is
accessed through the western vestibule is likely to have been an integral part of the
original architectural design.179 This building is one of the very few standing Ottoman
monuments in modern Plovdiv. A stone inscription placed above the gate
commemorates a repair done in 1814-1815 by sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839). It was
possibly in the course of this restoration that the original domed portico was covered
with a simpler roof.180 (Fig. 31)
Northeast of the T-shaped building there was a two-storied frame-built building
that 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 poor.181 (no.

179
Ayverdi, Çelebi ve II. Sutan Murad Devri, 480-485.
180
The text of this inscription is published by Osman Keskioğlu. “Bulgaristan’da Türk Vakıfları ve Bâlî
Efendi’nin Vakıf Paralar Hakkında Bir Mektubu.” Vakıflar Dergesi 9 (1971): 85-86.
181
The imarets in the Ottoman Empire had a clearly defined clientele that was 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, the students and their instructors, the ulema, wandering
68

35 on Plan 1) The upper floor had several rooms that accommodated visitors or those in
service of the complex.182 The kitchens had very large and tall chimney the proportions
of which greatly reminded of a tower. The imposing chimney of the aşevi stood until the
late nineteenth century as it can be seen on the extant photographs from this period. (Fig.
32)
North of the imaret’s kitchens Şihabeddin commissioned and built a large
medrese that had twelve student cells in two parallel rows. (no. 34 on Plan 1) The
building was accessed through an imposing gate on its western side while a large lead-
covered eyvan enclosed the structure from the east. This monumental Muslim college,
built completely in cloisonné masonry is likely to have been the largest medrese in
today’s Bulgaria. 183 According to the Ottoman educational hierarchy the college of
Şihabeddin was established as otuzlu medresesi, but turning into an important provincial
center of education during the Süleymanic period it was promoted to kırklı, i.e. the daily
salaries of the instructors (müderris) in the college were thirty and forty akçes

dervishes, the gazis, city’s poor Muslims and non-Muslims were offered food free of charge in the imarets
in Anatolia and the Balkans. Ömer Lütfi Balkan. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İmâret Sitelerinin Kuruluş
ve İşleyiş Tarzına âit Araştırmalar.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23 (1962-1963):
239-296; Amy Singer. Constructing Ottoman Beneficence: an Imperial Soup Kitchen in Jerusalem
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002); idem. “Serving Up Charity: The Ottoman Public
Kitchen.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 35:3 (2005): 481–500; In a recent contribution Lowry
discusses the functions and clients of the imarets, arguing that they differed according to the time period
and region in the Ottoman Empire. Heath Lowry. “The ‘Soup Muslims’ of the Balkans: Was There a
‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ Ottoman Empire.” in Donald Quataert and Baki Tezcan (eds.), Beyond Dominant
Paradigms in Ottoman and the Middle Eastern/North African Studies: A Tribute to Rifa’at Abou-El-Haj.
Special issue of Osmanlı Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies 36 (2010), 97-133.
182
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, 226.
183
The other medrese in Bulgaria that had twelve cells was that of Haraççı Kara Mehmed in Köstendil.
Orlin Săbev. Osmanskite uchilishta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII v. (Sofia: Lubomădrie-Hronika, 2001),
127.
69

respectively. 184 The data from a seventeenth-century accounting register of the pious
foundation of Şihabeddin shows that in 1636-1637 the college had nine students who
were entitled to a daily stipend of one akçe. The salary of the instructors in the
seventeenth century had risen to sixty akçes as did supposedly the prestige of the
medrese too.185
The college functioned until 1878 when it seems to have been abandoned. Its
magnificent building stood for another half-a-century in a pitiful state of decay. In the
1920s Otto Rudloff photographed it and included some of these photographs in his
article on the old architecture of Plovdiv.186 The building was most likely damaged by
the earthquake of 1928 and soon after it was completely demolished. (Figs. 33-34)
A large hamam was placed opposite the T-shaped imaret/zaviye on the western
side of the main road that cut through the complex, dividing it into two seemingly equal
parts. (no. 28 on Plan 1) The bath for a reason was locally known as Hünkâr hamamı
(Sultan’s bath), but it undoubtedly was part of Şihabeddin’s endowment of 1444. (Figs.
35-36) Accounting register of his foundation dating from 1640-1641, for instance, shows
that the bath by the bridge (hamam-i cisr), that is Hünkâr hamamı in question, was
property of the vakıf that rented it to a private individual, receiving an annual rent of ten

184
For details and a list of some of the important instructors at this college see Câhid Baltacı. XV-XVI.
Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri: Teşkilât, Tarih (İstanbul: İrfan Matbaası, 1976), 141-143; Săbev.
Osmanskite uchilishta, 222.
185
BOA, MAD 749, f. 124.
186
Gertrude Rudloff-Hille and Otto Rudloff. “Grad Plovdiv i negovite sgradi.” Izvestiya na bălgarskiya
arheologicheski institut 8 (1934): 379-425. Only a small part of the photographs taken by Rudloff were
later included in the published article. The German Archaeological in Istanbul (DAI) is in possession of
full set of the photographs taken by Rudloff. I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of the photo
library of the institute who greatly assisted me.
70

thousand akçes. 187 In the course of the same financial year the administrator of the
foundation approved a repair work of the bath that amounted to 2 861 akçes.188 The
hamam operated throughout the Ottoman period rendering services to the travelers who
stopped at the nearby inn, the residents of the quarter, the students and instructors at the
medrese, and those employed in the complex.
Toward the second half of the nineteenth century the vakıf apparently neglected
the bath as in 1878 it was in need of a serious restoration. Because of the lack of a
parliament building the authorities of Eastern Rumelia decided to repair and use the
hamam for the needs of the local assembly until a proper building is constructed. Thus
ironically enough on 22 October 1879 the sessions of the assembly of Eastern Rumelia
were opened in the renovated bath of Şihabeddin Paşa. The building served as local
parliament until 1885 when Eastern Rumelia and Kingdom of Bulgaria united so the
Rumelian assembly dissolved.189 After this date the bath was used as a depot for archival
documentation of the local law-court, but left without maintenance it fell into disrepair.
In 1923 the magnificent building of Hünkâr hamamı that greatly reminded both in scale
and appearance of Şihabeddin’s other bath, the Tahtakale bath in the çarşı area, was
demolished.190 Otto Rudloff, resident of Plovdiv at that time, witnessed the process of its
demolition and photographed it.191

187
BOA, MAD 15134, f. 3.
188
BOA, MAD 15134, f. 7.
189
The building for the local assembly, completed in the same year, was given to the local historical
museum and library.
190
Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 222.
191
Two photographs showing the demolition of the bath are available in DAI in Istanbul. One of them is
presented here as Fig. 37.
71

The complex of Şihabeddin included also a large han that was built on the
western side of the road, north of the public bath. Located very close to the bridge over
the river Maritsa that inn was frequented by merchants and travelers. In later period the
inn of Şihabeddin was known as panayır han that possibly bespeaks of a regular
seasonal market taking place near it. Nevertheless, very little is known about its
architectural features, since being a relatively lower structure it remained hidden on all
late nineteenth and early twentieth century photographs.
The date of Şihabeddin Paşa’s death is unknown but he most likely died in Filibe
after 1455. His body was laid in the mausoleum built beside the western flank of the
gallery of the T-shaped multifunctional imaret/zaviye. It is a small domed octagonal
building, built in very pleasant cloisonné masonry. The grave of Şihabededdin currently
has two tombstones which have only decorative elements bearing no inscription. The
same tombstones also flanked the grave in the 1920s, when they were photographed by
Rudloff, but in spite of their fifteenth-century appearance it is difficult to tell whether
these are indeed the original stones or later additions. It seems unlikely that the
tombstone of a prominent figure like Şihabeddin Paşa is left without any inscription on it.
It is arguable therefore that the original tombstones were either removed for certain
reason and later replaced by the two decorated stones, or it is also possible that the grave
of Şihabeddin Paşa in Filibe is a cenotaph, while his body was laid somewhere else.
(Figs. 38-39)
Whatever the case, in his lifetime Şihabeddin endowed the revenues from a
number of villages in the districts of Filibe and Malkara for the support of his complex
72

in Filibe, together with the revenues from the rice fields and the rents of the two baths
and a number of other properties and shops in the city.192 There is no extant copy of his
endowment deed (vakfiye) therefore the exact date of its drawing up is unknown, but in
all probability this must have happened shortly after the complex was completed, thus in
the second half of the 1440s. The accounting registers of the foundation show that after
the death of Şihabeddin the vakıf was managed by the acting kadıs of Filibe, who proved
to be skillful administrators gradually increasing the wealth of the pious foundation over
time as the largest villages in its domains reached in the mid-sixteenth century several
hundred households of taxpayers.193
The prolific architectural patronage of Şihabeddin Paşa during the late 1430s and
the first half of the 1440s completely redesigned the urban space of Filibe and laid the
foundations of the emerging Ottoman provincial center. On the one hand his
contributions to the urban core gave a real boost to the development of the commercial
area the revival of which seems to have been inspired by Murad II. On the other hand,
Şihabeddin became the benefactor of a large complex, centered on a T-shaped
imaret/zaviye that was placed at the head of the bridge of Lala Şahin over the river
Maritsa. Acting in accordance with the established Ottoman tradition of urban planning
Şihabeddin placed his complex at some distance from the Muslim urban core thus

192
On the vakıf of Şihabeddin see Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 258-261; Vera Mutafchieva. “Novi
osmanski dokumenti za vakăfite pod turska vlast.” Izvestiya na Dăržavnite Arhivi 6 (1962): 271-273; idem.
“Za rolyata na vakăfa v gradskata ikonomika na Balkanite pod turska vlast.” Izvestiya na Instituta po
Istoriya 10 (1962): 121-143; Damiyan Borisov. Vakăfskata institutsia v Rodopite prez XV-XVII vek
(unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Plovdiv, 2008), 164-182; İbrahim Sezgin. “Filibe’deki
Şehabeddin Paşa Vakıfları.” in Meral Bayrak et al. (eds.), Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi
Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı (Eskişehir: Osmangazi
Üniversitesi, 2005), 347-355.
193
Borisov. Vakăfskata institutsia v Rodopite, 168-177.
73

stretched the space of the city and defined its boundaries to the north. Extending the
Ottoman architectural presence to previously unoccupied outlying areas the complex
must have also had the task to serve as a dignified preview of the city and was by all
means a vivid display of the Ottoman claim for lordship over the area.
The imperial Muradiye mosque in the center of the city and Şihabeddin’s imaret
complex at its northern edge were linked by a wide street (the so-called Uzun çarşı) that
turned into the main axis of Filibe’s spatial development. Elviya 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 sided of the main
street of the city were occupied by inns and double-storied shops (dükân) that according
to the Ottoman traveler numbered eight hundred eighty. 194 The concept that stayed
behind the construction of this large and long commercial street seems apparent. It had
to divert the path of the old medieval road that once ran north of the citadel and to bring
the traffic into the new Muslim commercial center of Filibe. The earliest urban plans of
Filibe, drawn up by Guillaume Lejean (1867) 195 and Ferdinand von Hochstetter
(1869) 196 clearly designated the old road leading to Edirne and Istanbul bellow the

194
Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 218.
195
The city plan of Plovdiv by Lejean is published in French and German versions. The German version
of it appeared as addition to the map of the sancak of Filibe published by Heinrich Kiepert in 1876. The
map of Kiepert, however is a translation of the earlier Ottoman map prepared by Mehmed Nusred Paşa.
Filibe Sancağının Harita Umumiyesi 1279 (1862), a copy of this map is available in the Başbakanlık
Arşivi (BOA, HRT 220). The map of Heinrich Kiepert. Karte des Sandjak Filibe (Philippopolis)
aufgenommen nach Anordnung des dortigen Provinzial-Gouverneurs Mehemmed-Nusret-Pascha, 1876
that contains Lejean’s plan of Filibe is available at the British National Archives (FO 925/3176), the
French Institute in Istanbul (IFEA) and the Public Library in Plovdiv (NBIV). A copy of the French
version of Lejean’s plan is published in Rudloff-Hille and Rudloff, “Grad Plovdiv i negovite sgradi”, 383.
196
Ferdinand von Hochstetter, “Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869.” Mitteilungen der K. und K.
Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65-180. Hochstetter, a Viennese geologist was invited by
74

northern edge of the citadel and the new one which crossed the Muslim commercial core.
Traversing the heart of Ottoman Filibe, the new road continued further southward as
making a sudden shift to the east marked the southern edge of the city. (Plan 2 & 3) The
Ottoman concept of diverting the path of the medieval road and turning the new one into
the axis of the city appears so successful that it not only remained unchanged throughout
the Ottoman period, but still constitutes the backbone of modern Plovdiv too.
2.5. The vanished imperial residence (saray-i ‘amire) in Filibe
The thorough revival of the city that took place in the mid-fifteenth century
thanks to the extensive architectural patronage of sultan Murad II and the beylerbeyi
Şihabeddin Paşa clearly indicates the increasing importance of the city. Being the seat of
the acting governor and commander in chief of all Ottoman forces in Rumili the city
must have had an adequate residence for the governor who represented the Ottoman
power in Europe. Moreover, the fields northward of Filibe were one of the chief
assembly points for the Ottoman army when campaigning to the Western Balkans, thus
the sultans often resided in the city too. The archival documentation reveals that indeed
such imperial residence (saray-i amire) was in existence as early as the fifteenth century.
The available sources do not provide information on the exact date of construction and

the Ottoman government to lead a group of engineers and topographer who did research in Thrace in
connection to the planned construction of the railway between Edirne and Belovo.
75

the individual who commissioned the building, but in all probability the saray was built
during the reign of Murad II in the process of the general renewal of the city, thus
making him the most likely patron. His son Mehmed II appears to have made extensive
use of this palace as the sources indicate that he often resided in Filibe. For instance,
after the conquest of Constantinople he and the chancellery must have spent the fall of
1453 in Filibe.197 The Thracian city was one of the places where Mehmed II took refuge
during the frequent outbreaks of Bubonic plague in the capital. In 1455 Doukas, as part
of a delegation taking the annual tribute of Mytilene (Lesbos) to the Ottoman ruler
headed toward Filibe where Mehmed II together with his court expected the end of the
outburst of the pestilence.198 Oruç reports that after Mehmed II’s Albanian campaign of
1467, once more the plague made him stay in Filibe for some time prior being able to
safely return to the capital.199
In any case the imperial residence in Filibe must have been built in the first half
of the fifteenth century, because by 1489 it was already in a need of repair, indicating
that it must have been erected some time earlier. In the course of the major restoration of
the late 1480s the roof tiles were replaced and other parts were rebuilt as close to one
thousand masters and skilled workers were occupied in different stages of the repair.

197
A tahrir register of the vilâyet of Alaca Hisar, drawn up prior to 1446, i.e. during Mehmed II’s first
reign, contains also later notes of revisions and changes of the timar holders. Several timars were
reassigned by the chancellery as the changes were approved by the sultan. The berats sanctioning the
changes were signed by Mehmed II in evahir-i Ramazan, sene 857 (14 September 1453) in his Filibe
residence. İBK, M.C. O. 117-5, ff. 3a, 4a. In the late autumn of 1453 Mehmed II set for Istanbul in order to
supervise the repopulation of the city in person. See Halil İnalcık. “The Ottoman Survey of 1455 and the
Conquest of Istanbul.”550. Yılında Fetih ve İstanbul/The Conquest and Istanbul in the 550th Anniversary
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007), 3-4.
198
Heath Lowry. “Pushing the Stone Uphill: The Impact of Bubonic Plague on Ottoman Urban Society in
the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” in idem. Defterology Revisited: Studies on the 15th & 16th Century
Ottoman Society (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2008), 25.
199
Lowry, “Pushing the Stone Uphill”, 28.
76

The archival document that provides this information does not contain any specific
reference about the number of the buildings which formed the structure of the complex
of the residence. Nevertheless, as one can expect, the saray had its own hamam since
fifty of its windows (cam) were replaced during the restoration ordered by Bayezid II.200
The exact location of the palace in Filibe is also unknown, but the local
toponymy indicates that in all probability it was situated outside the confines of the then
city. The area west of Filibe’s tallest hill (Ott. Candem tepesi) that stood at some
distance from the Ottoman town (about 2 km SW of Muradiye) was known by the local
residents of Plovdiv in the previous century as Saray kırı.201 A small stream, referred to
in the Ottoman documentary sources and maps as Saray çayı (mod. Părveneshka),
descends from the northern foot of the Rhodope mountains and prior joining the Maritsa
passes by the area known as Saray kırı. (Plan 4) These topographic markers suggest that
the sultanic residence must have been located in this area, which roughly occupies five
square kilometers, probably in its eastern part closer to the Ottoman town. Moreover, in
1525 some of the residents of the nearby village of Komat (modern quarter of Plovdiv)
were employed as servants in the palace for which they enjoyed tax exemptions.202 Later
the privileges of the servants in the royal residence seem to have been disregarded by the

200
The document was published by Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 125-126. The accounting document
of the repair of the imperial residence in Filibe was included in a large register containing multiple
accounting registers of the sultanic pious foundations throughout the empire, which were in need of
different repairs and in which various constructions were undergoing. Similarly to the repair of the bridge
over the river Maritsa a few years earlier the resources for the reconstruction of the saray were provided
by the emins of the çeltük mukata’ası of Filibe. İBK, M.C. O.91, ff. 263r – 264a (old pagination 525-526).
201
It is probably after the name of this area that Candem tepesi appears on the nineteenth-century plan of
Filibe drawn by Lajean as Seraï Tepessi.
202
„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.
77

tax-collectors who levied extraordinary taxes on them. The servants abandoned their
duties and the fencing of the saray fell into disrepair. The local residents of Filibe took
advantage of this situation and began cultivating the lands that belonged to the complex
of the residence. In the 1560s series of sultanic decrees urged the restoration of the
trench (hendek) surrounding the saray as well as the reestablishment of status of tax-
exemption (mu’afiyet) to the servants from the village of Komat.203
It is difficult to state with any certainty when the palace was abandoned, but it
clearly functioned in the sixteenth century. The archival sources at hand contain no
information about the saray after that date which suggests that left without an adequate
maintenance the palace declined and turned into ruins. By the late nineteenth century,
when this area was reclaimed and cultivated by the growing population of Filibe there
were no traces left neither from the palace nor from its hamam. As it often was the case,
the ruins of the buildings most likely provided good building material that was reused
elsewhere.204

203
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.
204
According to a publication in a local newspaper, which relates a legend for dramatic love story
connected with this saray, in the mid-nineteenth century the local Bulgarian notable family of Chalăkov
purchased the land of the saray (one thousand decares in size) from the Ottoman government. Nikola
Iskrov. “Legenda za Saray-kără.” Plovdivski Obshtinski Vestnik 5 August 1929, 3-4.
78

2.6. Supplying water for a Muslim city: İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey’s governorship of
Filibe and his contribution to the development of the city
The architectural patronage of Murad II and Şihabeddin Paşa in the 1430s and
1440s redesigned the medieval Philippopolis thus giving birth to the new Ottoman city
of Filibe. Some twenty years later another benefactor contributed to the architectural
development of the city that truly made Filibe an important provincial center of the
Ottoman realm. İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey, who resided in the town in the 1460s – 1470s,
appears to have been the second greatest patron of architecture in the Ottoman city.
Endowing a number of valuable edifices he spent a great deal of efforts in promoting the
development of the city in which he resided.
İsmail Bey descended from the dynasty of the Candaroğulları, who ruled a
principality (beylik) in central north Anatolia. The dynasty controlled major cities on the
trade routes such as Kastamonu and Taşköprü, but most notably it ruled over the
important Black Sea port of Sinop.205 Their principality was annexed to the Ottoman
state by Bayezid I (1389-1402), but soon after the battle of Ankara (1402) it was
restored under İsfendiyar Bey who managed in securing Timur’s support.206 İsfendiyar’s
grandson Kemaleddin İsmail Bey ascended the beylik in 1443 after the death of his
father İbrahim Bey. In 1461 Mehmed II launched a campaign against İsfendiyaroğlu

205
On the dynasty of Candaroğulları see Yaşar Yücel. Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, vol. 1
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998); İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı. Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu,
Karakoyunlu devletleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1937), 121-147.
206
Yaşar Yücel. “Candar-oğlu Çelebi İsfendiyar Bey 1392-1439.” Tarih Arıştırmaları Dergisi 2:2-3
(1964): 157-174.
79

İsmail Bey and made him surrender the strategic and heavily fortified castle of Sinop.207
Taken by surprise İsmail Bey had no other choice but to put up with Mehmed II’s
proposal that offered him Yarhisar and İnegöl, near Bursa, in fief in exchange of his
surrender. Nevertheless, later Mehmed II changed his mind, as most probably in a desire
to move the Candaroğulları’s descendants far away from their homeland thus preventing
a possible riot on their part, he assigned to İsmail the governorship of Filibe and gave
him in full proprietorship (mülk) the nearby village of Markovo together with other
revenues from the region.208
İsmail Bey was a highly educated person who acted as profuse patron of
literature, art, science and architecture in the Black Sea principality. He was the patron
and supporter of a number of distinguished Islamic scholars such as Niksarlı Muhyiddin
Mehmed to whom he endowed a library of three hundred books.209 In 1440s and 1450s
İsmail Bey built in his native Kastamonu a complex which included a monumental T-
shaped imaret/zaviye, a medrese, a bath and a mausoleum for himself, in which were
laid his mother and other relatives. He later commissioned two inns in Kastamonu – the
so called Deve Hanı near his complex and İsmail Bey Hanı in the commercial core of the
city.210 İsmail Bey himself authored a widely read work on the ritual perceptions of

207
Franz Babinger. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978),
191-192; Halil İnalcık. “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time.” Speculum 35:3 (1960), 422;
Selâhattin Tansel. Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in Siyasî ve Askerî Faaliyeti
208
Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri, 114-115.
209
Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri, 116.
210
The endowment deed of İsmail Bey’s complex in Kastamonu dates from 1457. Yücel, Anadolu
Beylikleri, 116.
80

Islam entitled Hulviyyât-i Şahi that was written during his stay in Filibe.211 Several of
the dedicatory inscriptions over his buildings in Kastamonu and the endowment deed
refer to İsmail Bey as the “great sultan (es-sultanü’l-mu’azzam)” or even the
“magnificent sultan and emperor, the master of the lords of Arabia and Persia” (es-
sultan ve’l-hakanü’l-azzim mevlâ-i mülûkü’l-‘arab ve’l-‘acem), which offers a fairly
good idea for the rank, magnitude and the available financial resources of the person
who governed Filibe in the 1460s and 1470s.212
İsmail Bey must have appeared in Filibe in the very late 1461 or more likely in
the early 1462. Acting as governor of the city this mighty figure must have been the
dominant factor in its development in the following two decades. In regard of İsmail
Bey’s extensive patronage in Anatolia it is hardly surprising that he commissioned and
built several buildings in his new place of residence. He erected the so-called İsmail Bey
mosque, which was located on the main market street (Uzun çarşı) a few hundred meters
north of Muradiye at the corner of today’s Rayko Daskalov and Kniyaz Bogoridi streets
(no. 9 on Plan 1).213 It was a modest single-domed neighborhood mosque, which in 1879
was standing in good condition as it can be observed on the panoramic photograph of
Dimitris Cavra. (Fig. 40) The mosque had a small cemetery yard, clearly visible on
Cavra’s photograph, where the body of the patron İsmail Bey was buried after his death
in 1479. 214 The mosque must have disappeared in the 1930s, because it was badly
damaged by the powerful earthquake of 1928 and never saw a restoration. (Fig. 41) A

211
Necmi Hamamcıoğlu. Hulviyât-ı Şah (unpublished M.A. thesis, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, 2008).
212
See Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri, 173-177 for İsmail Bey’s dedicatory inscriptions in Kastamonu.
213
Alvadžiev. Plovdivska hronika, 27.
214
Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 192. It seems that İsmail Bey was buried in a simple grave. He did
not build a second mausoleum for himself after the imposing türbe in Kastamonu.
81

devoted patron of science and education İsmail Bey established a primary school
(mekteb) housed in a simpler building next to his mosque.215 The school that also had its
own library functioned throughout the Ottoman period and in the course of the first
decades of the independent Bulgarian rule.216
The mosque was supported by the revenues collected from the village of
Markovo, earlier given by Mehmed II as mülk to İsmail Bey, which he endowed to a
pious foundation established in 1467. The date of the endowment deed clearly indicates
that the mosque and the mekteb in Filibe must have been commissioned soon after
İsmail’s arrival in the city, thus in the period 1462-1467.217 It seems that a few years
after its establishment the foundation was abrogated by Mehmed II and its properties
confiscated and distributed to timariots. Later Bayezid II restored it and confirmed the
right of İsmail Bey’s descendents to manage the foundation on a hereditary basis.218
Five years later İsmail Bey commissioned another mosque, this time in the
family residence at the village of Markova (mod. Markovo), located about nine
kilometers south of the then Ottoman Filibe. One of his descendents later added a public
bath to this mosque, which together with the large family mansion stood until the early
twentieth century when all of the buildings burned down in a big fire. Likewise İsmail

215
A Hurufat defteri housed in Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi in Ankara, that kept record 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, who died in the town, were located on the main market street, opposite the
sarraçhane that occupied the western side of the street.
216
Săbev, Osmanskite uchilishta, 222.
217
Currently there are two known later copies of this endowment deed drawn up on A.H. 2.1.872 (3
August 1467) and its addition (zeyl) from 1477 – one housed in Vakıflar Arşivi, VGMA, defrer no. 630, s.
975, sıra no. 585, published in facsimile by Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, (269)-(271); and another
copy, prepared in 1867, housed in the Başbakanlık Arşivi EV.VKF, dosya 1, gömlek 49.
218
Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 328; BOA TD 370, f. 104.
82

established a pious foundation 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 of Kadıköy (mod. Kadievo) on
the river Kriçime (mod. Văcha) and also on the river Göpsu (mod. Stryama) that
descending from the north joins the river Maritsa near Filibe.
The original endowment deed, drawn up in 21 March 1472 is also lost, but the
contents of its stipulations survived in later copies.219 Likewise it has an adding (zeyl),
dating from September 1477, which stipulates the conditions for additional revenues
endowed to the foundation by İsmail Bey.220 The revenues derived from two water mills
and two rice mills which were built on the stream of Kırk Pınar (mod. Cherkezitsa), near
the village of Kara Reis (mod. Bolyartsi, east of Filibe). 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 (that supported the big mosque in
Filibe) and was the chief supplier of rice for the needs of the imaret in Edirne. It seems
rather unusual that İsmail Bey managed to place his four revenue rising buildings (two
rice- and two water mills) on the territory held by another vakıf. It can be a remarkable
coincidence that his nephew, Bayezid Çelebi, son of Mahmud Bey, appears in the
documents as the administrator (mütevelli) of Muradiye’s foundation only a few years
after İsmail Bey had his buildings constructed on the territory of the vakıf of Murad II.221

219
The vakfiye, dating A.H. 1 Şevval 876, also exists in two copies – VGMA, defter no. 628, s. 449, sıra
no. 233, published in facsimile by Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, (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.
220
VGMA, defter no. 628, s. 474, sıra no. 241.
221
Barkan, “Edirne ve Civarındaki”, 301.
83

This fact alone bespeaks of the great authority and influence of the İsfendiyaroğlu family
in the provincial politics of Ottoman Rumili in the second half of the fifteenth century.
What makes the 1472 charter of İsmail Bey’s foundation extremely valuable is
the fact that it clearly indicates that he restored the water-supply system of Filibe.
Moreover, the stipulations of his endowment deed arrange that the surplus of the
revenues must be spent for the maintenance of the water conduit. It is highly likely that
İsmail repaired or rebuilt one of the three aqueducts that supplied fresh water to the
Roman Philippopolis. Two of the Roman aqueducts gathered waters in the lands of the
village of Markova where İsmail built his family residence and mosque. The available
information on the path of İsmail Bey’s aqueduct is very limited, but one can suppose
that it was based on the ruined Roman infrastructure.222 Thus the aqueduct reached the
tallest hill of Filibe Candem tepesi from the south from where it was directed northeast
and reached the hill named Bunarcık tepesi. From this hill the pipes of the water conduit
descended in the open plain reaching a water distribution building (sebil) that allowed
the water to be directed wherever necessary. The sebil (no. 38 on Plan 1) that was
located on the main market street very near to İsmail Bey’s mosque was also most likely
constructed by him in the course of the repair of the water-supply system of the city.223
The building must have been destroyed in the late 1880s or early 1890s, because its
conic roof is still clearly observable on Cavra’s 1879 panoramic photograph. (Fig. 42) In
1888 it appeared on the oil painting by Jan Václav Mrkvička (Fig. 43), but the

222
On the Roman water-supply system of Philippopolis see Elena Kesyakova. “Vodosnabdiyavane.” in
Elena Kesyakova et al. (eds.), Kniga za Plovdiv (Plovdiv: Poligraf, 1999), 73-76.
223
The hurufat register provides the information about the exact location of the sebilhane. VGMA, D.
1180, ff. 228, 242, 248. In modern Plovdiv this is roughly the juncture of Rayko Daskalov street and 6ti
Septemveri boulevard.
84

panoramic photograph of Ivan Stoyanov, dating 1891, shows that its place was already
taken by modern housing.224
The reconstruction of the old water-supply system must have had an immediate
impact on the quality of life of the residents of Filibe. It not only provided enough water
for the construction of the numerous public fountains dispersed in the city, but also
allowed the construction of larger public baths that needed more running water.225 One
of these baths built after the mid-fifteenth century is the large double bath (known
locally as Çifte hamamı) which certainly is the largest, and probably the most beautiful,
Ottoman public bath preserved in Bulgaria (no. 27 on Plan 1). The building, which was
the only hamam with both male and female sections in the city, is located northeast of
İsmail Bey’s mosque dominating the area below the northwestern corner of the citadel.
The bath has no dedicatory inscription but its architectural and stylistic features clearly
bespeak of a dating in the second half of the fifteenth century. (Figs. 44-45)

224
The building depicted by Mrkvička is most likely a result of the restoration that took place under
Mahmud II (1808-1839). A number of the fountains in Filibe were also repaired or built anew at that time.
Two inscriptions commemorating these repairs are placed in the courtyard of Plovdiv’s history museum,
as one lies in a private courtyard. The photographic collection of the German Archaeological Institute in
Istanbul has photographs of other such inscriptions that are missing today. BOA, EV.d 10024, dating A.H.
1252 (1836-1837) is a summary accounting record of the expenses made by the Evkaf-i Hümayun for the
repairs and reconstruction of forty two çeşmes and one şadırvan that replaced the existing sebil. Alvadžiev.
Plovdivska hronika, 221 states that the fountain was destroyed in 1905, because of the construction of
several new houses on the spot. As long as the reason for demolishing the fountain is indeed correct
Alvadžiev must be wrong about the date of its destruction. By 1891 the new housing in question was
already completed.
225
Ironically a local legend attributes to İsmail Bey (more precisely to his grandfather İsfendiyar Bey) a
decisive role in the Ottoman conquest of Filibe. Instead of 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 turtsite, Plovdivski obshtinski vestnik.” 18 October 1929, No 22, 3-5 and
Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 95-96. For comments on its content see Boykov and Kiprovska, “Ottoman
Philippopolis (Filibe)”, 113-114.
85

The lack of inscription not only makes the date of construction of the largest bath
in Filibe uncertain, but it also brings difficulties in identifying its patron. Machiel Kiel,
after examining all other possibilities, made a well-grounded suggestion that only a
person of the magnitude of İsmail Bey could have commissioned this imposing and
lavishly decorated bath.226 Despite the lack of any firm documentary evidence at hand
which explicitly establishes İsmail’s patronage of Çifte hamamı I consent Kiel’s
argumentation. 227 Known as extensive supporter of art and architecture it seems
plausible that the person who reconstructed the water supply-system, thus brought
abundant running fresh water in the Muslim city, also commissioned the largest public
bath in Filibe.
The choice of location for such a large double bath, however, appears strange at a
first glace. The bath was not located in the busy commercial quarter nor was it near the
main market street that must have attracted most of the traffic. The bath also seems too
disproportionate for a neighborhood hamam, nor there was matching in size mosque
nearby, whose congregation might have made use of it. In any case the bath was placed
in an area that even in the nineteenth century did not seem busy let alone in the emerging
Ottoman city of the mid-fifteenth century. The only seemingly reasonable explanation
for the patron’s choice of this location appears to be the close proximity of the tanneries.
The tanneries (debbaghane) apparently did not change their location throughout the

226
The argument is developed in detail in Kiel’s unpublished notes. Machiel Kiel. “Filibe” in TDVİA. Kiel
also attributes to İsmail Bey the construction of two more small mosques (mescids) and a mausoleum in
Filibe.
227
I was unable to find any accounting register of the pious foundation of İsmail Bey. In case such
document is found in the archives in Istanbul or Sofia in the future the patronage of İsmail Bey can
possibly be confirmed.
86

Ottoman period. They were most likely established on that particular spot in late
fourteenth or in the first half of the fifteenth century when it was an outlaying area, but
the rapidly expanding Ottoman city soon enclosed the tanneries between the complex of
Şihabeddin Paşa and the quarter of Durbeği hoca. There is little doubt that the large
Çifte hamamı erected in the late 1460s or the 1470s was meant to be the primary bath for
those working at the tanneries. The technology of the profession that was extremely
dirty requested the tanners to wash themselves in a hamam prior to returning home or
interacting with other people. Therefore, the large double bath that stood a bit distant
from the busy commercial core must have rendered services to the residents of the
surrounding quarters but most importantly it provided the much needed nearby hamam
to the workers in the tanneries.
2.7. The rapid population growth in the second half of the fifteenth century
The extensive architectural patronage in the mid-fifteenth century is a clear sign
for the fast development of the urban space in Filibe and certainly for the increase of its
Muslim population in this period. Nevertheless, the first Muslim settlers in the city must
have appeared much earlier. The Ottoman chronicles, examined above, point that the
conqueror of Filibe Lala Şahin furnished the city with a garrison as later on he installed
himself in it. Being the administrative and military center of power of the Ottoman
87

European provinces Filibe most certainly accommodated a Muslim community ever
since the Ottomans have taken control over the city. The available data on these earliest
Muslim colonists in the Thracian city is very scarce, but it seems that the central power
attempted to encourage Muslim migration. Murad I ordered his tutor to establish his seat
of power in Filibe and revive the city, while his son Bayezid I issued a sultanic decree
granting full tax exemption to all Muslim clergymen and 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 the 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 1525.228 The text of Murad II’s biti stipulates that his grandfather, that is Bayezid
I, granted full tax exemption to the imams, hatibs, müezzins, şeyhs and the instructors
and students at the Muslim colleges, which he reaffirmed. A later decree (hükm) signed
by Bayezid II on 8 July 1500 testifies that both he and his predecessor Mehmed II also
reaffirmed the tax exemption of the clergymen in Filibe, granted during the reign of
Bayezid I.
It is difficult to tell how many Muslims resided in Filibe in the late fourteenth
and early fifteenth century, but during the Interregnum period the city must have had a

228
BOA, MAD 519. Copies of multiple imperial decrees (hükms) that probably served the administrators
who prepared the register were disorderly inserted 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 it could be deducted from the extant parts one can state that these
are documents attesting tax privileges to groups of people or individual villages. Among the documents
there are several title deeds (sinurname) of the vakıfs of Fazlullah Paşa, Koca Davud Paşa in the region of
Filibe 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 Göpsu on the road from Filibe to Çırpan and Eski Zağra.
88

sizable Muslim community. Constantine the Philosopher reveals that irritated by the fact
that the tax money collected by the residents of Filibe was handed to Musa, prince
Süleyman arrested some Muslim notables with the intention to execute them.229 Given
that the city had Muslim notables in the 1410s then presumably a number of ordinary
Muslim taxpayers also resided there in the early fifteenth century. Nevertheless, the
figures on the population of Filibe in the early Ottoman period can hardly be more
specific than that.
The warfare during the Interregnum period must have forced many residents of
Filibe, Muslims and Christians alike, to take refuge in safer locations. In the early 1430s
when de la Broquière crossed the city it still looked to him predominantly Christian.230
In all probability at that time there was a Muslim community in the city, but the
Christian residents who suffered no major damage during the conquest still greatly
outnumbered the Muslims. It appears that the great shift in the demographic pattern of
Filibe began after the mid-1430s when the architectural patronage of Murad II and
Şihabeddin Paşa completely reshaped the urban space which certainly aimed at
stimulating the migrations of Muslims into the city. It is very likely that while the
Muslim settlers, establishing new quarters, were quickly filling up the space of the new
city at the open plain, part of the Christians were leaving the town for the nearby town of
İstanimaka, located at the foot of the Rhodope mountains. Moreover, being of constant
shortage of settlers for repopulating Istanbul in the post-conquest years Mehmed II
ordered in 1460 a forced deportation (sürgün) of Christians from Filibe to the capital,

229
Konstantin dem Philosophen, 40; Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, 153.
230
89

which must have lowered significantly their number in the Thracian city.231 It is very
likely that thanks to the dynamic changes in the mid-fifteenth century only in two or
three decades the Muslims in Filibe reached a sizable majority. According to the data
presented by Halil İnalcık, in 1455 there were already 600 Muslim households in Filibe
as against only 50 Christian.232
In any case, by the early 1470s, when the earliest register providing some data on
Filibe’s population was compiled, the city was completely dominated by the Muslims,
having a much smaller Christian minority. At that time the city had four Christian and
twenty five Muslim quarters, thus demonstrating the Ottomanization of the space of
Filibe.233 The detailed register kept record of 549 Muslim and 122 Christian households
of tax-payers, who provided each 33 akçes for the support of the akınıcı troops led by
Mihaloğlu Ali Bey in the Ottoman campaign against the emir of Akkoyunlu Uzun
Hasan.234 This register, however, was not a “classical” tahrir defteri that listed most of

231
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”. Charles Riggs (translator and editor). History of Mehmed the
Conqueror (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), 148. Cf. Lowry, “Pushing the Stone Uphill”, 37;
Halil İnalcık. “The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population and the Byzantine Buildings of the
City”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1969-1970): 229-249, 235-238.
232
Halil İnalcık. “Bulgaria” in EI2. The author did not provide a reference to the source of the data on the
population of Filibe in 1455. In private conversations with Prof. İnalcık I had the chance to raise the
question about the source of this information on multiple occasions. Prof. İnalcık was kind enough to
search his private archive for it, but currently no source could be revealed.
233
Sofia, PD 17/27, ff. 1r-7a.
234
The register was drawn up in December 1472. The introduction of the document (the order for its
compilation and the way of registering the taxpayers and the raiders) was first published by Boris Nedkov.
Osmanoturska diplomatika i paleografia, vol. 2 (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1972), 175-177 and recently
analyzed by Heath Lowry. The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State University of New York
Press, 2003), 52-54. Detailed information about the register and its contents in Mariya Kiprovska. The
Military Organization of the Akıncıs in Ottoman Rumelia, (M.A. Thesis, Bilkent University, 2004). The
90

the tax-payers, but it only included those liable to the extraordinary tax levied by
Mehmed II in support for his campaign of 1473. 235 Therefore, some portion of the
population of Filibe was left out of this register and the population figures it offers are
merely tentative.236
In spite of the inaccuracy of the data on the population of Filibe in 1472 the
defter offers abundant data about the dramatic transformation of the city in the preceding
half-a-century. It was already pointed that the city had some Muslim population ever
since it was captured by the Ottomans, but its drastic and rapid increase must have
become a fact only after the end of the Interregnum period. In case de la Broquière’s
statement that in the 1430s Filibe was still predominantly Christian was indeed correct
then the big influx of Muslim population 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. The register of 1472 demonstrates that the Muslim settlers not only
filled completely the space between the urban core around Muradiye mosque and
Şihabeddin’s complex at the northern edge, but following the path of the new road to
Edirne, they also spread their quarters eastward thus surrounding from all sides the
Christian quarters within and below the citadel. Moreover, a second major urban axis

binding of the register was removed and the document was torn, thus parts of it are catalogued under
different call numbers in the Sofia Archive. While luckily Evgeni Radushev established that PD 17/27 and
OAK 94/73 belonged to one register, but still there are missing parts of it. Moreover, some pages were
misplaced by the service personnel in the archive who did the modern binding of the document.
235
On Mehmed II’s campaign against Uzun Hasan see İnalcık, “Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time”,
424-425; Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, 302-368; Tansel, Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan
Mehmed, 311-326; Kiprovska, The Military Organization of the Akıncıs, 35-41.
236
For instance the Muslim clergymen who enjoyed full tax-exemption granted by Bayezid I were also
naturally excluded from this register. Muslim and Christian bachelors also were not liable to this
extraordinary tax.
91

detached from the square of Muradiye, which roughly fallowed the road to Perushtitsa
and further to the heart of the Rhodopes, directed the urban expansion westward. The
small quarter of Yakub Fakıh, south of Muradiye, established prior 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. As early as the 1470s there was also
a bridgehead north of the river - the sizable mahalle-i Tataran (the quarter of the Tatars).
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 could have been the people of the tribal leader Aktav, who arrived in the
area in the late 1390s.237
The four Christian quarters occupied the areas which they were taking in the
period prior to the Ottoman conquest. The main and largest Christian mahalle Hisariçi
was enclosed within the confines of the ruinous citadel.238 The largest portion of the
quarter was located on the two southern hills (Taksim and Cambaz) extending to the
north in a narrow stretch up until the gates of the citadel. Northeast of it was located the
quarter named Pazariçi which is an indication that in the pre-Ottoman medieval
Philippopolis the main market place was situated at the eastern side of the citadel thus
pointing to the drastic discontinuity in the development of the city in Ottoman times. For
one reason or another, the Ottomans shifted the economic center of Filibe to the western

237
The migration of Aktav, one of Toktamış Han’s generals to Rumelia is discussed in detail in the next
chapter. The hurufat register mentions certain Aktav Bey mescidi in the quarter Tataran. This, however, is
the only bit of information for a mosque in Filibe built by Aktav, therefore it calls for caution.
238
Hisariçi is the name of this quarter used by all later registers. In 1472 the register recorded the residents
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). Sofia, PD 17/27, ff. 6r-7a.
92

side of the citadel which they preferred for the further development of the Ottoman
city. 239 South of this quarter in a form of a long stripe that stretched at the foot of
Cambaz tepesi was located the quarter named İsklopiçe. The name in all probability
reflected the Bulgarian origin of its residents as it very likely derives from the Slavic
word sklopica (a sort of a wooden vessel). The fourth Christian quarter Pulat was
located below the southern slopes of the Taksim and Cambaz hills.240 It occupied quite a
sizable territory as also the residence of the metropolitan of Filibe and the main church
in the city St. Marina were built in this quarter. 241 By 1470s it must have appeared
somewhat isolated since the Ottoman registrar recorded it as a village (karye) and not as
a neighborhood (mahalle).242
The names of the Christian residents of Filibe suggest mixed Bulgarian and
Greek population. While some of the Christian inhabitants must have left the city in the
preceding years, the register indicates that a number of tax-payers were recent migrants
from the nearby villages, like certain unmanned priest who came from the village of
Saruca (mod. Tsaratsovo) near the city. In 1472 there were altogether seven priests
serving the Christian community that is probably an indication that most of the medieval

239
Although the Ottoman decision for placing the urban center west of the citadel proved very vital,
probably a more suitable spot which could have allowed the growth of the city without any natural
obstacles was the center of the old Roman Philippopolis located south of the stronghold.
240
The precise location of some of the quarters of Filibe is discussed in a highly esteemed publication in a
local newspaper by the architect Hristo Peev. “Plovdivskite mahali v tursko vreme.” Plovdivski obshtinski
vestnik no. 279 (1942): 4-6. Peev used for his article a non-extant draft of a plan, prepared most likely by
the Czech architect and engineer Joseph Schnitter, which on its part was based on the basis of an older not
extant Ottoman plan of the city. While Peev used the version written in Cyrillic script he did not notice the
corruption of some of the names due to their transliteration from Ottoman-Turkish language.
241
Permission for the repair of the “metrepoli kilisesi”, i.e. metropolitan church, located in the quarter
Pulat in Filibe, dating 28 March 1850, leaves no doubt about the exact location of the church St. Marina
and Pulat mahallesi alike. BOA, A.}MKT.UM dosya 11, gömlek 72 (Sadaret, Mektubi, Umum Vilayet).
242
Sofia, PD 17/27, f. 7a. Nevertheless, in all following registrations Pulat is an integral part of the city,
listed as one of its quarters.
93

churches in the city were still operational. The registrar rarely added patronymics of the
taxpayers, but indicated a good number of craftsmen among the Christians. There were
builders, shoemakers, grocers, dyers, potters etc., attesting for the urban origin of the
greater portion of the Christian population in Filibe.
The influx of Muslims and the creation of new quarters required the building of a
number of smaller mosques that served the community. For instance the quarter of
İsmail Bey occupied the space near the mosque that he built on the main market street in
the mid-1460s. A few years later in 1472 this new quarter already had thirteen
households of craftsmen and traders. 243 It neighbored the larger and probably older
mahalle of Muhsin hoca which in the later registrations integrated the smaller quarter of
İsmail Bey. Another example of such newly created quarter is the one of veled-i Rüstem
which in 1472 also had at least thirteen households. Likewise it was established around a
mosque built a few years earlier. The patron of the mosque can be identified as one
İskender Bey, son of Abdurrahman, son of Rüstem Paşa, whose endowment deed was
drawn up in March 1471.244 The text of the vakfiye informs that the patron elevated to a
mosque the mescid that was built earlier by his ancestor and endowed to it the revues
from a number of 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 veled-i
Rüstem quarter, is unclear.245 They both must have been military commanders of some

243
Sofia, PD 17/27, f. 6a.
244
A copy of this vakiye is extant in Vakıflar Arşivi in Ankara, VGMA, defter no. 633, s. 88-89, sıra no.
33, published in facsimile by Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, (299)-(301).
245
I was unable to establish the exact location of this quarter, but one may suggest that it was in the central
part of Filibe.
94

prominence under Murad II and Mehmed II, but the sources at hand do not reveal any
other details about the careers and history of these individuals.
There are a number of other benefactors who erected small mosques for the
newly established Muslim quarters whose identity is questionable. One such case is the
mescid in the quarter of veled-i Kasım, located eastward of the Christian neighborhood
İsklopiçe. Based on the information in the work of T. Mümtaz Yaman 246 , Ayverdi
attributes the construction of this mosque to a grandson of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey one
Kaya Bey, son of Kasım Bey.247 This assumption however seems very doubtful since
there were no known descendents of İsmail Bey named Kasım and Kaya. Moreover, by
1472, i.e. in İsmail Bey’s lifetime the mosque and the mahalle of veled-i Kasım where
already a fact which greatly limits the possibility that the patron was a grandson of his.
Should there be indeed any İsfendiyaroğlus’ connection then it is more likely that the
patron of the mosque in Filibe, Kaya Bey in question, was in fact İsmail Bey’s first
cousin, the son of his father’s brother Kasım Bey. Kaya Bey was in close ties with
Murad II and in 1440-1441 he married one of Murad II’s daughters. 248 After the
dethronement of İsmail Bey in 1461 Kaya Bey must have followed him in Rumelia. In
the early 1470s he commissioned an imaret in Malkara and endowed to it the revenues
from a kervansaray and a public bath that he built in the same town, together with a

246
Talat Mümtaz Yaman. Kastamonu Târihî (Kastamonu: Ahmed İhsan Matbaası, 1935), 167. Quoted
after Ayverdi.
247
Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. Osmanlı Mi’mârisinde Fâtih Devri 855-866 (1451-1481) (İstanbul: Damla
Osfet, 1989), 272; idem, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimari Eserleri, vol. 4, 27.
248
Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri, 103-104.
95

number of shops, a watermill, etc.249 The link of İsfendiyaroğlu/Kasımoğlu Kaya Bey to
Filibe still remains unclear, but the fact that the city was administered by his cousin
makes very credible to suggest that it was him who built the mescid in the neighborhood
of veled-i Kasım. The exact date in which he commissioned the mosque in the city is
unknown, but the period can be limited in the decade between 1462 (İsmail Bey’s arrival
in Filibe) and 1472 when according to the data of the register it already existed. The
mosque of Kaya Bey, known locally as Bey camii/mescidi, was a two-storied building
with a pitched roof which stood until 1932.250 It is difficult to tell whether this was the
original architectural appearance of the mosque or a result of later reconstruction, but the
upper floor of the mosque was used as a Muslim primary school.251 The area in the
approximate vicinity of the mosque in later times split from the large quarter of İbn-i
Kasım and formed a smaller separate mahalle, named after the mosque (Bey mescidi
mahallesi).
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 collapsed prior to the mid-nineteenth century as in the course of
the eighteenth or in the nineteenth century the territory of the quarters was occupied by
the expending Bulgarian population of Filibe. 252 One el-hac Mes’ud commissioned

249
The endowment deed of Kaya Bey on behalf of his imaret in Malkara dates A.H. 876 (1471-1472).
Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri, 104. Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 330.
250
The mosque stood at the modern square of Sveta Nedelya. In 1910 a madman jumped from the minaret
of the mosque and killed himself. After this accident the mosque was abandoned and gradually
deteriorated until it was finally demolished. Alvadžiev. Plovdivska hronika, 27.
251
Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 222.
252
The exact location of these mescids is unknown therefore they are tentatively marked on the plan of
Filibe.
96

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 identity of
the patron and similarly the mosque vanished prior 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 on the photograph.
One other benefactor who contributed for the development of Filibe prior to
1472 can be possibly indentified. This is the patron of the small neighborhood mosque
known locally as Alaca mescidi (no. 16 on Plan 1) that gave its name to the quarter
around it. The mescid and the mahalle were located west of Muradiye mosque following
the narrow steep street (mod. Antim I, str.), which climbed the northern slope of the hill
called Saat tepesi (the Clock tower hill).253 As much as it can be observed on the extant
photographs the mosque was a tiny simple structure with a pitched roof that from
architectural point of view was of insignificant importance, but it most probably owed
its name to the rich decoration. The building stood until 1910 when it was pulled
down.254
In contrast to the modest nature of the mosque its patron appears to have been a
very prominent figure in the Ottoman Balkans. The name of the benefactor can be
deducted from the name of the quarter which in the 1472 register was indicated as
mahalle-i Karaca Bey.255 It was only in the administrative records from the second half

253
Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 217, provides the exact location where the mosque once stood – 8 Antim I, str. A
note in the hurufat defteri, dating 6 July 1773 that sanctions the appointment of one Abdülkerim as imam
of this mosque on 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.
254
Ali Kemal Balkanlı. Şarkî Rumeli ve buradaki Türkler (İstanbul: Elhan Kitabevi), 118.
255
Sofia, PD 17/27, f. 2r.
97

of the sixteenth century that the name Alaca mescidi replaced that of Karaca Bey.
Karaca Bey in question must have been no other but the renowned commander of the
Ottoman forces in Rumelia under Murad II and Mehmed II, namely Dayı Karaca Bey.256
He replaced Şihabeddin Paşa on the post of beylerbeyi of Rumili and led the Ottoman
Rumelian troops at the second battle of Kosovo (1448). 257 Being the governor and
commander in chief of Rumelia Karaca Bey must have been a frequent visitor to Filibe
in the period when the Muslim part of the city was emerging. A copy of a title deed
(sinurmane) of the grand vizier Çandarlı Halil Paşa, who in 1451 received the village of
Kriçime (mod. Krichim, southwest of Plovdiv) as mülk, mentions Karaca Bey as the
acting beylerbeyi of Rumili.258 The prosperous carrier of Karaca Bey ended suddenly
with his death in 1456 during the Ottoman siege of Belgrade. 259 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. He
commissioned in Mihaliç an imposing T-shaped imaret/zaviye that was completed in the
late 1456 or early 1457 only after his unexpected death.260 The floor plan of this building,
including the two vaulted vestibules leading to the lateral rooms and the location of the

256
Karaca Bey was a maternal uncle (dayı) to Murad II’s eldest son Alaeddin.
257
İnalcık. Fatih Devri, 89, 104.
258
Later Halil Paşa’s son İbrahim Paşa, who inherited the village bestowed it to the pious foundation that
he established in support of his mosque and medrese in Istanbul. Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 423-
424. The sinurname of Çandarlı Halil was published by İnalcık. Fatih Devri, 219- 223. This highly
valuable document for the history of the Bulgarian lands under Ottoman rule was unfortunately omitted in
the Bulgarian translation of the book of İnalcık.
259
The date of his death and details about the circumstances are provided by the tombstone of Karaca Bey
published by 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 Mi’mârisinde
Fâtih Devri, 776.
260
The text of the kitabe is published by Taeschner, “Die Werke der Familie Dai Qarağa Beg”, 179 and
Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi’mârisinde Fâtih Devri, 776.
98

türbe of the patron at its western side resemble Şihabeddin’s imaret/zaviye in Filibe to
such an extent that one hesitates to speculate that Karaca Bey attempted to built a replica
of this building adorning it with more elaborate portal.261 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.262
The exact date of the erection of Karaca Bey’s Alaca mescidi in Filibe is
unknown, but in any case this must have happened between the mid-1440s when he took
the post of beylerbeyi of Rumili and 1456 when he was killed near Belgrade. About
twenty years later, in 1472, the quarter of Karaca Bey had at least thirty Muslim
households, most of whom were craftsmen, but there were also wealthy individuals of
some prominence. 263 The mosque of Karaca Bey and its neighborhood directed the
spatial development of Filibe westward from the urban core set by the large Muradiye
mosque. The parallel street (mod. Hristo G. Danov, str.), which ran north of Karaca

261
Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi’mârisinde Fâtih Devri, 771-775.
262
Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 238-240.
263
In 1486 one Hacı Yusuf, son of Abdullah, resident of the Karaca Bey neighborhood in Filibe received
the mukata’a of some of the rice-fields in the area of Filibe that was previously held as a prebend by the
beylerbeyi of Rumili. Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 133. It is very likely that the same person
established earlier the quarter named Hacı Yusuf that appears in the register of 1472 as having twenty one
Muslim households. In all probability this mahalle was integrated into the larger quarter of Karaca Bey,
because it disappeared in the following tahrir registers. On the rice cultivation in the Ottoman Empire see
Halil İnacık. “Rice Cultivation and the Çeltükçi-re’âyâ System in the Ottoman Empire.” Turcica 14
(1982): 69-141; Nicoara Beldiceanu and Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr. “Riziculture dans l’Empire ottoman
(XIVe-XVe siècle).” Turcica 9:2-10 (1978): 9-28. For additional data on the rich fax-farm of the rice fields
in the region of Filibe see Mehmed Karagöz. “Filibe Kazası Rüsum Defterleri ve XVII. Yüzılın İkinci
Yarısında, Filibe-Tatarpazarı-Göbe(sic!)’de Çeltik Ziraatı.” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi
14:2 (2004): 361-377; idem. “1193/1779 Senesi Rüsum Defterine göre Bazarcık-Tatarpazarı’nda Pirinç
Üretimi.” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi 14:1 (2004): 275-299.
99

Bey’s mosque became the second major axis of urban growth that rapidly attracted many
new settlers. By 1472 the quarter of Musalla (located on this street), which was marking
the western edge of Filibe until the end of the Ottoman period, was already a fact. In
later times the namazgâh/musalla (open prayer space) was replaced by the so-called
Musalla mosque (no. 20 on Plan 1), a single-domed mosque that stood until the end of
the nineteenth or early twentieth century.264
The great changes that took place in the period 1430s-1470s demonstrate not
only the large influx of Anatolian urban population into the Thracian city, but also the
dramatic territorial and spatial expansion of the Muslim urban center. The trend of rapid
growth of the Muslims continued in the following decades too while the pace of spatial
enlargement naturally slowed down since the city seems to have reached about its
optimal dimensions in the 1470s and 1480s.
The earliest available tahrir register that includes the city of Filibe, dating from
1489, shows that in the intervening years the population growth continued. 265 The
character of the source of 1472 does not allow any decisive conclusion on the exact
figures of this growth, but the total population of the city apparently increased in the

264
The mosque was located on today’s Kocho Chestimenski square. Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 218. Balkanlı
states that the lead-covered mosque was commissioned by İbrahim Paşa, but he neither specified which of
the multiple individuals in Ottoman history known under this name was the patron, nor did he reveal the
source of this information. Balkanlı, Şarkî Rumeli, 114. In any case in 1633 the mosque existed, because
the vakıf of Muradiye in Edirne provided the salary of its hatib. Barkan. “Edirne ve Civarındaki”, 372.
265
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 a 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 the back of the register were lost. Undoubtedly
this document 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 not
extant or unavailable to the author.
100

seventeen-year period between the registrations.266 In 1489 the city of Filibe had about
five thousand residents that makes it one of the largest cities of the then Ottoman
Rumelia.267 The total number of the city quarters increased to thirty of which four were
the old Christians mahalles, mentioned above. In spite of the visible general growth of
city’s population the Christians in Filibe had a sensitive drop from at least 122
households in 1472 to 80 households, 5 bachelors, and 12 widows in 1489. 268 It is
difficult to tell what the reason for the decrease of the Christians was, but part of the loss
must be attributed to conversion to Islam. Thirty eight heads of households listed in the
census were first generation Muslims, presumably some of them originated in Filibe.
Conversion, however, could hardly be the only explanation for this sudden drop of the
Christians. It is likely that the local Christian residents continued to abandon the city and
relocated to nearby settlements like the town of İstanimaka (mod. Asenovgrad) or
Şihabeddin Paşa’s large vakıf village of Kuklene (mod. Kuklen) that had much larger

266
Filibe was held as zeamet by Mesih Paşa, the high ranking Ottoman official and commander under
Bayezid II who descended from the Byzantine Palaiologoi dynasty. During his career in the Ottoman
administration he took appointments as sancakbeyi, vezir, 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 a subaşı of Filibe, where
he was given a zeamet, two years later he was reassigned as beylerbeyi of Kafa. Hedda Reindl. Männer um
Bāyezīd: Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche Sultan Bāyezīds II. (1481-1512) (Berlin: Klaus
Schwarz Verlag, 1983), 283.
267
Except for the large cities like Edirne and Selânik in the beginning of the sixteenth century the rest of
the provincial urban center matched Filibe in size or were smaller: Niğbolu had 468 Muslim and 775
Christian households; Sarajevo 1 024 Muslim households; Serres 671 Muslim and 357 Christian
households; Skopje 630 Muslim and 200 Christian households; Manastır 640 Muslim and 171 Christian
households; Sofya 471 Muslim and 238 Christian households. Ömer Lütfi Barkan. “Research on the
Ottoman Fiscal Surveys.” in Michael A. Cook (ed.), Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East
from the Rise of Islam to the Present Day (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 163-171. The data on
the population of these cities presented by Barkan is not absolutely accurate but offers a good idea about
the magnitude of Filibe in comparison with the larger provincial cities of the European possessions of the
Ottoman Empire. Cf. with the data interpolated in Nikolay Todorov. Balkanskiyat grad XV-XIX vek:
sotsialno-ikonomichesko i demografsko razvitie (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1972), 59-71.
268
BOA, TD 26, ff. 79-81.
101

Christian communities at that time.269 It seems that not only the number of ordinary
Christian tax-payers dropped in the intervening years, but also their clergymen almost
disappeared. Out of seven priests listed in the census of 1472 by 1489 merely three of
them remained resident in the city.270
In contrast to the decreasing Christian clergymen the register lists twenty four
imams serving in the mosques of Filibe. The main Friday mosque in the city, the
monumental Muradiye in 1489 was staffed by a hatib, imam, two müezzins, and a
kıyyum whose salaries were provided by the pious foundation of Murad II.271 It appears
that the tax exemption granted to the Muslim clergymen by Bayezid I that was later
reaffirmed by all reigning sultans, including Bayezid II, have had the necessary effect in
attracting Muslim scholars and preachers in the city. The growth of the Muslim
taxpayers in the intervening years was also considerable. The census lists 791 Muslim
households and 107 bachelors who constituted 87% of the total population of Filibe at
that time. The large majority of the Muslim taxpayers were craftsmen and traders who
relocated to Filibe mostly from the urban centers of Anatolia, but there were also

269
On İstanimaka see Boykov, Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace, 90-100. The village of
Kuklene in 1530 had five Christian quarters and population of 370 Christian households, 52 bachelors and
1 widow. The small Muslim community in the village had 36 households and 7 Muslim bachelors.
Borisov, Vakăfskata institutsia v Rodopite, 169. The area of İstanimaka had a dozen of medieval
monasteries, among which the second largest in Bulgaria, the Bachkovo monastery. This fact probably
explains the reasons for the migration of Christians in this direction. For a fine study on the demographic
history of the region and the importance of the monasteries’ network in local Christians’ life see Hristo
Hristozov. “Demografski i etno-religiozni protsesi v rayona na Asenovgrad prez XVI v.” (forthcoming in
Istoricheski Pregled).
270
One of the priests was registered in the quarter Pazariçi therefore probably served in the nearby church
of Sts. Constantine and Helena, BOA TD 26, f. 80. Another resided in the mahalle-i İsklopiçe therefore
most likely was the priest of the church St. Petka the Old. On the history of these churches see Nikola
Alvadžiev. Starinni cherkvi v Plovdiv (Plovdiv: Letera, 2000), 37-53; 83-100. The third priest was not
registered among the taxpayers of the city, as it usually was the case, but he appears some fifty pages
further 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.
271
Barkan, “Edirne ve Civarındaki”, 372.
102

individuals who came from other cities in the Balkans under Ottoman control, like
Smederevo for instance. 272 A community of thirty six Gypsy families settled at the
eastern outskirts of Filibe and formed the oldest Gypsy quarter in the city, later known
locally as “Adžisan maala”, corrupted form of the original name Hacı Hasan mahallesi.
The register of 1489 is exceptionally rich in information on the occupations of
the Muslim residents in the town. The tahrir emini often listed the taxpayers with their
professions instead of patronymics which was the more spread practice at the time. He
kept record of more than one hundred different kinds of crafts and trades as the most
numerous were the shoemakers, tailors, tanners, grocers, saddlers, etc.273 The Ottoman
city also had a number of goldsmiths, perfumers, soap-makers, arms-producers, and
certainly a good number of cooks, bakers, börekçis, and even sellers of sweets and
drinks, like şerbetçis, ma’cuncu, or lokmacı. Being important administrative and
political center the city naturally attracted a number of different Ottoman officials like
the two deputy-judges (naib) who were probably expecting an appointment, scribes,
secretaries of a court of justice (muhzır), superintendents, and even an akıncı officer
(tovice).
Thus by the 1480s Filibe appeared as fully developed Ottoman city in the
Balkans that rivaled in magnitude the largest provincial centers in the European domains
of the empire. Its rapid spatial and demographic development in the second half of the

272
BOA, TD 26, f. 68. One Yusuf Semendirelü was a resident in the centrally located mahalle of Haraççı
Hamza Bali.
273
Lists of the craftsmen in Filibe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, extracted from the data in the
tahrir registers in Nurullah Karta. “XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Filibe Şehrinde İktisadi Hayat ve Meslek
Grupları.” Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8:2 (2006): 145-173; idem. XVI.
Yüzyılda Filibe Kazası (unpublished PhD Dissertation, Atatürk Üniversitesi, 2005), 72-100.
103

fifteenth century was instigated and controlled by the central Ottoman authority and a
number of high ranking officials whose patronage over Islamic science and architecture
reshaped the declining medieval city into a prosperous Muslim center that appeared
attractive not only to merchants and craftsmen, but also to the Muslim scholars and
artists. In the 1440s Şihabeddin Paşa built in the city one of the largest medreses in the
Balkans, outside the capital Edirne. The elevation of Filibe as important intellectual
center in Rumelia however was aided not only by the multiple primary schools (mektebs)
present in the city, but also by the construction of another medrese towards the end of
the fifteenth century, which equaled in rank and magnitude this of Şihabeddin Paşa.
The data about this medrese is very scarce. The building disappeared prior the
nineteenth century therefore there is no information neither about its architectural
features nor about its exact location. In his account on the Ottoman buildings in Filibe
Evliya Çelebi did not note the total number of medresses in the city, but pointed that
from among the medresses in the city these of Şihabeddin Paşa and Karagöz Paşa are the
most important thus providing the name of the patron of the second large Muslim
college in Filibe.274 Cahit Baltacı identified him as Karagöz Mehmed Paşa one of the
prominent figures from the first years of the reign of Bayezid II.275 In the period 1482-
1483 he occupied the post of sancakbeyi of Sivas and played a decisive role in the

274
“ve cumle (---) added medrese-i dârü’l-ulûmdur. Evvelâ medrese-i Karagöz Paşa, medrese-i
Şehâbeddîn Paşa”. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 217.
275
Baltacı, Osmanlı Medreseleri, 139. Săbev. Osmanskite uchilishta, 224, considers that the patron was a
janissary sekbanbaşı Karagöz Ağa, who died in 1511. Nevertheless, the title Paşa, given in fifteenth
century to the sancakbeyis and beylerbeyis certainly makes Baltacı’s hypothesis more sustainable.
104

struggle between Bayezid II and Cem Sultan by seizing the castle of Ankara.276 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.277 His failure
to hold the region of Çukurova finally led to the execution of Karagöz Mehmed Paşa in
May/June 1486.278
The death of Karagöz Mehmed Paşa in 1486 establishes a firm date prior which
he must have commissioned the medrese in Filibe. His connection to the Thracian city is
unclear, but indeed he seems 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. 279 Documentary sources also establish that in the mid-sixteenth century Çalık
Yakub Efendi was a müderris in Karagöz Paşa’s medrese in Filibe receiving a salary of
forty akçes.280 It is unknown when this medrese disappeared, but it is very likely that
soon after the visit of Evliya to the city it was closed. A seventeenth-century ruzname
register of the Muslim colleges in Rumelia did not list the mederese of Karagöz Paşa
which indicates that it was probably closed at that time.281

276
Reindl, Männer um Bāyezīd, 262; Halil İnalcık. “Djem” in EI2; Selâhettin Tansel. Sultan II. Bâyezit’in
Siyasi Hayatı (İstanbul: Mili Eğitim Basımevi, 1966), 39.
277
Tansel, Sultan II. Bâyezit, 99-103.
278
Reindl, Männer um Bāyezīd, 266; Tansel, Sultan II. Bâyezit, 102-103. Mehmed Sürreyya. Sicil-i
Osmani yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, vol. 4 (İstanbul: Matba’a-i Amire, 1311/1893), 109, gives a
later gate of his death 1488.
279
Quoted after Baltacı, Osmanlı Medreseleri, 139.
280
Baltacı, Osmanlı Medreseleri, 139.
281
The document lists in Filibe the medreses of Şihabeddin Paşa (daily salary of 40 akçes) and of Seyyid
Ali Fakıh (daily salary of 25 akçes), see M. Kemal Özergin. “Eski bir Rûznâme’ye göre İstanbul ve
Rumili Medreseleri.” Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 4-5 (1973-1974): 284.
105

2.8. Reaching the peak: Filibe in the early sixteenth century
The earliest available “classical” tahrir of Paşa sancağı was prepared under
sultan Selim I (1512-1520), most likely in 1516.282 Its data presents Filibe as prosperous,
predominantly Muslim city that had more than one thousand households and two
hundred and twenty bachelors. 283 (Table 7) While the number of Christian residents
remained stable, having a growth of ten percent in the intervening years (1489-1516),
the Muslim population continued to expand in the same pace. The census of 1516 lists
the heads of 877 Muslim households that is also a growth of ten percent in the three
decades between the registrations. The large number of Muslim bachelors in Filibe (25%
of the entire Muslim population of the city), however, in this period was more common
to the Anatolian cities, pressured by the explosively expanding Muslim population and
seems rather unusual for the Balkans. In this respect the majority of Muslim bachelors in
Filibe were most likely immigrants from Anatolia who came to Rumelia in search for
better fortune. This unusual situation did not last long, because nine years later, when the
next census of the city was drawn up, half of these bachelors disappeared probably as a
result of migration further westward. The growth of Muslim households in the
intervening period (eighty six hanes) must have also been a consequence of the influx of
population. The increase that at a first glance appears as an output of the natural growth

282
BOA, TD 77. This register is dated by the researchers in a large 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.
283
BOA, TD 77, ff. 543-560.
106

of the Muslim community in the city evidently was rather a result of the arrival of new
residents. Twenty eight percent (250 individuals) of the Muslim heads of households in
Filibe in 1516 were converts to Islam, thus significantly exceeding the total Muslim
growth in the period. Stated differently, it appears that the converts to Islam not only
constituted the entire Muslim population growth, but also compensated for the loss of
Turkish residents in the period 1489-1516. The very low percentage of first generation
converts to Islam in the census of 1489 (only 4.8%) bespeaks that a great part of the
Muslim population of Filibe was ethnic Turks who came from Asia Minor. The situation
in 1516 significantly differed as more than a quarter of the Muslims in the city were
Christian-born converts to Islam. These were in all probability local people who left the
overpopulated mountains that enclosed the plain of Upper Thrace. For instance the small
high valley of Razlog, squeezed between the Rhodopes, Rila and Pirin mountains, had in
this period a serious surplus of population that was constantly pushed out to the lower
lands of Upper or Aegean Thrace.284 It is very likely that many of the villagers who
came to the city converted to Islam in search for better life opportunities and easier
integration.
Another significant change in the ethnic picture of the city was the arrival of a
community of Sephardic Jews in the years after 1492, who probably reached Filibe by
way of Thessaloniki.285 The Jewish presence was not entirely new to this city, since

284
Grigor Boykov. “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina v usloviyata na osmanska vlast.” in Alexader
Grebenarov et al. (eds.), Razlog, istoriya, traditsii, pamet (Blagoevgrad: Irin-Pirin, 2009), 53-78.
285
Heath Lowry. “Portrait of a City: The Population and Topography of Ottoman Selanik (Thessaloniki)
in the Year 1478.” in idem. Studies in Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Centuries (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992), 71-73; Mina Rozen. Facing the Sea: The Jews of Salonika in the
Ottoman Era (1430-1920) (Afula, 2011) - http://www.minnarozen.co.il
107

there was a Jewish community in Philippopolis ever since the antiquity. The available
sources and archaeological materials, however, do not contain any specific data about
Jews in the city at the eve of the Ottoman conquest of the city. Nevertheless Filibe must
have had a Jewish community since after the conquest of Constantinople in 1455
Mehmed II deported and settled there a group of thirty eight Jewish families from
Filibe.286 Mehmed II must have deported virtually all Jews residing in Filibe because the
registers of 1472 and 1489 contain no data for Jewish population there. By the end of the
fifteenth century, after an interruption of about half-a-century, the Jewish community of
Filibe was reestablished. The census of 1516 lists 32 Jewish households who settled at
the western edge of the Muslim city.287 The Jews occupied the area north of the slopes of
the hill with the clock tower (Saat tepesi), known locally as Orta mezar 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 Filibe as the
present building only dates from the 1880s.288
The data in the defter of 1516 indicates that the spatial expansion 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.289 To the west the mahalle bordered the Christian
quarter of Pazariçi and that of Veled-i Kasım to the south. In all probability it was

286
Halil Inalcık. “Itanbul” in EI2. idem. “Jews in the Ottoman Economy and Finances 1450-1500.” in
Clifford Bosworth et al. (eds.) The Islamic World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of
Bernard Lewis (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, 1989), 513.
287
BOA, TD 77, f. 559.
288
The synagogue built in 1886-1887 stands in good shape on 9 Tsar Kaloyan, str.
289
In 1516 the quarter must have been very recent, since it was explicitly noted in the census as a new one
(hadis). BOA, TD 77, f. 552.
108

formed around a small mosque of unidentified benefactor that in later times was locally
known as the mosque of the chained well (Zincirli bunar camii). The other quarters
Korucu and Köprübaşı split from the large mahalle named Tataran and formed a suburb
of Filibe north of the river that was known in later period as the Karşı yaka (mod.
Karshyaka).
Four residents of the northern suburb of Filibe were listed in a separate entry in
the register indicating that they were tax-exempted because of rendering services at the
imperial stables for camels.290 The stables were located in the open plain north of the
city and were of high strategic importance for the Ottoman army. The large open space
north of Filibe was one of the gathering points of the imperial army campaigning toward
the western Balkans. The availability of camels that were the chief transportation vehicle
of the Ottoman army was of extreme importance for any military campaign undertaken
by the sultans.291 The date of construction of the imperial stables for camels is uncertain,
but it is likely that this happened during the reign of Mehmed II or earlier, since in the
late 1480s they already needed repair. 292 Many western travelers who crossed Filibe
mentioned the large stables for camels on the northern bank of the river, standing near

290
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-exempted).
291
On the usage and the importance of camels in the Ottoman army that had higher carring capacity than
horses or mules see Suraiya Faroqhi. “Camels, Vagons, and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 14:4 (1982): 523-539; Rhoads
Murphey. Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700 (London: UCL Press, 1999), 70-83. Halil İnalcık. An Economic
and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 39.
292
The repair of the camel stables (ıstabl-i şuturan) was done in 1486 together with the repair of the
bridge over the river Maritsa, mentioned above. İBK, M.C. O. 91, ff. 261r-262a.
109

the bridge of Lala Şahin.293 Catharin Zen who visited the city in 1550 stated that the
large stables for horses and camels were built by the grand vizier İbrahim Paşa, which
indicates a possible reconstruction in the first half of the sixteenth century, financed by
the grand vizier.294 The exact date in which this reconstruction took place is unknown,
but this must have happened in the late 1520s. In October 1530 when Benedict
Curipeschitz crossed Filibe he witnessed the stone-made stable on the northern edge of
the city capable of fitting in eight hundred horses, which he likewise attributed to
İbrahim Paşa.295
The closer look on the data of the register allows some further detailed
observations on the professions and occupations of the residents of the city. The
increasing number of Muslim clergymen is noteworthy. The tax exemptions that were
probably recognized and reaffirmed by the reigning sultan attracted more learned men in
the intervening years between the registrations. In 1516 Filibe had at least three hatibs,
thirty six imams, and twenty three müezzins who staffed the mosques and the mescids of
the city. Moreover, among the tax-payers one finds several dervishes, who probably
refused the ownership of property and were marked by the tahrir emini as being in a

293
A number of these reports are summarized in Bistra Cvetkova. “Materiali za selishtata i stroitelstvoto v
bălgarskite zemi prez XV-XVI v.” Izvestiya na Instituta po gradoustroystvo i arhitektura 7-8 (1975): 490-
495.
294
“…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.
295
Mihail Yonov. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Nemski i avstriyski pătepisi za Balkanite XV-XVI v. (Sofia:
Nauka i izkustvo, 1979), 147.
110

state of poverty (fakirü’l-hal) thus not liable to avarız and other extraordinary levies.296
The locations of the zaviyes and the tekkes of these dervishes are uncertain, but the
register offers information about the names of some of the patrons. For instance the
resident of the quarter Aslıhan Bey, Muhiddin Halife, was a şeyh at the zaviye of
Şemseddin Halife.297 There is no information about the identity of the patron nor did the
convent keep its name since in the following register it already appears as a zaviye of
Emir Halife. One Mustafa, son of İsa Halife, resident in the quarter of Haracçı Hamza
Bali was also a sheikh of an unnamed convent. The fairly central location of this quarter,
that had three mescids,298 must have made it one the preferred residential places for the
urban elite. Except for the mentioned sheikh 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 one Tursun,
relative of a kadıasker and Ali, son of the kadı in the nearby quarters of Musalla and
Hacı Ahmed.299
Two architectural monuments, that later turned into significant landmarks of the
urban landscape were also commissioned and built at the turn of the fifteenth or in the
first years of the sixteenth century in the period between the registrations. These are the
mosque and bath of Hacı Hasanzade and the mosque of Yeşiloğlu, which had the tallest
minaret of all Filibe mosques. The mosque of Hacı Hasan was located east of the citadel,
lying on the old road to Edirne, very near the newly established quarter of Koca Hüseyin.

296
For instance there was one ‘Hasan derviş, fakirü’l-hal’. BOA, TD 77, f. 543.
297
BOA TD 77, f. 547.
298
BOA, TD 77, f. 543. “mahalle-i Haracçı Hamza Bali – bu mahallenin üç mescidi var” (quarter of
Haracçı Hamza Bali – this quarter has three small mosques).
299
BOA, TD 77, ff. 454-455.
111

(no. 12 on Plan 1) It stood until 1971 when the local authorities demolished it. The
mosque of Hacı Hasan was studied in detail by Machiel Kiel who examined the
abandoned building in 1967. 300 The latter was a simple mahalle mescidi that was
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 made of large stone blocks of antique spolia.301 The original part of the building
was made of irregular cloisonné and was covered with a pitched roof. 302 The
architectural features of the building allowed Kiel to conclude that the mosque was built
in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. The closest architectural parallel of this
building, according to Kiel, is the mosque of the grand vizier Atik Ali Paşa, within the
walled part of Edirne built in 1506.303
The dating of Kiel for the mosque of Hacı Hasan completely fits into what is
known about the spatial development of the city in this period. Similarly to the quarter
and the mosque of Musalla (no. 20 on Plan 1), that marked the western boundaries of the
city, this of Hacı Hasan defined its eastern limits. A photograph from the 1900s
published as card postal in 1910 shows that the mosque and its quarter, inhabited mostly
by Gypsies, even in the twentieth century continued to occupy the outer parts of
Filibe.(Fig. 47)

300
Kiel, Filibe notes and studies, 50f.
301
Kiel, Filibe notes and studies, 50f. The spolia must have been abundant in this area since the outer wall
of the Roman Philippopolis stood nearby.
302
Several stone inscriptions examined by Balkanlı show that the mosque saw at least three major
restorations. Firstly in A.H. 997 (1588-1589) one zaim Hacı Hüseyin repaired or rebuilt the mosque. Later
in A.H. 1090 (1679-1680) 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 A.H. 1262 (1845-1846). Balkanlı,
Şarkî Rumeli, 114.
303
112

About thirty meters west of the mosque the patron commissioned a public bath
that was known locally by the name of kadıasker hamamı. (no. 30 on Plan 1)304 The fact
that Hacı Hasan commissioned this bath too allowed Kiel to positively identify the
patron of these buildings in Filibe as the kadıasker Hacı Hasanzade.305 The register of
the pious foundations in Istanbul of 1546 lists the vakıf of Hacı Hasanzade that was in
possession of the revenues of the hamam in Filibe. 306 The pious foundation was
established in support of the mosque and medrese in Istanbul commissioned by the
kadıasker Hacı Hasanzade Mustafa Efendi.307 He was a highly influential person, one of
the most prominent of the ‘ulema of this time. Hacı Hasanzade was appointed by
Mehmed II to the post of kadıasker of Anatolia in 1481 and received the position of
kadıasker of Rumili in 1488, which he kept until his death in A.H. 911 (1505-1506).308
The information on Hacı Hasanzade’s administrative and scholarly career suggests that
his mosque and hamam in Filibe must have been built in the period after his appointment
to the kadıasker-ship of Rumili in 1488 and prior to his death in 1505/1506.
The other significant landmark of Filibe that appeared between the registrations
of 1489 and 1516 was the highly monumental mosque of Yeşiloğlu in the quarter of
Muhsin Hoca. (no. 8 on Plan 1) The mosque was located in the northern part of the city,
occupying the western corner of the second busiest spot in Filibe after the square and the

304
Alvadžiev. Plovdivska hronika, 94. In the seventeenth century Evliya Çelebi also mentioned a public
bath named kadıasker hamamı. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 217.
305
306
Ömer Lüfti Barkan and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 953 (1546)
Târîhli (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1970), 248.
307
Hacı Hasanzade also commissioned and bestowed to his vakıf two baths in Bursa and one in a village
near Istanbul. Ayverdi, Osmanlı Mi’mârisinde Fâtih Devri, 273.
308
Elias Gibb. A History of Ottoman Poetry, vol. 2 (London: Luzac & Co., 1902), 264 note 1; 350-351.
113

çarşı near Muradiye. At this point the main commercial street (Uzun çarşı) running from
north to south was intercepted by a long street that crossed the entire city from east to
west. The street owed its popular name (Şadırvan sokağı) to the sebil built in all
probability by İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail across the mosque of Yeşiloğlu. It was mentioned
above that west of this juncture was held the main market for agricultural products, used
by the villagers of the surrounding rural area that made the area crowed and busy. It is
probably because of this reason that the large mosque was placed on this particular spot
in the very late fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century.
The building stood until 1928 when the powerful earthquake demolished its
minaret which collapsed over the structure leaving it in ruins.309 The extant photographs
portray the mosque of Yeşiloğlu as a highly monumental stone building that almost
rivaled in size Muradiye with a fine and tall minaret attached to the northern side. It had
two rolls of windows on the seemingly tick stone-made walls being crowned with a
pitched roof covered with tiles. (Fig. 48) In the nineteenth century the mosque received
an enormous extension on its front side that is clearly observable on the extant
panoramic photographs. The portico was transformed into a two-storey addition covered
by a separate roof integrated into the structure.
The patron of this mosque was the scholar Yeşilzade Kadı Sinanoğlu Ahmed
Riyâzi. He was 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 in

309
Alvadžiev. Plovdivska hronika, 27, 221; Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 209, 219.
114

the sixteenth century.310 Riyâzi, a native of Filibe, served as kadı of the city several
times and even passed away there during one of his terms. The exact date of his death is
not known, but Latifi specifies that this happened in the time of the then reigning
sultan.311 Latifi presented his work Tezkiretü’ş-şuarâ ve Tabsıra-i Nuzemâ to Süleyman
I (1521-1566) in 1546312 therefore the time of Yeşilzade Riyazi’s death in Filibe can be
limited in 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 several years
prior to Riazi’s death. The mosque was located in the old quarter of Muhsin hoca, which
by the time when the census was drawn up was also known locally as Yeşiloğlu
mahallesi. The new name that gradually replaced the older is definitive evidence that the
mosque of Yeşilzade was erected in Riazi’s lifetime in the years prior to 1516.
2.9. The forced relocation (sürgün) of Muslims to the west in the 1520s
The next population census of Filibe dates only nine years after the general tahrir
registration of 1516.313 Nevertheless, the form of the document differs from the standard
tahrirs of the period.314 It did not cover all left wing kazas in the sancak of Paşa, but

310
Mustafa İsen. Latîfî Tezkiresi (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1990), 381-382.
311
İsen, Latîfî Tezkiresi, 381.
312
İsen, Latîfî Tezkiresi, v.
313
BOA, MAD 519.
314
There is rich literature discussing the methods of compiling of tahrir records and their usage in modern
scholarship. Halil İnalcık published the earliest preserved census, providing it with detailed introduction,
115

included only the settlements from the nahiyes of Filibe, Saruhanbeğlü and Samako and
several villages from the kaza of Zağra-i Eski Hisar. Moreover, the register had also a
significant structural disparity with the traditional tahrir records. The population of each
village or mahalle was split into two separate sets of records. The upper part of the entry
indicated the residents that were present in the previous tahrir (1516) and lived enough
to be included in the new one whilst the lower part listed all new tax-payers who were
not included in the previous defter. The same was valid for the taxation records of the
settlements thus also indicating the increase or drop of revenues that occurred since the
previous registration. These unusual features make the document highly valuable as it
clearly indicates that the Ottoman administration was attempting to track the changes
that took 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 a request
of the central administration. The first and last pages of the document were torn away
therefore in case the imperial order for this registration was appended to the front of the
defter, as it was often the case, it has been lost too. Nevertheless, the document contains
copies of a number of other orders and documents related to properties and taxation of

thus establishing a long tradition in publishing these valuable sources. Halil İnalcık. Hicrî 835 Tarihli
Sûret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954). A number of other estimated
works also contributed to the field. Ömer Lütfi Barkan. “«Tarihî demografi» Araştırmaları ve Osmanlı
Tarihi.” Türkiyat Mecmuası 10 (1951-1953): 1-26; idem. “Essai sur les données statistiques des registres
de recensement dans l’Empire ottoman aux XVe et XVIe siècles.” Journal of Economic and Social History
of the Orient 1:1 (1957): 9-36; Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr and Nicoară Beldiceanu. “Règlement ottoman
concernant le recensement (pemière moitié du XVIe siècle).” Südost-Forschungen 37 (1978): 1-40;
Mehmet Öz. “Tahrir Defterlerinin Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmalarında Kullanılması Hakkında Bazı
Düşünceler." Vakıflar Dergisi 22 (1991): 429-439; idem. “Tahrir Defterlerindeki Sayısal Veriler.” in Halil
İnalcık and Şevket Pamuk (eds.), Osmanlı Devletinde Bilgi ve İstatistik (Ankara: Devlet Istatistik
Enstitüsü, 2000), 17-32.
116

the area, like the imperial decree exempting the Muslim clergymen in Filibe from
taxation that was discussed above.
The missing front page of this defter also leaves the document without a firm
date of its compilation. The information in the record, however, clearly shows that the
actual registration took place between the detailed census of 1516 (TD 77) and the large
synoptic register of 1530 (TD 370). The date in the catalogue of the Başbakanlık archive
A.H. 925 (1519-1520) is undoubtedly wrong. On the one hand this is a too short a period
after the previous registration of 1516 therefore hardly any update was needed; on the
other hand, the changes that can be observed in the document certainly required a period
longer than three years. Moreover, evidently the defter was draw up in the reign of
Süleyman I (1521-1566) since some of the dignitaries of his court were allotted revenues
in the area. The hasses of the grand vizier Pargalı/Maktul İbrahim Paşa, listed in the
register allow specifying a more precise dating of the census. İbrahim Paşa was
appointed to the highest administrative post of the Ottoman state on 27 June 1523 and
occupied it until his death on 15 March 1536 which limits the time frame in which the
defter was drawn up. 315 In 1529 the revenues of the domain of İbrahim Paşa were
significantly increased as his total annual incomes reached three million akçes. 316
Clearly MAD 519 was drawn up prior to this date, because it did not reflect the
considerable enlargement of İbrahim Paşa’s estate that took place in 1529.317 This fact

315
M. Tayyib Gökbilgin. “Ibrahim Pasha” in EI2; İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı. Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. ІІ
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1975), 545-547; Hester Donaldson Jenkins. Ibrahim Pasha: Grand Vizir of
Suleiman the Magnificent (New York: Columbia University, 1911), 34-35.
316
Gökbilgin, “Ibrahim Pasha”, 998.
317
The large icmal of 1530 on the other hand clearly indicated this change. In the area of Filibe twelve
extra villages were added to the hass of the grand vizier. BOA TD 370, f. 98.
117

limits the period of drawing up of the defter to six years, i.e. it was compiled between
1523 and 1529. A marginal note dating 1525 strongly suggests that the registration took
place in this year.318
The peculiar character of this census indicates that the registration must have
been carried out on a special request by the central administration to meet certain
extraordinary needs of the Ottoman authorities. The analysis of the data in the register
seems to substantiate the assumption that there was some irregularity in the demographic
processes in the region. Instead of the anticipated growth of population in the prosperous
and rapidly developing city in the intervening nine years between the registrations the
total population of Filibe dropped. About half of the numerous Muslim bachelors
disappeared in the census of 1525. The natural supposition that they simply created
families on their own should be overruled because the total number of the Muslim
households in the city also dropped. Not only the 113 Muslim bachelors disappeared in
the period 1516 – 1525, but it also seems that the Muslim community in Filibe lost 76
households. Evidently, this drop in the early sixteenth century, a period of an overall
demographic growth in the Ottoman Empire and Europe, is a highly unexpected and
very abnormal development. This unusual process can also provide the most likely
explanation as to 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 necessitated data that was up to date in
this particular moment. Moreover, the unusual fluctuations of population were not

318
“Karye-i Pastuşa-i Köhne, haliya hassa-i Padişah..., Muharrem 932” (October-November 1525),
BOA, MAD 519, f. 239.
118

restricted to Filibe only. In this period a new Christian quarter was founded in the
neighboring town of Tatar Pazarcık only to disappear five years later.319
The assumption for an extraordinary demographic development in the 1520s
finds indubitable confirmation in the data of the 1530 large icmal register. 320 This
synoptic register compiled data from the previous registrations (1516 and 1525) for
different parts of the region as also there must have been yet another registration after
1525, but prior to 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 1530.321 Thus the information
on the tax-payers of Filibe was refreshed in 1530 providing excellent opportunity for
closer observations on the demographic processes in the city.
The synoptic census from 1530 does not allow close observations on the
individual tax-payers in Filibe, but the data in the document shows a dramatic decrease
of the Muslim community in the city. It seems that 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 finally falling to
only 636 households and 126 bachelors in 1530. The decrease was indeed dramatic since
only in fourteen years more than one quarter of the Muslim population in Filibe
disappeared bringing the demographic figures close to the level of the 1470s. The
archival documents leave no clue as to the reasons for these intensive changes, but the

319
For details see the chapter on Tatar Pazarcık below.
320
BOA, TD 370, 85.
321
It is difficult to state with any degree of certainty why some settlements were included in the census of
1530 with data that was up to date whilst for others the information from the mufassal of 1516 was used,
but it is likely to be indicative for the greater changes in some of the settlements.
119

only plausible explanation for such intensive and sudden drop of the Muslims in the
town is a forced deportation organized by the central authority. The abnormal drop in
numbers of the Muslim residents in Filibe due to their relocation was not an isolated
case. In the same period the nearby urban centers like Tatar Pazarcık or Eski Zağra also
unexpectedly lost portions of their Muslim population.322 Natural calamities and diseases
must certainly be ruled out because the other religious groups in the town remained
stable without any signs for unnatural decrease. Moreover, the population of the
neighboring town of İstanimaka that was almost entirely Christian not only did not drop
in the period 1516-1530 but also slightly increased.323
The period in which the Ottoman administration produced multiple censuses for
parts of Upper Thrace and when significant portion of the Muslim population of Filibe
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 took
“the outer wall of Christendom”, the strong fortress of Belgrade, that cleared their way
to Central Europe allowing them to defeat the medieval kingdom of Hungary (1526) and
lay the first siege of Vienna in 1529.324 The rapid territorial extension was accompanied
by deportations of local Christian population from the conquered territories to the capital
Istanbul or other inner parts of the Empire. One such example was the deportation of
disobedient Serbs from the region of Syrmia (Ott. Sirem) and Belgrade to the Gallipoli

322
Grigor Boykov. “Balkan City or Ottoman City? A Study on the Models of Urban Development in
Ottoman Upper Thrace (15th – 17th c.).” in Halit Eren and Sadık Ünay (eds.), Proceedings of the Third
International Congress on the Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans, 1-5 November 2005, Bucharest,
Romania (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2010), 74.
323
Boykov, Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace, 90-100.
324
Halil İnalcık. The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age 1300-1600 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1973), 35-38.
120

Peninsula and Istanbul.325 Certainly the Ottomans needed to compensate the loss of tax-
payers caused by the warfare and deportations by bringing in Muslim settlers from the
older European parts of the Empire. Moreover, it was not only for the apparent need for
people trained in Islamic educational system who had to administer the newly conquered
territories, but also the Ottomans must have sought to change the ethnic balance in the
Christian western Balkans and Central Europe thus securing the loyalty of the residents
and some stability in the conquered lands. The earliest available tahrir census of
Ottoman Belgrade, dating 1536-1537 clearly shows that virtually all Muslim residents
were newcomers who did not formed yet mahalles, but were registered as cema’ats.326
The register however does not provide details as for where the settlers came from thus it
is not possible to state with any certainty whether the Muslims from Filibe were indeed
amongst these Muslims. Nevertheless, undoubtedly the missing part of Filibe’s Muslim
community must have been transferred to the Western Balkans or further west to Central
Europe. The mufassal register of Buda, compiled in 1546 shows that several of the
residents of the Danubian city were newcomers from Filibe.327
The closer examination of the data in the registers of 1525 and 1530 provides
further evidence showing that the decline of the Muslim population of Filibe in the
period 1516-1530 was not a natural process but was undoubtedly due to a forced

325
Feridun M. Emecen. “The History of an Early Sixteenth Century Migration – Sirem Exiles in
Gallipoli.” in Geza David and Pal Fodor (eds.), Hungarian-Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations in
the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent (Budapest: Lorand Eötvös University and Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, 1994), 77-91.
326
BOA, TD 187, f. 243. Further details in Branislav Djurdjev. “Belgrade” in EI2.
327
Gyula Kaldy-Nagy. Kanuni Devri Budin Tahrir Defteri (1546-1562) (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi,
1971), 11. In this case these were several Jews from Filibe, as there were many other newcomers from
various cities in the Balkans like Kavala, Vidin, Semendire, Edirne, Selânik or even the capital Istanbul.
121

relocation (sürgün) orchestrated by the Ottoman central administration. In 1525 the
multiple mosques of Filibe were served by no less than 33 imams and 28 müezzins as
also the record provides information about four sheikhs of dervish convents. The effect
of the transfer of Filibe’s Muslims to the west must have been devastating to the normal
existence and everyday life of the Muslim community there, because the register of 1530
indicates that it was far from the normality. According to the data in the register, the city
that at that moment must have had about thirty mosques and mescids, was served by
altogether 3 imams and 2 müezzins as there was also one şeyh-i zaviye who most likely
headed the complex of Şihabeddin Paşa. The sürgün seems not only to have interrupted
the rapid demographic development of the city and carried away more than one quarter
of the Muslims but it also striped the city from its religious, scholarly and intellectual
elite. In all probability the vacant positions of the clergymen were soon filled up with
new candidates waiting for appointment, but the effect of these dramatic changes must
have been a temporary set-back for its development.
The forced population relocation of the late 1520s certainly was not new to Filibe.
It was mentioned above that in mid-fifteenth century Mehmed II transferred Christian
and Jewish families from the city to his capital Istanbul. Nor such deportations were
isolated cases, but they were rather systematically used by the Ottomans to repopulate
the newly conquered territories in the early period.328 Nevertheless, very little is known

328
There is rich literature on the Ottoman policy of forced relocations. The “classical” studies of Barkan
present rich data on the sürgüns, orchestrated by the Ottomans that aimed at repolulating the depressed
regions in the Balkans. By bringing Muslim Turkish settlers to the Christian Balkans the Ottomans
undoubtedly attempted to strengthen their authority in the region. Ömer Lütfi Barkan. “Osmanlı
İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat
Fakültesi Mecmuası 11 (1949-1950): 524-569; 13 (1951-1952): 56-79; 15 (1953-1954): 209-237. Paul
122

about the forced relocations of Muslims to the Western Balkans and Central Europe that
occurred under the rule of Süleyman I.329 It was already mentioned that several other
towns in Upper Thrace were also affected by these deportations in the late 1520s.
Moreover, it appears that the Ottoman administration prepared the forced relocation of
Muslim population to the newly conquered territories in much large scale and it affected
other regions too. A recent study on the powerbase of the Evrenosoğlu dynasty, the city
of Yenice-i Vardar (Giannitsa) in Greek Macedonia, shows a striking similarity to the
development in Filibe. 330 In the immediate aftermath of the second conquest of
Thessaloniki in 1432-1433 Murad II forcibly relocated the greater portion of the
Muslims of Yenice-i Vardar to the newly conquered city. 331 The archival documents
show that under the management of the members of the dynasty of Evrenos Yenice-i
Vardar recovered quickly, but a century later in 1530 it suffered another major drop in
population. Compared to the figures from the preceding register, dating 1519, the city
lost close to 38% of its Muslim community while the small quarter of Christians

Lovell Hooper. Forced Population Transfers in Early Ottoman Imperial Strategy: a Comparative Approach
(unpublished senior thesis, Princeton University, 2003) summarized the existing bibliography on this topic.
Likewise many of the cities conquered and resettled by the Ottomans were examined in a number of fine
studies. See Heath Lowry. The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461-
1583 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2009); idem. “From Lesser Wars to the Mightiest War’: The Ottoman Conquest
and Transformation of Byzantine Urban Centers in the Fifteenth Century.” in Anthony Bryer and Heath
Lowry (eds.), Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society (Birmingham –
Washington, D.C.: the University of Birmingham Centre for Byzantine Studies & Dumbarton Oaks, 1986),
323-338; Halil İnalcık. “Istanbul: an Islamic City.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1-23.
329
While Western Balkans and Central Europe is the most likely destination for the transfer of urban
population from Upper Thrace it seems that about the same time rural population from the region
relocated to Danubian Bulgaria. The villages of Küçük and Büyük Filibelüler or Zağralı that in a register
of 1550 appear in the kaza of Hezargrad (mod. Razgrad) clearly attest this fact. Machiel Kiel. “Hrazgrad-
Hezargrad-Razgrad: The Vicissitudes of a Turkish Town in Bulgaria (Historical, Demographical,
Economic and Art Historical Notes).” Turcica 21-23 (1991): 536.
330
Heath Lowry and İsmail Erünsal. The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar: Notes & Documents
(Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010), 120-122.
331
Lowry – Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar, 120-121.
123

remained stable.332 Moreover, a group of twenty four Jewish households disappeared
completely.333 Lowry and Erünsal noticed this irregularity in the demographic processes
and concluded that the only seemingly explanation for this sudden drop in population in
the interim between the two registers must be forced relocation of part of the city’s
residents.
Further studies will most likely bring to light more cases of deportations of
Muslim population from the older Rumelian territories of the Empire in the early
Süleymanic age and could possibly reveal the exact locations where the Muslims of
Filibe were resettled. Relocating urban population among whom were many merchants
and craftsmen but also Muslim clergymen and scholars bespeaks that the residents of
Filibe were resettled in some of the newly conquered urban centers in the Western
Balkans or Central Europe. While this hypothesis cannot be advanced beyond the
speculation, it is strongly suggested by evidence at hand.
2.10. Resurgence of the city in the second half of the sixteenth century
The forced relocations of Muslims in the 1520s most certainly had a negative
effect on the development of Filibe. Notwithstanding the central administration was not
attempting to ruin the prosperity of the city but it rather appears that the Ottomans had a

332
Lowry – Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar, 122.
333
Lowry – Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar, 122.
124

very good sense for the abilities of the individual settlements to recover after such
deportations. Evidently the central administration was very careful in defining what
portion of the population can be relocated and was very flexible in making this choice.
Thus, larger and prosperous places like Filibe and Yenice-i Vardar provided greater
percentage of their Muslim population for the resettlement policy of Süleyman I, whilst
smaller developing towns such as the neighboring Tatar Pazarcık contributed to the
population transfer with a much smaller part of its residents thereby the central power
assured that the town will not decline after the forced relocation of part of its Muslim
population.
The data from the next tahrir registers demonstrates that indeed Filibe had the
necessary demographic potential for fast recovery and indicates that its Muslim
population was quickly reemerging. Moreover, the high ranking Ottoman officials
continued to commission public buildings there thus their architectural patronage not
only contributed for the recovery from the demographic crisis of the early sixteenth
century, but boosted the further development of the urban space as well. The icmal
register of 1530 specifies that by that time Filibe had four public baths. Although they
were not explicitly named in the document these baths can be certainly identified as
Tahtakale hamamı (built by Şihabeddin Paşa in the late 1430s); Hünkâr hamamı (also
built by Şihabeddin Paşa in 1444); Çifte hamamı (in all probability built by
İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey in the late 1460s or the early 1470s); and Kadıasker hamamı
(built by the kadıasker Hacı Hasanzade Mustafa Efendi between 1488 and 1505/1506).
125

Moreover, the tahrir emini marked altogether four inns (hanat) in the city, whose
existence undoubtedly point to the growing importance of the trade in the thriving urban
center. These commercial buildings, however, are more difficult to be identified. One of
these hans must have been the great kervansaray built north of Muradiye in the second
half of the fifteenth century (very likely prior to 1489) whose patron is unknown. A
second inn was built in 1444 in the complex of Şihabeddin Paşa, located at the northern
part of the city near Lala Şahin’s bridge over the river Maritsa. Yet, the scarcity of the
sources mentioning the commercial buildings in the city makes it very hard to establish
which were the remaining two inns put on record in the 1530 defter. It is noteworthy that
the register did not record separately the bedesten built in the second half of the fifteenth
century, which makes it plausible to suggest that the registrar counted it in the total
number of the city hans. On the other hand, the seventeenth-century text of Evliya
Çelebi lists several hans in Filibe, but it is unclear which ones were built prior to 1530
and were thus included in the icmal defteri of that time. According to the seventeenth-
century Ottoman traveler by the time of his visit to Filibe, there were four inns in the
çarşı area – Zal Paşa hanı, Dede hanı, Şihabeddin Paşa hanı, and Tahtalkal’a hanı, and
a fifth one, Varoş hanı, situated by the bridge on the northern side of the river.334 The
older edition of Evliya’s travelogue, however, includes yet another inn named the Orta
Pazar hanı that is missing in the recent academic publication of Kahraman and Dağlı
based on the Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 manuscript. It seems that the Topkapı copy of
the travelogue in this specific part was incomplete, a fact indicated by the editors by

334
126

leaving empty spaces. Therefore, despite the modernized language used in the
nineteenth-century edition of Evliya Çelebi in this particular section it seems the more
credible copy that has to be preferred before the recent academic publication of the
text. 335 Except for the name of an additional inn, the nineteenth-century publication
included also a remark missing in the Topkapı copy according to which near the han of
Şihabeddin Paşa there was also a lead-covered kervansaray (“Şihabeddin Paşa hanı,
civarındaki kârbanseray dahi anukdur”).336
It seems that not only the publications of the text of Evliya do not match, but the
337
narrative itself is also somewhat confused. Nevertheless, the analysis of its
information can provide the names of the four inns that stood in 1530 and were listed in
the large synoptic register. One of the hans can be immediately ruled out of the list,
because it was apparently being commissioned after 1530. This is the Zal hanı, built by
Zal Mahmud Paşa (d. 1577) that will be discussed below.
From the remaining five inns in Evliya’s list three were certainly standing in
1530. These are the kervansaray in the commercial core of Filibe (Tahtalkal’a hanı in
Evliya), the 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 Filibe, that Evliya mentions there was
certain Dede mektebi. Above the main gate of this school, according to Evliya, was
placed a dedicatory plate that gives the year A.H. 893 (1487-1488) as the date of its

335
Evliya Çelebi. Seyahatnamesi, Üçüncü Cild (İstanbul: Dersa’det Matba’ası, 1314/1896), 386.
336
Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi (Dersa’det Matba’ası), 386.
337
In fact the names of the public baths provided by Evliya are also mixed up.
127

construction. 338 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 han was evidently prior the icmal of 1530, 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. It was already stated that the bedesten that
indisputably stood by the 1530s could have been added to the list of hans of the Ottoman
registrar, but it seems more likely that it was one of the ‘proper’ inns from the list of
Evliya. There is no documentary or any other information about an inn named Orta
Pazar hanı, which makes its existence questionable. Moreover the name of the inn does
not appear in the Topkapı copy of Evliya’s travelogue therefore it is probably safe to be
ruled out of the list of hans from 1530, which makes the so-called Varoş hanı the only
possible choice. In spite of the lack of precise information about the date of construction
and the name of its patron the location of this inn can be established without any
difficulties. If the information of the Ottoman traveler about Varoş hanı is credible it
must have been located in the suburb formed on the northern bank of the river Maritsa,
very close to the bridge.339 Unfortunately there is no other information about this inn nor
is it known when exactly it disappeared.

338
Evliya provided the construction date of the mekteb both as a chronogram and in numbers – “Dedi
târîhin Bekir ‘Hayrun cemil’ ( ‫ ) خير جميل‬sene 893”. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi (Dersa’det Matba’ası),
385. The new academic edition of the seyahatname, as if to add to the confusion, also gives the same
chronogram and a date in numbers 982 (1574-1575), thus indicating that the building was commissioned
close to a century later. Moreover, the editors added a footnote pointing correctly that the chronogram
does not match the date provided in figures, but miscalculated the value of the chronogram to 993. Evliya
Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 217.
339
128

The forced relocation of Filibe’s Muslims undoubtedly slowed down the natural
demographic development of the city. It appears, though, that even after such drastic
changes, its population recovered relatively quickly. To a great extend this fast revival
must be attributed to the existing infrastructure of the already developed urban fabric.
Certainly the commercial buildings, kervansarays and hans, erected in the period before
the sürgün fostered the influx of both traders and new settlers, who sought for better
opportunities in the biggest urban and trade center of the area.
The register of 1530 also provides data about Filibe’s Friday mosques that
functioned in the city at that tıme. According to it altogether merely three Friday
mosques operated in the city in the year in which the census was drawn up. This
information is also the most likely explanation for the same incredibly small number of
imams and müezzins in the city in 1530. The forced relocation of Muslims from Filibe
had such dramatic impact on the urban life that it only left three mosques that were
staffed and fully fit to serve the congregation of the city. In all probability these were the
largest mosques of Filibe – 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 been already redesigned and began its
service as a Friday mosque. All other smaller or larger mosques and mescids in the
Muslim quarters in 1530 did not have enough personnel in order to render services to the
reduced Muslim community in Filibe.
The unusual situation, as reflected in the register of 1530, evidently did not last
very long. The Ottoman central administration apparently was attempting to provide a
129

short term decision in securing the urgently needed settlers for the newly conquered
territories in the west. Not too long after this date newly appointed imams and müezzins
appeared in the city, the schools and colleges reopened and everyday life returned to
normality.
The period after the 1530s was also a time of drastic changes in the entire region
of Upper Thrace. The central Ottoman administration attempted to establish stronger
control over these parts of the province that were dominated by the mighty akıncı border
lords and their natural allies - the mystical heterodox dervish brotherhoods. It was in this
period that the neighboring area and town of Tatar Pazarcık were detached from the
large kaza of Filibe and were placed under the jurisdiction of a separate kadı. 340
Moreover, the central authority managed to come to close understanding and cooperated
with some of the most prominent figures from the Sunni mystical order Khalvetiyye.
Important preachers like Muslihuddin Nureddinzade and Kurd Efendi, both native of the
region, took terms in Tatar Pazarcık in guiding the local Muslims in their struggle
against the “heretics”.341 The details about this important clash in which the centralism
and Sunni Islam gained a decisive victory is examined in detail in the related section of
the chapter on the town of Tatar Pazarcık below. What is relevant to this chapter is the
connection of sheikh Nureddinzade to the development of Filibe that remained
unnoticed in the scholarly literature to date.

340
Grigor Boykov. Tatar Pazardžik ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraya na XVII vek. Izsledvania i
dokumenti (Sofia: Amicitia, 2008), 56-61.
341
Overview of the role and importance of the Halveti sheikh in the struggle against the hetedodoxy in
Rumelia in Nathalie Clayer. Mystique, état et société. Les Halvetis dans l’air balkanique de la fin du XVe
siècle à nos jours (Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1994), 63-112.
130

The influential Halveti sheikh Nureddinzade, who enjoyed the patronage of
Sokollu Mehmed Paşa resided and preached in Tatar Pazarcık most likely in the late
1530s and the 1540s.342 It must have been in this period that he established a Halveti
zaviye in the city of Filibe too. (no. 23 on Plan 1) The available information about
Nureddinzade’s convent in Filibe is extremely scarce and in general it is limited to
attesting the fact of its existence. At some moment he must have also established a pious
foundation for its support endowing a lump sum of cash (vakf-i nukud).343 A document
dating 1596, drawn up by the administrator of the cash vakıf of Nureddinzade, one
Abdullah, presents a very brief accounting balance of the foundation. The information in
the document reveals that the zaviye had a public soup kitchen since the foundation
spent 4 900 akçes for the food cooked in the kitchens there. 344 Appointments of
personnel, registered in a hurufat defteri show that the zaviye of Nureddinzade must
have been a rather spacious complex since except for the dervish convent and the public
kitchens it had a mosque served at least by one imam and one müezzin. 345 Another
hurufat register, in spite of containing much less detailed information, provides an
important clue for the exact location of Nureddinzade’s zaviye in Filibe. It specifies that
one Mustafa received a berat for his appointment as imam to the mosque of

342
See the chapter on Tatar Pazarcık for argumentation and details.
343
Nureddinzade was a disciple of Sofyalı Bali Efendi who was among the voiced proponents of the cash
vakıfs playing a decisive role in the controversy about the legal nature of cash vakıfs that erupted in the
Muslim scholarly society in the Ottoman realm. In this respect, being vigorous supporter of his tutor, it is
little suspiring that Nureddinzade established a cash vakıf in support of his convent in Filibe. 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 10:3 (1979):
289-308; Keskioğlu, “Bulgaristan’da Türk Vakıfları ve Bâlî Efendi”, 90-94.
344
BOA, TSMA 4319. The document is wrongly dated in the catalogue 1611.
345
VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 225, 228, 239, 242, 248. In 1763 the imam was entitled to a daily salary of two
akçes.
131

Nureddinzade, which is located near the bank of the river Meriç. 346 Additional
information from the earlier hurufat register, pointing that the zaviye and the mosque of
Nureddinzade were built in the quarter Hacı Ömer, allows to establish with a great
degree of certainty the precise location of Nureddinzade’s convent in Filibe. It was built
in a place that in the mid-sixteenth century was quite distant and isolated from the
commercial part of the city. The zaviye and the mosque stood by the river in the
northwestern edge of Filibe in a zone that at that time must have been uninhabited. Even
on the nineteenth century photographs the district appears empty. In the late eighteenth
or early nineteenth century the numerous Bulgarians who flooded the city established a
new Christian quarter named Maraş mahallesi west of the convent of Nureddinzade,
thus enclosing the area of the zaviye. It is unknown when the convent was abandoned or
demolished. Undoubtedly in the mid-eighteenth century the zaviye was still functioning,
because after sultan Mustafa III (1757-1774) occupied the Ottoman throne he issued a
berat that reaffirmed the post of zavieydar of the convent of Nureddinzade Musliheddin
Efendi of certain sheikh Mustafa.347
Being one of the fanatic supporters of Sunni Islam and a bitter opponent to the
heterodoxy in Ottoman Rumili Nureddinzade and his followers in the convent in Filibe
must have pursued a very similar task as in Tatar Pazarcık, i.e. persecution and
oppression of the itinerant heterodox abdals in the city and the area. The Halveti sheikh
was native of the region and he was certainly very well informed about the religious

346
Halit Çal. “1192 Numaralı 1697 – 1716 Tarihli Hurufat Defterine Göre Bulgaristan’daki Türk
Mimarisi.” in Aktaş Yasa - Zafer (eds.), Balkanlar’da Kültürel Etkileşim ve Türk Mimarisi, 258.
347
BOA, C.EV. dosya 569, gömlek 28746.
132

atmosphere there and the course of the struggle for domination between the central
authority and the centrifugal periphery forces. 348 The persecutions against wandering
dervishes in Thrace were not novel to the region. After the attempt on his life in the
summer of 1492 Bayezid II ordered the kadı of Edirne to “round up all atheist abdals,
dervishes, and ıshıks in the area east of Filibe and Zagra, and punish, after investigation
and hearings, those among them uttering blasphemous words”. 349 The authorities
arrested and executed quite a few of the itinerant dervishes, some of them Otman Baba’s
followers, and deported a number of them to Anatolia. 350 It seems however that the
persecutions at the turn of the fifteenth century did not eradicate the heterodoxy from the
area of Filibe. Although the city was always under the tight control of the central
authority and its development was shaped by the architectural patronage of the high
ranking officials from the close entourage of the Ottoman sultans, the heterodox
dervishes too were present in the city. In the summer of 1533 Schepper witnessed in
Filibe a group of naked dervishes and attended their ritual in a garden near the city.351

348
See the chapter on Tatar Pazarcık for further details on Nureddinzade’s life and career and his
involvement in the center-periphery clash.
349
Halil İnalcık. “Dervish and Sultan: An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilâyetnâmesi.” This was a paper
presented at the Colloquium on Saint and Sainthood in Islam, held at the University of California,
Berkeley, April 3-5,1987, republished in idem. The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman
Empire. Essays on Economy and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Turkish Studies, 1993), 32-33.
350
İnalcık, “Dervish and Sultan”, 33.
351
“…En ce jardin y avoit ung lieu où se retiroyent ordinairement les dervitz ou ischnicqz, c'est-à-dire les
numbdes, à raison qu'ilz disent avoir fuy le monde, et sont quasy toutz nudts et très-mal en ordre. Ils
s'assembloyent environ la nuict, et au chant d'ung, les aultres respondoyent, chantantz assez barbarement,
en caste substance: Sicha Sahestem va Hussem, selon qu'on est accoustumez en nostre quartier de faire
aux danses…Les susdictz dervi[c]tz usent des susdictes chansons, à raison que personne n'est parfaict en
leur ordre, ne soit qu'elle ayt visité les sépulchres de ces deux, Sahuestem et Hussem; et quand ilz
entreprendent ledict ordre, ilz font serment d'aller visiter les dictz sépulchres. Lesdictz dervictz sont
abhorrez, et grandement hayz des Turcqz en horreur et hayne, à raison qu'ilz n'ayment que Hasdrith,
c'est- à-dire le magnifique Haly. Et après qu'ilz eussent longtemps chanté de ceste sorte, ilz commencèrent
à danser, et finablement se misrent à resposer.” Corneille Duplicius de Schepper. Missions diplomatiques
de Corneille Duplicius de Schepper, dit Scepperus, ambassadeur de Christiern II, de Charles V, de
133

The description of the dervishes by the Dutchman leaves little doubt that he depicted a
gathering of itinerant heterodox abdals, in all probability Kalenderis or Haydaris.352 The
convent established by Nureddinzade clearly targeted precisely this group in the
Ottoman society as the Halveti sheikhs spared no efforts in preaching or pursuing the
central authority to take decisive punitive measures against the “heretics” such as
deportations or even executions. In any case the struggle with Islamic heterodoxy in
Filibe that was reinforced by the lodge of Nureddinzade should not have been as
dramatic as in the neighboring Tatar Pazarcık. Unlike the smaller town nearby that was
established, developed and dominated by the periphery forces, thus attracting the
centrifugal elements in the then Ottoman society, Filibe was under much closer control
of the central power ever since the city fell into Ottoman hands. Nevertheless, the
wandering dervishes appear to have been integral part of the urban society in the early
period. The Ottoman centralism that was gradually gaining might increasingly
marginalized the heterodox groups. In the first half of the sixteenth century the Ottoman
state fully developed an imperial ideology based on the Sunni Islam which requested the
establishing of closer control over the unruly subjects who opposed it. The Halveti
convent of Nureddinzade in Filibe must have been part of the general attempt of the

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), 191-192.
352
The vita (vilâyetname) of Otman baba speaks of two convents in Filibe (Hıdırlık tekke and Hasan baba
zaviyesi), whose patrons recognized the authority and leadership of Otman baba. This is the only available
source of information about the existence of these convents. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak. Osmanlı
İmparatorluğu'nda Marjinal Sûfîlik: Kalenderîler (XIV.-XVII. Yüzyıllar) (Ankara: TTK, 1999), 191;
Nevena Gramatikova. Neortodoksalniat islyam v bălgarskite zemi. Minalo i săvremennost (Sofia:
Gutenberg, 2011), 539.
134

central power to impose its universal doctrine all over the territories of the Ottoman
domain.
The most detailed and credible physical description of Filibe in the second half of
the sixteenth century is authored by Stephan Gerlach who crossed the city in June 1578
on his return from Istanbul.353 The Protestant scholar was naturally focused on the pre-
Ottoman architectural heritage in Filibe and the Christians in the city. He visited the old
citadel, stating that the parts of the walls were still standing and visible in some places as
were also was a cistern on Nevbet tepesi 354 and the eastern gate of the stronghold
(today’s Hisar kapiya, Fig. 5). 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.355 He visited the fenced
residence of the metropolitan, located in the quarter Pulat, that according to Gerlach had
several pleasant rooms and a spacious hall all built within a very nice garden. Gerlach
was unable to meet the metropolitan, because the latter went to Istanbul at the time of his

353
The original German text of Gerlach’s travelogue 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. Hrsg. von Samuel Gerlach, Zunner,
Frankfurt am Mayn 1674 was inaccessible to me, therefore the information here is based on its abridged
Bulgarian translation. Mariya Kiselincheva. Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane do Osmanskata
porta v Tsarigrad (Sofia: Otechestven Front, 1976), 258-260.
354
The cistern that Gerlach mentions must be the large reservoir excavated on the northern hills dating
from the late-middle ages (12th-14th c.). Hristo Džambov. “Novi danni za vodosnabdyavaneto na Plovdiv
prez antichnostta i srednovekovieto.” Godishnik na Narodniya archeologicheski muzey Plovdiv 6 (1968):
65-82.
355
Kiselincheva, Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane, 259.
135

visit, but interacted with his secretary who proved to be illiterate man showing more
interest and proficiency in arms and hunting rather than matters of religion.356
The German clergyman spent the night in the inn of Şihabeddin Paşa near the
bridge and offers a vivid description of the rest of the complex. Near the large mosque357
Gerlach saw the imaret that distributed every evening food free of charge to the city
poor, the instructors and students in the nearby medrese and numerous dervishes. All
people, according to Gerlach were offered rice, barley, and bread.358 On the fifth hill in
the city, that is most likely the Saat tepesi, Gerlach saw a brick-made baldachin tomb of
a Turk that had a fountain (çesme) near it.359 In all probability this must have been the
domed open türbe (no. 41 on Plan 1) that appears on a nineteenth century photograph of
Cavra. (Fig. 49) It was located in one of the oldest Muslim cemeteries in the city that
surrounded the southwestern foot of the clock tower hill and it is likely to be identical
with the domed tomb of Behlül Efendi, who according to Evliya Çelebi was the imam of
sultan Murad I.360
Gerlach’s information about the Christian residents of Filibe is highly valuable,
because its credibility can be controlled through the Ottoman documentary sources. He
states that in 1578 in Filibe resided 250 Christians whose eight churches were served by

356
The secretary also offered Gerlach and his companions a local alcohol drink (rakiya) regardless the
early hour of the visit. According to the German theologian this type of kindness was common in the
region. Kiselincheva, Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane, 259.
357
Gerlach wrongly attributed the patronage of the mosque to a “great kadı”, Kiselincheva, Stefan
Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane, 260.
358
359
360
Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi (Dersa’det Matba’ası), 387. 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 Filibe was left blank.
136

three priests and the metropolitan himself. 361 Eight years prior Gerlach’s visit the
Ottoman administration prepared a new tahrir record of the region.362 The data in the
register indicates that the city had eighty eight Christian households and two Christian
bachelors in the four quarters mentioned above. Gerlach slightly underestimated or was
misinformed about the number of the Christians in Filibe, since the data from the
register shows that the totals must have been about thirty families higher. Gerlach’s
account also makes no mention of Jews and Gypsies in the city, but in spite of the
migration to the west by 1570 the Jewish community has grown larger having fifty
households and one bachelor. The Gypsies who occupied the opposite edge of the city
remained about the same number losing seven households in the period 1530-1570.
The data in the tahrir census of 1570 show that the greatest changes that took
place in the interim period were due to the Muslim community in Filibe. Deprived from
one quarter of its Muslim residents in 1530 and virtually left without staff for the
numerous mosques and mescids the city had undergone astonishing recovery in the
period between the two registrations. In the forty intervening years 116 new Muslim
households settled in the city giving a significant rise to the Muslim community there.
Moreover, having only three imams in 1530 Filibe must have turned into an attractive
place for the ‘ulema and many new appointments were quickly made in the period after
the forced relocation. According to the data from the register of 1570 the city had no less
than 57 imams and 44 müezzins who occupied the vacant posts in the numerous mosques
in the city. The dramatic influx of Muslim clergymen hardly needs any further

361
Kiselincheva, Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane, 259-260.
362
BOA, TD 494, dating 1570.
137

comments. The census 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 uneasy task to trace all primary schools that functioned in Filibe
in the second half of the sixteenth century, but a century later Evliya Çelebi claims that
seventeen mektebs offered education to Muslim children in the city.363 In any case the
mektebs of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey and the so-called Dede mektebi, mentioned above,
might have been among the institutions where the two mu’allims offered instruction in
1570. The census also recorded several dervishes, Friday preachers, descendents of the
Prophet, kadıs and other Muslim elites who formed the intellectual and religious milieu
which must have made Evliya remark that although the residents of Filibe were people
of pleasure there were many Muslim scholars, preachers, sheikhs, as the group of the
kadıs was especially large.364
The rapid growth of the Muslim population is also reflected by the increase of
the total number of city quarters that by 1570 counted thirty six - 30 Muslim, 4 Christian,
1 Jewish, and 1 Gypsy respectively. 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 census.365 On the northern bank of the river Maritsa settled a group

363
Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnamesi (Dersa’det Matba’ası), 385.
364
“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.” Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 218. At least four kadıs and one deputy judge
(naib) resided in Filibe 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 a number of
other officials.
365
Catharin Zen first attested the presence of Ragusan merchants in Filibe. Matković, “Dva talijanska
putopisa”, 213. Later Gerlach describes this group of merchants indicating their exact location in the city.
They resided very near the han of Şihabeddin Paşa by the bridge and used it for their commercial activities.
Kiselincheva, Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane, 260. In 1580 when Paolo Contarini visited
138

of servants in the imperial mail service, who formed the new Muslim quarter named
after their profession mahalle-i Ulakçıyan.366
2.11. Filibe’s complete recovery at the turn of the sixteenth century
The data from the next tahrir registration, prepared in 1596, indicates that the
city’s population recovered completely from the demographic crisis suffered the first
half of the century, caused by the centrally orchestrated forced relocation of
population.367 The total population of the city for the first time reached again and even

Filibe he found only one merchant from Dubrovnik residing in the city. The rest of the group, according to
him, either died or returned home. Paolo Contarini. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di
Paolo Contarini che andava bailo per la Repubblica Veneta alla Porta Ottomana nel 1580. Ora per la
prima volta pubblicato (Venice: Coi Tipi di Teresa Gattei, 1856), 30.
366
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 Menzilhane Network in Rumeli during the Eighteenth Century (Notes and Documents
on the Ottoman Ulak, I).” in idem. Writing Ottoman History: Documents and Interpretations (Aldershot:
Ashgate Variorum, 2002), IX; idem. “The Ottoman Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rumeli in the
Eighteenth Century.” in idem. Writing Ottoman History, X; “The Via Egnatia in the Ottoman Period: The
Menzilhanes of the Sol Kol in the Late 17th/Early 18th Century.” in idem. Writing Ottoman History, XI;
Aleksandăr Antonov. “Vremeto e pari. Osmanskata kurierska služba v kraya na XVII i prez XVIII vek.”
in Raya Zaimova and Nikolay Aretov (eds.), Pari, dumi, pamet (Sofia: Kralitsa Mab, 2004), 127-143;
idem. “Infrastruktura na ovladyanoto prostranstvo. Osmanski dokumenti za pătnite stantsii po
Diagonalniya păt.” in Svetlana Ivanova (ed.), Etnicheski i kulturni prostranstva na Balkanite. Chast I:
Minaloto – istoricheski rakursi (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 2008), 206-225.
367
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 by far superior to TD 648 the pages of which 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 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 Özelikleri (1485-1610).” in XIV. Türk Tarih Kongresi (9-13 Eylül 2002), vol.
2, part 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2005), 523-555. The construction of the great kervansaray and
mosque of İbrahim Paşa in the town of Tatar Pazarcık however indicates that the registration took place in
1596 or maybe a year later. See below the chapter on Tatar Pazarcık for details and argumentation.
139

surpassed the level of 1516, when Filibe looked at the peak of its development. At the
turn of the sixteenth century the city had 1 078 households and 48 bachelors, that must
mean a total population of well above five thousand residents. For a quarter of a century
between the registrations the Muslims increased with close to one hundred households
(844 in total) thus almost reached their highest point of 1516. The increase of the entire
population was also due to the rapid growth of the Christians who almost doubled in the
intervening period between the registrations of 1570 and 1596. The four old Christian
quarters apparently turned 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 mahalle Koca Hüseyin which bordered the large old Christian quarter
Pazariçi. These early Christian settlers in the Muslim quarters established a trend that
fully developed in the seventeenth century when most of the Muslim quarters in the
eastern part of the city that neighbored the established Christian mahalles were
overflowed by new Christian settlers. In the course of time some of these mixed quarters
were completely overtaken by the Christians and thus appeared in the nineteenth century
sources as entirely Christian-Bulgarian districts.
It is apparent that the dynamic increase of the Christians in Filibe at the turn of
the sixteenth century was not due to an extreme natural growth but rather to the influx of
population from outside. Moreover, similar process was also taking place in all nearby
towns of Upper Thrace. For instance in the period 1570-1596 the Christian population of
140

Eski Zağra doubled in size368 , the same was true for Tatar Pazarcık369 , while in the
almost exclusively Christian İstanimaka as many as 130 new Christian households
appeared in the intervening years.370 Throughout the sixteenth century rural Bulgarian
population from the overpopulated mountains was descending in the open plains in
search for better living conditions. 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 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 surplus of population that was constantly pushed out toward the lower parts
of the region. Driven by two dominant factors - the high fertility and the sudden drop of
average annual temperatures, particularly felt at the end of the sixteenth and the
beginning of the seventeenth centuries, the process of influx of rural Bulgarian
population into the towns of Thrace significantly intensified. In this period the average
annual temperatures dropped sensibly that must have triggered the mass migration from
the mountains. The several cold summers in the 1590s in all probability lead many
villages located at a higher altitude in the Rhodopes or the Balkan range to harvest
failures. 371 The climatic changes known as the “Little Ice Age” affected more
dramatically Anatolia, where in combination with a range of social and economic

368
Boykov, “Balkan City or Ottoman City”, 74.
369
See the following chapter on Tatar Pazarcık.
370
Boykov. Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace, 97-99.
371
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 22:1
(1997): 59-87; Jürg Luterbacher. “European Seasonal and Annual Temperature Variability, Trends, and
Extremes since 1500.” Science 303 (2004): 1499-1503.
141

problems it caused constant unrest for decades.372 The effect of the changing climate and
the worsening living conditions in Ottoman Rumelia are yet to be satisfactorily studied,
but the dynamic migrations in the late sixteenth and the entire seventeenth century were
undoubtedly stimulated by this process.
Certainly the recovery of Filibe was not expressed in terms of population growth
only but in the course of the second half of the sixteenth century the local economy must
have also returned to its normal pace. Moreover, the commercial infrastructure of the
city not only functioned as usually, but it also continued to attract the patronage and the
investments of the high ranking Ottoman officials. It was mentioned above that Evliya
Çelebi referred to the Zal hanı in his list of inns in the seventeenth-century Filibe. 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. Bosnian-born devşirme he made a
rapid career progress in the Ottoman military and administrative hierarchy rising from
kapıcıbaşı to beylerbeyi of Budin, Halep and Anadolu. The great skills of Mahmud Paşa
in wrestling and the crucial role he played in the strangling of prince Mustafa in 1553,
according to Peçevi, earned him the byname Zal, after the mythical Persian hero. 373
After the death of the vizier Hasan Paşa in 1574 Zal Mahmud married his widow

372
There is rich bibliography on the social unrest in Anatolia, commonly referred as celâli rebelioms. See
Oktay Özel. “The Reign of Violence: The Celâlis (c.1550-1700).” in Christine Woodhead (ed.), The
Ottoman World (London and New York: Routledge, 2011), 184-202 for evaluation of bibliography to date.
A recent study examined the impact of climate changes and population pressure which were the driving
force that caused constant turmoil in the Anatolian provinces of the Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth
century. Sam White. The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2011), 59-73; 126-139; 260-275. Oktay Özel. "Population Changes in
Ottoman Anatolia During the 16th and 17th Centuries: The 'Demographic Crisis' Reconsidered."
International Journal of Middle East Studies 36 (2004): 183-205 is an overview of the demographic
processes in Anatolia in the period in question.
373
İbrahim Efendi Peçevi. Tarih-i Peçevî, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Matba‘a-i ‘Amire, 1281/1864), 441-442.
142

Şahsultan, the daughter of sultan Selim II and was promoted to vizierate. The marriage
did not last long as within two weeks in 1577 both husband and wife died and in
accordance with their last will the couple was buried together in Eyüb.374
Prior their deaths the Ottoman princess and the vizier had each left a written will
donating one-third of their inheritance for a construction of a joint mosque, medrese
complex and a mausoleum in Eyüb. The princess begged her reigning brother, Murad III,
and royal sisters to give up their shares of the remaining 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. 375 The core of the
property endowed by the princess consisted of fourteen villages in the area of Filibe,
which she received as a gift from her royal father in 1568.376 Zal Mahmud Paşa’s more
modest endowment consisted of shops in Ankara and Filibe and a hamam and a fountain
equipped with its own water channel in the Macedonian town of Pirlepe (mod. Prilep).377
The money raised for the foundation was loaned out at interest for a year and a
half thus increasing the available funds. The administrator of the vakıf Hüseyin Ağa,
chief finance minister and Zal Mahmud’s council scribe first built the mausoleum for the
couple in Eyüb and then spent 1 251 563 akçes for the construction of an income-

374
Gülru Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion
Books, 2005), 368.
375
Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 370-371. The endowment deed of the joint foundation of Şahsultan and
Zal Mahmud is housed 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.
376
Evkaf defteri of 1570 lists the villages of the then mülk of Şahsultan. The villages were located
southeast of Filibe at the foot of the Rhodopes, including also the monastery Ste. Paraskeva near the
village of Muldava. BOA, TD 498, ff. 416-429. The following evkaf register of the area, dating 1596,
already lists the villages as vakıf of Şahsultan. BOA, TD 470, ff. 424-440.
377
Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 371.
143

producing kervansaray in Filibe and multiple water mills in the villages belonging to the
domain of Şahsultan.378 The rest of the complex in Eyüb, the mosque, two medreses and
number of commercial structures were completed a decade later in 1590.379
The endowment deed of the pious foundation established posthumously by the
Ottoman princess Şahsultan and the vizier Zal Mahmud Paşa leaves no doubt about the
identity of the patron of the Zal hanı which appears in Evliya’s 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
crossed the city in the same year witnessed and described the ongoing construction of a
great kervansaray, which was according to him commissioned by the mother of sultan
Murad III.380 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 according
to 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 complex of the couple in Eyüb. This building was another contribution to
the commercial core of Filibe and corresponded to the ongoing recovery of the economic
strength and demographic development of the city. The exact location of the building
cannot be established, nor it is known when the han named after Zal Mahmud Paşa
disappeared. In all probability it was one of the multiple inns built along the main

378
379
380
“… 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, 30.
144

market street that had fallen victim to the “modernization” of the city in the late
nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century.
2.12. Overshadowed by the smaller neighbor: population changes 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 Tatar Pazarcık that affected the
demographic processes of the entire region. In 1596 the grand vizier Damad İbrahim
Paşa built there a highly monumental double kervansaray, which in terms of size is
likely to have been the largest building enterprise ever undertaken in the Ottoman
Balkans outside the old capital Edirne.381 The building of İbrahim Paşa was a complex
on its own that included an imaret, small mosque, public fountains etc., which gave a
real boost to the development of the economy of the provincial town. The population of
Tatar Pazarcık in short time increased dramatically thanks to the influx of new settlers
who apparently saw in the provincial center better trade opportunities and living
conditions.
The last “classical” tahrir census of the population of Filibe shows the impact of
the emergence of Tatar Pazarcık as a second major economic center in the area. The

381
See the following chapter for details.
145

extant register is likely to be a clean spare copy and contains no hükm and date therefore
it was variously dated in the related historiography.382 Gökbilgin first pointed that the
document must date from the period of sultan Ahmed I’s reign (1603-1617).383 Later
researchers who studied the register used various dates, ranging from 1603 to 1610.384 In
his study on Tatar Pazarcık during the Ottoman period Machiel Kiel offered highly
valuable information for the history of Filibe, which allows the defining of more
accurate date for the last tahrir of the region. According to Kiel’s findings a compact
group of Armenian settlers appeared in Filibe in 1610.385 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. (Plan 1) The
tahrir in question lists a group of twenty one Armenian households in Filibe thus
indicating that in any case the document was drawn up after 1610.386 It seems that the
census was a part of a general renewal of the provincial registers done by the central
administration during the reign of Ahmed I. In some regions, like Paşa sancağı in the
case, new registrations were carried out, while for other regions were produced new
copies of the preceding tahrirs. For instance the information in the last tahrir of the

382
BOA, TD 729.
383
Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livası, 535.
384
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 Klaus Kreiser, Christoph
Neuman (eds.), Das Osmanische Reich in seinen Archivalien und Chroniken, Nejat Göyünc zu Ehren
(Istanbul: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997), 31-67. Gökçe, “Filibe Şehri”, 523-555. In later
work the same author revised the date to 1613-1614 after the argumentation in Boykov, Demographic
Features, 16-17. Turan Gökçe. “XVII. Yüzyılda Filibe Şehrinin Demografik Yapısı.” in Meral Bayrak et
al. (eds.), Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu, 11-13 Mayıs
2005 (Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 2005), 49-64.
385
Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık”, 44.
386
BOA, TD 729, f. 317. Kiel who provided the information about the exact date of arrival of the
Armenians in Filibe however did not find the Armenian community in the register therefore concluded
that the defter was complied prior to 1610. Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık”, 44.
146

region of Niğbolu, dating 1579-1580 387 , was replicated in a new tahrir without any
changes. The copy, housed in Istanbul, was prepared in A.H. 1023 (1614-1615) which
indicates that the renewal of the registrations in the eastern parts of Rumelia took place
about that time.388 Given that the last tahrir census which included the population of
Filibe was certainly compiled after 1610 it is very likely that the actual registration took
place in 1614, when the central administration also prepared the copy of the Niğbolu
defter.389
The greatest novelty in the development of Filibe in the interim (1596-1614) was
the arrival of a community of Armenians mentioned above. The Armenians who
migrated to Rumelia from the Persian lands were not new to the city. In the early Middle
Ages Philippopolis had sizable Armenian Monophysite population, deported there in the
eight century. Nevertheless, by the time of the Ottoman conquest it appears to have been
assimilated by the local Greek and Slavic population and disappeared completely.390 In
the beginning of the seventeenth century the twenty one Armenian households occupied
the area near the then abandoned church of St. George, located below the walls of the
citadel. In the second half of the seventeenth century the community acquired enough
power and strength to take possession of the medieval Greek church. The thus acquired

387
The original copy of this register is extant in Tapu ve Kadastro Arşivi in Ankara. TKGM, KuK 58.
388
BOA, TD 718.
389
By the 1640s when for the central administration compiled the 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 therefore a new detailed registration was carried out. (BOA, TD 771 and TD 775, dating A.H.
1052/1642-1643) 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.
390
Ani Dancheva-Vasileva. “Armenskoto prisăstvie v Plovdiv prez Srednovekovieto.” Istoricheski
Pregled 5-6 (1999): 119-134.
147

Armenian church was repaired multiple times in the later period but kept the original
name of the patron saint St. George (Surp Kevork). The community seems to have been
growing rapidly most likely as a result of influx of more Armenian settlers. Twenty
years later a register for the poll-tax of the non-Muslims recorded fifty one cizye hanes
levied on the Armenian tax-payers in the city.391 Evidently both the Armenian quarter
and the church occupied the same area throughout the Ottoman period. The earliest
urban plan, drawn up by the Russian officer Ilinskiy in 1878, marked a small Christian
cemetery near the Armenian quarter that in all probability was used by the Armenian
community.
The emergence of the nearby town of Tatar Pazarcık as regional economic center
affected mostly the Muslim community of Filibe. The total number of Muslim
households in Filibe instead of the anticipated growth had a sensitive decrease. It
dropped from 844 households in 1596 to 721 households in 1614. Undoubtedly a large
portion of Filibe’s ‘missing’ Muslim population transferred to the smaller neighboring
town, whose Muslim community in the intervening eighteenth years rapidly increased
from 287 households in 1596 to 414 households in 1614. Some of the older Muslim
quarters in Filibe like this of Hacı Bunarı disappeared from the records. Others like
Köprü başı, Ulakçıyan and Korucu were merged again into the large quarter named
Tataran that covered the area of the suburb on the northern bank of the river Maritsa.
Although the drop of the Muslims in the beginning of the seventeenth century was
sensitive it was not nearly as dramatic as the events in the preceding century when Filibe

391
Elena Grozdanova (ed.), Turski izvori za bălgarskata istoriya (Sofia: Glavno Upravlenie na Arhivite,
2001), 19.
148

lost a great portion of its Muslim residents. By 1614 most of the mosques and mescids in
the city must have been operational, being staffed by thirty imams and twenty nine
müezzins. Moreover, the census included information about more ‘ulema members such
as eight college professors, several kadıs among whom one labeled ‘kadı-i Filibe’ who
was possibly the previous judge of the city, at the moment of registration expecting a
new appointment. The tahrir emini did not keep 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 quite careful in noting not only the ‘ulema, but also the members of
the ‘askeri class. Thus he kept record of more than one hundred cavalry and infantry
soldiers, four gunners, the commander (mir-i liva) of the voynuks, or even the retired
sancakbeyi of Çirmen.392
Despite the significant decrease of the Muslims the total population still
increased thanks to the growth of the other confessions in the period between the
registrations reaching 1 130 households in 1614. In accordance with the trend that
erupted at the turn of the sixteenth century the Christian population of Filibe continued
to grow extremely rapidly. In eighteen years one hundred new Christian families
appeared in the city, undoubtedly as a result of migration. Likewise the great influx of
population into the city was by no means a phenomenon of the development of Filibe
only. In the same period the Christians in Eski Zağra doubled, whilst in the highly
attractive town of Tatar Pazarcık the total number of the Christians jumped from forty

392
Gökçe, “Filibe Şehri”, 547-549.
149

four to one hundred households.393 Recent research on the climate changes of the region,
based on the dendrochronological analysis of samples from Pinus heldreichii taken in
the Pirin mountain (southwest of Filibe), demonstrates that the first two decades of the
seventeenth century were extremely cold as the average annual temperatures dropped
down every year until reaching the bottom in the mid-1620s when the trend shifted and
followed a decade of relatively moderate temperatures.394 In regard of the data about the
spell of cold weather in the region in the course of the last decades of the sixteenth and
the first two decades of the seventeenth century the influx of Christian population into
the towns and cities located in the lower plain is hardly surprising. The constant
migration of Bulgarian Christians from the overpopulated mountains to the lower lands
gradually changed the etho-religious balance of the region. While on the one hand the
Christians were progressively growing in cities like Filibe, the prosperous mountain
town of Razlog, which had close to 600 households in the early sixteenth century,
shrank to about half of its size by the turn of the century. 395 The large Christian
community in Filibe, as it appears in the register of 1614, continued to expand
throughout the rest of the period of Ottoman power over the city. This was a beginning
of a process that in the coming two centuries changed completely the demographic
picture of the city. Documentary evidence show that by the nineteenth century Muslims
were no longer the majority of Filibe’s residents and the Christian Bulgarians and

393
See the chapter on Tatar Pazarcık for further details.
394
The data is part of an ongoing research project of the Dendrology studies Laboratory of the University
of Forestry in Sofia. http://dendrologybg.com/dendrochron/index.htm
395
Boykov, “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina”, 71.
150

Greeks were slowly taking over the urban center which was once re-created and
dominated by the Muslim-Turkish population.396
2.13. Ottoman public buildings in Filibe in the late sixteenth and seventeenth century
At the very end of the sixteenth or more likely in the first years of the
seventeenth century unidentified patron erected one of the most important landmarks of
Filibe that still dominates the landscape of the modern city – the clock tower (saat
kulesi). (no. 39 on Plan 1) The clock tower was built on the hill named after it, which is
situated in the western part of the city thus enclosing the square of Muradiye mosque
and the urban core from the southwest. It overlooked the commercial area of Filibe and
defined the pace of economic life for centuries. (Figs. 50-52) Evliya Çelebi relates that
the minaret-like tower set on the top of one the hills in Filibe had a clock mechanism
whose bell rang twelve times every day marking the midday. The dreadful sound of the
clock tower was audible at a great distance from the city.397
The tower in Filibe is not only the earliest Ottoman clock tower in modern
Bulgaria, but it is also one the earliest clock towers in entire Ottoman Rumelia. Only two
clock towers in the Balkans seem to predate the tower in Filibe. The earliest clock tower

396
Kiel. “Filibe” in TDVİA. Neriman Ersoy. XIX. Yüzyılda Filibe Şehri (1839-1876). (unpublished
dissertation, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2003), 38-42.
397
151

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 1566-1572. The
description of the tower by Evliya matches greatly his text depicting the clock tower in
Filibe which leaves the impression for a cliché used by the seventeenth-century Ottoman
traveler.398 The other early clock tower built in the Serbian palanka of Jagodina was
mentioned by Wolf Andreas von Steinach who crossed the place in 1583.399 Therefore
the clock tower in Filibe is likely to be the third oldest in the Balkan provinces of the
Ottoman Empire. The architectural features 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 it was completely rebuilt in the early nineteenth century. The
present day hexagonal structure is clearly a result of this late reconstruction that
according to the repair inscription, placed on the tower was completed in September
1810.400
The earliest information about the clock tower in Filibe comes from the travel
account of M. Lefebvre, who crossed the city in August 1611.401 As a secretary of the

398
The clock tower in Skopje was described as early as 1575 by Jacopo Soranzo. It was new at that time
and measured the time in western fashion from noon to midnight. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a
Costantinopoli fatto da M. Jacopo Soranzo, ambasciatore straordinario della serenissima repubblica di
Venezia al Sultano Murad III, in compagnia di M. Giovanni Correr, bailo alla porta Ottomana/descritto
da anonimo che fu al seguito del Soranzo, MDLXXV (Venice: G. Merlo, 1856), 43. Two weeks later the
traveler reached Filibe, but mentions no clock tower there that most certainly indicates a later construction
date for the tower in this city. Further details about the clock tower in Skopje in Özer. Üsküp’de Türk
Mimarisi, 172-174.
399
Nikolay Tuleshkov. “Chasovkikovite kuli.” Vekove 3 (1987): 39.
400
The inscription of the clock tower was published by Ivan Dobrev. “Za nadpisa na “Sahat Tepe” v
Plovdiv.” Vekove 3 (1986): 41-44.
401
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 unavailable to me. Here I use the Bulgarian translation of
152

French ambassador in the Ottoman Empire, Lefebvre passed through Filibe on the way
to Istanbul. The group entered the city from the north, passed the square of Muradiye
mosque and continued further southward in order to take the new road to Edirne and
Istanbul. At the southern edge of the city, on right hand side of the road (i.e. west)
Lefebvre spotted the clock tower that sat on the top of a high rock. According to the
traveler the clock marked every hour with a sound and kept time according to the French
manner, twelve o’clock being the midday. 402 This information corresponds to the
narrative of Evliya Çelebi who half a century later witnessed the clock beating twelve
times at noon. The mechanism of the clock must have been very primitive and imperfect,
because only twelve years after the visit of Lefebvre it was already out of order.403 Later
the mechanism was repaired and Evliya found the clock operating in good order.
In the course of the eighteenth century this clock tower must have fallen down,
but neither the cause for the destruction is clear nor do we know when exactly it
happened. One can suppose that the most likely reason for the destruction of the clock
tower was the powerful earthquake that struck the city in the second half of the
eighteenth century and caused the need of major restoration of Muradiye mosque, which
was completed in 1784.404 Damaged badly or leveled to the ground in the eighteenth
century the tower was built anew in the shape it stands today as late as 1810. In all
probability the tower was also used as an observation and signal tower, which was the

the text. Bistra Cvetkova. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Frenski pătepisi za Balkanite XV-XVII v. (Sofia:
402
Cvetkova, Frenski pătepisi, 189.
403
This information is provided by the Danish traveller Henrich Rantzoven who visited Filibe on 27
September 1623. Lubomir Mikov. “Cultural and Historical Profile of Clock Towers in the Bulgarian
Lands (17th-19th Centuries).” Étude balkanique 1-2 (2010): 104-105.
404
Tatarlı, “Turski kultovi sgradi”, 605-608.
153

case in many other places. Immediately next to the clock tower there was gunpowder
storage (baruthane) that is seen on the nineteenth-century photographs. It was a small
depot that did not have military functions, but was in all probability used for the small
signaling şahi guns placed near the tower. (Fig. 53) According to Evliya these guns were
fired by the local governor (nazır) in order to mark the beginning of the religious
holidays every year.405
By the beginning of the seventeenth century the urban plan of Filibe was fully
developed as several dozens of Ottoman public buildings shaped its architectural
appearance. Nevertheless, apparently there was still enough space for further
architectural patronage and a number of benefactors continued to erect public buildings
thus contributing for the elevation of the importance of the urban center. 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
public baths for their everyday needs. In their great majority these public buildings are
not extant as most vanished even before being scholarly examined. Because of this
reason the available information about the exact dates of construction or the identity of
their patrons is also very scarce and limited.
The only individual who can be positively identified as a patron of architecture in
Filibe in this period is Lutfullah Şeyhi Efendi, also known popularly as Çelebi Kadı or
Kadızade Şeyhi. He was born and raised in a family of high ranking members of the
‘ulema class. His father Bayramzade Zekeriya Efendi was promoted to a şeyhü’l-islâm

405
154

as was later his brother, the popular poet Yahya Efendi, who occupied the highest
religious post in the Ottoman Empire three times. Çelebi Kadı, himself a very popular
poet, who wrote under the name Şeyhi, was born in İstanbul in A.H. 972 (1564-1564).406
He naturally received high quality education in Islamic sciences and obtained different
appointments as instructor in the medreses and in the provincial administration, such as
the kadılık of Üsküb. Çelebi Kadı was seven times appointed to the kadıship of Filibe407
a post given to him after a term as a professor at Bayezid II’s medrese in Edirne.408 He
participated in the Ottoman campaign against Eger (Erlau/Еğri) in Hungary and was
possibly appointed as molla of Eğri after the conquest.409 Naima, on the other hand,
relates that when sultan Mehmed III (1595-1603), leading the Ottoman army that
marched toward Hungary, arrived in Filibe on 8 Zilkade 1004 (4 July 1596), Çelebi Kadı,
who was the then acting kadı of the city, welcomed the ruler with a splendid
entertainment in a large pavilion erected for the occasion. The sultan was so much
pleased by the four-day long celebrations that he confirmed Çelebi Kadı in office for
life.410 He died on 10 July 1632411 and was buried in Filibe in a mausoleum near his
mosque.
The mosque of Çelebi Kadı (no. 25 on Plan 1) was built in the northern suburb of
Filibe (the so-called Karşıyaka), on the bank of the river Maritsa, very near the bridge of

406
Sürreyya. Sicil-i Osmani, vol. 4, 88-89.
407
Sürreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, 88.
408
Zeynep Ayhun Özbek. 1-2 nolu Mülâzemet Defteri (Tahlil ve Değerlendirme) (unpublished M.A.
thesis, Marmara University, 2006), 28, 136.
409
410
Naima. Annals of the Turkish Empire from 1591 to 1659 of the Christian era, translated from the
Turkish by Charles Fraser, vol. 1 (London: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, 1832),
71-72.
411
155

Lala Şahin.412 It was located east of the Hoşkadem mosque (no. 24 on Plan 1) and its
minaret can be seen on several photographs from the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century. (Figs. 54-55) The mosque was a rather humble structure with pyramidal tiled
roof that stood until the first decades of the twentieth century.413 The data about the
pious foundation of Çelebi Kadı from the hurufat defteri housed in Ankara confirms the
information about the exact location of his mosque.414 It also provides important details
about several other buildings of the same patron that are not documented by any other
source and are likewise no longer extant. The multiple appointments of türbedar
recorded in the register demonstrate that the mosque had an adjunct mausoleum where
the body of Çelebi Kadı was buried.415 (no. 37 on Plan 1)
West of his mosque, at a distance of about fifty meters, he also built a small
neighborhood public bath. (no. 29 on Plan 1) This hamam is mentioned in Evliya
Çelebi’s list of public baths in Filibe416 and it 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 it was demolished by the local
authorities. A decade earlier Machiel Kiel had the chance to examine the bath, which he
found in a terrible state of neglect, but still operational. The disrobing room of the bath
is likely to have had a dome, but the numerous later repairs changed the structure

412
Balkanlı, Şarkî Rumeli, 116;
413
A card postal, dating 1910 is the latest available evidence for its existence. The postcard, a panoramic
view from the clock tower hill, was published by Hristo Malinov’s Nova Knižarnitsa in 1910. Reprinted in
the album Krasimir Linkov et al. (eds.), Plovdiv predi i sega (Plovdiv: Nova Print, 2005), 42.
414
“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.
415
VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 230, 232, 239, 240, 241.
416
156

considerably. The cold room (soğukluk) was a small rectangular space covered by two
barrel vaults. The hot room (sıcaklık), covered with a dome measured 7.10 m x 2.95 m,
had two halevets with smaller domes (Fig. 56). 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 in the beginning of the seventeenth century.417 The date
offered by Kiel indeed perfectly corresponds with the period in which Çelebi Kadı
resided in Filibe, holding the post of a local kadı. Nevertheless, the sources at hand do
not provide the exact date of construction of the complex (mosque, bath, and mausoleum)
nor there is information about the date in which he established the pious foundation
maintaining the buildings and providing the salaries of the staff. In any case this must
have happened prior to his death in 1632, thus the buildings of Çelebi Kadı in Filibe
were erected in the course of the first two decades of the seventeenth century.
By the beginning of the seventeenth century the growing suburb north of the
river Maritsa and the constant traffic on the busy trade route connecting Western
Balkans and Central Europe with Istanbul must have evoked the need of more places for
worship for the Muslims and certainly a much needed public bath. About the same time
the mosque of Korucu Ağa, in the quarter of the same, located north of the river was
probably built anew because in the mid-seventeenth century Evliya saw it as a newly
constructed mosque.418

417
Kiel. Filibe notes and studies, 51d-51e.
418
157

The list of Filibe’s new mosques in Evliya’s travelogue also includes the mosque
of Anbar Kadı.419 The patron of the mosque cannot be identified, but the exact location
and appearance of the mosque can be established without any doubts. The mosque stood
until 1912 and it is mentioned by the local historians Peev and Alvadžiev.420 (no. 21 on
Plan 1) 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
1640.421 The hurufat defteri clearly places the mosque in the northwestern part of the
city in the quarter named Hacı Ömer. 422 A closer look on the available nineteenth-
century panoramic photographs of Carva and Karastoyanov allow a glimpse of this
magnificent building, seen at a considerable distance from the elevated point at the
northwestern part of the citadel used by both of the photographers for taking their
pictures. The mosque appears on the photographs as a massive cubic stone building. The
main hole was finished 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 entrance
of the mosque faced the river as its seemingly stone-made tall minaret was raised from
the northwestern corner of the building (Figs. 57-58)
The mosque of Anbar Kadı was only one of the multiple public buildings in this
part of the city constructed in the seventeenth century. Southeast of it in the late
sixteenth or early seventeenth century unknown patron erected one of the three standing

419
“…ve Anbar Kadı câmi’-i cedid, pûr-nurdur ”. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 217.
420
Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 218; Alvadžiev. Plovdivska hronika, 27.
421
Alvadžiev. Plovdivska hronika, 27.
422
VGMA, D. 1180, ff. 244, 248, 249, 251.
158

mosques in modern Plovdiv, the so-called Orta mezar mosque, which is also known as
Taşköprü camii (the mosque of the stone bridge) despite the apparent lack of any bridge
nearby. (no. 18 on Plan 1) 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 junctures in modern Plovdiv (bul. Ruski and bul. 6ti Septemvri) 423 .
Architecturally the mosque of Anbar Kadı, mentioned above appears as a cheaper
replica of its predecessor at the Orta mezar area. Likewise in its original shape the
mosque had a square prayer hall (13.5 m) finished by a cornice, above which was placed
an octagonal drum that supported a lead-covered dome. (Figs. 59-61) In 1829 the
mosque was restored and considerably enlarged by a matching in size frame-built
structure attached to the eastern wall of the mosque. 424 (Figs. 62-63) The minaret,
attached to the southern wall collapsed during the big earthquake of 1928 and was never
repaired. In the 1970s or 1980s the main building of the mosque was restored and today
it serves as a tavern. The interior is completely destroyed as the walls and the dome are
covered with tasteless modern paintings.
Across the street at the western edge of a small square is located the second
standing Ottoman bath in modern Plovdiv, the Orta mezar hamamı. It is also known
locally as Yeni hamamı or Yahudi hamamı because of being located very near to the

423
As early as 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 Ilinskiy,
who also had drawn the earliest modern situation plan of the city. The change can be seen on his plan of
Filibe, completed in 1878 (copy of this plan is housed in the Special Collection of the Public Library in
Plovdiv) and on the panoramic photograph of Cavra taken in the spring of 1879.
424
The archive in Plovdiv has several photographs taken in 1968 prior the destruction of the addition.
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.
159

Jewish quarter of Filibe. (no. 31 on Plan 1) Likewise its patron and the exact date of
construction of the bath are not known, but because of being mentioned by Evliya Çelebi
it certainly predates mid-seventeenth century.425 This bath is considerably larger than the
hamam of Çelebi Kadı mentioned above (32 x 14.75 m)426, but it cannot compete in size
or outward appearance the baths from the fifteenth century (Tahtakale, Hünkâr, or Çifte
hamamı). The original masonry of this bath, a sort of cheaper local variation of
cloisonné, is still clearly observable. The disrobing room was covered by a low
pyramidal roof with a tall lantern at the top, which makes it similar to the bath of Hacı
Hasanzade in the opposite part of the city. (Fig. 64) The bath functioned throughout the
Ottoman period and continued to serve as the main bath of the western parts of the city
until the 1970s, therefore it saw multiple repairs and corrections.427 Nevertheless, the
bath that still stands in relatively good condition, being used as furniture store, and
preserved a good deal of its original appearance. 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 seventeenth century as even offered a more defined
time framework between 1580 and 1620.428 While I fully comply with the date offered
by Kiel I believe that the most likely date of construction of this bath is in the first two
decades of the seventeenth century. The bath must have been built shortly after the
mosque of Orta mezar opposite it. Although the two buildings are very close by one

425
426
Measurements are taken by Machiel Kiel. Kiel. Filibe notes and studies, 51c.
427
Numerous publications in the local press from the first half of the twentieth century speak of repair
works that kept the bath operational. I am grateful to Vladimir Baltchev who provided me with a number
of such newspaper publications.
428
Kiel. Filibe notes and studies, 51d.
160

another there is no information that they were commissioned by the same individual.
The lack of information about the identity of the patrons of these buildings is a serious
obstacle and any further conclusions cannot be taken beyond the realm of conjecture.
In any case the intensive public construction in the western part of the city in the
beginning of the seventeenth century testifies about a significant spatial growth in this
direction. The buildings near Orta mezar were laid on the second major axis of Filibe,
which crossed the city from west to east. The western edge of Filibe was set in the
fifteenth century by the namazgâh/musalla that was later replaced by the mosque of
Musalla, forming its own quarter. The space that remained between Musalla and the
main commercial street cutting the city from north to south was gradually filled with
Muslim mahalles in the subsequent years. The Jewish community which arrived to the
city at the end of the fifteenth or early sixteenth century established its own quarter in
this area at a spot that by that time was still unoccupied. The public buildings
commissioned in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century indicate that the
expanding urban space already filled the gap between the remote quarter Musalla and
the long central street. In this manner the large cemetery, known as Orta mezar, which
might have seemed remote in the early fifteenth century, by the early seventeenth
century appears to have been surrounded by quarters from all sides. This very fact is also
the most likely explanation for the peculiar name of the graveyard.
Architectural evidence demonstrates that the growth of the urban space also
continued along the main axis of the city south of Muradiye mosque. Despite the lack of
documentary evidence at hand the available visual materials testify that the city also
161

stretched south of its focal point and commercial core. In all probability the growth of
the city in this direction was closely related to the path of the road to Istanbul, that after
reaching the commercial center of Filibe continued further south, passed between the
Saat and Taksim hills and finally switched to east at a point south of Cambaz tepesi.
(Plan 1) Only a few hundred meters south of Muradiye, in the quarter of Yakub Fakıh
there was a mosque named after one Hacı Abdullah. (no. 2 on Plan 1) The building
appears on nineteenth-century gravure and its minaret and dome are also seen on a
photograph taken by Cavra in 1879. (Figs. 65-66) From what can be observed on the
visual materials the building appears as a single-domed quarter mosque. Judging from
the shape of its minaret that seems to have been brick-made the building can be dated in
the late fifteenth century, but it is also possible to be a later construction. A closer look
on what appears to be a lantern on the top of its dome shows that in all probability it was
a stork nest. The mosque of Hacı Abdullah that stood at the corner of the streets
Alexander I and 11ti Avgust was among the first victims of Plovdiv’s “modernization”
and was pulled down by the municipality in the late 1870s in an attempt to straighten
and widen the main street.429
The building that stood at the southern edge of Filibe was the magnificent Alaca
mosque. (no. 3 on Plan 1) It was built very near the point where the route of the main
road bending to east was running further to Edirne and Istanbul. Another intersection
continued straight southward and connected Filibe with the nearby important town of
İstnimaka, which on its own was a starting point of a road that lead to the Aegean cost

429
The building appears on the city plan of Ilinskiy (1878), but is already missing on the plan of Schniter
(1891).
162

and through the Rhodope Mountains. There are several extant photographs of this
building that depict it as one of Filibe’s most beautiful mosques. (Figs. 67-69)
Nevertheless, the available documentary sources offer no clue about the person who
commissioned it. The date of construction of Alaca mosque is also unknown, but thanks
to the extant photographs one can get a fairly good idea about the external appearance of
the mosque. Its square prayer hall (judging from the scale of the people near it 8-10 m
wide) was finished by a cornice. The lead-covered dome rested on octagonal drum,
which had roundish windows on four of its sides, probably a later addition. The masonry
of the mosque was done through layers of cut stone and bricks that left the pleasant
appearance of stripes throughout the entire structure.430 Undoubtedly this feature gave
the name Alaca (colorful) to the mosque, although its interior should have been quite
dark, because only a few small windows allowed access to the light inside the prayer
hall.
It is difficult to date the building with any certainty based on the available visual
evidence but one may suggest that it was a seventeenth-century construction that
possibly saw some later modifications, like the seemingly nineteenth-century decoration
of its gate. Alaca mosque survived in good shape until the second decade of the
twentieth century when it was leveled to the ground due to the construction of the new
municipality building and the square in front of it.431

430
In this respect it greatly reminds the stripes of Zal Mahmud Paşa and Şahsultan mosque in Eyüb
mentioned above, but there is no information about any other connection to Filibe of the noble couple
except for the posthumously built kervansaray.
431
Peev, Grad Plovdiv, 210, 219.
163

2.14. Conclusion
The re-emergence of Ottoman Filibe was a direct result of systematic efforts of
the central authority and a number of high ranking officials, whose career was linked to
the Thracian city. It is safe to state that the development of the city was one of the most
illustrative examples of discontinuity of the inherited urban tradition in the Balkans.
When the Ottomans took the medieval Philippopolis they found it reduced to the
confines of its small citadel as most of the magnificent Roman and early medieval outer
city was lying down in ruins for several centuries. The local Christian population that
suffered from the numerous destructive raids on the city in the period from twelfth
trough fourteenth century was greatly reduced in number and was literary fit into the
confines of the citadel and its immediately belonging areas. The Ottomans, who took the
city by agreement, faced the need of redesigning the urban space thus giving birth to
entirely new Muslim city at the open plain bellow the citadel.
The space of Filibe was reshaped in accordance with the already established
Ottoman tradition for remodeling the major Byzantine and Slavic cities in Asia Minor
and the Balkans. The circumstantial evidence assembled and discussed above strongly
suggests that the earliest Muslim buildings were placed at the foot of the three hills
fenced by the walls of the medieval citadel. Like in many other locations the ‘colonizers’
of the space beyond the walled parts of the town are likely to have been a T-shaped
imaret/zaviye and several service buildings, erected in the second half of the fourteenth
164

century by the conqueror and actual ruler of the city Lala Şahin Paşa. Heavily damaged
by the warfare in the early fifteenth century the earliest Muslim buildings in Filibe were
in all probability rebuilt in the mid-fifteenth century by the acting beylerbeyi of Rumili
Şihabeddin Paşa.
The real shift of the urban core however only began in the mid-1430s when
Murad II constructed his highly monumental imperial Friday mosque and set the focal
point of the Muslim city. A decade later Şihabeddin built a complex centered on a T-
shaped imaret/zaviye, which defined the northern edge of the city. The street that linked
these two edifices turned into the main axis of Filibe which diverted the path of the
existing road to Edirne/Istanbul, bringing it inside the Muslim city and redirecting it to
the new commercial core. In the period that followed a number of secondary axes
detached from the square of Muradiye mosque running south or west of the main
mosque. The free spaces between the main arteries of the Muslim part of the city were
soon occupied by quarters and numerous smaller or larger quarter mosques arose in the
course of the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries. The urban scheme settled in the mid-
fifteenth century thanks to the patronage of important public buildings on the part of the
Ottoman central authority and several high ranking officials proved to be extremely
successful. It not only remained relatively intact throughout the Ottoman period but also
to a large extent dominates the plan of the central parts of modern Plovdiv.
The Ottoman central power, i.e. the sultan and his subordinates appointed in the
provinces, who played crucial role in the physical reshaping of the city were also the
driving force that shaped the demographic processes in the formative period. In the mid-
165

fifteenth century the city was deprived from its Jewish and part of the Christian residents
who were forcibly transferred to Istanbul by Mehmed II. This allowed more space for
the settling of Muslims from Asia Minor, who flooded the city in the second half of the
fifteenth century stimulated by tax-exemptions and the excellent living conditions in the
provincial urban center. The earliest population and taxation records show that by the
1470s Filibe was already predominantly Muslim city. In the late 1520s, however, the
Muslims of Filibe also turned a subject of forced relocation orchestrated by the central
power. The rapid expansion in the Western Balkans and Central Europe in the early days
of the reign of sultan Süleyman I requested for Muslim settlers who manned the places
that were badly affected by the warfare or whose residents on their own were transferred
elsewhere. The archival documents show that a number of towns and cities in Aegean
and Upper Thrace offered to this process significant portion of their Muslim residents.
Filibe was among the places which were severely affected by the forced relocation that
completely disordered local life and economy. The data from a register of 1530
demonstrates that at that time the already large and crowded urban center had only three
operational mosques, served by a matching number of Muslim clergymen. In the
remaining part of the sixteenth century the Muslims in the city had a remarkable
recovery reaching back their peak from 1516 when close to 5 000 Muslims resided in
Filibe. Yet once more the actions of high ranking Ottoman official influenced the
demographic processes in Filibe. In 1596 the grand vizier İbrahim Paşa commissioned
and built in the nearby town of Tatar Pazarcık one of the largest kervansarays in the
Ottoman Balkans. This building, a complex on its own, gave a massive boost to the
166

development of the provincial town thus attracting great many Muslim families from the
neighboring metropolis Filibe.
Dominating the architectural and spatial development and the demographic
processes of the city the Ottoman central power managed in modifying the heritage of
medieval Philippopolis and to transform it into the large Muslim metropolis of Upper
Thrace. In this respect the history of Filibe in the first centuries of Ottoman domination
over the city is a token of the methods and policies in modifying the inherited urban
space, applied by the sultans, in their sound claim for lordship over the place.
167

CHAPTER III
TATAR PAZARCIK (PAZARDŽIK) – TURNING AKINCI POWERBASE
INTO OTTOMAN TOWN
3.1. The Creation of the Town
The modern town of Pazardžik, located at the heart of Bulgarian Thrace, about
35 km to the west of the metropolis Plovdiv, is one of the many towns in the Balkans
that have been created from scratch in the Ottoman times on a spot where no earlier
Byzantino-Slavic settlement existed before. Overtime, the newly created town grew and
becoming an important market place that distributed the constant flow of goods on the
Via Militaris road, it turned into the second most important urban center of Upper
Thrace. The very name of the town – Tatar Pazarcık (Tatar Bazarı), which was in use up
until the 1930s, definitely implies that it must have been a group of Tatars who settled
on this spot, thus giving a name to the settlement. Who were these Tatars, where they
168

came from and when exactly they founded the town, however, are all questions that to a
great extent divide the researchers who wrote on these issues. Thus, the early days of
Tatar Pazarcık remain understudied while the scholarship discussing the founders of the
town disagrees on the exact time of its foundation and its eponymous creators.
Evaluating the reliability of the diverse suggestions for the exact time of the town’s
creation, this section of the chapter is arguing that none of the authors exhausted the
topic and offers an alternative hypothesis that aims at establishing more precisely the
correct date and exact founders of Tatar Pazarcık. Moreover, while rejecting the most
popular hypothesis that points out sultan Bayezid II (1481-1512) as the founder of the
town, the presented evidence demonstrates that the settlement was created about an
entire century earlier.432
The “traditional” hypothesis about the creation of the town maintains that Tatar
Pazarcık was established by Crimean Tatars in 1485 whom Bayezid II deported to
Thrace after the conquest of the port cities Kilia and Akerman. This idea that seems to
have originated in the nineteenth century is still very popular and was adopted by most
modern researchers who wrote on the creation of the town. In two excellent articles that
laid strong foundations for further study of the history of Tatar Pazarcık in the Ottoman
era, Machiel Kiel accepts that it was established in 1485 by the Tatars who arrived from
the Black Sea region.433 The Dutch researcher’s conclusions are based on a statement

432
For a more detailed version of the argumentation on the establishment of Tatar Pazarcık in Bulgarian
language cf. Grigor Boykov. Tatar Pazardžik ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraya na XVII vek. Izsledvania
i dokumenti (Sofia: Amicitia, 2008), 1-32.
433
Machiel Kiel. “Tatar Pazarcık. A Turkish Town in the Heart of Bulgaria, Some Brief Remarks on its
Demographic Development 1489-1874.” in X. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 22-26 Eylül 1986. Kongreye
Sunulan Bildiriler, vol. 5 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994), 2567-2581 and the longer more elaborate
169

made in an earlier study of Franz Babinger, which discusses some aspects of the history
of early Ottoman Rumili.434 On the question of the establishment of Tatar Pazarcık the
German Turkologist on his part refers to the earlier works of Constantin Jireček and Ivan
Batakliev.435 The pioneers Jireček and Batakliev, on the other hand, seem to rely entirely
on a single common source – the nineteenth-century local historian Stephan Zahariev,
who claims that the information about the creation of the town derived from “some old
Turkish narratives and manuscripts”.436
In simple terms, it appears that the historiographic tradition that lasted for more
than a century is entirely based on a very unclear statement made by a person, who is
known for his quite free interpretations and even falsifications.437 Regardless the fact
that the hypothesis of the Bulgarian local historian might have seemed doubtful, modern
scholarship was unable to reject it completely, because the earliest known Ottoman
document, in which Tatar Pazarcık appears, dates only to 1488, thus making the
suggestion of Zahariev still permissible.438 A hitherto neglected source that was only

version of this congress paper idem. “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 Klaus
Kreiser, Christoph Neuman (eds.), Das Osmanische Reich in seinen Archivalien und Chroniken, Nejat
Göyünc zu Ehren (Istanbul: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997), 31-67. I have to underline
that on multiple occasions in private correspondence and discussions Prof. Kiel stated that he never found
the date 1485 convincing enough, but the lack of other evidence made him adopt it.
434
Franz Babinger. Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.-15. Jahrhundert)
(München-Brünn: R. M. Rohrer, 1944), 68.
435
Constantin Jireček. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe. Eine
historisch-geographische Studie (Prag: Verlag von F. Tempsky, 1877), 35; 130. Ivan Batakliev. Grad
Tatar-Pazardžik. Istoriko-geografski pregled (Sofia: Gutenberg, 1923), 75-78.
436
Stephan Zahariev. Geografiko-istoriko-statistichesko opisanie na Tatar-Pazardžishkata kaaza
(Phototype edition with comments) (Sofia: Otechestven Front, 1973), 41.
437
According to Zahariev the first Tatar colonists settled in the quarter of Hacı Kıllıç, who also became
the patron of the earliest mosque in the town. Zahariev, Tatar-Pazardžishkata kaaza, 41.
438
The document is a register of the salt-sellers (tuzcuyan) in Rumelia, housed in Sofia archive OAK
121/9, f. 28a. The document was first pointed out by Rusi Stoykov. “Naimenovania na bălgarski selishta v
170

recently brought to scholarly attention, however, testifies that the statement of the
Bulgarian author is fictitious and it has to be completely overlooked.
A register from 1472, compiled in order to raise revenues in support of the akıncı
raiders, enlists most of the settlements and a larger portion of the taxpayers in Upper
Thrace. 439 Along with many others, the document contains the taxpayers of a town
named “Bazar-i Tatar Yenice” that belonged to the district (kaza) of Filibe.440 There is
little doubt that the settlement in question is no other but the town of Tatar Pazarcık,
which by the time of this registration had six quarters inhabited exclusively by Muslims.
This is in fact steady evidence demonstrating that it is impossible the town to have been
established by Bayezid II since it already existed in the reign of his predecessor Mehmed
II (1444-46; 1451-1481). The former thesis must thus be abandoned as a groundless
speculation, produced by the nineteenth-century Bulgarian patriot.
The 1472 document portrays Tatar Pazarcık as a Muslim town that has been
created in the near past, because it still bore the add Yenice, i.e. fairly new or recent. In
spite of this important information the register contains no other indication regarding the
exact time of the founding of the town. Strangely enough a document of later date helps
pushing the date of creation of Tatar Pazarcık even further back in time. A tahrir register
of 1516 testifies that the beylerbeyi of Rumili Şihabeddin Paşa had a watermill and a rice

turski dokumenti na Orientalskiya otdel na Narodnata biblioteka “V. Kolarov” ot XV-XVI-XVII i XVIII
vek.” Izvestiya na Narodnata biblioteka “V. Kolarov” za 1959, 1 (1960): 442.
439
The defter is housed in Sofia archive, bound in two separate pieces – PD 17/27 and OAK 94/73. The
document is examined in depth by Mariya Kiprovska. The Military Organization of the Akıncıs in
Ottoman Rumelia, (M.A. Thesis, Bilkent University, 2004).
440
The name also appears as Bazar Yenice-i Tatar. Sofia PD 17/27, f. 17b and OAK 94/73, f. 32.
171

mill built in the town, which yielded incomes to the vakıf of his complex in Filibe.441 It
is very unlikely that Şihabeddin constructed these buildings on an uninhabited spot, but
it must have rather been the existing settlement that attracted them. Therefore, Tatar
Pazarcık undoubtedly existed by the time these profitable buildings were erected in the
mid-1440s442, which on the other hand allows establishing a secure terminus ante quem
for the creation of the town.
The available archival documentation rejects in a convincing manner the most
popular hypothesis, which attributes the founding of the town to Bayezid II (1485), but
leaves the second best-known suggestion still possible. Likewise, this hypothesis,
arguing for a much earlier date of the town’s creation (1418), originates in the nineteenth
century and it is a work of the renowned orientalist Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall.443
According to von Hammer, Tatar Pazarcık was established by the Tatars of Minnet Bey
from İskilip, who, on order of sultan Mehmed I (1413-1421), were deported to the area
of Filibe in 1418.444 This thesis was later uncritically adopted by Ömer Barkan in his
valuable publications on the deportations in the Ottoman Empire as a method used for
colonizing and reviving the depressed territories of Rumelia.445 However, it appears that

441
asiyab-i Şihabeddin Paşa, bab: 3 - 90 [akçe]; dink-i hacı Şihabeddin, vakf-i cami’, bab: 2 - 40 [akçe].
BOA TD 77, f. 635.
442
Şihabeddin Paşa’s complex, examined in detail in the previous chapter, was completed in 1444. Its
endowment charter must have also been drawn up around that time.
443
Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall. Histoire de l’Empire ottoman, depuis son aurigine jusqu’à nos jours,
traduit par J. J. Hellert, t. 2 (Paris: Bellizard, Barthès, Dufour et Lowell, 1835), 180-181.
444
The narrative sources on the deportation of Minnet Bey and his people from the area of İskilip to
Konuş Hisarı in the plain of Filibe will be examined in detail in the fallowing chapter.
445
Ömer Lûtfi Barkan. “Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler”,
İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15 (1953-54): 211 (=Sürgünler III).
172

neither the Vienna copy of Neşri 446 , nor the work of Kâtib Çelebi 447 , used by the
Austrian scholar, contain such information, therefore it is unclear what made von
Hammer conclude that “the founding of the town, located on the route from
Philippopolis to Constantinople, very near to the first of these two cities, today called
Tatarbasari” was actually work of the Tatars of Minnet Bey.448 Moreover, all sources
seem to agree that these Tatars settled in Konuş Hisarı, a place 35 km to the east of
Filibe and not in Tatar Pazarcık that is located to the west of the metropolis of Upper
Thrace. It is also known that the son of Minnet Bey, Mehmed, who turned into one of
the prominent raider commanders (akıncı ucbeyis) in the Western Balkans, tried to
develop Konuş as a town, endowing the place with a number of important public
buildings and also brought many captives and settlers there. 449 The apparent lack of
connection between Minnet Bey and his descendents with Tatar Pazarcık makes von
Hammer’s thesis unfounded too.
Ignoring von Hammer’s suggestion that the Tatars of Minnet Bey were the ones
who created the settlement, there is another group of deportees in the early period that
can be regarded as the possible founders of the town – the nomads from Saruhan

446
The Vienna copy later was used as a main copy of Neşri’s edition of the Turkish Historical Society.
Mehmed Neşrî. Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi. Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed A. Köymen (eds.)
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 543.
447
Rumeli und Bosna. Geographisch beschrieben von Mustafa Ben Abdalla Hadschi Chalfa, translated
and commented by Joseph von Hammer (Wien: Im Verlage des Kunst- und Industrie-Comptoirs, 1812),
55-56.
448
Hammer, Histoire de l’Empire ottoman, vol. 2, 180.
449
Mehmed Bey replaced for a short period of time İshakoğlu İsa Bey as Bosnian sancakbeyi. Halil
İnalcık. “Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time”. Speculum 35 (1960), 423. Later he shifted posts in
Serbia and Bosnia. Grigor Boykov. “In Search of Vanished Ottoman Monuments in the Balkans:
Minnetoğlu Mehmed Beg’s Complex in Konuş Hisarı.” in Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz
(eds.), Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel (Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten, 2010), 47-67.
173

transferred to the area of Filibe on order of sultan Bayezid I (1389-1402) in 1395. In
modern scholarship this is a well-studied episode that turned into a textbook example
used by a number of authors while examining the aspects of the Turkish colonization of
Rumelia.450
It is important to note that this particular episode does not belong to the common
source (Yahşi Fakih) used both by Aşıkpaşazade and the so-called Anonymous
chronicles.451 Since it only appears in Aşıkpaşazade’s narrative, it is very likely that it
could have been an oral story related personally to the Ottoman chronicler who lived for
some years among the members of the border society at the western uc under the
leadership of the İshakoğulları.452
Saruhan ilinin göçer halkı vardı, Menemen ovasında kışlarlardı. Ol

iklimde tuz yasağı vardı, аnlar ol yasağı kabul etmezlerdi, Bayazid Hana
bildirdiler. Han dahi oğlu Ertogrul’a haber gönderdikim: „o göçer evleri
nekadarkim vardır onat zabt edesin, yarar kullarına ısmarlayasın, Filibe
vilâyetine gönderesin”, didi. Ertogrul dahi atasının emrini kabul etdi
şöylekim ne buyurmuşdu dahi ziyade etdi. Ol göçer evleri gönderdi, geldi,
Filibe yöresine kondurdılar. Şimdiki demde Saruhan Beğlükim dirler Rum-
ili’nde anlardırlar. Paşa Yiğit Beğ o kavmin ulusuydı. Ol zamanda anlarunla
bile gelmişdi.453

450
From among the modern authors first Münir Aktepe. “XIV. ve XV. Asırlarda Rumeli’nin Türkler
Tarafından İskânına Dair.” Türkiyat Mecmuası 10 (1951-1953): 300-301 examined the episode. Later it
was analyzed in details by Ömer Lûtfi Barkan. “Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon
Metodu Olarak Sürgünler.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 13 (1951-52): 67-76 (=
Sürgünler II).
451
Halil İnalcık. “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography.” in idem. From Empire to Republic. Essays on
Ottoman and Turkish Social History (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1995), 1-16, first published in Bernard Lewis
and P. M. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford University Press, New York –
Toronto, 1962). Victor Ménage. “The Menāqib of Yakhshi Faqīh.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 26:1 (1963): 53.
452
On the life, career and chronicle of Aşıkpaşazade see the fundamental article of Halil İnalcık. “How to
Read ‘Ashık Pasha-zade’s History.” in idem. Essays in Ottoman History (Istanbul: Eren, 1998), 31-50.
453
The passage differs insignificantly in the two basic editions of Aşıkpaşazade. Friedrich Giese. Die
Altosmanishe Chronik des ‘Âšıkpašazâde (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1929), 66-67; Aşıkpaşazade Tarihi.
Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. Ali Bey (haz.), (İstanbul: Matba’a-i Amire, 1332/1916), 74.
174

There were nomads in the land of Saruhan, they were spending the
winters in the plain of Menemen. In the region there was a law about the salt,
they [the nomads] did not obey it, [for which] Bayezid Han was informed.
The ruler sent a message to his son Ertoğrul and ordered: “As many as these
nomad tents are, you have to subjugate them, assign them to your
trustworthy slaves and send them to the region of Filibe”. Ertoğrul accepted
his father’s order and did even more than he was asked for. He came and
sent these nomad tents to the plain of Filibe. Now they are these [people] in
Rumili who are called Saruhan Beylü. The leader of this group was Paşa
Yiğit Bey. He came to Rumili at that time with them.
The same narrative was also incorporated into Neşri’s chronicle, which in this
part uses the work of Aşıkpaşazade as its main source.454 Neşri’s text, however, lacks
Aşıkpaşazade’s concluding remark that Paşa Yiğit Bey came to Rumelia together with
this group of nomads, probably because the chronicler noticed that Paşa Yiğit already
played a role in the Balkans some years earlier. The conqueror of Skopje, Paşa Yiğit,
appears in Neşri’s text in the course of the winter campaign of 1388 that Çardarlı Ali
Paşa led against the Bulgarian king Yoan Shishman.455 This episode is not found in
Aşıkpaşazade, because Neşri and the so-called Oxford Anonymous (Pseudo-Ruhî) relied
on a lost source, called by İnalcık the Kosovoname, which belongs to the genre of the
gazavatnames.456 Apparently, the fact that Neşri mentioned Paşa Yiğit earlier was good
enough for the chronicler to disregard Aşıkpaşazade’s statement.

454
Neşri (Unat-Köymen), 339.
455
Neşri (Unat-Köymen), 243. On the campaign of Ali Paşa as reflected in Neşri’s chronicle see Machiel
Kiel. “Mevlana Neşri and the Towns of Medieval Bulgaria. Historical and Topographical Notes.” in Colin
Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies in Ottoman history in honour of Professor V.L. Ménage
(Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1994), 165-187. Halil İnalcık. “Polunya (Appolunia) – Tanrı-Yıkdıgı Osmanlı
Rumeli Fetihleri Kronolojisinde Düzelrmeler (1345-1371).” in Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ (ed.) Mübahat S.
Kütükoğlu’na Armağan (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 2006), 27-57.
456
I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. İnalcık to whom I owe this information. Moreover, many of my
own ideas regarding the Ottoman narrative sources are a direct output of his stimulating seminars at
Bilkent. Pseudo-Ruhi is published by Yaşar Yücel and H. Erdoğan Cengiz. „Rûhî Tarîhi – Oxford
Nüshası.” Belgeler 14 (1989-1992): 359-472.
175

The conflict between the nomads of Menemen and the Ottoman authority caused
by the disregard of the established salt regulations, which led to the deportation of the
nomads to the area of Filibe, is comprehensively examined by Barkan.457 Even though
Aşıkpaşazade’s account is somewhat confused in regard of Paşa Yiğit’s role458 in the
process of the nomads’ deportation, it is very unambiguous about the fact that they were
transferred to the area of Filibe and also that in Rumelia these people were known as
Saruhanbeylü. The name Saruhanbeylü gives a very clear clue as to where exactly the
nomads were settled – at the southwestern edge of the Upper Thracian plain, some 55
km westward of Filibe. They created a settlement of the same name, which Mehmed II
gave in full proprietorship (mülk) to the then beylerbeyi of Rumili Koca Davud Paşa.459
Later Davud Paşa endowed the incomes from the village of Saruhanbeylü (mod. town of
Septemvri) to the pious foundation he established in support of the mosque, imaret,
medrese, and mekteb, which he built in Istanbul.460
The nomad deportees from Saruhan are unlikely to have been the founders of
Tatar Pazarcık. Similarly to the case of Minnet Bey’s Tatars, the narrative sources leave
the impression that these nomads too constituted a small compact group that settled on

457
Barkan, “Sürgünler II”, 71. The regulations of the salt production (tuz yasağı) are published by Robert
Anhegger-Halil İnalcık. Kanunname-i Sultani ber Muceb-i ‘Örf-i Osmani (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,
1956), 29-30 and Ahmed Akgündüz. Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri. 1. Kitap (İstanbul:
FEY Vakfı, 1990), 628-629.
458
One hesitates to speculate that the chronicler included Paşa Yiğit in his text in order to please his
successor in Skopje – İshak Bey. In any case, when the nomads were transferred to Thrace, Paşa Yiğit
must have been present in Skopje. Barkan, “Sürgünler II”, 75-76.
459
In Bayezid II’s reign Davud Paşa was promoted to a grand vizier, keeping the post for fifteen years. M.
Tayyib Gökbilgin. “Dawud Pasha” in EI2.
460
He also endowed a number of other settlements and built quite a few revenue raising buildings, among
which is the magnificent double bath (çifte hamam) in Skopje. On Davud Paşa’s possessions and his pious
foundation see M. Tayyib Gökbilgin. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı. Vakıflar-Mülkler-
Mukataalar (İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), 405-412.
176

one definite place. They found there perfect conditions for seasonal migration and
established the settlement of Saruhanbeylü, which over time developed into a small
provincial town. Although the town is not far from Tatar Pazarcık, only 20 km westward,
there is no information pointing them out as the founders of the larger urban center.
Moreover, as stated above, the very name of Tatar Pazarcık suggests that it must have
been established by Tatars. The nomads of Saruhan seem to have been Yürüks, not
Tatars,461 therefore they must be ruled out of the list of potential founders of the town.
Indeed, there is such a Tatar group, whose role in the founding of the settlement
is quite plausible, but was nevertheless neglected by the historians and has not been
hitherto examined in the light of the creation of Tatar Pazarcık. These are the numerous
Tatars led by Aktav who came to Rumelia at the end of the fourteenth century.462
The story of the transfer of the Crimean Tatars under the leadership of the tribal
chieftain Aktav is best presented in the history written by Kemalpaşazade (İbn-i Kemal).
The Ottoman intellectual who began a career of a military turned into one of the most
important scholars and theologians of the Empire and was appointed as şeyhü’l-islâm in
the Suleymanic age.463 On request of Bayezid II, Kemalpaşazade compiled a voluminous
history of the Ottoman dynasty, one volume for each sultan, which he later
complemented with two extra volumes covering the reign of Süleyman I (1520-1566)
too. Basing his narrative on the earlier chronicles of Neşri, Karamanî Mehmed Paşa,

461
Barkan, “Sürgünler II”, 71. Feridun Emecen. XVI. Asırlarda Manisa Kazâsı (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 1989), 127-142.
462
Barkan examines the arrival of Aktav and his people to Rumelia, but failed to connect the events to the
founding of Tatar Pazarcık. Barkan, “Sürgünler II”, 211-212.
463
Franz Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz,
1927), 61-63; Victor Ménage. “The Beginnings of Ottoman Historiography.” in Bernard Lewis and P. M.
Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East, 176-177.
177

Uruc, Anonymous chronicles, Tursun Bey etc. along with some detailed accounts of
eyewitnesses, Kemalpaşazade produced the most elaborate and comprehensive
compilation of the Ottoman narrative tradition of that time.464 Approaching his sources
with a great degree of selectivity and criticism Kemalpaşazade’s work was aimed to
become the Turkish counterpart of İdris-i Bitlisi’s Heşt Bihişt. Written in an elevated
Turkish language he showed a great skill in presenting the events in their chronological
and logical sequence, which made İnalcık label him “the greatest of all Ottoman
historians including Hoca Sadeddin, ‘Ali, Naima, and Cevdet Paşa”.465
The narrative of interest for this chapter was included in the fourth volume of
Kemalpaşazade’s history, which deals with the reign of sultan Bayezid I.466 According
to the editor, who prepared this volume for publication, the main sources used by the
Ottoman historian in creating the compilation are Neşri, a detailed version of Uruc, the
so-called Oxford Anonymous and the Anonymous Giese, together with the historical
calendars (takvims).467 While accepting without any objections Imazawa’s conclusions,
it must be underlined that Kemalpaşazade must have used at least one more additional
source that is unknown for the time being or has been lost. The detailed account of the
transfer of the Tatars of Aktav is missing in all of the mentioned authors and clearly the
learned şeyhü’l-islâm must have had a different narrative at his disposal. Striping out the

464
İnalcık. “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography”, 14-15; Ménage. “The Beginnings of Ottoman
Historiography”, 177; Cf. the introduction to the seventh volume by İbn Kemal. Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. VII.
Defter, Şerafettin Turan (ed.) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), xxii – xlvii.
465
İnalcık. “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography”, 15. Cf. Victor Ménage. “Kemal Pasha-Zade” in EI2.
466
The published version of the text is based on three copies housed in the main Istanbul libraries. İbn
Kemal (Kemalpaşazâde), Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, IV. Defter, Koji Imazawa (ed.), (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 2000), ix-xii.
467
İbn Kemal. IV. Defter (Imazawa), xii-xx.
178

story of Kemalpaşazade of all details and expressions aimed at beautifying the narration,
it can be summarized as follows:468
… In result of the second campaign of Timur (Tamerlane) against the

Golden Horde one of the generals of Toktamış Han – Aktav, heading of his
tuman, run away to the south. He negotiated with the Ottoman sultan and
after receiving an approval he crossed the Danube and entered Ottoman
service.469 In exchange of their services the Ottoman ruler settled the Tatars
together with their families, animals, and belongings in the area of Filibe and
assigned summer and winter pastures for them.470 Filling the plain of Filibe
up, some of the Tatars settled down and began cultivating the land.471 The
sultan, however, was anxious about the great power under Aktav’s control
and he was summoned in the palace in Edirne. During the feast, also
attended by most of the beys [Çandarlı] Ali Paşa poisoned the drink of Aktav
and he died on his horse near one of the city gates.472 Hearing about the
death of their leader many of the Tatars returned to the north of Danube.
Those who remained were registered in the defters…473
The Ottoman historian, however, did not specify the exact time of these events,
simply placing them prior to the battle of Ankara (1402). Aurel Decei, who was
unfamiliar with this section of the text of Kemalpaşazade, analyzed the information in
other available to him sources (Bedreddin Ayni, Nizamüddin Şami, and Chalkokondyles)
and concluded that the Tatar leader Aktav and his tuman 474 appeared in Rumelia in

468
The arrival of the Aktav Tatars to Rumelia and the events afterwards are presented on close to twenty
pages in the published version of the history of Kemalpaşazâde. İbn Kemal. IV. Defter (K. Imazawa), 327-
255.
469
İbn Kemal. IV. Defter (Imazawa), 327.
470
471
472
İbn Kemal. IV. Defter (Imazawa), 337-341. Aktav died near Manyas Kapısı praying for an antidote.
473
İbn Kemal. IV. Defter (Imazawa), 353. According to Kemalpaşazâde 50 000 Tatars were registered as
sipahis. Certainly these figures are unrealistic, but reflect the large number of Tatars who remained in
Rumelia.
474
tuman/tümen is a unit compound of 10 000 horsemen and their families. A tuman consists of 10
hezares (1 000 riders), 100 sades (100 riders), and 1 000 koşuns (10 riders). Together with the soldiers’
179

1398.475 While accepting the date suggested by Decei it is very hard to trace with any
degree of certainty Aktav’s fate after he crossed the Danube. Kemalpaşazade’s detailed
account about the poisoning of the Tatar leader undoubtedly seems credible, but the
short information in the chronicles of Uruc and Ruhî ascribe a natural death to him:476
Deşt vilâyetinden çokluk tatar çerisi gelmişdi, beğlerine Ak Tav dirlerdi.

Edirnede vefat edüb 477 . Leşkeri kalmışdı. Ol tatar askerini bile beraber
almışdı, askerini toplayıb Sultan Yıldırım Han dahi yürüdü. Engüri ovasına
çıkdı...
A large Tatar army came from the province of Deşt. Their bey was named
Ak Tav. He died in Edirne. His army remained. Sultan Yıldırım Han
[Bayezid I] summoned his army, he took this Tatar army too and departed.
He reached the Engüri [Ankara] plain…
It is hard to explain why the arrival of the numerous Crimean Tatars under the leadership
of Aktav, an event of considerable importance, received so little appreciation in the early
Ottoman sources. Nevertheless, it has caught the attention of the late Byzantine historian
Chalkokondyles, who described the arrival of the Tatars in a great detail and also
insisted that Aktav was murdered by Bayezid I. The similarities in the content of the
texts of Chalkokondyles and Kemalpaşazade make one hesitant to suggest that both

families a tuman could number up to 50 000. R. E. Darley-Doran. “Tuman” in EI2; Nizamüddin Şâmi.
Zafernâme, translated and edited by Necati Lugal (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1949), 162, 288.
475
Aurel Decei. “Etablissement de Aktav de la Horde d’Or dans l’Empire Ottoman, au temps de Yıldırım
Bayezid.” in 60. Doğum Yılı Münasebetiyle Zeki Velidi Togan’a Armağan (İstanbul: Maarif Basımevi,
1950-1955), 77-92. Cf. Halil İnalcık. “Dobrudja” in EI2 who places Aktav’s crossing to Rumelia a bit
earlier in 1395 and Strashimir Dimitrov. Istoria na Dobrudža, vol. 3 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, 1988) who argues for even earlier date, namely 1389. On Tamerlane’s campaign against the
Golden Horde and the role of Aktav see Bertold Spuler. Die Goldene Horde: die Mongolen in Russland,
1223-1502 (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1965), 592.
476
Franz Babinger. Die frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch: nach den Handschriften zu Oxford und
Cambridge (Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heinz Lafaire, 1925), (Oxford MS), 34; (Cambridge MS),
103. Oruç Beğ Tarihi, Nihal Atsız (haz.), (İstanbul: Tercüman, 1001 Temel Eser, No. 5, 1972), 59-60.
Ruhi Edrenevi. Berlin, Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Ms. Orient Quart 821, fol. 46 (quoted after the text
published by Decei, “Etablissement de Aktav”, 88).
477
Edirne’de otururken orada öldü. Oruç Beğ (Atsız); Edirne’de ferrar etmişken anda fevt oldu. Uruc
(Babinger-Oxford MS).
180

authors might have used a common source, which does not belong to the known
Ottoman literary tradition:478
It is said that a large tribe of Scythians went to Dacia and send envoys to
Bayazid. Their leaders asked for money and offices. They in return would
cross the Ister and help him in his wars against his enemies in Europe. He
was delighted with this, accepted their offer and made great promises. When
they crossed over he settled them all over Europe. He took care of their
leaders everywhere. Thus scattered they became useful to him both in raids
and warfare. Later Bayazid fearing that their leaders might unite and revolt
arrested them and killed them. It is possible nowadays to see a great number
of Scythians scattered in many places throughout Europe.
The exact date and the causes for Aktav’s death are of lesser importance for this study,
but it seems that he did not live long in Rumelia. It is highly likely that it was not the
fear of a Tatar revolt that caused Bayezid I’s actions against their leader, but it was
rather Aktav who provoked Bayezid’s anger, because his Tatars sacked and pillaged the
city of Varna in 1399.479 In any case, by 1402 the mighty Tatar general was already dead.
However differing in their accounts as they are, all sources seem to agree on one
particular point – the Tatars who arrived in Rumelia under his leadership were numerous.
Kemalpaşazade speaks of fifty thousand warriors, who were registered in the sultanic

478
English translation of Chalkokondyles after Nicolaos Nicoloudis. Laonikos Chalkokondyles: A
Translation and Commentary of the “Demonstrations of Histories”, Books I-III (PhD Dissertation, King’s
College London, 1992), 230. Original text in Byzantine Greek in Eugenius Darkó. Laonici
Chalcocandylae historiarum demonstrationes, vol. 1 (Budapestini: Typis Societatis Franklinianae, 1922),
93-94.
479
The information for the Tatars who pillaged Varna on 2 February 1399 derives from a Byzantine short
chronicle, known as the Chronicle of Mesembria. Schreiner who edited the short chronicles argues that
these “godless Tatars” who sacked the city are those of Aktav. Peter Schreiner. Die byzantinischen
Kleinchroniken, 2. Teil: Historischer Kommentar (Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1977), 362-363. Cf. Vasil Guzelev. Srednovekovna Bălgariya v sletlinata na novi izvori (Sofia: Narodna
Prosveta, 1981), 220-221.
181

480
defters. Ruhî and Uruc relate about a large Tatar army, as according to
Chalkokondyles the Tatars scattered in many places throughout Europe (i.e. Rumelia).
On the other hand, Kemalpaşazade is the only source to indicate explicitly where Aktav
and his people settled – the plain of Filibe.
The Ottoman registers of the later period show clearly that the central
administration was very familiar with the Tatars of Aktav (Tataran-i Aktav). They were
really a very big group of people who occupied long stretch of crescent-like territory,
that began in Dobruca to the north and turning westward at Yanbolu-Çirmen area it
finished to the west of Filibe at its southern edge.481 The recruit, services rendered and
taxation of the Tatars of Aktav were a subject of special regulations (kanun) produced
by the Ottoman central administration.482 A register of the Naldöken Yürüks and the
Tatars of Aktav from 1543-44 shows that only in the region around Filibe, Yanbolu and
Çirmen there were 21 ocaks of these Tatars.483 It appears that the information of the
narrative texts about the great number of the Tatars of Aktav who arrived in 1398
corroborates well with the documentary sources of later times, which increases the
credibility of the chronicles. In this respect one can accept Kemalpaşazade’s statement
that the leader Aktav settled in the plain near Filibe as trustworthy as well. Moreover,

480
Instead of being registered as sipahis, as claimed by the Ottoman chronicler, the Tatars were most
likely offered a status of Yürüks. İnalcık. “Dobrudja”. On the social status and military obligations of the
Yürüks see Halil İnalcık. “The Yürüks: Their Origins, Expansion and Economic Role.” in idem. The
Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire. Essays on Economy and Society (Bloomington:
Indiana University Turkish Studies, 1993), 97-137. Cf. a recent monograph on the nomads in the Balkans
by Aleksey Kalionski. Yurutsite (Sofia: Prosveta, 2011).
481
İnalcık. “Dobrudja”. M. Tayyib Gökbilgin. Rumeli’de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlâd-ı Fâtihan (İstanbul:
Osman Yılçın Matbaası, 1957), 17, 26, 87-88.
482
The kanun for the Yürüks of Yanbolu and the Tatars of Bozapa and Aktav is published by Ömer Lûtfi
Barkan. XV ve XVIıncı Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Ziraî Ekonomisinin Hukuki ve Malî Esaslar.
Kanunlar (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1943), 260-262.
483
BOA, TD 223, Gökbilgin. Yürükler, 87.
182

the available archival documents also seem to confirm the account of the Ottoman
historian.
The register of 1472, mentioned above, testifies that by the time it was drawn up
a settlement named after the leader Aktav indeed existed in the area of Filibe.484 The
specificity of this defter, which is typologically closer to the avarız records, rather than
to the common tahrir registers, does not allow any closer observations over this village.
Only three reaya individuals from the village Aktav contributed the requested 33 akçes,
which had to cover the expenses for the akıncı raiders during their expedition to
Anatolia485, thus leaving little doubt that the rest of the residents were exempted from
the levy, because of having a status of auxiliary troops (müsellem).486 In a register dating
close to one hundred years later (1570) the village Aktav appears as held in full
proprietorship by the daughter of Süleyman I and spouse of Rüstem Paşa, Mihrimah
Sultan.487 It had 140 Muslim households and 2 unmarried individuals, most of whom
were either raiders or their yamaks. The Muslim village was surrounded by four newly-
formed Christian mahalles that had a total population of 75 households. Later on,
Mihrimah Sultan’s possessions were endowed to a pious foundation in support of one of
her mosques in Istanbul.488

484
Sofia, PD 17/27, f. 7b.
485
The akıncıs were summoned under the command of Mihaloğlu Ali Bey for the campaign that Mehmed
II launched against the Akkoyunlu ruler Uzun Hasan in 1473.
486
A short note in a defter of 1525 confirms that the residents of the village are under Yürük status and
pay their tithes to the müsellem beyi. BOA, MAD 519, f. 194. This fact can explain the lack of the village
in the regular tahrir records from the 15th and the first half of the 16th century.
487
BOA, TD 498, ff. 383-386. Mihrimah Sultan received as mülk a dozen of villages in the districts of
Filibe, Tatar Pazarcık and Samako.
488
Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 500-501.
183

The name of the village and the nearby Aktav bayırı and Aktav deresi remained
unchanged until the nineteenth century, as it can be seen on the Ottoman military
map.489 Only a few years later the maps marked a more Slavic version of the name –
Afto köy490, as at the turn of the century it was completely Slavicized to Avtoevo491,
which allows its unmistakable identification as the modern village of Shishmantsi,
located a few kilometers to the northeast of Filibe. The identification of the village
Aktav in the vicinity of Filibe complements the information from the narratives. It
appears that the Tatar leader himself and his closest companions indeed settled in the
area as claimed by Kemalpaşazade. After his death Aktav left his name as a contribution
to the local toponymy.
The identification of the village where the Tatar leader Aktav has taken up his
residence in the vicinity of Filibe substantiates once more the truthful nature of the
narrative sources that relate the settling of the Tatars in this very area as well. Besides,
all chronicles markedly underline the great number of the Tatars who came to the region
in 1398, a fact that is also supported by evidence derived from the archival documents.
The numerousness of the Tatars, on the other hand, makes it reasonable to suggest, even
though a direct proof for it is lacking, that the Tatar army has scattered all around the
area, thus giving birth to many small settlements in the region. It is very plausible
therefore some of the Tatars of Aktav to have settled only several kilometers to the west

489
Rumili Haritası. Erkan-ı Harbiye-i Umumiye Dairesi 1:210 000, Filibe from A.H. 1299/1881-82.
490
Rumili Şahane Haritası. Erkan-ı Harbiye-i Umumiye Dairesi 1:210 000, Filibe from A.H. 1317/1899-
1900. I am indebted to Prof. Heath Lowry who provided me with a digitized version of this map.
491
Generalkarte von Mitteleuropa 1:200 000, 43o – 42o Stara Zagora (Eski Zagra). Herausgegeben vom
Militärgeographischen Institut in Wien, 1940. The 1940 map is an exact reprint of the 1913 military map. I
thank Prof. Machiel Kiel who gave me a copy of the map.
184

of their leader and they might well have been the ones who founded the settlement that
overtime turned into the town of Tatar Pazarcık. The fact that the Tatars of Aktav were
numerous along with the existence of a village by the name of their chieftain in the area
greatly increases the possibility that there were some of them who established the town.
Indeed, several other hints also imply that Aktav’s Tatars were the ones who
founded Tatar Pazarcık. As a matter of fact all other known cases of Tatars’ migration to
the area of Filibe, which were carefully examined above, were overthrown by argument
as potential founders of the town. The Tatars deported from Kilia and Akkerman in 1485
could not have created it simply because they arrived too late when the town already
existed. The nomads from Menemen, who founded Saruhanbeylü were not even Tatars,
consequently their role in Tatar Pazarcık’s creation should be refuted too. The Tatars of
Minnet Bey, who settled in Konuş, don’t seem to have been numerous enough to split in
portions in order to become founders of a second settlement. To the contrary,
Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey was in a desperate need for settlers whom he brought even
from the western Balkans in an attempt to develop the area of his family domain.
Moreover, by the time Minnet Bey and his people came to Upper Thrace it appears that
the western edge of the plain was already occupied and they settled where empty land
was available.
Focusing on the time and the location of the newly created Turkish settlements
along the route of the Via Militaris road in Upper Thrace, one can notice an attempt for
mastering the conquered territory on the part of the Ottomans through a settlement
policy that was driven in a direction opposite to the one of the conquest. The earliest
185

Turkish settlements that appeared at the edge of the then Ottoman territories were the
Yürük villages of the İhtiman plain and the town of İhtiman itself, created and mastered
by the mighty dynasty of raider commanders of the Mihaloğulları as early as the 1380s.
Once the Ottoman conquest moved westward, it faced the densely populated plain of
Sofia where there was neither need nor enough room for new settlements. Therefore, the
Ottomans began to populate in a rather systematic manner the free empty lowland of
Upper Thrace. The earliest deportees were the Yürüks from Menemen who were settled
in the farthest western edge of the plain. A few years later the numerous Tatars of Aktav
arrived, who along with many other locations were assigned to populate a spot on the
main road, but to the east of the Saruhan nomads. By the second decade of the fifteenth
century, when Minnet Bey was deported to Thrace, the territory to the west of Filibe
must have been already occupied and he was given a place located even farther eastward
on the main road. The reason for this looks apparent – Saruhanbeylü and Tatar Pazarcık
already existed.
3.2. Power base of the peripheral forces: Tatar Pazarcık’s development until the
beginning of the sixteenth century.
The lack of sources covering the period from the founding of Tatar Pazarcık at
the turn of the fourteenth century till 1472, the date of the earliest available register,
makes the history of its early days very unclear. Nevertheless, one can guess that soon
186

after the settlement became a fact it had to face a very serious challenge – the
Interregnum period that followed the battle of Ankara (1402) and the warfare between
Bayezid I’s sons which was particularly violent and destructive in Upper Thrace. 492
Certainly the second range of commanders in the Tatar contingent left by Aktav must
have provided manpower to the claimants for the Ottoman throne, but it is unclear with
whom of the princes they sided. Be it as it may, it is clear that the settlement survived
the troublesome times of the first decade of the fifteenth century, which in fact marked
the last major military operations in the region until the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-
1878, thus securing more than a four-century-long period of peaceful development of the
town. By the early 1430s Tatar Pazarcık must still have been negligibly small, since it
was not even mentioned by the Burgundian knight de la Broquière, who must have
crossed it on his way to Sofia.
The real boost in the growth of the town took place between the second half of
the 1430s and the 1450s when Murad II and Mehmed II seem to have tried to encourage
the development of Upper Thrace. Resurrecting the nearby metropolis Filibe was only
the pick in a general attempt of the Ottoman central authority for reviving the depressed
region. The greatest change in the rural area was the intensification of the rice
cultivation that happened about that time and brought significant changes in the
demographic picture of the area. 493 The labor-consuming rice cultivation required

492
On the struggle for the Ottoman throne and its impact over Upper Thrace see Nedim Filipović. Princ
Musa i šejh Bedreddin (Sarajevo: Svetlost, 1971), 317-373; Dimitris Kastritsis. The Sons of Bayezid:
Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402-13 (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2007),
135-158; 161-194.
493
It is generally believed that the cultivation of rice was introduced immediately after the conquest by
Lala Şahin Paşa, but according to the authoritative opinion of Halil İnalcık the production was greatly
187

availability of sedentary population in the area, which in a couple of decades brought to
Thrace numerous Anatolian Turkish villagers and urban dwellers. The rice fields
surrounded Tatar Pazarcık and affected its development quite early, probably in the late
1430s-early 1440s, a fact best demonstrated by the rice mill built on the bank of the
Maritsa River by Şihabeddin Paşa in the mid-1440s. Many of the Tatar founders of the
town must have settled down in this process, as suggested by Kemalpaşazade. Others
probably continued their nomadic lifestyle using the highlands of the Rhodopes and the
Balkan range descending to the plain in the winters when the rice fields where drained,
thus profiting from the rice stubbles while fertilizing the soil.
The earliest preserved Ottoman register containing consistent data on the
development and the population of Tatar Pazarcık is the mentioned akıncı defteri of
1472. The taxpayers of the town were listed in two sets which later on, when the register
was torn into fragments, were separated and now have different call numbers in the
Sofia archive. 494 The information of the register portrays Tatar Pazarcık as a small
provincial town in the kaza of Filibe that had six quarters and entirely Muslim
population of at least 105 households (Table 7). The total population of the town was
undoubtedly higher, because apart of the militaries, who were not subjected to taxation,
some portion of the taxpayers (unmarried young men, clergymen etc.) were also
exempted from this extraordinary levy, therefore they were excluded from the register.

intensified only in the time of Mehmed II. Halil İnalcık. “Rice Cultivation and the Çeltükci-Re’âyâ System
in the Ottoman Empire.” Turcica 14 (1982): 70-71.
494
Sofia PD 17/27, ff. 17b-18a and OAK 94/73, ff. 32-33. Tatar Pazarcık is not the only settlement whose
taxpayers were recorded in more than one place. This, what seems unusual practice at a first glance, is due
to the fact that the registrar had the task of grouping sets of 30 households that provided the allowance of
the raider, rather than registering the entire taxpaying population of the settlement in a tahrir fashion.
188

Speculating, one can guesstimate Tatar Pazarcık’s population to at least 130-140
households in the early 1470s.
The new settlement marked a remarkable progress in the eight decades of its
existence. Part of the 600-700 Muslim residents were the descendents of the Tatar
founders, but also there were a great many colonists from the Turkish towns and cities of
Anatolia. Names and nicknames such as şehirlü Yusuf (Yusuf the townsman), Anadolu,
Karamanî, etc. encountered among the taxpayers in 1472, leave little doubt about the
fact that the rapid development of the new settlement was due to colonization of urban
population from Asia Minor, which either came on its own will or was transferred as a
result of forceful deportation ordered by the central authority in the mid-fifteenth
century.
The increase of population went alongside, or was rather stimulated, by the
modifications of the urban space. Established as a nomadic Tatar camp, in only half a
century, the settlement undertook the long journey from its birth to the transformation
into an adequate town (kasaba). The fact that the Ottoman architectural heritage of Tatar
Pazarcık was completely devastated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
deprives researchers from the capacity of studying the spatial and architectural
development in a greater detail.495 A closer look at the Ottoman archival documentation,
however, could provide enough facts for tracing the tendencies in its development. The
akıncı register, for instance, testifies that by the 1472 the town already had at least one
communal mosque which gave a name to one of the town’s quarters mahalle-i Cami’.

495
The only Ottoman building standing in modern Pazardžik is the single-domed mosque of Nazır
Mehmed Ağa (the so-called Kurşunlu Camii), built in 1667.
189

The register contains no other information allowing a precise identification of the patron
of the mosque or its exact location in the modern city, but in the second half of the
fifteenth century this must have been the very core of the emerging small town.
Moreover, the assumption that by the 1470s in Tatar Pazarcık there should have also
been a public bath in close proximity to the mosque is also confirmed by the Ottoman
archival sources. The register of the Rumelian salt-sellers (tuzcuyan) from 1488,
mentioned above, enlists one “Hamza külhani (stoker of a bath), son of Dede from the
town of Tatar Bazarcık”.496 This information demonstrates convincingly that a hamam
definitely existed in the town, since among its residents there was a stoker of a public
bath. Most likely the bath was built simultaneously with the mosque, as it was often the
case, thus erected close to it by the same individual who commissioned the mosque.
The sources at hand left no direct evidence for the identity of the patron of the
earliest mosque in the town, but some clues allow forwarding a cautious hypothesis. The
close proximity of the powerbase of the mighty dynasty of raider commanders of the
Mihaloğulları, the town and the plain of İhtiman (about 50 km westward), immediately
inclines one to consider their possible involvement in the development of Tatar Pazarcık.
Being present in the region earlier than the Tatars who established the town, the
powerful border lords probably kept a close eye on the emergence of the settlement at
the edge of their domain. Moreover, they must have quickly grasped the great strategic
importance of its location. On the one hand the town was built on the main highway of

496
Sofia OAK 121/9, f. 28a. For a general study on the tuzcus in Rumelia and Anatolia see Elena
Grozdanova and Stefan Andreev. “Organizatsia i statut na solarite v bălgarskite zemi pod osmanska vlast.”
Bălgarska Etnologiya 2 (1983): 41-52; Lütfi Güçer. “XV.-XVII. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Tuz
İnhisarı ve Tuzların İşletme Nizamı.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23:1-2 (1962-1963):
1-47.
190

the medieval and Ottoman Balkans near the point where the wild deep-water stream
Topolnitsa joins the Maritsa River, thus controlling the traffic. On the other hand, it was
precisely here that an important juncture split up from the main road and led to the iron-
producing center of Samokov and further southwest to Macedonia and the Albanian
Adriatic cost. The document of 1472 does not explicitly mention any of the members of
the Mihaloğlu family, but one peculiarity allows such a connection. One of the quarters
of the town that had altogether eight tax-payers was named after certain Ali Bey. Out of
the eight Muslim residents of the mahalle-i ‘Ali Bey, two were named Mihal and one
was Ali. The name Ali is popular and often encountered in the censuses while in contrast
Mihal, because of its non-Muslim origin, is very uncommon and even rather exceptional
name. The presence of two individuals named Mihal in a quarter established by Ali Bey
implies a very probable Mihaloğlus’ connection. It is highly likely that Ali Bey in
question was the famous raider commander Mihaloğlu Alaeddin Ali Bey, whose akıncıs
were the immediate benefactors of the register compiled in 1472.497 The proximity of the
family domain of İhtiman, managed at that time by Ali Bey, makes the connection even
more plausible. 498 In this respect, if the connection of Mihaloğlu Ali Bey to Tatar

497
On Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’s career see Olga Zirojević. “Smederevski sandžakbeg Ali beg Mihaloglu.”
Zbornik za istoriju Matice srpske (1971): 9-27. Cf. Olga Ziroyeviç. “Der Sandschakbey von Mederevo
Ali-Bey Mihaloğlu.” VII. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 25-29 Eylül 1970. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1973), vol. 2, 567-577. Further details in Mariya Kiprovska. “The
Mihaloğlu Family: Gazi Warriors and Patrons of Dervish Hospices.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 32 (2008):
193-222; Orlin Sabev. “The Legend of Köse Mihal.” Turcica 34 (2002): 241-252.
498
In the 1460s-1480s Mihaloğlu Ali Bey was not only the most distinguished member of the family, but
he also had enormous authority among the other akıncı commanders. On the family domain and buildings
in İhtiman see Machiel Kiel. “İhtiman” in TDVİA; idem. “Four Provincial Imarets in the Balkans and the
Sources About Them.” in Nina Ergin, Christoph Neumann and Amy Singer (eds.), Feeding People,
Feeding Power. Imarets in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul: Eren, 2007), 106-109. Semavi Eyice. “Sofya
Yakınında İhtiman’da Gaazî Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey İmâret-Câmii.” Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmûası 4:2
(1975): 49-61.
191

Pazarcık indeed existed, then he might have been the person who erected the first
mosque and the public bath in the town. He is known to have built numerous public
buildings in the Balkans and Anatolia and most certainly had the necessary financial
means.499 Moreover, his greatest project, the creation and development of the new town
of Plevne (mod. Pleven) in Danubian Bulgaria, that focused most of Ali Bey’s efforts
and resources was only to begin two decades later. 500 Bringing together all of the
circumstantial evidence that connects Mihaloğlu Ali Bey to the development of the town
strongly suggests that the mighty border lord might have well been the person who set
the urban core by constructing a communal mosque and a bathhouse near it, thus giving
a real boost to the process of conversion of the small rural Tatar settlement into a
moderate in size provincial town.
The rapid development of the strategically located town attracted the attention of
the other families of border lords too, who also commissioned several public buildings
in the town. In the intervening the forty-year period prior the next registration was
prepared in 1516 two more important akıncı leaders contributed to the development of
Tatar Pazarcık.501 Probably the most significant addition to the urban landscape was the
imaret built by Şemseddin Ahmed Bey, the then head and leader of the mighty dynasty
of ucbeyis of the Evrenosoğulları. The building of Ahmed Bey has long vanished

499
Ali Bey rebuilt the tomb of Seyyid Batal Gazi near Eskişehir and commissioned a number of imarets,
zaviyes and baths in the Balkans. Zeynep Yürekli. Legends and Architecture in the Ottoman Empire: The
Shrines of Seyyid Gazi and Hacı Bektaş (unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2005), 132-
136. I express my gratitude to Mariya Kiprovska to whom I owe the information on Ali Bey’s patronage
in the Balkans.
500
Machiel Kiel. “Plevna” in EI2.
501
BOA, TD 77 is the earliest tahrir which contains information on Tatar Pazarcık. The register of 1489
(TD 26) for some reason did not include the town.
192

therefore one must guess what exactly the Ottoman documents implied by the term
imaret in this specific case. In all probability this building must have been a T-shaped
imaret/zaviye, because apart of distributing food it apparently accommodated visitors
overnight, as attested by Corneille de Schepper in 1534.502 Deriving analogy from the
nearby Filibe and many other towns in the Ottoman realm, it is very likely that Ahmed
Bey placed his imaret at the outskirts of the town, thus completing the urbanizing model
in which the core is flanked by one or many T-shaped multifunctional buildings. The
most logical location for this building must have been the point in which the Via
Militaris entered the town from the west. (no. 8 on Plan 5) Just like the complex of
Şihabeddin Paşa in Filibe the imaret of Ahmed Bey marked the boundaries of the town
and played a role of counterweight to the mosque in the urban core that was built prior
1472. The imaret that was located near the building of the theater of modern Pazardžik
was later “swallowed” up by the expending town and just as it happened with the
imarets of sultan Orhan in Bursa and Paşa Yiğit Bey in Skopje it ended up in the most
central part of the modern city.503
Not only the exact location and functions of Ahmed Bey’s imaret in Tatar
Paracık are somewhat debated, but the date of its construction is also very unclear.
Certainly the building did not exist in 1472, because the register did not make any

502
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), 192. The later Ottoman registers refer to Ahmed Bey’s building as a zaviye. BOA, TD 494, f. 719.
503
Batakliev, Grad Tatar-Pazardžik, 92 pointed that the “imaret mahallesi” was located to the north of the
prison. In the 1930s the prison was pulled down and was replaced by the building of the modern theater.
The great old pane-tree in the courtyard of the theater is believed to be from the Ottoman times. I owe this
information to Dr. Rumiyana Katsarova from the Regional Museum of Pazardžik.
193

mention of it. By 1516 it already had a staff of ten individuals, among whom were an
imam, müezzin, sheikh of the imaret, scribe, cook, bakers etc., consequently the building
was clearly built earlier.504 The patron Hacı Ahmed Bey, the grandson of Gazi Evrenos
Bey, died in Yenice-i Vardar (Giannitsa) in 1498. 505 Earlier he established a pious
foundation endowing property and profitable buildings for the maintenance and salaries
of the staff of his imaret in Tatar Pazarcık and for the upkeep of a mosque, medrese and
imaret 506 that he built in the town of Yenice-i Vardar. 507 The endowment deed is a
steady proof that the imaret in Tatar Pazarcık was built prior 1498, since it is mentioned
in the document; hence it allows limiting the timeframe of the construction of the imaret
in the period between 1472 and 1497.508
The other influential march lord, who became a patron of a public building in the
town in the interim (1472-1516), was Malkoçoğlu Bali Bey. He built in the vicinities of
Tatar Pazarcık a dervish lodge dedicated to some preacher named Pirzade.509 Likewise,
the available sources specify neither the exact location nor the precise date of
construction of this building or more likely a complex of multiple buildings.
Nevertheless, it must have happened between 1472 (it lacks in the akıncı defter) and

504
BOA, TD 77, f. 633.
505
Iréne Mélikoff. “Ewrenos oghullari” in EI2.
506
On Ahmed Bey’s buildings in Yenice-i Vardar see Machiel Kiel. “Yenice-i Vardar (Vardar Yenicesi –
Giannitsa): A Forgotten Turkish Cultural Centre in Macedonia of the 15th and 16th Century.” in idem.
Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans (Aldershot-Brookfield: Variorum, 1990), IV, 300-329
and the recent contribution of Heath Lowry and İsmail Erünsal. The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar:
Notes & Documents (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010), 103-114.
507
The vakfiye of Ahmed Bey, drawn up in 1498 is a five-meter long roll, housed in Istanbul. BOA, EV.
VKF. dosya 19, gömlek 11.
508
A register from 1525 (BOA, MAD 519) testifies that Ahmed Bey also had other properties in the area
of Tatar Pazarcık. He possessed a rice mill in the village of Başıkıralar (mod. Glavinitsa), f. 139; a
watermill in the village of Köse Muradlu (mod. Bratanitsa), f. 159; and another rice mill in the village of
Kadı Sinan (mod. Gelemenovo), f. 181.
509
BOA, TD 77, f. 635.
194

1503, the date of Bali Bey’s death.510 What can be stated with great degree of certainty
is that the dervish Pirzade, whose convent Bali Bey patronized, was deceased by the date
of the register’s compilation (1516) and that he and his disciples undoubtedly belonged
to one of the multiple mystical heterodox brotherhoods in Rumelia of that time. The
names of the dervishes residing in the convent – İshak, Hındır Kulu, and Kaygusuz
Abdal, bespeak of their bearers’ connection to the Anatolian mystical brotherhoods of
the Babais, the Hurufis or the Kalenderis. 511 The close proximity of the convent of
Otman Baba, whose authority in the region by that time was in its peak, makes it
tempting to presume that Pirzade and his followers might have been from among the
dervishes who were under the influence of the great heterodox dervish leader.512
The cooperation of the mighty akıncı commanders with the heterodox dervishes,
who constituted the very basis of the then border society, is clearly noticeable. They
often acted in conjunction with one another against the Ottoman attempts for
centralization, which seriously affected both groups’ existence.513 In this alliance, the

510
An official report dispatched to the sons of Malkoçoğlu Bali Bey informs that their father died in
Silistra on 24 September 1503. Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 482. Cf. Fahamettin Başar. “Osmanlı
Devleti’nin Kuruluş Döneminde Hizmeti Görülen Akıncı Aileleri. IV – Malkoçoğulları.” Türk Dünyası
Tarih Dergisi 65 (1992): 47, who suggested 1510 for Bali Bey’s death without a benefit of reference. On
the dynasty of Malkoçoğlu and their role in the history of the western Balkans see Franz Babinger.
“Beiträge zur Geschichte des Geschlechtes der Malkoč-oghlu’s.” in idem. Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur
Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante, vol. 1 (München: Südosteuropa-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1962),
355-369.
511
Ömer Lütfi Barkan. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu olarak Vakıflar ve
Temlikler. İstilâ Devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk Dervişleri ve Zâviyeler.” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942): 279-
386 underlined the important role which the heterodox dervishes played in the process of reclaiming the
lands of Rumelia by the Ottomans.
512
Halil İnalcık. “Dervish and Sultan: An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilâyetnâmesi”. in idem. The
Middle East and the Balkans, 19-37. On the mausoleum of Otman Baba see Lubomir Mikov. Izkustvo na
heterodoksnite musulmani v Bălgariya (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2005), 39-46.
513
Halil İnalcık. “Periods in Ottoman History, State, Society, Economy.” in Halil İnalcık and Günsel
Renda (eds.), Ottoman Civilization, vol. 1 (Ankara: Ministry of Culture and Tourism, 2004), 31-109; and
idem. “Dervish and Sultan”, 19-37.
195

raider commanders’ beneficence over the dervishes is clearly perceptible through their
architectural patronage. Thus, members of the Mihaloğlu family not only patronized one
of the largest heterodox complexes in Anatolia – the convent of Seyyid Battal Gazi, but
also built the four principle babai convents of Rumelia, that were later on absorbed by
the Bektashiya order of dervishes.514 The Evrenosoğlu and Malkoçoğlu families were
the biggest patrons of the complex of Hacı Bektaş Veli near Kırşehir and also built a
number of smaller dervish convents in the Balkans.515 Therefore, taking into account the
other raider commanders’ families’ patronage over the dervish cloisters throughout the
Ottoman territories, it seems little surprising that a Malkoçoğlu family member was the
benefactor of the heterodox convent in Tatar Pazarcık. Moreover, some names of the
taxpayers in the town, such as Bektaş, Musa Baba, Barak Baba, Zülfikâr, son of Baba
Acem etc., strongly imply the heterodox background of most of the residents. This fact
alone can explain the great interest of the akıncı dynasties in the emerging Tatar
Pazarcık and vice versa – the march lords’ support and patronage attracted various
elements of the border society of that time. Created by a Tatar commander, supported by
the mighty akıncı beyis, in the first century of its existence the town seems to have
turned into an “oasis” offering ideal milieu for the border culture in all of its forms. Just
like Sarajevo was created and developed by the periphery forces, Tatar Pazarcık appears
to have become a common project, developed in the very heart of Ottoman Rumili, by

514
Kiprovska, “The Mihaloğlu Family” argued that the members of this dynasty patronized the convents
of Otman Baba, Akyazılı Baba, Kıdemli Baba, and Demir Baba.
515
Yürekli, Legends and Architecture, 164-191. Lowry-Erünsal, The Evrenos Dynasty, 125-127.
196

the members of the prominent akıncı families. 516 The time of the town’s flourishing
coincided or was rather defined by the rehabilitation of the border lords’ dynasties
during the reign of Bayezid II, after Mehmed II attempted to marginalize this influential
group in the Ottoman society.517 The march lords’ intensive patronage in Tatar Pazarcık
might well be regarded as a preview of their reemerging power in Rumelia. Certainly,
the Ottoman rulers must have also noticed the strategic importance of Tatar Pazarcık,
but they managed to pull it out of the hands of the periphery forces only in the
Süleymanic era that will be discussed below.
Turning attention to the tahrir register of 1516 that includes information on the
population and the growth of the town, one can notice its development. The town at that
time belonged to the newly formed nahiye of Saruhanbeylü that split from the very large
kaza of Filibe.518 This is the first register to enlist all of the quarters that became the
nucleus of the town in the course of the next three centuries. Tatar Pazarcık had five
mahalles, one imaret, whose staff was registered as a separate group and several
dervishes in the zaviye of Pirzade, located in the approximate vicinities of the town.
Some of the quarters known from the previous registration joined together receiving new
names while others seem to have been newly founded. Mahalle-i Helvacı Barak can

516
Hazim Šabanović. “Postanak i razvoj Sarajeva.” Radovi naučnog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 13:5
(1960): 71-89; Vesna Mušeta-Aščerić. Sarajevo i njegova okolina u XV stoljeću (Sarajevo: Sarajevo
Publishing, 2005), 152-200.
517
There is rich bibliography on the so called “land reform” of Mehmed II that aimed at undermining the
authority of the powerful semi-independent border lords. See Halil İnalcık’s recent publication
“Autonomous enclaves in Islamic states: temlîks, soyurgals, yurdluk-ocaklıks, mâlikâne-mukâta’as and
awqâf.” in Judith Pfeiffer and Sholeh A. Quinn (eds.), History and historiography of Post-Mongol Central
Asia and the Middle East. Studies in honor of John E. Woods (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006),
112-134; idem. “Mehemed II” in İA.
518
By the end of the 15th century the kaza of Filibe was by far larger than the entire sancak of Çirmen,
having twice as many settlements.
197

serve as an excellent example. The founder of the quarter, after whom it was named, one
Barak, a maker of helva, was still alive in 1516, being registered at the head of his
quarter together with three of his sons – Mustafa, Malkoç, and the unmarried lame
Hasan.519 The salt-seller Hamza, who appeared in the 1488 register, must have died by
1516 and was replaced by certain Mustafa, who on his own became a patron of another
quarter in the town.520 It appears that these individuals along with several others like
Mustafa from Karaman and the deputy judge (naib) Hamza have commissioned small
neighbourhood mosques (mescid) thus forming the quarters around them. (Plan 5)
The population of Tatar Pazarcık has also grown in the period between the two
registrations. The defter enlists the names of 197 heads of Muslim households and 30
unmarried, together with one single Christian. (Table 7) The Christian, some Boşko
preseliç, was registered in the newly formed quarter of Helvacı Barak and was in fact
the first Christian settler in the Muslim town.521 As suggested by his nickname (preseliç
– newcomer, migrant) Boşko was not a native, but he has recently arrived to the town.
As a matter of fact he was not the only immigrant to Tatar Pazarcık. 34 heads of
household and 4 unmarried Muslims were indicated in the census of 1516 as being
recent converts to Islam. Since there was no Christian community in the town, it is
apparent that these converts came from elsewhere. This process was not peculiar to
Tatar Pazarcık only, but it can be certainly observed in the entire region in late fifteenth
and throughout the sixteenth century. Many villagers left their rural homelands for the

519
BOA, TD 77, f. 632.
520
mahalle-i Tuzcu Mustafa, BOA, TD 77, f. 632.
521
Boşko [sic!] paid annual ispençe of 25 akçes. BOA, TD 77, f. 632.
198

towns of Thrace after converting to Islam. Comparing the figures from Tatar Pazarcık to
these of the nearby metropolis Filibe, the portion of the converts in the entire Muslim
community appear to be about the same. The immigrant converts apparently managed to
integrate quickly in the urban environment and economy. In this respect it is noteworhty
that exactly half of the staff at Evrenosoğlu Ahmed Bey’s imaret in Tatar Pazarcık
consisted of converts (the bakers, the cook, and the butler).522
Because of the specificity of the register of 1472 it is impossible to offer even
approximate estimations of the growth of the Muslim community in Tatar Pazarcık in
the forty-four-year gap until 1516. Nevertheless, the total increase of the population is
undoubted. This must be attributed to the migration of converts from the immediate
surroundings as well as to the arrival of more settlers from Anatolia, demonstrated by
the names of the residents such as Karamani, Saruhan, Anadolu etc. that are common in
the 1516 register. Many of the immigrants were city dwellers who enriched the urban
economy with their professional skills. The registrar listed close to half of the taxpayers
with their professions instead of the commonly used patronymics, thus offering rich
information about the occupation of the residents. It can be estimated that the largest
portion of the population was occupied in activities that the Ottoman state encouraged,
considering them of great importance, therefore applying more liberal taxation to these
individuals. The most numerous were the yamaks of Tatars and Yürüks, followed by the
dairymen (yağcı) and the rice-growers (çeltükçü). The fact that the zaim of the Tatars
was listed together with a large number of yamaks illustrates that the town did not

522
BOA, TD 77, f. 633.
199

interrupt the ties to the descendents of its founders who continued a lifestyle closely
related to the animal husbandry. The defter also enlists many residents occupied in
typical for the urban life professions, such as butchers, cooks, bakers, makers of boza
and helva, all sort of traders, tanners, shoemakers, tailors, weavers, etc. The Muslim
clergymen and those in service at the mosques were naturally another significant portion
of the population of the town at that time.
By the beginning of the sixteenth century Tatar Pazarcık clearly acquired the
appearance of an average provincial town in Rumelia. It had a population of about one
thousand or more that was almost entirely Muslim. The main Friday mosque and the
nearby hamam, built prior 1472, set the commercial core of the town. In all probability
this was the so-called Eski Camii’, located at the southeastern part of the town and the
nearby hamam, known locally as the ‘dark bath’.523 (no. 1 & no. 18 on Plan 5) The town
developed to the northeast, occupying both sides of the Via Militaris road that cut it into
two equal halves. The urban center was surrounded by several quarters that emerged
around unidentifiable small mescids, while the T-shaped imaret of Ahmed Bey, located
probably at the western entrance of the town marked the limits of Tatar Pazarcık.
The register of 1516 also marked a remarkable novelty on the urban landscape,
the erection of a second Friday mosque. An entry in the document reading mahalle-i
cami’-i İshak Çelebi, hadis (quarter of the mosque of İshak Çelebi, new one) informs
that the recently created quarter was formed around the mosque built by İshak Çelebi.

523
The old mosque was almost completely rebuilt in 1820 by the local ayan Gavanozoğlu Hasan Bey, who
also placed a new inscription above the entrance commemorating the restoration. A handwritten copy of it
is published by Batakliev. The so-called ‘dark bath’ was located nearby and it was a small building that
also bespeaks of an early date of construction. Batakliev, Grad Tatar-Pazardžik, 82.
200

(no 9 on Plan 5) Virtually all residents of the quarter (5 hane and 2 unmarried) delivered
different services to the new mosque and most likely lived very near to it.
Unlike the rest of the patrons of small mahalle mescids in the town, who
remained anonymous for history, İshak Çelebi can be positively identified. The
endowment deeds of various important individuals connected to the territory of ex-
Jugoslavia, collected and published by Hasan Kaleši, contain the necessary bit of
information.524 Among these documents is the vakfiye of İshak Çelebi, son of İsa fakih,
who in the beginning of the sixteenth century was for several years a kadı of Selânik.
Afterwards he moved with his family to the Macedonian town Manastir (Bitola) where
he built a large single-domed mosque and a medrese. 525 İshak Çelebi’s college
disappeared, but his mosque still dominates the central square of the modern city, being
the highest and nicest mosque of Bitola.526 He died on 1 August 1512 in the same town
and was buried in the courtyard of his mosque.527
The endowment deed of İshak Çelebi, drawn up in Manastir in June 1506, clearly
testifies that he was the patron who commissioned the mosque in Tatar Pazarcık,
consequently the mosque was built prior to this date.528 The vakfiye specifies further that
south of the mosque he built three houses that had to accommodate the families of the

524
Hasan Kaleši. Najstariji vakufski dokumenti u Jugoslaviji na arapskom jeziku (Priština, 1972).
525
Kaleši, Najstariji vakufski dokumenti, 145-146.
526
Zoran Pavlov. “Single-Domed Mosques in Macedonia.” Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans, Tirana, Albania, 4-7 December 2003 (Istanbul:
IRCICA, 2003), 33-58. This article is actually a summary of Pavlov’s M.A. thesis. idem. Makedonya’da
Tek Kubbeli Camiler (Gazi University, Ankara 2001), 23-28.
527
Kaleši, Najstariji vakufski dokumenti, 146. The date of İshak Çelebi’s death is provided by his
tombstone, which was examined by Kaleši in the 1960s, but it is missing today. It is very likely that it is
one of the many tombstones used to pave the paths in the present garden of the mosque.
528
The complete original text in Arabic and translation in Serbian is published by Kaleši, Najstariji
vakufski dokumenti, 152-171.
201

staff of the mosque – the imam, muezzin, and kıyyum. Moreover, he erected two more
buildings and a stable designed to host the travelers and their draught animals.
Additionally, he ordered that 13 brick-made houses next to the mosque are to be joined
together thus constructing a convent for the dervishes and their sheikh. The incomes
coming from a başhane and a bozahane, along with four more shops located at the
market area of the town had to provide for the upkeep of the mosque. Furthermore, he
also endowed a menzil and fourteen more shops located on the bank of the Maritsa River
in Filibe.529 The charter stipulated the conditions of work and the salaries of the imam,
muezzin, and the hatib of the mosque in Tatar Pazarcık, that were set accordingly to four,
two, and one akçes daily. The administrator of the foundation (mütevelli) was entitled to
receive a daily salary of one akçe.530
In spite that the mosque of İshak Çelebi in Tatar Pazarcık appears to have been a
massive solid building it did not survive to the modernity, therefore it is very difficult to
establish its exact shape and precise location. Nevertheless, one can guess that it most
likely resembled his mosque in Bitola, but probably built in a smaller in scale. It is
plausible that this mosque was built north of Eski Camii’ and in fact served as the main
mosque of the çarşı for centuries to come.
The taxation record in the 1516 register also bespeaks of the rapid development
of Tatar Pazarcık in the period 1472-1516. The boom of constructing of public and
private buildings was supplied with materials by the tiles workshop in the town. The

529
The connection of İshak Çelebi to Filibe and Tatar Pazarcık is uncertain, but it is very likely that he
occupied the post of kadı of Filibe in the late 1480s. A document on the repair of the bridge in Filibe in
1486 mentions one mevlâna İshak Çelebi acting as the local kadı. İBK, M.C. O. 91, ff. 261r-262a. He
retained the post in the following year too Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 133.
530
Kaleši, Najstariji vakufski dokumenti, 165-168.
202

market area must have also expended quickly. It is impossible to tell how many shops
had Tatar Pazarcık at that time, but the butchers’ shops provided annual revenue of one
thousand akçes. The trade should have also been intensive, because the register recorded
that the share of the market taxes retrieved by the revenue holder amounted to 10 339
akçes.531 The intensified traffic of people and goods through the town towards Samako,
Köstendil, and Macedonia required a safe passage of the Maritsa to the south of the town.
By 1516 a permanent cross over the river was already a fact, bringing annual revenue to
the timariot of 600 akçes.532
The changes that took place at the end of fifteenth and the beginning of sixteenth
century made of Tatar Pazarcık an interesting attractive town, which promised to
continue its rapid progress. Luckily the fast development of the town can be closely
observed thanks to the availability of two more registrations done in the period 1516-
1530. 533 The detailed register of 1525 naturally attracts much attention due to the
richness of its information that allows observations on the urban life in very small details.
As one can expect the changes of the total population figures were not significant. In the
nine-year period, separating the registrations, the Muslims in the town had a very slight
decrease, totaling 195 households and 13 unmarried.534
Focusing on the details it is noteworthy that the quarter founder Barak, the seller
of helva, was still alive in 1525. Meanwhile his lame son Hasan married, but fell in

531
In this case this was the kadıasker of Rumili Zineddin Efendi, as recorded in the synoptic (icmal)
register BOA, TD 73, f. 105, drawn up in 1519 on the basis of the detailed TD 77.
532
BOA, TD 77, f. 635.
533
BOA, MAD 519 (1525) and BOA, TD 370 (1530), see above about more details and dating of these
documents.
534
It must be noted that the registrar recorded the zaviye of Pirzade, but not the dervishes who were
resident there, thus several more people must be added to the total figures.
203

poverty (fakirü’l-hal). Barak’s elder son Malkoç has died while the younger Mustafa
became a raider (akıncı), most likely replacing his brother who was killed in a battle.535
The close look on the data of the register can reveal more interesting details from the
daily life of the residents of Tatar Pazarcık. For example the resident of the mahalle
Tuzcu Mustafa, some Baba Acem, who in 1516 was a perfumer, by 1525 was already
employed in a mosque as a Quran reciter (hafız). 536 In a different case the yamak
Ramazan, son of Cafer from the quarter of Naib Hamza managed to secure for himself a
promotion to the position of rice field supervisor (reis-i çeltük), and the Tatar Durmuş
also from this quarter, who used to be yamak of the Tatars, turned into a helva maker,
etc.537
The further detailed analysis of the two registers could reveal even more
intriguing aspects of the life of the residents of the town at that time. They can probably
also provide a good foundation for a research on the average life expectancy in Ottoman
Rumili of the early sixteenth century. It is noteworthy that only 37% of the residents,
registered in 1516, lived long enough to be included in the record of 1525. This analysis,
however, requires a great care for the detail and stays out of the scopes of this research
that aims to provide a more general population figures over a long period of time.
Nevertheless, the in depth look on the information in the register of 1525
provides a significant detail of the history of Tatar Pazarcık – the creation of the first
Christian quarter. The earliest Christian settler Boşko was still alive in 1525, recoded as

535
BOA, MAD 519, f. 123.
536
BOA, MAD 519, f. 123.
537
BOA, MAD 519, f. 123.
204

a head of the new quarter.538 His daughter married to certain İstoyan, enlisted after his
father-in-law in the same mahalle. Boşko and his son-in-law were not the sole
newcomers attracted by the better job opportunities in the developing town. Eleven more
Christian households and two bachelors also appeared in the town in the period between
the registrations. The Ottoman registrar kept track of their previous location thus
supplying important information. Five of the new settlers came from the village of
Yakoruda, three of them from the town of Razlog, two newcomers left the village of
Godlevo and one arrived from the village of Gorna Belitsa.
All settlements left by the Christians who came to the town prior 1525 are
located in a relatively small high plain (roughly 40x80 km in size), situated to the
southwest of Tatar Pazarcık, that is enclosed from all sides by the Rhodopes, the Rila,
and the Pirin mountains. These were all mediaeval pre-Ottoman villages inhabited
exclusively by Christian Bulgarians. The Ottoman archival documentation reveals that
this small territory was extremely densely populated. In 1516 it had more than two
thousand Christian households, as only in its center, the town of Razlog, there were 580
Christian households listed.539 When compared to Thrace the population density seems
much greater. The provincial town, high in the mountains, had more than half of the then
population of the metropolis Filibe and certainly it had twice as many residents as an

538
mahalle-i gebran, hadis (quarter of the infidels, new), BOA, MAD 519, f. 126. The scribe of this
register paid more attention to the detail. Apart of spelling correctly Božko’s name he added his
patronymic Atanas.
539
On the demographic development of the region of Razlog throughout the Ottoman period see Grigor
Boykov. “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina v usloviyata na osmanska vlast.” in Alexader Grebenarov et al.
(eds.), Razlog, istoriya, traditsii, pamet (Blagoevgrad: Irin-Pirin, 2009), 53-78.
205

important city like İznik. 540 It seems that the small mountainous plain had a serious
surplus of population, which left the region looking for better perspectives in the
plains.541 This process continued in the entire sixteenth century by the end of which the
town of Razlog lost more than half of its residents.542 The first dozen of Christians who
appeared in Tatar Pazarcık in the 1520s marked only the beginning of an ongoing
migration of Christians from the valley of Razlog towards Thrace that was greatly
intensified after the 1530s and continued with diverse intensity throughout the Ottoman
period.
The fact that virtually all of the Christians in Tatar Pazarcık came from a very
small region can imply a possible involvement of the central authority. It is possible that
the Ottoman administration settled the Christians there only temporarily with an
intension of moving them somewhere else shortly afterward. The next tahrir register, the
large icmal from 1530, shows that in the five-year period the new quarter and all of the
Christians disappeared from Tatar Pazarcık as suddenly as they appeared.543 Moreover,
similar demographic drop, discussed in the preceding chapter, was also observed in the
neighboring city of Filibe, which lost 20% of its Muslim residents. Following the same
trend, the Muslims in Tatar Pazarcık also decreased drastically losing about 9%, i.e. a

540
Heath Lowry. “Ottoman İznik (Nicaea): Through the Eyes of Travelers & as Recorded in
Administrative Documents, 1331-1923.” in idem. Defterology Revisited: Studies on the 15th & 16th
Century Ottoman Society (Istanbul: ISIS Press, 2008), 121.
541
The nearby high land valley of the river Mesta (Ott. Karasu) was also densely populated in the period.
In the second decade of the sixteenth century the provincial town of Nevrokop (mod. Gotse Delchev) had
close to six hundred households, split between Muslims and Christians. See Evgeni Radushev. Pomatsite:
hristiyanstvo i islyam v Zapadnite Rodopi s dolinata na r. Mesta, XV – 30-te godini na VXIII vek (Sofia:
Narodna Biblioteka Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy, 2005), 406-411.
542
Boykov, “Razlog”, 71.
543
BOA, TD 370, f. 109.
206

catastrophic drop of close to 2% annually. 544 The only likely explanation for such a
sudden loss of Muslim population in these settlements, whereas other urban centers in
the area registered a demographic growth, 545 appears to be forceful deportation or
encouraged migration. It is worth noting that such centrally supervised population
transfers were not unusual Ottoman practice aiming at populating formerly deprived
areas and balancing the ethnic equilibrium in territories where one ethnic group was
prevailing. 546 In the period 1521-1530 the Ottomans marked a remarkable military
advance to the western parts of the Balkans and Hungary, capturing Belgrade and Buda,
and reaching as far as Vienna. These territorial gains brought along serious population
shifts in various directions. Thus, part of the Christian inhabitants of Belgrade was
transferred to the interior of the Empire,547 and Muslims from all around the Ottoman

544
Cf. Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık”, 42, who somewhat mixed up the numbers, seeing a rapid increase instead of
the significant drop.
545
While the Muslims in Filibe are seriously decreasing, the neighboring town of İstanimaka marked 7%
growth in its population for the period 1516-1530. Moreover, the other ethnic groups as the Jews and the
Christians in the entire region are increasing in numbers, therefore a natural disaster or other calamities
should be excluded from the possible reasons for the decline of the Muslims. Grigor Boykov.
Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace: A Case Study on Filibe, Tatar Pazarcık and İstanimaka
(1472-1614). (unpublished M.A. thesis, Bilkent University, 2004), 64-68, 94-97.
546
In order to repopulate the newly conquered city of Istanbul, for instance, Mehmed II brought Jews and
Christians to the city from various places of the Ottoman realm. Halil İnalcık, “İstanbul” in EI2 and idem,
“The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population and the Byzantine Buildings of the City.”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1969-1970): 229-249, 235-238; Same process of forced population transfers
as method used to repopulate some cities was observed by Heath Lowry. “Portrait of a City: The
Population and Topography of Ottoman Selanik (Thessaloniki) in the Year 1478.” in idem. Studies in
Defterology. Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992), 65-100
and idem. “‘From Lesser Wars to the Mightiest War’: The Ottoman Conquest and Transformation of
Byzantine Urban Centers in the Fifteenth Century.” in Anthony Bryer and Heath Lowry (eds.), Continuity
and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society (Birmingham – Washington, D.C.: the
University of Birmingham Centre for Byzantine Studies & Dumbarton Oaks, 1986), 323-338.
547
Feridun M. Emecen, “The History of an Early Sixteenth Century Migration – Sirem Exiles in
Gallipoli.” in Geza David and Pal Fodor (eds.), Hungarian-Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Realations
in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent (Budapest: Lorand Eötvös University and Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, 1994), 77-91.
207

realm replaced them in the newly conquered city.548 Taking into account the selectivity
of the population that disappeared in the five-year period from the registration of Filibe
and Tatar Pazarcık, it would not be erroneous to assume that precisely the newly
conquered territories to the west became a new home for the residents of the Thracian
cities. To support this supposition, it is worth noting that evidently the Ottoman
administration planned the transfer of the Muslims with a great care and in conformity
with the rehabilitation abilities of the settlements, carrying away adequate portions of
population from the two neighboring cities. The much larger metropolis Filibe, studied
in the preceding chapter, was apparently in a better position for quick resurgence and
although it lost 20% of its Muslim residents it managed to recover almost completely
until the next registration of 1570. Taking such large portion of the population from the
much smaller developing Tatar Pazarcık would have certainly doomed the town to
decline. It seems that the Ottoman administration clearly understood this fact, therefore a
much smaller share of its population was sent to the west along with all Christian
newcomers.
The 1530 register is the earliest document that contains a complete list of the
public buildings in Tatar Pazarcık. According to the record by 1530 the town had two
Friday mosques, two public baths, and one imaret as one can add to this list the zaviye of
Pirzade and the one built by İshak Çelebi next to his mosque. While the patrons of the
mosques, the imaret, and one of the baths were examined above it is noteworthy that the
document presents steady evidence for another hamam in the town that must have

548
BOA, TD 187, f. 243.
208

appeared at the end of 15th or at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Although this
document did not specify the name of the patron of this bath a register of the pious
foundations in Istanbul dating 1546 contains the necessary clue. The hamam in Tatar
Pazarcık was included in the endowment of Koca Mustafa Paşa that supported his
mosque, imaret, medrese, and mekteb in the capital, yielding annual revenue of 400
akçes.549 The fact that the pious foundation of Koca Mustafa Paşa collected revenues
from the hamam in Tatar Pazarcık leaves little doubt that the grand vizier of Bayezid II
and Selim I was the person who built the second bath in the town. The name of the
patron allows the identification of this bath as the so-called Paşa hamamı the largest
bath in Tatar Pazarcık that stood until the 1900s in the market area. (no. 17 on City Plan
5) The bath was a massive large building, as it can be seen at the existing photographs of
it and used to be the main bath of the craftsmen and merchants at the çarşı. (Fig. 70)
The bath was clearly a very much missed addition to the mosque of İshak Çelebi
that was built prior to 1506. It is difficult to establish with any degree of certainty when
Mustafa Paşa constructed the hamam, but one can fairly safely suppose that this
happened in the first years of the sixteenth century when he held the post of beylerbeyi
of Rumili and must have passed through the town on a number of occasions. 550
Moreover, meant to serve the congregation of İshak Çelebi’s mosque, the bath is likely

549
Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 444. Koca Mustafa Paşa converted the church of the Byzantine
monastery of Saint Andrew of Crete and added to it an imaret, a medrese and a mekteb. He also built a
mosque at Eyüb, an imaret in the town of Yenice-i Karasu (mod. Genisea in Greece) and a mosque and a
hamam in the town of Nevrokob (mod. Gotse Delchev in Bulgaria). Mustafa Paşa also possessed a
watermills, rice mills and a channel (nehir) in the area of Filibe, which yielded annual revenues of 10 400
akçes.
550
Koca Mustafa Paşa was appointed to the post of beylerbeyi of Rumili in June 1499 and held the post
until January 1502 when he was promoted to a vizier. Feridun Emecen. “Koca Mustafa Paşa” in TDVİA.
209

to have been built approximately at the same time, i.e. in the first decade of the sixteenth
century. The construction of Mustafa Paşa’s bath-house is indicative for the fact that the
central authority was paying close attention to the development of the provincial town
and its growing importance. In fact in the course of the first decades of the sixteenth
century there was a significant shift in the architectural patronage in Tatar Pazarcık. The
mighty border lords were replaced by individuals more closely associated with the
central power, thus marking the beginning of a process of thorough transformation of the
provincial urban center.
2.3. Subduing the “heretics” aka “Ottomanizing” the akıncı center
The icmal register of 1530 recorded a significant change in the development of
Tatar Pazarcık and the region. The nahiye of Saruhanbeylü ceased to exist, while a
number of villages from Tatar Pazarcık’s surrounding were subdued to the newly
created kaza. The administrative change of the 1530s was clearly directed against the
domination of the mighty akıncı families. With the appointment of a kadı the central
power must have aimed at undermining the influence of the periphery forces, while
attempting to strengthen the centralized control over the strategically located town.
Certainly, what was happening in Tatar Pazarcık was not an isolated incident but was
rather a tiny bit of an Empire-wide process that aimed at marginalizing the centrifugal
210

elements in the Ottoman society (raiders and their commanders, heterodox dervishes,
etc.) that did not comply with the emerging concept of a universal Sunni Empire. The
attempts for subordinating the lords of the marches began half a century earlier, in the
reign of Mehmed II, but faced the bitter opposition of all affected layers of the then
border society. It was only in the Süleymanic age that the sultans succeeded in
establishing closer control over their unruly subjects that was also partially due to
adopting a more Sunni model of centralized rule that was whenever necessary even
forcefully imposed.551
Applying a single administrative act, such as the appointment of a kadı in the
town could have only be successful if supported by serious attempts for converting the
greater portion of the heterodox population into “more Sunni” Islam closer to the
Imperial concept. It seems that the central authority virtually applied the tactics of “the
carrot and the stick” in its desire to “Ottomanize” the town and its population. It clearly
encouraged some of the most prominent Sunni preachers of that time to spend time in
Tatar Pazarcık and thus induced through their preaching the residents to accept the
orthodox doctrine, but it also punished severely those who disobeyed it. The process of
marginalizing the centrifugal forces in the Ottoman society and their counteraction is a
wide topic that lies far beyond the scopes of this research. Pursing a more modest task,
namely the dramatic changes in the history of the provincial town, it will try to
demonstrate that the centralism and Sunnism with the vigorous support of the sheikhs of

551
Halil İnalcık. The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age 1300-1600 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1973), 179-203.
211

the Khalvetiyye dervish order, managed in gaining an important victory over the
periphery forces and the heterodox border culture in Tatar Pazarcık.
Halveti dervishes were the spike of the Sunni propaganda in Rumelia playing
extremely important leading role in the struggle against “the heretics” there.552 The time
of the appointment of the first kadı in Tatar Pazarcık coincided with the peak of the
popularity of the highly influential Halveti preacher Sofyalı Bali Efendi. Born in
Ustrumca (mod. Strumica in Macedonia) at the end of the fifteenth century, Bali Efendi
received his education in Istanbul, where he became a disciple of sheikh Kasım Efendi.
Returning to his native region, he settled near Sofia and established a zaviye gathering a
large number of disciples.553 For a period of time he was a kadı of Sofıa establishing
very close relations with the central authority.554 His popularity and close cooperation
with the Ottoman government at certain point was so great that Münîrî Belgradî found it
appropriate to begin his narrative on Bali Efendi with the label “the spy of the sheikhs
(casusü’l-meşaih)”.555 Probably the best illustration of some of his most radical ideas are

552
On the significance of the Halvetis, mostly their Cemaliya branch, in the Ottoman society see the
thorough study of Nathalie Clayer. Mystique, état et société. Les Halvetis dans l’air balkanique de la fin
du XVe siècle à nos jours (Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1994), 63-112. I wish to express my gratitude to
Prof. Alexander Popović and to Prof. Nathalie Clayer for providing me with their stimulating insides on
this topic.
553
Clayer, Les Halvetis, 70-71. The vita of Bali Efendi Bahr’ül-velâye (Sea of Holiness) was written by
the nineteenth-century scholar Süleyman Köstendili. See Maria Kalicin and Krassimira Mutafova.
“Historical Accounts of the Halveti Shaykh Bali Efendi of Sofia in a Newly Discovered Vita Dating from
the Nineteenth Century.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 12:3 (2001): 339-353. Bali Efendi was
buried in a mausoleum in his convent, which grew up to a village of the same name. The türbe of the
sheikh was rebuilt in the nineteenth century by the son of the famous brigand leader Kara Feyzi (I owe this
information to Dr. Tolga Esmer). The foundations of the original mausoleum seem to have been
incorporated in the altar of the St. Elias church built in the post-Ottoman period.
554
Andreas Tietze. “Sheykh Bâlî Efendi’s Report on the Followers of Sheykh Bedreddîn.” Osmanlı
Araştırmaları 7-8 (1988): 115.
555
Münîrî Belgradî. Silsıletü’l-Mukarribîn ve Menâkibü’l-Müttakîn. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Şehid Ali
Paşa N 2819/3, f. 119b. I am indebted to Prof. Clayer who was kind enough to send me the related pages
of the manuscript and provided me with some of her unpublished notes and other materials. Cf. Zeynep
212

presented in the letters discussing the Kızılbaş heresy, sent by Bali Efendi to the grand
vizier, as well as in his reports to the sultan advising severe punishments for the
followers of sheikh Bedreddin in the Deliorman region (mod. northeastern Bulgarian).556
It is difficult to tell what the impact of Bali Efendi’s ideas was over a heterodox place
like Tatar Pazarcık, but according to the respectful opinion of Nathalie Clayer by the
mid-sixteenth century the towns and cities like Sofya, Ustrumca, Tatar Pazarcık,
Samakov, Vidin etc. were already in the sphere of influence of the renowned sheikh
from Sofia.557
The imposition of the Sunni Islam in the town could hardly be connected with
the influence of a single person alone, but it was rather a result of the teachings of his
multiple disciples who spread throughout Rumelia. In view of that Bali Efendi urged one
of his most prominent disciples to install himself in Tatar Pazarcık in order to “guide the
558
believers”. Being native of the region, Filibeli Sheikh Mustafa Muslihuddin
Nureddinzade, more popularly known as Muslihuddin Nureddinzade, was born in 1502-
1503 in the village of Anbarlı (mod. Žitnitsa) from the district of Filibe.559 Educated in
Edirne, he moved to Sofia and became one of the numerous followers of Bali Efendi. In
the 1530s or the 1540s, on the insistence of his mentor, Nureddinzade relocated to Tatar
Pazarcık, where he took the leadership in the struggle against the “heretics” in the region.

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): 163.
556
Vladimir Minorski. “Shaykh Bali-Efendi on the Safavids.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 20:1/3 (1957): 437-450.
557
Clayer, Les Halvetis, 73.
558
559
According to Belgradî the birth place of the sheikh was the town of Filibe. Belgradî, Silsiletü’l-
Mukarribîn, f. 113a. Based on the information of Ata’î, Nathalie Clayer proved that he was actually born
in the village located 30 km north of Filibe.
213

Belgradî points that he quickly gained great popularity, while Ata’î underlines the
magnetic power of the preacher who gathered numerous followers, thus spreading his
ideas all over the towns of Rumelia. 560 According to Belgradî, Nureddinzade was a
person of such a great charisma that at the time when he was at the peak of his influence,
the Khalvetiyye order was referred to as “the order of Nureddinzade”.561
The stay of the Halveti sheikh in Tatar Pazarcık is shrouded in obscurity, but
around the same time he must have established a zaviye in Filibe too.562 Nevertheless,
the years in which Nureddinzade resided in Tatar Pazarcık coincided with the systematic
efforts of the central Ottoman administration to secure tighter control over the town,
dominated by the periphery forces and to strengthen the stand of the Sunni Islam there.
It is highly likely that Nureddinzade’s preaching conflicted with the heterodox dervishes
of the zaviye of Pirzade. In fact, these dervishes seemed to be the natural target in the
joint efforts of the central power and the Halvetis in introducing a closer to the Sunni
creed Islam by imposing more centralistic rule, which requested the personal
involvement of a character of the magnitude of Nureddinzade. One can only guess about
the course of the confrontation between the heterodox dervishes and Nureddinzade’s
followers, but it is pretty clear that the Halvetis enjoined the support and the sanction of
the Ottoman authorities, which predetermined the outcome of the struggle. As a matter
of fact, the icmal register of 1530 is the last Ottoman document mentioning the
heterodox zaviye of Pirzade that was built about half a century earlier by one of the most

560
Clayer, Les Halvetis, 81-82.
561
“… tarikat kendiye nisbet olunub, Nureddinzade tarikatı diyar-i Rum’da şayi’ buldu”. Belgradî,
Silsıletü’l-Mukarribîn, f. 114a. Cf. Yürekli, “Sufi Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha”, 163 for a detailed
account of Nureddinzade’s career.
562
On the zaviye of Nureddinzade in Filibe see the preceding chapter.
214

prominent raider commanders Malkoçoğlu Bali Bey. The lack of information about the
convent in the Ottoman documentation after this date indicates that it ceased to exist,
which is a sound demonstration of the triumph of the centralism over the heterodoxy in
Tatar Pazarcık.
Certainly gaining space for the Sunni Islam was a long-lasting process that
cannot by associated solely with Nureddinzade despite that he was highly influential and
charismatic figure. He rather established a trend that was taken up by other dominant
Halveti preachers.563 His profound commitment to Sunni Islam and hatred against the
heterodox Sufi dervish groups was transmitted to his disciples and followers and it has
certainly left a deep mark in the town of Tatar Pazarcık itself. There was yet another
very important figure from among the Halveti sheikhs and close associates of
Nureddinzade that was strongly linked to Tatar Pazarcık in the time of its transformation
and Sunnification in the mid-sixteenth century. Mehmed b. Helvacı Ömer, more
popularly known as Kurd Efendi, was himself a native of Tatar Pazarcık. Born in the
town in 1524-1525, he grew up in an atmosphere of a struggle against the “heretics”,
undertaken by Bali Efendi and Nureddinzade. Kurt Efendi graduated from Mehmed II’s
Sahn-i Seman complex in Istanbul and becoming one of the disciples of Bali Efendi he
later returned to his native town, where he established a Halveti zaviye.564 In 1553 he
was called to Sofia by the dying Bali Efendi to take his place, twenty years later
Nureddinzade pointed him as a fellow-in-lineage (pirdaş) who was to replace him in the

563
Nureddinzade moved to Istanbul in 1550s. The grand vizier Sokollu Mehmed Paşa built the convent
and its complex for his spiritual advisor, but Nureddinzade did not live long to see it, dying in 1574 a few
months prior its completion. Yürekli. “Sufi Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha”, 163.
564
Mehmed Sürreyya. Sicil-i Osmani yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, vol. 4 (İstanbul: Matba’a-i
Amire, 1311/1893), 63; Clayer, Les Halvetis, 93-94.
215

Kadırga Limanı convent in Istanbul565 – facts that once again lay stress on the magnitude
of Kurt Efendi’s personality and high position in the Khalvetiyye order.
The period that Kurt Efendi, a key figure of his time, spent in Tatar Pazarcık as a
preacher must have given another massive impulse to the ongoing Sunnification there.
Moreover, it seems that he did not interrupt his ties with his native town even when he
left it, having secured appropriate adherents of his ideas there. Apparently, even though
residing in Istanbul, the sheikh was keeping a very close eye and was excellently
informed about the events in his native region and did not hesitate to interfere in the
local affairs whenever he considered it necessary. Thus in 1577, three years after his
arrival in Istanbul, he urged the central Ottoman authority to act decisively against the
heterodoxy in his birthplace. A sultanic order was handed to one of Kurt Efendi’s
subordinates to be delivered to the kadı of Filibe.566 The content of the sultanic decree
reveals that in two villages from the area there were several individuals who declared to
be either followers of sheikh Bedreddin or Hurufis. They gained certain popularity and
according to the order following their own fancies and heresies the mentioned people
misled the local Muslims and corrupted their faith. The kadı of Filibe was urged to
investigate the case and those who were found guilty of heresy were to be executed.567

565
Clayer, Les Halvetis, 94; Yürekli, “Sufi Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha”, 163.
566
BOA, MD 29, no. 98/237, issued on 2 February 1577. The text of the order is also published by Ahmet
Refik. On Altıncı Asırda Rafızîlik ve Bektaşilik (İstanbul: Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitaphanesi, 1932), 36-37.
Earlier sultanic order (dating from 28 March 1573) instigated the persecutiuons of the “heretics” in the
region, Refik, Rafızîlik, 31-32.
567
It is probably on the basis of this document that İnalcık pointed that the “Ottoman documents show that
as late as 1576 there was a general massacre of a Hûrufî group in the villages near Filibe in Bulgaria”.
İnalcık, Classical Age, 193.
216

Kurt Efendi proved himself to be a vigorous disciple of his mentor in his decisive
actions against the heretics – he reported those considered heretic to the central authority,
which on in its own turn willingly took steps against them. It appears that Kurd Efendi
never interrupted his connection with Tatar Pazarcık and frequently visited the town
where his father remained to live. During one of these visits Kurd Efendi fell sick and
died in his home town on 8 November 1588.568 He was buried next to the tomb of his
father. 569 In the seventeenth century according to Evliya Çelebi his tomb was very
popular site that attracted many pilgrims.570
There was another prominent figure of that time that can be related to Tatar
Pazarcık’s history in this important period of transformation – the geomancer of
Süleyman I, Remmal Haydar.571 He fled the Safavid court in ca. 1527-1528, because of
a plot against him that could have cost Haydar’s life. 572 Accepted in the Ottoman court,
in short time he became one of the sultan’s closest affiliates and respectively a very
power shadowy figure involved in Istanbul factional politics, being particularly hostile
to the sultan’s other favorite İbrahim Paşa.573 He was present at Süleyman’s campaigns
and accepted in the salons of elite Istanbul society making friendships in the leading

568
569
570
Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (eds.), Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi. Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305
Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap) (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 219-220.
571
I am grateful to Prof. Cornell Fleischer who pointed to me this connection. He was also kind enough to
send me his unpublished paper on Remmal Haydar “Saraydaki Kâhin”, presented at the symposium in
honor of Filiz Çağman, February 2005.
572
The arrival of Haydar in Istanbul is linked to the return of İbrahim Paşa from Egypt. Cornell Fleischer.
“Shadow of Shadows: Prophecy in Politics in 1530s İstanbul.” in Baki Tezcan and Karl Barbir (eds.),
Identity and Identity Formation in the Ottoman World. A Volume of Essays in Honor of Norman Itzkowitz
(Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2007), 59.
573
Fleischer, “Shadow of Shadows”, 61.
217

literary circles of the sixteenth-century Ottoman capital. 574 His connection to Tatar
Pazarcık is unclear, but Fleischer’s study on his life demonstrates that Haydar clearly
spent some part of it in residence in the town, around 1535. Moreover, it must be at that
time that he received from Süleyman I as a freehold (mülk) a large plot of arable land
within the boundaries of the town totaling up to 380 dönüm (approximately 350 daa) in
size.575 After Haydar’s death in the early 1560s the land (bağçe) was inherited by his son
Ali as the full proprietorship was confirmed by Selim II and Murad III.576 It seems that
at least one more of Remmal Haydar’s sons, some subaşı Hasan, resided in the town,
because in 1566 the kadı of Tatar Pazarcık received an order for his arrest.577
The role that Haydar and his sons played in the transformation of Tatar Pazarcık
is still to be clarified, but the fact that one of the closest sultan’s intimates chose to
acquire property in the town bespeaks not only for the visible potential of the settlement,
but also that it clearly was in the political agenda of the central Ottoman power. The
transformation of Tatar Pazarcık was a victory for the centralism and Sunnism over the
heterodox centrifugal forces. The “Ottomanization” of the town that happened in less
than half a century (1530s - 1570s) was made possible thanks to the flexible but
persistent approach of the central administration. The series of administrative and penal

574
Fleischer, “Shadow of Shadows”, 60.
575
Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı, 502. I was unable to find any documentary evidence for Remmal
Haydar being a substantial fief-holder in the area and possibly a Çingene livası beyi as suggested by
Fleischer, based on a poem by Yahya Bey, which describes Haydar. Fleischer, “Shadow of Shadows”, 60.
The zeamet of Tatar Pazarcık in 1530 was held by the then kadıasker of the vilâyet of Anadolu, whose
name was not noted. In 1533-1534 Tatar Pazarcık was held as zeamet by the Anatolian kadıasker Kadri
Efendi as the total revenues from the town slightly decreased. BOA, TSMA D. 544, f. 13b.
576
Two registers of the pious foundations and the freeholds in Rumelia recorded this fact, BOA, TD 498
(from 1570), f. 661; BOA, TD 470 (from 1596), f. 684.
577
5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973/1565-1566) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1994), m.
no. 1735.
218

actions of the central government were accompanied by the presence of some of the
most popular and strongly influential preachers of that time. The close cooperation
between the central government and the charismatic Halveti sheikhs in the forty-year
period proved successful in marginalizing the authority of the border lords and the
influence of the various itinerant heterodox dervishes, thus turning Tatar Pazarcık into
what can be labeled as a “typical” Ottoman town.
3.4. The dynamic spatial and population growth of Tatar Pazarcık in the second half of
the sixteenth century
The large icmal register of 1530 is the last piece of documentary evidence for the
development of the town in the first half of the sixteenth century. The only tiny bit of
information from the intervening years prior the next tahrir registration of 1570 comes
from the travelogues of the western missionaries and diplomats who traveled on the Via
Militaris to Istanbul thus crossing Tatar Pazarcık on their way. These were usually short
remarks that vary greatly in their appreciation of the town, which in 1499 Arnold von
Harff saw as “beautiful town in the Upper Bulgaria” 578 , while in 1553 Hans
Dernschwam described as “a miserable Turkish village” that “was held to be a town but

578
Mihail Yonov. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Nemski i avstriyski pătepisi za Balkanite XV-XVI v. (Sofia:
219

in reality is not even worth being called a village, just a group of Gypsy huts”.579 Adding
to this information the remark of Philippe du Fresne-Canaye according to which in 1572
Tatar Pazarcık was “beautiful and big town, unspeakably pleasant”580, it is clear that the
general judgments on the town merely reflected the travelers’ background and education
or maybe even their good or bad mood. Nevertheless, some details in these accounts add
important bits to the colorful mosaic of everyday life in the mid-sixteenth century town.
Dernschwam testified that in 1553 the town already had two mosques and two inns for
the travelers, sign of uninterrupted development.581 The travel account of the Dutchman
Schepper provides valuable information about a stone bridge over the Topolnitsa River
that in 1534 was carried away by its wild waters and he had to leave the main road and
use a cross to the north of the town near the village of Melek Hatun (mod. Dragor).582
Twenty years later Dernschwam saw the same bridge partially repaired as the large
central arch was replaced by a wooden extension. 583 This must have been a large
massive stone bridge that according to the traveler measured 165 steps in length584, but it
seems that its regular destructions caused by the overflowing stream made the

579
Franz Babinger. Hans Dernschwam’s Tagebuch einer Reise nach Konstantinopel und Kleinasien
(1553/55) (Berlin und München: Verlag von Duncker & Humbolt, 19862), 20. English translation quoted
after Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık”, 42.
580
Philippe du Fresne-Canaye. Le voyage du Levant (1573), publié et annoté par H. Hauser (Paris: Ernest
Leroux, 1897), 41.
581
Dernschwam, Tagebuch, 20. He refers to them as “zwo karwansalia”, but these are more likely to have
been hans of more modest nature.
582
Schepper, Missions diplomatiques, 192.
583
Dernschwam, Tagebuch, 19-20.
584
Dernschwam, Tagebuch, 20. Anton Vrančič confirms this information. Yonov, Nemski i avstriyski
pătepisi, 190.
220

authorities abandon its maintenance. By 1611 the bridge laid in ruins while a new 200-
steps long wooden bridge was built next to it, but it was also very poorly maintained.585
Probably the most valuable account describing Tatar Pazarcık in the second half
of the sixteenth century is the travelogue of Stephan Gerlach.586 He visited the town in
1578 and, like in Filibe, the high reliability of his information can be controlled by the
Ottoman archival sources. He was the first traveler who mentioned the presence of
Christian population in the town. This was a tiny community of 30 households who did
not have a church and had to bring a priest from Filibe or elsewhere for their rituals.587
The Ottoman detailed tahrir register of 1570 reaffirms the credibility of the travelogue
of Gerlach.588 Eight years prior the arrival of the German clergyman the town indeed had
a Christian quarter of 28 households. Seven of the taxpayers were listed with the nick
name preseliç (newcomer) instead of a patronymic. For one of them the registrar noted
that he came from Mehomiye (Razlog) that casts suggestive, if not fully explanatory
light on the possible homeland of the Christians in the town. Twenty of these individuals
were listed as craftsmen, as the most numerous were the tailors, shoemakers, and
goldsmiths, but there were also a baker, potter, mason, börek maker and helva seller.
The data in the 1570 register and Gerlach’s travelogue demonstrate that the
second attempt of establishing a Christian quarter in the town was successful. The first

585
According to Lefebvre the newly built wooden bridge over the Topolnitsa River was damaged so much
that it was useless. Bistra Cvetkova. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Frenski pătepisi za Balkanite XV-XVII
v. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1975), 189.
586
Here I use the Bulgarian translation of Stephan Gerlach des Aeltern Tagebuch, Franckfurth am Main
1674. Mariya Kiselincheva. Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane do Osmanskata porta v Tsarigrad
(Sofia: Otechestven Front, 1976), 260.
587
Gerlach, Dnevnik, 260.
588
BOA, TD 494, f. 719.
221

settler or settlers must have appeared after the registration of 1530, attracted by the
better job opportunities in the developing town. Similarly to the first Christian colonists,
these people were most likely coming from the densely populated highland valley of
Razlog to the southwest of the town. Clearly the lack of arable land there pushed the
surplus of population to the low plains where land was available, thus establishing
Christian enclaves in entirely Muslim areas. The town must have been found attractive
by the young people who had the chance to be trained in a craft or enter a trade there.
The demographic boom of the sixteenth century constantly supplied new Christian
settlers who willingly occupied the free space in the town. At this early stage the
Christians constituted insignificant minority, but in a very short period of time their
rapid growth would make them ¼ of the entire population of Tatar Pazarcık.
The creation of the Christian quarter was not the only change that occurred in the
period 1530 – 1570. The town has visibly grown up. Seven new small mosques formed
the respective number new quarters. The names of the mescids of Hacı Kılıç, Divane
Sefer, Debbag Bali, Hacı Mahmud, Kara Derzi, Ayas, and Musalla can be identified
with certainty (nos. 2, 3, 5, 11, 7, and 13 on Plan 5). Most of these mosques survived the
Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 when they were pulled down by the Bulgarian
population of the town.589 The local historiography, due to the fabricated information
provided by Zahariev, commonly considers the mahalle of Hacı Kılıç as being the oldest
in the town. The register of 1570 however clearly asserts that the mescid and the quarter
of Hacı Kılıç respectively appeared only post 1530, therefore it is not feasible to be

589
Batakliev, Grad Tatar-Pazardžik, 96-97, who provides a complete list of the mosques and mescids prior
to the war.
222

regarded as the oldest quarter of Tatar Pazarcık, but to the contrary – it was a rather late
addition to the urban fabrics. Moreover, the mescid of Hacı Kılıç must have been built in
the quarter formerly known by the name of Helvacı Barak, because the latter took its
name.590
The documents contain no other information about the patrons of the new
mosques but their names. It seems, however, that one of them has made his wealth on
the rice fields, surrounding the town from all sides. The detailed register of 1525 enlists
the rice-growers (çeltükçüs) on the channel Gölemen that passes by the village of Melek
Hatun, located about 6 km northwest of the town. Among the çeltükçüs one finds certain
Kara derzi (the black tailor), son of Yunus, who resides in Tatar Pazarcık.591 Because of
his unusual name it is highly likely that this person was no other but the patron of the
mosque and the quarter of Kara Derzi. Registered as a rice-grower in his youth, later he
was either promoted or found other means, but he was clearly able to put a significant
amount of money aside that allowed him to build one of the new mosques in the town.
The spatial growth of the town is also attested by the construction of a third
public bath in Tatar Pazarcık. Ivan Batakliev published a handwritten copy of a
dedicatory inscription that he ascribed to Paşa hamamı, but the Bulgarian researcher
must have mixed up his notes since it certainly refers to the third new bath, thus
providing information of great value.592 The copy of the text of the kitabe, published by
Batakliev, indicated some Hüsrev Bey as patron of the bath, dating the building to A.H.

590
mahalle-i Helvacı Barak, nam-i diğer mescid-i Hacı Kılıç. BOA, TD 494, f. 718.
591
BOA, MAD 519, f. 132.
592
Batakliev, Grad Tatar-Pazardžik, 83.
223

977 (1569-1570). This information not only provides the exact date of construction of
the hamam, but also allows the identification of the person who commissioned it. This
was Hüsrev Kethüda the household steward of the grand vizier Kara Ahmed Paşa (d.
1555) and of the Sokollu family.
Hüsrev Kethüda was the administrator of the pious foundation of Kara Ahmed
Paşa under whose supervision in 1561-1562 was built the mosque and the mausoleum of
the deceased grand vizier in the Istanbul’s quarter Topkapı.593 Later he administered the
pious foundation of İsmihan Sultan (Süleyman I’ daughter and Sokollu Mehmed Paşa’s
spouse) that supported her mosque of the Kadırga Limanı complex, jointly built with her
husband.594 In regard of the fact that the zaviye at Kadırga Limanı was built by Mehmed
Paşa to accommodate the Halveti sheikh Nureddinzade, whose connection to Tatar
Pazarcık is undoubted, one hesitates to speculate that Hüsrev Kethüda’s patronage in
Tatar Pazarcık might have been inspired by the popular Halveti sheikh.
Hüsrev Kethüda was himself a patron of a number of public buildings, many of
which were designed by the great architect Sinan: two medreses in Ankara and Istanbul,
a school for Koran recitation in Istanbul, a kervansaray in the Thracian town of İpsala595,
the standing bath in Ortaköy, and two other hamams in İzmit and Çatalca.596 He also
commissioned the so called Burmalı Cami’ and Yeni hamamı in the city Thessaloniki of
which the bath is still standing. This large double bath (çifte hamamı), which operated

593
Gülru Necipoğlu. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion
Books, 2005), 377-384.
594
Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 331-345.
595
The kervasaray of Hüsrev Kethüda is described by Âşık Mehmed. Menâzırü’l-Avâlim, Mahmud Ak
(ed.), vol. 3 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007), 1001.
596
224

until 1917 is preserved in its men’s part only as the women’s section was demolished in
the 1930. 597 Hüsrev Kethüda was buried in the cemetery of Kara Ahmed Paşa’s
mausoleum as the text of his now-lost tombstone referred to him as Hüsrev Bey.598 The
original endowment deed of the large pious foundation established by Hüsrev Kethüda,
drawn up in August 1582, is extant in Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi in
Ankara.599
Undated accounting register of the pious foundation of Hüsrev Kethüda includes
the hamam in Tatar Pazarcık, which is irrefutable evidence that being a prolific patron of
architecture he commissioned the bath in this town too.600 The bath was situated in the
very center of modern Pazardjik, next to the imaret of Ahmed Bey. It was locally know
as maden-hamam and stood until the 1880s, when it was demolished.601 (no. 19 on Plan
5) Along with the bath Hüsrev Kethüda also commissioned a number of shops and a
menzil, which he endowed to the pious foundation. The menzil was located at what at
that time must have been the northern edge of the town, near the quarter named Musalla,
thus indicating the location of an open prayer space (namazgâz) at the northern edge of

597
Heath Lowry. In the Footsteps of the Ottomans: A Search for Sacred Spaces & Architectural
Monuments in Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2009), 174-176.
598
599
The document dates from Şaban A.H. 990. Yılmaz Kurt. “Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Kuyûd-ı
Kadîme Arşivi Vakf-i Cedîd Tasnifi Katalog Çalışması.” in Alâaddin Aköz, Bayram Ürekli, Ruhi Özcan
(eds.), Uluslararası Kuruluşunun 700. Yıl Dönümünde Bütün Yönleriyle Osmanlı Devleti Kongresi, 7-9
Nisan 1999. Bildiriler (Konya: T.C. Selçuk Üniversitesi, 2000), 461.
600
The document has no date, but comparing it to other documents of the same type it can be dated to late
seventeenth or first half of the eighteenth century. BOA, EV. HMH 9045, f. 1r.
601
225

the town. (no. 21 on Plan 5) His foundation also retrieved revenues from a rice-field
(çeltük) in the approximate vicinities of Tatar Pazarcık.602
The increase of the number of the quarters and therefore the physical space of the
town along with the newly constructed public buildings in the town undoubtedly
bespeak of a tangible population growth. In 1570 there were 231 Muslim households
and 1 unmarried young man in residence in Tatar Pazarcık. (Table 7) Compared to the
data from the previous register the Muslim population increased by 23% that makes a
steady annual growth of 0.57%. At least 12% of the Muslim growth, the portion of the
converts to Islam, was certainly due to immigration while the rest was probably a result
of the natural demographic growth of the local Muslim community. The pace of
demographic development of Tatar Pazarcık corresponds to this of the neighboring
Filibe, where in the intervening period between the two registrations the Muslim
community had 0.46% of annual growth. The trend of increase was even more intensive
in the town of Eski Zağra (mod. Stara Zagora), which also lost significant portion of its
residents because of the population transfer to the western Ottoman territories in the late
1520s.603 Just like in Tatar Pazarcık, the first Christian quarter of 29 households and 8
unmarried, appeared in Eski Zağra in the period 1530-1570, as the annual growth of the
Muslim population of 1.4% was even greater than the one observed in Filibe and Tatar

602
The document also noted some other little known building of Hüsrev Kethüda, such as the hamams in
Selânik and Aydoz and a nuber of watermills and rice mills scattered in Rumelia.
603
Grigor Boykov. “Balkan City or Ottoman City? A Study on the Models of Urban Development in
Ottoman Upper Thrace (15th – 17th c.).” in Halit Eren and Sadık Ünay (eds.), Proceedings of the Third
International Congress on the Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans, 1-5 November 2005, Bucharest,
Romania (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2010), 74.
226

Pazarcık. 604 The data demonstrates that thanks to the constant influx of mountainous
population to the lowlands of Thrace the artificially made demographic crisis of the first
half of the sixteenth century was quickly taken under control and the towns and cities in
the region returned to the track of constant steady growth.
Tatar Pazarcık lost a smaller portion of its population and seemed to have
recovered faster than the nearby metropolis Filibe. The rapid development was also
probably due to the fact that in this very period its administrative status was elevated to a
kaza center, as the presence of influential religious figures such as the Halveti sheikhs in
the town should also be taken into account in view of the fact that they might well have
been a stimulus in attracting new settlers too. The close cooperation of the Halvetis and
the central Ottoman authority in introducing in the town a closer to Sunnism Islam
appears to have been extremely successful. The period 1530 – 1570 was marked not
only by the disappearance of the heterodox zaviye of Pirzade for good, but also studying
the personal names of the Muslim tax-payers one can immediately notice the dramatic
change that took place during these years. The old pagan Turkic name system and the
names of popular heterodox dervishes, which were frequently encountered in the
previous register, gave way to more orthodox Muslim names and by 1570 were entirely
replaced by a Sunni name system. This must be seen as a sound demonstration of the
victory of the Sunni imperial ideology over the border society by way of which Tatar
Pazarcık of the second half of the sixteenth century was transformed into a “typical”
Ottoman town.

604
Boykov, “Balkan City or Ottoman City?”, 74.
227

Beside the detailed information on the Muslim names, the register from 1570 left
rich data regarding the occupation of the residents of the town at that time. Like in the
previous registrations, the largest group of tax-payers was occupied in works that were
of special importance for the central government. The noticeable increase of the total
number of the rice-growers, for instance, can be indicative for the further intensification
of the production in the area. The development of the imperial communication and
transportation system in the town is illustrated by the presence of no less than nine
messengers (ulak) and a menzil that appeared in Tatar Pazarcık prior to 1570. The
building of several new mosques that naturally requested new personnel sensitively
increased the share of the clergymen and service staff. Having only two imams and two
müezzins in 1530 the developing town offered good job opportunities, attracting
educated people even from a distance. Thus in 1570 the provincial town already had
sixteen imams and thirteen müezzins who served the two Friday mosques and a dozen of
mescids in the quarters. The growing importance of the tanners in the urban economy is
manifested by the building of a small mosque by certain Debbag Hamza that formed a
quarter.605 This mahalle was located north of Eski Camii’, locked between the main road
that crossed the town on the northwest and the tanneries to the east. The registrar noted
that this quarter occupied the space of the old market place, thus offering a clear clue
that by 1570 the urban core and market zone already shifted a few hundred meters
northward next to the mosque of İshak Çelebi and Paşa hamamı. The register recorded
also a sensitive increase of people that were occupied in metal works – blacksmiths,

605
BOA, TD 494, f. 717.
228

coppersmiths etc. This fact corresponds to the remark of Vrančič who in the mid-
sixteenth century saw many blacksmith workshops at the edge of the town. 606
Furthermore, there were a number of the common bakers, boza and helva makers,
different kinds of traders etc.
The local kadı of Tatar Pazarcık who was appointed in 1530 clearly had the trust
of the central Ottoman administration as his importance in regional matters was
progressively growing over time. In 1565 some mevlâna Musliheddin607 was appointed
to organize and supervise the registration of the drovers (celebkeşan) supplying sheep to
Istanbul that covered wide territory from the plain of Sofia to the region of Eastern
Thrace.608 Moreover, it seems that ever since that moment the duty was traditionally
assigned to the kadı of Tatar Pazarcık. The available later celeb defters show that they
were all compiled by those who held the post of kadı of the Thracian town. 609 The
earliest obtainable register of the drovers that included Tatar Pazarcık was prepared by
the kadı of Yanbolu and dates from July 1566.610 The latter registration was indeed the
last one prepared under the supervision of the judge of Yanbolu, but although it was
completed in 1566, it should be noted that the actual listing of the drovers was carried
out in the preceding one or two year, since several months prior to the defter’s

606
Yonov, Nemski i avstriyski pătepisi, 190.
607
It is very likely that it was after this man that the quarter of Tuzcu Mustafa also received the name of
Musliheddin kadı.
608
The sultanic order instructed that only the rich tax-payers must be recorded as celebs. 6 Numaralı
Mühimme Defteri (972/1564-1565) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1995), m. no. 1439.
609
On the celeps and the services that they rendered see Bistra Cvetkova. “Le service des Celep et le
ravitaillement en bétail dans l’Empire Ottoman (XVe-XVIIIe ss.).” in M. A. Cook (ed.), Studies in the
Economic History of the Middle East from the Rise of Islam to the Present Day (London: Oxford
University Press, 1970), 172-192.
610
BOA, MAD 5292.
229

completion the kadı of Tatar Pazarcık was already appointed to carry out the new
registration. Nevertheless, the register of 1566 provides interesting details about the
town. The document listed both old and newly registered celebs, thus allowing some
observations on the changes that took place. The four old drovers, who had to supply
270 sheep, were replaced in 1566 by eight new ones as the total number of sheep
requested from the town augmented to 350. Among the new celebs there was an
individual who is already familiar to us – Mustafa the son of Helvacı Barak. In the
previous piece of information on him from 1525 Mustafa was seen as a raider (akıncı). It
seems that he made a good career and a fortune at the border, since he was considered
wealthy and enlisted in the drovers’ register. By 1566 Mustafa must have been above 60
and clearly inherited the leadership of the quarter, established by his father, because he
was recorded in the defter as residing in “his own quarter”.611 Mustafa died soon after
1566, because his name was already missing among the tax-payers in the tahrir of
1570.612
The following celebkeşan register prepared by the kadı of Tatar Pazarcık dates
from 1576, i.e. only six year after the last tahrir of the area was drawn up.613 It lists eight
celebs from the town who had to supply altogether 450 sheep. Only one of the drovers,
some meyhaneci Kurd son of Petko, was a Christian. About half of the total number of
the sheep delivered by Tatar Pazarcık’s residents was to be provided by the shoemaker
(başmakçı) Piri, son of Mustafa, who according to the kadı of the town, was healthy and

611
BOA, MAD 5292, f. 18.
612
BOA, TD 494, f. 718.
613
Sofia, ОАК 265/4, f. 80b. The publication of the register in Bulgarian by Petko Gruevski contains many
mistakes. Bistra Cvetkova (ed.), Fontes Turcici Historiae Bulgaricae, vol. 3 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, 1972), 42-206.
230

possessed four thousand sheep. Four years later, in 1580, the kadı of Tatar Pazarcık
prepared another register of the celeps.614 Examining its data one can notice that the
number of the drovers more than doubled now totaling up seventeen individuals. All
eight celebs from the previous defter were reregistered in this one as well, as there were
nine new ones. What is noteworthy is that apart of the five Muslim and three Christian
new celebs there was also one Jew by the name of Ilia among the drovers of the town.
The tahrir of 1570 does not contain any Jewish taxpayers in the town, so this one must
have arrived recently, most likely from the nearby Filibe, which had a Jewish
community. Nevertheless, Ilia did not live until the next tahrir registration of 1596 or
maybe left the town.
Another interesting detail from the register of 1580 that brings itself to one’s
attention is that the doubled number of the drovers from the town did not match the
increase of the total number of the supplied sheep. On paper, the total number of the
livestock to be provided by the 14 drovers only increased by 45, thus amounting to 500
sheep as it was recorded in the balance prepared by the kadı and his scribe. However,
when one adds the number of sheep provided by each of the celebs, listed above the
names of the individual drovers, comes to much higher number. It is possible of course
that this discrepancy was simply a counting mistake of the scribe, but it rather seems to
have been a fraud. Thus 500 sheep from Tatar Pazarcık were annually dispatched to
Istanbul, while another good one third of the livestock is likely to have fallen a prey to

614
BOA, MAD 4075, f. 88.
231

private individuals, perhaps the kadı for instance, the person entrusted with the preparing
of the register.615
The next tahrir register compiled in 1596 demonstrates that the growth of the
town continued at full pace.616 There were 287 Muslim households and 5 unmarried,
while the Christians increased to 44. Compared to the data from the previous registration
the growth of the Muslims intensified drastically. In quarter of a century they added 24%
to their number that makes an annual growth of close to 1%. In simple terms, if the trend
was to continue, the Muslims were expected to double in number every century. The
increase of the Christians was even more spectacular, 57%, or marking more than 2%
annual growth. Apparently the new Christian quarter that appeared in the 1570 register,
not only gained a firm foothold but continued to attract even more settlers from the
surrounding mountainous areas. Just like it is observed with the Christians, good portion
of the Muslim growth must be attributed to migrantion to the town, because 16% of the
Muslims in 1596 were converts. It is apparent that the small local Christian community
did not provide these converts, but they came from elsewhere.

615
The central administration was purchasing the sheep at fixed prices, but local markets and especially
the black market in times of shortages often offered doubled prices. For example a sultanic order urged the
kadıs of Vize and Kırk Kilise to interrupt the practice of the local butchers who were selling lamb meet at
the price of 300 dirhems instead of 150 dirhems as recorded in the narh. 3 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri
(966-968/1558-1560) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1993), mühimme No. 1638.
616
Ankara, KuK 65 = BOA, TD 648 & BOA, TD 1001. The careful reading of the defter from 1596
demonstrates a significant discrepancy in the data. While the changes and the development of the town
were clearly indicated for most of the quarters it appears that the data for three of them, namely the
mahalles of Na’lband Ayas, the mosques of İshak Çelebi, and the imaret of Evrenos Bey was clearly
copied without any changes from the tahrir of 1570. It is unclear what made the Ottoman registrar use the
old data, since apparently a new registration of the tax-payers was carried out, but this noteworthy fact
calls for caution in the interpretations of the data provided by the register of 1596. Certainly, the
limitations of the source refer only to the three abovementioned quarters, as the rest of the document
undoubtedly offers the results of the new registration.
232

The rapid population expansion did not lead to the creation of new quarters in the
period 1570-1596. Nevertheless the Ottoman documentation still provides evidence for
significant innovations in the town. In this period certain Hacı Salih built the third
Friday mosque in Tatar Pazarcık, which on its own testifies for the aroused need of more
mosques in the town that had to serve the rapidly growing Muslim community. There is
no available detailed information about the patron of this mosque, but the 1596 tahrir
clearly indicates its existence, therefore it must have been constructed prior to this date.
It was located in the old quarter of Mustafa Karamanî, which changed its name to
Babuççu İlyas.617 (no. 16 on Plan 5)
The period 1570-1596 was marked by another important change in Tatar
Pazarcık – the appearance of the town’s most significant landmark, the kervansaray of
İbrahim Paşa, which Kiel justifiably labeled “one of the largest building projects ever
undertaken by Ottomans in the Balkans”.618 This was the enormous double kervansaray,
popularly known as Kurşun han, that offered shelter to hundreds of travelers, provided
them with food free of charge from the attached imaret and safeguarded their animals
and goods. The most authoritative works on the history of Tatar Pazarcık, however
greatly differ in their opinions about the date of construction and the actual patron of this
complex. While for Batakliev there is no doubt that that the great han was built in 1574
by the grand vizier İbrahim Paşa, Kiel suggested 1596 for its date of construction and a

617
BOA, TD 1001, f. 727.
618
Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık”, 45.
233

different grand vizier, also named İbrahim Paşa, who erected the building on the request
of the local population.619
The contradiction arises from the fact that the two main literary sources that
discussed the construction of the kervansaray in the town, Evliya Çelebi and Kâtib
Çelebi, also significantly differ in their information. Both authors seemed to agree that
the patron was a grand vizier named İbrahim Paşa, but they alluded to two different
individuals. Evliya pointed that this was the grand vizier of Süleyman I Makbul İbrahim
Paşa, while Kâtib Çelebi indicated in his account that Damad İbrahim Paşa, grand vizier
of Mehmed III ordered the construction of Kurşun han when he crossed the town in the
spring of 1596, leading the vanguard of the Ottoman army against the castle of Eger
(Erlau/Еğri) in Hungary.620
According to Evliya, the construction of the kervansaray was begun by Makbul
İbrahim Paşa, but because of his execution it remained unfinished for a long time.621 The
traveler came to this conclusion because he saw a dedicatory inscription hanged on the
wall of the han that gave the date of its construction in the form of a chronogram:
Du’âlar eyleye aştân rûhuna der bânî

Dedi târîh Âyşe Sultân kalub lilleh mâ cârî 622

619
Batakliev, Grad Tatar-Pazardžik, 84-86; Kiel, “Tatar Pazarcık”, 45.
620
Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 219. Kâtib Çelebi, Rumeli und Bosna, 55-56.
621
Makbul, Maktul of Pargalı İbrahim Paşa occupied the post of grand vizier from 1523 to 1536. M.
Tayyib Gökbilgin. “Ibrahim Pasha” in EI2; İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı. Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 2 (Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1975), 545-547.
622
234

The part of the chronogram that indicates the date begins after the word tarih:
‫عايشه سلطان قلوب ّ ما ُ جارى‬
The numerical value of the chronogram gives the year A.H. 994 (1585-1586). It seems
that the later date of the dedicatory inscription contradicted his idea about the patron of
the complex and therefore Evliya has made up the story of it being begun earlier by
Makbul İbrahim Paşa, but finished only later on by certain Ayşe Sultan. What makes
Evliya’s note valuable is the fact that he introduced the personality of Ayşe Sultan who
seemed to have supplied water to the kervansaray rather than completing it. The woman
in question was none other than the daughter of Murad III who married İbrahim Paşa
thus giving him the nickname damad (son-in-law). Known for her charity, after the
death of her husband in 1601, Ayşe Sultan remarried twice and died in 1605. She was
buried in her father’s mausoleum located in the courtyard of Aya Sofya in Istanbul.623
Evliya’s note on Ayşe Sultan gives credibility to the account of Kâtib Çelebi and
certainly establishes Damad İbrahim Paşa as the patron of the great kervansaray’s
complex in Tatar Pazarcık. Evliya’s account, though helpful at this point, proved
erroneous on one more thing – the date of the inscription 1585-1586 that he provided is
undoubtedly wrong too. İbrahim Paşa was promoted to the post of grand vizier for the
first time only in the spring of 1596, therefore it is very unlikely that he built the han
prior to this date. 624 Evliya probably mixed his notes up, because he himself was

623
M. Çağatay Uluçay. Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 19923), 45.
624
Damad İbrahim Paşa held for three turns the office of the grand vizierate: from 4 April till 27 October
1596; from 5 December 1596 till 3 November 1597; from 6 January 1599 till 10 July 1601. İsmail Hâmi
Danişmend. Osmanlı Devlet Erkânı (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 19712), 25-27.
235

somewhat doubtful about the words and the rhyme rhythm that composed the
chronogram of the kitabe.625
The Ottoman archival documents also confirm the fact that the patrons of the
large kervansaray were Damad İbrahim Paşa and his spouse Ayşe Sultan. An accounting
register (muhasebe defteri) of the pious foundation, jointly established by İbrahim Paşa
and Ayşe Sultan, dating from 1668, demonstrates that the vakıf was retrieving an annual
revenue of 65 000 akçes from part of the han in Tatar Pazarcık that was rented out.626
Moreover, the foundation provided 16 920 akçes annually for the salaries of the staff of
the mescid located within the han.627 This information reaffirms the account of Kâtib
Çelebi who lived closer in time to these events and apparently was better informed about
them than Evliya Çelebi.628
There is no reason to doubt the construction date of the kervansaray provided by
Kâtib Çelebi, according to whom its foundations were laid in 1596 during İbrahim
Paşa’s march against Eger.629 The tahrir register of 1596 does not contain information
about the han, but some clues indicate that the defter was drawn up during the period of
its genuine building. It seems that when the actual registration took place only the
mescid of İbrahim Paşa was completed while the construction of the han (no. 20 on Plan

625
“Bir muğlak vezîndir ammâ böyle tahrîr olunmuşdur” (The meter is confused, but the date is recorded
in this manner). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 219.
626
BOA, TSMA D. 1598.0002, f. 1b.
627
BOA, TSMA D. 1598.0002, f. 3b.
628
Kâtib Çelebi lived between 1609-1657. His “Rumeli and Bosna” was completed in 1648. Orhan Şaık
Gökyay. “Kâtib Čelebi” in EI2; Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen, 195-203.
629
Caroline Finkel. The Administration of Warfare: the Ottoman Military Campaigns in Hungary, 1593-
1606 (Wien: VWGÖ, 1988), 14-15.
236

5) was still going on.630 The registrar recorded in the new census certain Mehmed, son of
Ali, who was the imam at the mescid of İbrahim Paşa. The small mosque, however was
not the mescid built within the han, but another mosque located at the southwestern edge
of the town in the quarter of Divane Sefer.631 (no. 4 on Plan 5) In the short period until
the tahrir registration of 1614 the mosque of İbrahim Paşa formed a quarter of its own,
being the last mahalle before the road leaves for Sofia.
The construction of the great kervansaray and the adjacent to it large imaret gave
a real boost not only to the local economy, but to the development of the town as a
whole. A building of this kind was indeed very needed in the provincial town which in
the course of the sixteenth century not only became an important spot on the Via
Militaris road, but also the place of distribution of the goods directed towards
Macedonia and more importantly where the strategic iron coming from Samakov was
fist stored before being shipped to Istanbul or to the western parts of the Ottoman
domains. The building of the kervansaray stood and rendered services throughout the
Ottoman period until the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878 when it was set on fire and
was partially ruined.632 After the war the locals used the stones of the kervansaray for
building private houses and for some years according to Batakliev “it served as some

630
This is also an argument against the commonly used dating of this document (1595) that is solely based
on the assumption that immediately after Mehmed III ascended the throne a tahrir registration was carried
out.
631
BOA, TD 1001, f. 729.
632
The damaged kervansaray and its imaret were depicted in 1878 by Dick de Lonley. A travers la
Bulgarie. Souvenirs de guerre et de voyage, par un volontaire au 26e régiment de Cosaques du Don. Les
Balkans. Etropol. Tchelopetz. Plevna. Araba-Konak. Sofia. Tatar-Bazardjick. Philipppopoli. Le Rhodope.
Hermanli. Andrinople. San-Stefano. Stamboul. Illustré de 20 dessins par l'auteur (Paris: Garnier
frères, 1888), 222. (Fig. 73) I was unable to find neither any extant photograph of the building, nor
information of it being photographed ever. A 3D plastic model of the han is exhibited in the local museum.
(Figs. 71-72)
237

sort of a stone-pit of the town”.633 Indeed, very sad end for one of the largest and most
magnificent examples of Ottoman architecture in the Balkans.
The immediate impact of the construction of the han can be noticed in the last
tahrir register, produced by the Ottoman administration that was compiled in 1614.634 In
less than twenty years between the two registrations Tatar Pazarcık enlarged extremely
quickly, as five new quarters appeared in the town, one of which was the mahalle of
İbrahim Paşa, inhabited by Muslims and Christians alike. 635 Apart of the mosque of
İbtahim Paşa several other mescids must have been built in this period among which the
Ak mescid can be indentified with certainty. The few residents registered in the new
quarters bespeak of their very recent creation. Some of the quarters like this of Kâtib
Yusuf were explicitly noted as new ones, as there was one that did not even have a name
yet and was recorded simply as “the new quarter” (mahalle-i cedid).
The territorial expansion of the town was a logical consequence of the enormous
population growth in the period 1596-1614. The Muslim community increased up to 414
from only 287 households in 1596, an unprecedented growth of 42% in only nineteen
years.636 It is obvious that such dynamic population increase cannot be due to natural
growth, but it was a result of influx of many new residents to the town. Undoubtedly the
construction of the kervansaray must have played a significant role in this process being
a stimulus for the immigration. It is difficult to tell what portion of the newcomers were
villagers, but it is evident that some of them were city dwellers who left the nearby

633
634
BOA, TD 729.
635
BOA, TD 729, f. 442.
636
This register did not keep record of the unmarried individuals as it was the common practice.
238

towns in search for better opportunities in the promising Tatar Pazarcık. When compared
to the development of the nearby metropolis Filibe one can notice a curious concurrence.
Between 1596 and 1614 the Muslim population of Tatar Pazarcık increased by 127
households, as in the same period the number of the Muslim residents of Filibe dropped
with 128 households. The almost matching numbers must be a coincidence and
attributing the Muslim growth of Tatar Pazarcık to the drop in Filibe would be highly
speculative. Moreover, the decrease of Muslim population for the period, as odd as it
may seem, was not an isolated case in Upper Thrace. In the same period the town of
Eski Zağra lost even greater portion of its Muslim inhabitants, while in both places the
Christians sensitively increased.637
Likewise, the Christians in Tatar Pazarcık, in the period of question, augmented
at even faster pace than the Muslims. In nineteen years they more than doubled jumping
from 44 households in 1596 to 105 in 1614, thus illustrating the big influx of population
from the surrounding areas. Moreover, twenty one taxpayers were explicitly noted by
the registrar as newcomers to the town. Most likely the greater portion of the newly
arrived Christians comprised of villagers but there were also people coming from the
nearby towns. The occupations of the six Christian taxpayers who did not have a
permanent residence yet, among whom two were builders, two – boza sellers, and two
were cart drivers, bespeak of their urban background. The old Christian quarter (the
varoş), established less than half a century earlier, could not accommodate the large
number of newcomers and the Christians spread to the neighboring Muslim quarters

637
Boykov, “Ottoman city or Balkan City?”, 74.
239

such as Hacı Kılıç (former Helvacı Barak), Cami’-i Kebir and İbrahim Paşa in the
southern part of the town. (see Plan 5) Another group settled northwest of the mahalle
Musalla, later forming a separate Christian quarter.
The defter of 1614 is the first to record a permanent Jewish community in Tatar
Pazarcık. The small group of seven Jewish households, who arrived in the years between
the two registrations, settled north of the main road only a few hundred meters to the
west of the çarşı area. The Jews most likely came from the bigger cities in the region
like Sofia or Filibe that had larger Jewish communities since the first half of the
sixteenth century.638 The beginning of the seventeenth century was also marked by the
arrival of another ethnic group in the town, 35 Gypsy households appeared in Tatar
Pazarcık and settled on an empty spot near the tanneries, thus not only enlarging the
physical space of the urban center, but contributing to the ethnic diversity peculiar to the
big Ottoman cities.
The register of 1614 was not nearly as rich in information regarding the
occupation of the residents of Tatar Pazarcık as were the earlier defters. The registrar
only occasionally listed tax payers with their professions preferring the patronymics
instead. Nevertheless, one can notice the increase of the clergymen, 17 imams and 16
müezzins, whose number naturally augmented as a result of the erection of several new
mosques in this period. The growing importance of the town called for opening of
educational institutions as well. The 1614 register testifies that in the beginning of the
seventeenth century there must have been an operating medrese, because there was an

638
Machiel Kiel. “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: The Place of the Turkish
Architecture in the Process.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4:2 (1989): 79-129.
240

instructor (müderris) among the tax payers of the town. In all probability this was the
mederese built by Abdurrahman Çelebi that in 1660 offered daily salary of 25 akçes to
its lecturers.639 Additionally there should have been several mektebs in the town, because
Evliya Çelebi stated that there were seven mektebs in Tatar Pazarcık when he visited the
town. 640 The Ottoman archival documentation shows that there was also a dersiye
functioning in the mosque of Hacı Salih.641 Hence, it appears that in the beginning of the
seventeenth century Tatar Pazarcık was already growing as an educational center as well.
It definitely took a well-deserved place among the towns and cities in the Balkans which
had all the features of a genuine Ottoman town of its time.
Tatar Pazarcık walked a long way to become a town of considerable importance
at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Created originally as a Tatar army camp at
the turn of the fourteenth century, its colorful history of two centuries was filled with
variegated events. Founded on a strategic spot, the small settlement soon attracted the
attention of the men of the day – the mighty raider commanders of several prominent
families who endowed it with a number of public buildings, thus boosting its
develeopment. The architectural patronage of the akıncı leaders and the specificity of the
buildings they patronized attracted new settlers, representatives of the border culture
known for their heterodox beliefs. The so-formed “oasis” for the centrifugal elements of
the Ottoman society, who acted in accordance against the increasingly centralistic
imperial policies, urged the Ottoman authorities to take steps in gaining control over the

639
Orlin Săbev. Osmanskite uchilishta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII v. (Sofia: Lubomădrie - Hronika,
2001), 238. M. Kemal Özergin. “Eski bir Rûznâme’ye göre İstanbul ve Rumili Medreseleri.” Tarih
Enstitüsü Dergisi 4-5 (1973-1974): 281.
640
641
Săbev, Osmanskite uchilishta, 250.
241

growing in size and importance Tatar Pazarcık. In this struggle the central power gained
over some of the most vigorous and charismatic figures of the time – the leading
preachers of the Khalvetiyye order, whose teachings and application of forceful methods
against the “heretics” eventually won a decisive victory over the heterodox populace of
the region. The long process of the transformation of Tatar Pazarcık into a Sunnified
place was marked by the consistent policy of the Ottoman authorities in re-gaining its
control over the town and consequently by a gradual replacement of the distinguishing
features of the heterodox culture, such as the dervish convents built by the
representatives of the raider commanders’ families. The changing conditions shifted the
architectural patronage from the akıncı beyis to the high ranking Ottoman official whose
patronage not only inspired the special change that took place in the second half of the
sixteenth century, but also stimulated the unprecedented demographic boom.
New settlers, attracted by the quickly growing town, rapidly flooded its existing
quarters and even created new ones in order to accommodate the large numbers of
incoming migrants. Leaving aside the unnatural drastic drop that occurred in the first
half of the sixteenth century, when a sizable portion of Tatar Pazarcık’s residents was
relocated to the newly conquered western territories by the central Ottoman authority,
the town hereafter followed a constant rapid demographic growth. The increasing
importance of the urban center drew many newcomers not only from the surrounding
villages but from the larger cities as well. The predominantly Muslim town became a
new home for other ethnic groups such as Bulgarian or Greek Christians, Jews and
Gypsies, thus contributing to its multiethnic and multicultural appearance inherent to the
242

town and cities throughout the Ottoman domains. By the beginning of the seventeenth
century Tatar Pazarcık was a significant addition to the colorful urban network of the
Ottoman realm.
243

CHAPTER IV
FAILED ENTERPRISE: THE UNACCOMPLISHED TASK TO CREATE THE

TOWN OF KONUŞ HISARI
The study on Tatar Pazarcık over the two centuries of its existence revealed that
it can be undoubtedly regarded as illustrative example of successfully developing towns
established in the Ottoman era. The settlement came into being in the right time, while
its location on the important juncture of the Via Militaris road and the support of the
powerful akıncı ucbeyis’ families predetermined its prosperity that seemed to have later
motivated the sultans in establishing centralized control over the town. The successful
development of Tatar Pazarcık was an outcome of the cooperation of several of the most
prominent dynasties of raider commanders in the Ottoman Balkans who had at their
disposal both the political and financial means of creating new urban centers on their
own. Furthermore, a number of key modern Balkan cities owe their creation to the
initiative of the lords of the marches and their descendents, thus leaving a legacy which
manifests the prominence and the enormous power accumulated by these people in the
first two centuries of Ottoman domination in Southeastern Europe.
244

The successful models of building of new towns naturally attracted scholarly
interest and some of the settlements, created as powerbases of the akıncı ucbeyis, were
satisfactorily studied in the past. Researchers, however, paid very little attention to the
less successful projects that did not manage to turn into sizable towns and cities in
modernity. This chapter aims at demonstrating the importance of studying also the
undeservedly ignored to date models of unsuccessful urban development by focusing on
a hitherto unstudied township in the area of Filibe, created and dominated by one family
of raider commanders – Konuş Hisarı.
4.1. The Founders of Konuş: The Transfer of Minnet Bey and his Tatars from İskilip to
Rumelia
Konuş Hisarı came into existence thanks to a Tatar tribe, led by certain Minnet
Bey, that was deported by sultan Mehmed I (1413-1421) from Anatolia to Rumelia. The
transfer of Minnet Bey’s Tatars from the area of İskilip (Çorum region in Turkey) to the
plain of Filibe in 1418 is known to the related historiography and has been exploited as a
textbook example, illustrating the Ottoman policy of forced population transfers
(sürgün).642 The story of this deportation can be found in both Aşıkpaşazade and the

642
While discussing in his “classical” work the Ottoman methods of forceful population transfers to the
Balkans, Ö. L. Barkan was among the first ones to point to the deportation of Minnet Bey and his people.
Ömer Lûtfi Barkan. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Sürgünler.”
İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15 (1953-54): 209-11 (=Sürgünler III).
245

anonymous chronicles, thus indicating the existence of a common source. 643 Both
traditions share a narrative, according to which on his way back from Samsun Mehmed I
stopped by İskilip and ordered the deportation to Rumelia of a Tatar tribe headed by
644
Minnet Bey. When comparing the narratives it appears that Aşıkpaşazade
supplemented the common source by adding an imaginary dialog between the sultan and
his vizier Bayezid Paşa. Bringing together the texts of Aşıkpaşazade and the anonymous
chronicles-Uruc tradition, the episode of the transfer of these Tatars can be presented in
an artificially created but circumstantial text that reads645:
Sultan Mehmed Samsun’u aldı, {oğlu Sultan Murad Amasya’da

kodu646},[Bursa’ya giderken] İsklib’e uğradı. İllerinde647 çok648 tatar evleri
gördü {Temür Han zamanından kalmışlardı}. [Sordu: “Hey, bu evler
kimindir” dedi. “Minnet Beğ’indir” dediler. “Ya hani bunların beği” dedi.
“Tatar Samagaroğlu düğün yaptı, anun düğününe vardı” dediler. Sultan
Mehmed veziri Bayazıd Paşa’ya ider “Temür bu memleketden tatarları aldı,
gitdi dediler. Ya bu ilde bunların beğleri düğün yapar, birbirine gider,
gelir649, benim seferimde bulunmazlar. Bunları sürmek gerek” dedi. Minnet

643
In his ‘genealogy of the texts’ İnalcık refers to it as “a supplemented Yakhshi Faqih”. Halil İnalcık.
“The Rise of Ottoman Historiography.” in idem. From Empire to Republic. Essays on Ottoman and
Turkish Social History (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1995), 1-16.
644
Cf. the editions of these chroniclers by Ali Bey. Aşıkpaşazade Tarihi. Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman (İstanbul:
Matba’a-i Amire, 1332/1916), 90; Friedrich Giese. Die altosmanische Chronik des ‘Âšıkpašazâde (Leipzig:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1929), 80-81; Nihal Atsız. Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî. Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osman. in idem.
Osmanlı Tarihleri I. (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949), 152-53; Friedrich Giese. Die altosmanischen
anonymen Chroniken. Teil I: Text und Variantenverzeichnis (Breslau, 1922), 53; Nihat Azamat. Anonim
Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. F. Giese neşri (İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1992),
57; Franz Babinger. Die frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch: nach den Handschriften zu Oxford
und Cambridge (Hannover: Orient-Buchhandlung Heinz Lafaire, 1925), 43, 110; Necdet Öztürk,. Oruç
Beğ Tarihi (İstanbul: Çamlıca, 2007), 50.
645
The related passages describing the events could be found in the following editions of the narrative
sources: Aşıkpaşazade (Ali Bey), 90; Aşıkpaşazade (Giese), 80-81; Aşıkpaşazade (Atsız), 152-153;
Anonymous Giese, 53; An. Giese (Azamat), 57; Uruc (Babinger-Cambridge MS), 110; Oruç Beğ (Atsız),
74. The text that stays out of the brackets is common for both traditions; [ ] encloses the text found only in
Aşıkpaşazade; { } encloses the text found only in the anonymous chronicles tradition.
646
olurdu (An. Giese).
647
vilâyetlerinde (Aşpz, Ali Bey).
648
mübalağa (Aşpz, Ali Bey, Giese, Atsız); kalabalık (Oruç Beğ, Atsız).
649
bu vilâyetinde bunların beği düğün iler, birbirine varır, gelir (Aşpz, Ali Bey).
246

Beğ’i çağırtdı 650 , getirdi, sürdü. Bunlar hepsini] Filibe yöresine [geçirdi]
Konuş Hisarının yöresine koydu 651 .{Minnet Beğ oğlu ol arayı ma’mur
eyledi}. Minnet’in oğlu Mehmed Beğ [şimdi] Konuş’da bir ‘imâret yaptı. Bir
kârbânseray dahi yaptı.
Sultan Mehmed captured Samsun, {he left his son Sultan Murad in
Amasya}, [and while on his way to Bursa] he stopped by İsklib. He noticed
many Tatar houses there {that remained from the time of Timur Han}. [He
asked: “Whose houses are these?” They replied “These belong to Minnet
Bey. “So, where is their Bey?”, he asked. “The Tatar Samagaroğlu has a
wedding, he went to his wedding”, they replied. Sultan Mehmed said to his
vizier Bayezid Paşa: “I was told that Timur took his Tatars from this region
and left. The Beys of the area organize weddings, visit each other, but do not
come for my campaign. They must be deported”. They sent for Minnet Bey,
brought him and deported all of them. They were all transferred] to the
region of Filibe and settled them in the area of Konuş Hisarı. {The son of
Minnet Bey made the area prosperous} [Now] Minnet Bey’s son Mehmed
Bey built in Konuş one imaret. He also built one caravanserai.
The text indicates quite clearly that the deportation of the Tatars to Rumelia was a
punitive measure undertaken by the sultan against the Tatar tribal leaders in the region.
The most likely reason that caused the reaction of the Ottoman central authority was the
disobedience of the tribal chieftains who did not send their contingents to the sultan’s
campaign, presented by Aşıkpaşazade in a form of a dialog between Mehmed I and his
vizier Bayezid Paşa.652 The mistrust of Mehmed I could be also felt from the emphasis
of the chronicler on the fact that Minnet Bey appeared in Anatolia as part of Timur’s
army some fifteen years earlier and that in fact he managed to build strong ties with the
Samagaroğlus, the former rulers of this province and sultan’s natural competitors.

650
okutdu (Aşpz, Ali Bey, Giese, Atsız).
651
kondurdılar (An. Giese); Konuş hisar çuresini ol tatar ile doldurdı (Uruc, Cm MS).
652
This must have been the campaign against the İsfendiyaroğulları of late 1417 or early 1418. Yaşar
Yücel. Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar I (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988), 92-94; Colin
Imber. The Ottoman Empire 1300-1481 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1990), 88.
247

Apparently, it was easier for the Ottomans to deal with the smaller and weaker clan of
Minnet Bey, therefore these Tatars, like other Anatolian nomads in the preceding years,
were transferred in the vast and rich but depopulated plain of Upper Thrace. The sources
also point out that all of these Tatars settled in the region of Filibe, in a place called
Konuş Hisarı, where the traces of the leader of the clan, Minnet Bey disappear.653
The location of the settlement of the Tatars is easily identifiable at a distance of
some 24 kilometers southeast of Filibe. It owes the adding “hisarı” to its name to a small
mediaeval stronghold, about 800 m2 in size, which was located on a naturally elevated
terrace on the eastern bank of the stream Sushitsa, close to seven kilometers southwest
of the settlement Konuş itself. The stronghold was inhabited and in use until the end of
the twelfth century when the place was stormed and devastated by the knights of the
Third Crusade and ceased to exist hereafter.654
4.2. Mehmed Bey’s military and administrative career
In contrast to the father Minnet Bey of whom very little is known, his son
Mehmed Bey played an important role in the history of the fifteenth-century Balkans

653
There is a possibility that Minnet Bey in question was identical to Minnet Bey who was captured by
Timur’s army at the battle of Ankara (1402). The sources, however, seem to portray two different
individuals. Mehmed Sürreyya. Sicil-i Osmani yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye (İstanbul: Matba’a-i
Amire, 1311/1893), vol. 4, 515.
654
Hristo Džambov. “Krepostta “Hisarlăka” kray Zlatovrăh.” Godishnik na Narodniya arheologicheski
muzey Plovdiv 4 (1960): 188-190; Petăr Detev. “Razkopki na terasata “Asarlăka” pri s. Zlatovrăh.”
Izvestiya na muzeite v Yužna Bălgariya 5 (1979): 81-124. For a detailed analysis of the origins of the name
of the settlement see Damiyan Borisov. Vakăfskata institutsia v Rodopite prez XV-XVII vek (unpublished
PhD Dissertation, University of Plovdiv, 2008), 95-96.
248

and is therefore fairly well represented in the sources. The information about his early
years, however, is scarce and hence it is unclear whether he inherited the position of a
raider commander (akıncı beyi) from his father or made a name on his own as
Aşıkpaşazade claims in verse. One could also speculate that the core of the detachment
led by Mehmed Bey could have been composed mainly by people from his own clan.
Traditionally known as good horsemen, Tatars were likely to be excellent raiders and
one may surmise that Mehmed Bey had chosen his closest companions from among his
kin. Although the early days of his career are obscure, it seems that Mehmed Bey proved
to be a talented commander in a series of raids and succeeded to build a name at the
Ottoman frontier during dramatic times when most of the important figures from the
greater raider commanders’ dynasties were present there too. One of the known raids
lead by Mehmed Bey took place during the first Ottoman campaign against Serbia in
1458. 655 On order of Mahmud Paşa (1453-1466 and 1472-1474), the grand vizier of
Mehmed II (r. 1444-46 and 1451-1481), he led a large group of akıncıs who devastated
the territory enclosed between the rivers Danube and Sava or possibly managed to go
even deeper in Hungarian lands, as claimed by Solakzade.656 Mehmed Bey divided his
troops in seven separate detachments and had a major success in the raid. Tursun Bey

655
Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey. The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg
(Minneapolis & Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1978), f. 82a; Şerafettin Turan. İbn Kemal. Tevârih-i Âl-i
Osman. VII. Defter (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 19912), 152. Halil İnalcık. “Tursun Beg, Historian of
Mehmed the Conqueror’s time.”Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 69 (1977): 55-71.
656
Vahid Çabuk. Solak-zâde tarihi, vol. 1 (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1989), 297.
249

who supervised the collectors of the sultan’s share of the booty (pençikçis and
armağancıs) testifies for the rich spoils brought by the akıncıs.657
The enormous authority acquired by Mehmed Bey in the then border society is
witnessed not only by the fact that a figure of the rank of Mihaloğlu Ali Bey (d. before
1505), the then governor of Vidin, was placed under his command in the 1458 raid
towards Srem (Ottoman Sirem), 658 but also because of his appointment as the first
sancakbeyi of Serbia and Smederevo in 1459 after the important Danubian fortress of
Smederevo (Ottoman Semendere) was finally taken by the Ottomans. In fact it seems
that Mehmed Bey’s assignment as a sancakbeyi of the “land of Laz”659 happened a year
earlier, when Mahmud Paşa subdued most of Serbia, but Smederevo remained in the
hands of the defenders until the following year.660 He must have spent four to five years
in administering the area, while simultaneously carrying the duties of a frontier
commander in the vicinity of the strategic fortress of Belgrade.
Apparently Mehmed Bey proved very successful in his activities in the old
Serbian lands, because in 1463, soon after Mehmed II’s campaign against Bosnia, he

657
Tursun Beg (İnalcık-Murphey), f. 82a; M. Hüdai Şentürk. Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî. Künhü’l-ahbâr: cilt
II – Fâtih Sultân Mehmed devri (1451-1481) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003), 112-114.
658
Olga Zirojević. “Smederevski sandžakbeg Ali beg Mihaloglu.” Zbornik za istoriju Matice srpske
(1971): 10.
659
In contemporary Ottoman sources this expression referred to the territory under the Lazarevići rulers;
roughly present-day Serbia excluding Vojvodina, Sandžak, and Kosovo regions.
660
The appointment of Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey as a governor of Smederevo is mentioned only in the
chronicle of Uruc. The Cambridge MS presenting the events after the surrender of Smederevo reads: “…ve
Laz-İli sancağını Minnetoğlu Mehmed Beğe virdi”, Urudsch (Babinber), 125. In Öztürk’s recent edition,
which follows Bibliothèque Nationale, anicien fonds Turc 99, it reads: “… Lâz-ili’ni, Semendre’yi,
Minnet-oglı Muhammed Beg’e Lâz-ili’ni virdi”, Uruç Beğ (Öztürk), 115. Tursun Beg, without mentioning
a name states that after Mahmud Paşa’s successful campaign (1458) a sancakbeyi of Serbia was appointed.
Tursun Beg (İnalcık-Murphey), ff. 85a-85b. In Ibn Kemal (VII. defter), 162, Mehmed Bey’s name appears
already as a ruler of Laz-ili. Cf. Hazim Šabanović. “O organizaciji turske uprave u Srbiji u XV i XVI
vijeku.” Istoriski glasnik, 3-4 (1955): 61.
250

was assigned governor of the newly conquered province.661 Although he is commonly
referred to as the first Bosnian sancakbeyi, İnalcık argues that he took this post only
after a very brief term of İshakoğlu İsa Bey (d. 1476?), who was deposed by Mehmed II
as a punitive measure because of the flight of the Herezegovian ruler Stjepan Vukčić
Kosača (d. 1466). 662 İnalcık did not develop his argumentation further, but indeed it
seems that Mehmed Bey took İsa Bey’s place, regardless whether the latter was formally
appointed as the new Bosnian sancakbeyi or retained his position of ucbeyi.663
Mehmed Bey’s actions after he took up the rulership of Bosnia may confirm this
assumption. Instead of heading towards Jajce, the last Bosnian capital, which should
have been the natural choice of the new governor due to the city’s vulnerability to
Hungarian attacks, the sources report that Mehmed Bey sent one of his subordinate
commanders there while he himself went to Sarajevo (Saray Bosna).664 In this respect,
Mehmed II’s decision to substitute İsa Bey, the mighty lord, referred to by the Ragusans
as the “actual ruler of Bosnia”, 665 with Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey, appears quite
surprising. İsa Bey’s failure in Herzegovina must have irritated Mehmed II to a great
extend as he installed in İsa Bey’s own powerbase, Sarajevo, a commander of lesser
prominence. This fact might also explain the (at a first glance illogical) decision of

661
Ibn Kemal (VII. defter), 234; Mehmed Neşrî. Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi. Faik Reşit Unat and
Mehmed A. Köymen (eds.) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 767; Franz Babinger. Mehmed the
Conqueror and his Time (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978), 224.
662
Halil İnalcık. “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and his Time.” Speculum 35 (1960): 423.
663
Šabanović also maintains that the reason for the appointment of Mehmed Bey was the failure of İsa
Bey in Herzegovina. Hazim Šabanović. “Bosansko krajište, 1448-1463.” Godišnjak istoriskog društva
Bosne i Hercegovine 9 (1957): 212-213.
664
Yaşar Yücel and Halil Erdoğan Cengiz. “Rûhî Tarîhi – Oxford Nüshası.” Belgeler 14:18 (1989-1992):
548; Aşıkpaşazade (Atsız), 213.
665
Ćiro Truhelka. Tursko-slovjenski spomenici dubrovačke arhive (Sarajevo: Zemaljska štamparija, 1911),
338.
251

Mehmed Bey to head towards Sarajevo instead of staying in the threatened by a
Hungarian attack old capital of Jajce. The janissary Konstantin Mihailović, an
eyewitness of the events, states that “at this time a certain voivode named Machomet
Mumiatowicz held Bosnia, and in his place at Jajce was a servant of his named
Usunharamibass”666, stressing once more what should have been the proper place of the
Bosnian governor.
Mehmed Bey’s subordinate who was entrusted with the defense of Jajce failed in
fulfilling his duties and soon after he surrendered the fortress to King Matthias of
Hungary (1458-1490). In the following year (1464), in an attempt to regain the lost
fortresses, Mehmed II reappeared with the sultanic army in Bosnia and besieged Jajce
again. However, fearing that the Hungarian forces advancing toward Zvornik could cut
his retreat route, he left Jajce, ordering Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey to carry on the siege.667
It is unclear how long the siege commanded by Mehmed Bey continued, but it yielded
no results, since Jajce remained in Hungarian hands for another half a century. In the
same year Mehmed Bey was deposed as Bosnian sancakbeyi and his place was taken by
İshakoğlu İsa Bey who apparently regained the trust of the sultan. Mehmed Bey was sent
back to govern Smederevo, while Mihaloğlu Ali Bey, who occupied the post in the
meantime, was reassigned as a sancakbeyi of Vidin.668 Mehmed Bey retained the post of

666
Mihailović participated in the campaign of 1463 and after the sultan’s army withdrawal he was left in
Zvečaj in command of fifty janissaries. Konstantin Mihailović. Memoirs of a Janissary, translated by
Benjamin Stolz, historical commentary and notes by Svat Soucek (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1975), 141.
667
Tusun Beg (İnalcık-Murphey), f. 118a; Mustafa Âlî (Şentürk), 139; Selâhattin Tansel. Osmanlı
Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in Siyasî ve Askeri Faaliyeti (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,
1953), 180.
668
Šabanović, “Turske uprave u Srbiji”, 61
252

sancakbeyi of Smederevo for several years, probably until 1467 when he was once again
replaced by Mihaloğlu Ali Bey. 669 After his dismissal from the governorship of
Smederevo the traces of Mehmed Bey’s military and administrative career seem to
disappear.
Although Mehmed Bey’s terms in administering Sarajevo and Smederevo were
brief, he left behind significant architectural evidence for his successful governorship in
the mid-fifteenth century. Opposite the complex of İsa Bey, which constituted the
nucleus of Sarajevo by that time, Mehmed Bey established a new neighborhood that was
formed around his mosque and a number of shops that provided for its upkeep.670 The
first Muslim quarter in Smederevo, the former place of residence of the Serbian despots,
was likewise established by Mehmed Bey. He commissioned a Friday mosque, a public
bath and a residence for the sancakbeyis within the fortified town that were supported by
a pious foundation.671 It seems that the governors of Smederevo, or at least the first two
of them, Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey and Mihaloğlu Ali Bey, have spent resources in
promoting the town of Nish as well by commissioning a number of public buildings
there. Mehmed Bey built a public bath in Nish the revenues of which were endowed to
the imaret of his complex in Konuş in Thrace. According to a tahrir register, dating

669
Zirojević, “Smederevski sandjakbeg Ali-Beg”, 15.
670
Further details in Grigor Boykov. “In Search of Vanished Ottoman Monuments in the Balkans:
Minnetoğlu Mehmed Beg’s Complex in Konuş Hisarı.” in Maximilian Hartmuth and Ayşe Dilsiz
(eds.), Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel (Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten, 2010), 51-53.
671
Boykov, “Vanished Ottoman Monuments”, 53-55.
253

from A.H. 903 (1497-1498), this hamam yielded to Mehmed Bey’s imaret an annual
income of 3 666 akçes.672
4.3. Building up Minnetoğlus’ powerbase – Konuş (Konuş Hisarı)
It is not possible to state with any degree of certainty when Mehmed Bey’s
complex in Konuş Hisarı (today’s village of Konush in the district of Plovdiv, Bulgaria),
that was meant as a nucleus of a new town, was actually commissioned. The Ottoman
narrative tradition, relating the story of the deportation of Mehmed Bey’s father Minnet
Bey to this area, includes a remark according to which Mehmed Bey built a kervansaray
and an imaret there, but it is difficult to assert to what date exactly this information
refers. In any case, considering that Mehmed Bey’s career seems to have reached its
peak towards the 1460s, one may suppose that his buildings in Upper Thrace were
commissioned about that time, or probably up to a decade earlier. The available sources
also do not allow any decisive conclusions as to whether the complex was initially
designed and built in its entity, or some of the buildings were added in later times.
The sources at hand suggest that Mehmed Bey created all needed conditions for
the development of a small kasaba, situated on the main road linking Istanbul and
Belgrade, the ancient Via Militaris. He built a Friday mosque, bath, imaret, caravanserai,

672
BOA, TD 27, f. 141 and BOA, TD 135 (A.H. 932/1525-1526), f. 126.
254

supposedly together with a number of smaller buildings for the service personnel and a
residence for himself and his family. It is also plausible that the mosque and the imaret
constituted a single structure, a multifunctional T-type building, but could have also
been separate buildings, since in the second half of the fifteenth century the T-type
buildings were not as frequently commissioned as in the preceding period. The
disappearing of all the buildings that once constituted the complex deprives the
researchers from the possibility of closer observations on the structure and architecture
of Mehmed Bey’s establishment.
The salaries of the staff and the upkeep of the buildings of the complex were
provided by a pious foundation that must have been established soon after their
completion. It cannot be specified when the endowment deed was drawn up since there
is no extant copy of it in the main archives in Istanbul, Ankara, or Sofia. The first
administrator (mütevelli) was most likely Mehmed Bey himself, because later documents
attest that the post was held on hereditary basis by his descendents. Thus, one may
presume that a settlement, which received such massive boost, would develop rapidly
and become a prosperous small town that would attract many new settlers. Mehmed Bey
must have imitated the accomplishments of his fellow-raider commanders from the
families of greater prominence such as the İshakoğlus or the Mihaloğlus with whom he
was in close contact and cooperation in the western Balkans. Almost without an
exception the influential lords of the marches created in their family domains complexes
of public buildings of similar type that later developed into new towns. Moreover, often
the new settlements that were strategically located on one of the main roads attracted the
255

attention of other raider commanders who also became patrons of public buildings there
thus contributing for the development of the settlement. In this respect the mosque of
Mehmed Bey in Sarajevo, which İsa Bey created less than a decade earlier can provide
an excellent example.
However, in spite of what Mehmed Bey’s initial plan for the development of
Konuş seems to have been, it does not appear to have worked out. In the late 1470s the
political conditions in the empire changed dramatically as the central Ottoman authority
attempted to limit the enormous power exercised by the lords of the marches by
depriving many of them from their landed estates.673 It appears that Mehmed Bey lost
Mehmed II’s favor completely because his recently established foundation that had to
provide for the upkeep of his complex in Konuş was abrogated, returned under the
control of the state treasury and apportioned to timars. The exact impact of the
confiscation of the properties of Mehmed Bey’s foundation is unknown but it certainly
must have brought difficulties to the family, whose complex in Konuş remained without
means of support. This state of affairs, however, did not last very long, because soon
after his enthronement in 1481 Bayezid II (1481-1512) restored Mehmed Bey’s
foundation and reaffirmed the endowment deed. A note in the large synoptic register of
1530 relates that the lands given by Mehmed II in full proprietorship to Mehmed Bey
were confiscated, but Bayezid II reestablished the family’s proprietorship over the

673
This process is often referred to in the historiography as “Mehmed II’s land reform”. For an overview
that discusses the historiography to date see Halil İnalcık. “Autonomous enclaves in Islamic states: temlîks,
soyurgals, yurdluk-ocaklıks, mâlikâne-mukâta’as and awqâf.” in Judith Pfeiffer and Sholeh A. Quinn
(eds.), History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East. Studies in honor of
John E. Woods (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006), 112-134.
256

foundation.674 Another document dating from approximately the same time testifies that
the management of the pious foundation supporting the zaviye of Mehmed Bey’s spouse
Durpaşa Hatun in Edirne was brought back in the hands of their son Alihan, thus
pointing to the reestablished position of the family.675
The Ottoman administrative documents from the sixteenth century trace the
growth of Mehmed Bey’s pious foundation and the development of Konuş over time
respectively. The earliest available records of this foundation date to the first half of the
sixteenth century.676 They report that by 1520s the efforts in bringing settlers in the
family domain of Mehmed Bey and his descendants resulted in the creation of two new
small villages in the immediate vicinity of Konuş, which were inhabited by Christians
and Muslims alike.677 The large synoptic register of Rumelia, compiled in 1530 offers
valuable details about the ways in which the new settlements came into being. The

674
“Vakf-i Mehmed Beğ, bin Minnet Beğ, karye-i Konuş. Merhum Sulta[n] Mehmed Han temlik edüp,
sonra timara virilmiş. Ba’de merhum Sultan Bayazid Han gerü mülkiyet ve vakfiyesin mukarrer dutup,
mukarrername virilmiş”[Vakıf of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet Bey, village of Konuş. The deceased sultan
Mehmed has given it as private property, later he allocated it to timars. Afterwards the late sultan Bayazid
Han reaffirmed its status of absolute proprietorship and its endowment deed issuing a document of
confirmation]. BOA, TD 370, f. 102.
675
“Vakf-i Durpaşa Hatun, zevce-i Mehmed Beğ, bin Minnet, der Edirne, der mahalle-i Hisarlık. Evvel
derviş mutasarrıf imiş, şimdiki halde mezkürün oğlu Alihan elindedir. Zaviye-i Durpaşa Hatun: Yunus,
gulâm-i Durpaşa; Olivir, gulâm-i Durpaşa; Yusuf, gulâm-i Durpaşa. hasıl ‘an resm-i çift ve öşr-i hububat
– 391”[Vakıf of Durpaşa Hatun, spouse of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet, in Edirne, in the neighborhood of
Hisarlık. Previously held by a dervish, now in the hands of Alihan, son of the above mentioned. Zaviye of
Durpaşa Hatun: Yunus, slave of Durpaşa; Olivir, slave of Durpaşa; Yusuf, slave of Durpaşa. Revenues
from resm-i çift and tithe of cereals – 391 (akçes)], BOA, TD 20 (A.H. 890/1485-1486), ff. 70-71. The
slaves (gulâm) of Mehmed Bey’s spouse must have been captives from his campaigns in the western
Balkans. Two of them apparently converted to Islam, but one remained Christian and his name Olivir
clearly indicates western origin.
676
Although the detailed register of 1489 (BOA, TD 26) includes some pious foundations in the area of
Filibe it lacks data on the vakıf of Mehmed Bey. The following detailed register of this area (BOA, TD 77
from 1516) has several dozen pages lost at its end, thus also lacks information about most of the vakıfs
there, including this of Mehmed Bey.
677
BOA, TD 73 (A.H. 925/1519-1520), f. 137, which lists an annual income of the foundation from its
surroundings of 11 648 akçes; BOA, TD 138 (A.H. 934/1527-1528), f. 137, with a slight increase of the
totals up to 11 690 akçes.
257

register contains the following note on the new Christian village, situated about a
kilometer south of Mehmed Bey’s complex in Konuş:678
karye-i Bosna, haymaneden gelüb, Konuş sunurunda oturub, haracların

hüvandigâra [sic!] ve ispençeleriyle öşürlerin vakfa virir. Yirmi biş yıl var
imiş
village of Bosna, [the residents] gathered from unsettled ones, settled within
the boundaries of Konuş, they [pay] their poll-tax to the Sultan, their
customary taxes and tithes give to the vakıf. It has been twenty five years.
The very name of the village – Bosna, is a good indicator as for the possible
place of origin of its Christian residents. Given Mehmed Bey’s military career, during
which he was often involved in raids towards the western Balkans, it is arguable that
these people had been gathered and brought to Konuş after some of his raids. Thus while
providing fresh settlers for his emerging kasaba he should have aimed at increasing the
revenues for his pious foundation. The Christian residents, however, did not settle near
the Muslim complex, but at some distance forming a new village instead of adding a
quarter to the Muslim settlement. It must be noted however that at a first glance the note
in the register seems somehow contradictory to the assumption that the Christian settlers
are linked to Mehmed Bey’s military and administrative career in the western Balkans. It
claims that the village was founded twenty five years before the defter was compiled,
thus around 1505, or a date when one would expect that Mehmed Bey was no longer

678
BOA, TD 370, f. 102.
258

active. Unless one assumes that Mehmed Bey lived for quite a long time and had a very
long-lasting career respectively, the information in the source seems to be at odds.
Examining the nature and the way in which the synoptic register of 1530 was
compiled however provides an alternative explanation for the seemingly conflicting date
in which the Christian village of Bosna was created. This document is an integral part of
series of other summary registers prepared in the early years of Süleyman I’s rule (1521-
1566), which had the task to provide the Ottoman administration with an up-to-date
Empire-wide overview of its provincial revenues. As noted in the previous chapters the
1530 register of Rumelia is a compilation of the data contained in a number of various
earlier detailed records as whenever the administration requested the data was updated.
Thus, the large summary register of 1530 contains data from 1516, 1525 or 1530. It is
arguable therefore that the main body of information concerning the pious foundation of
Mehmed Bey, including the entry on the village, was derived from the detailed register
of 1516, while the data regarding its revenues was updated.679

679
In other instances, like the neighboring town of İstanimaka, it is clear that the data in the 1530
summary register was copied without changes from the detailed defter of 1516 (BOA, TD 77). As
mentioned above the related pages in the register of 1516 in which the revenues and tax-payers of
Mehmed Bey’s pious foundation were enlisted have been torn off and lost, therefore the information
cannot be cross-checked. The revenues of the foundation as recorded in 1530 register were certainly up-to-
date, because when compared to the data from the previous two defters (TD 73 and TD 138) one could
notice an increase of the annual revenues – 16 210 akçes. BOA, TD 370, f. 102.
259

Table 1. Revenues of the vakıf of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet Bey
Date Total Revenues in akçes

1519/1520 11 648
1527/1528 11 690
1530 16 210
1570 23 457
1596 23 457
1519/20=BOA TD 73; 1527/28=BOA TD 138; 1530=BOA TD 370; 1570=BOA TD 498;
1596=BOA TD 470
In such a case the note in the document describing the establishment of the
village of Bosna, according to which it was created twenty five years earlier, should be
regarded as referring to 1516 and not to 1530 when the entry was simply copied by the
Ottoman scribe from the previous register. Therefore, one must consider an earlier date
for the arrival of the Bosnian settlers in Konuş, most probably the early 1490s or the late
1480s.680 The fact that Mehmed Bey might have been still active at that time is also
supported by the presence of several captives in the zaviye of his spouse in Edirne.681
The data in the register concerning the newly created Muslim village in Mehmed
Bey’s vakıf, is likewise very concise, stating only that the residents of Kaşıkçı settled
within the boundaries of Konuş and paid their tithes to the pious foundation.682 The
favorable conditions in the vakıf land and the relative prosperity of the pious foundation
must have been among the reasons for the choice of the new settlers. The area around

680
The detailed register TD 77 was compiled in 1516, but the actual registration should have been
executed a year or two earlier.
681
BOA, TD 20, f. 70.
682
BOA, TD 370, f. 102.
260

Konuş on the other hand is well suited for rice-growing and apparently some of the
newcomers found it attractive as well. Since the imaret of Mehmed Bey actually needed
considerable amounts of rice in order to maintain its functions, by 1530 the first twenty
six rice-growers (çeltükçü) working for Mehmed Bey’s foundation, appeared in the
register, as three of them settled in the new village of Kaşıkçı. 683 In the following
records both the number of rice-growers and the scale of production increased
drastically clearly pointing at the increased necessities of the soup kitchen.
However concise in details concerning the possessions of Mehmed Bey, the
sources at hand provide even less information about the pious foundation’s founder – it
is unclear when exactly he died, nor yet we know of his burial place. In case he spent the
last years of his life in the family residence in Konuş, he should have been buried there,
presumably in the courtyard of his mosque. Evliya Çelebi speaks of Mehmed Bey and
Konuş in three separate sections of his travel accounts.684 He insists that Mehmed Bey
was buried in Konuş in a domed mausoleum that was built for him by sultan Mehmed
I. 685 The traveler’s account though seems somewhat confused and Evliya certainly
misplaces Mehmed Bey’s lifetime in much earlier period, attributing all buildings of the
complex to Mehmed I.686

683
BOA, TD 370, f. 102. The village of Kaşıkçı numbered altogether twenty five households.
684
Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (eds.), Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (2. Kitap)
(İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 28; Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (eds.), Evliya Çelebi
Seyahatnamesi. Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap) (İstanbul:
Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 212-13; Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (eds.), Evliyâ Çelebi
Seyahatnamesi (6. Kitap) (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002), 69.
685
686
Most probably Evliya mixed him up with another personage – the above mentioned Minnet Bey who
was captured by Timur at the battle of Ankara. He was later released and became one of Prince Musa’s
commanders in Rumelia. Sürreyya. Sicil-i Osmani, 515.
261

The available information on the history of the family after the death of Mehmed
Bey is likewise very scarce. He undoubtedly had a son, named Alihan, who during the
mid-1480s administered the foundation of his mother’s zaviye in Edirne. It is not clear
whether he also inherited the command of his father’s contingent, but apparently the
family retained the leadership over a sizable detachment, thus its importance in the
political affairs of Rumelia was not weakened completely after Mehmed Bey’s death. In
the early sixteenth century another member of the family, probably a grandson of
Mehmed Bey, Minnetoğlu Kazgan Bey sided with Selim I (1512-1521) in his struggle
against Bayezid II, thus turning against the ruler who restored the landed properties of
the family. Kazgan Bey who joined the group of prominent leaders from other powerful
Rumelian families, assembled by Selim I at Kafa (Feodossia ) and Akkerman, seemed to
have had under his command a sizable contingent that matched these brought by the
Mihaloğlus, the Gümlüoğlus, or İsfendiyaoğlu Celil Çelebi.687
Although Minnetoğlu Kazgan Bey was among the mightiest beys in the Balkans
who brought to power sultan Selim I, it appears that Mehmed Bey’s other descendents
did not follow a military career, but rather contented themselves by taking the place of
vakıf administrators (mütevelli). Despite the lack of any specific information as to who
succeeded the patron of the vakıf immediately after his death, an imperial order of May
1550 reveals that one of his descendents, Mehmed Çelebi, was deprived from the post of

687
The full list of the Beys from the Balkans who supported the then şehzade Selim and thus brought him
to the throne, along with the amount of money allocated to each of the commanders as a reward for his
support, is analyzed in detail in Hakkı Erdem Çıpa. The Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of
Selim I, 1487-1512 (PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), 258-261. I am grateful to Dr. Çıpa for
providing me with his unpublished work and for his numerous valuable suggestions and critical comments.
262

administrator of Mehmed Bey’s pious foundation in Konuş.688 This document does not
explicitly refer to the person in question as a family member, but a note in the detailed
register of 1570, provides the necessary evidence, leaving little doubt that the foundation
was managed on a hereditary basis.689 In the section related to the personnel of Mehmed
Bey’s imaret the register enlists all individuals who received payment from the vakıf.
According to the document the administrator of the pious foundation in 1570 690 was
certain Mustafa Bey, son of Mehmed Çelebi, who was from among the descendents of
the owner of the vakıf.691 Therefore, since the document points the administrator in 1570
as a descendent of Mehmed Bey, it effectively establishes his father Mehmed Çelebi, the
deposed administrator of 1550, as a descendent of Mehmed Bey too. There is no reason
to doubt that all of the unknown previous administrators were from the lineage of the
founder of the pious foundation. Comparison with the pious foundations of the mightier
akıncı dynasties such as the Evrenosoğlus or the Mihaloğlus, which remained in the
hands of the families until the beginning of the twentieth century, brings more strength
to such a proposition.692
The descendants of Mehmed Bey, who were managing the family foundation,
seem to have been unable to build good relations with the central Ottoman
administration. On the contrary, they appear to have been in constant conflict. Twenty

688
The order was copied in a court record (sicil) of Sofia. Galab Galabov. Die Protokollbücher des
Kadiamtes Sofia, herausgegeben von Herbert W. Duda. (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1960), 9.
689
BOA, TD 498, f. 639.
690
Likewise although the defter was compiled in 1570 its data refers to a year or two earlier.
691
‘Mustafa Bey, bin Mehmed Çelebi – mütevelli-i vakıf. ‘An evlâd-i sahib-i vakıf’. BOA, TD 498, f. 639.
692
Lowry and Erünsal provide a list of the known mütevellis of Gazi Evrenos’s vakıf in Yenice-i Vardar.
Heath Lowry and İsmail Erünsal. The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar: Notes & Documents (Istanbul:
Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010), 9-171. The information concerning the pious foundations of the
Mihaloğlu family I owe to Mariya Kiprovska.
263

years after Mehmed Çelebi’s deposition in 1550, his son Mustafa Bey had to face a
similar fate. In the fall of 1565 the central bureaucracy ordered the kadı of Filibe to
inspect the account books of some of the pious foundations in his district.693 An imperial
decree of 5 May 1570 reveals that based on this inspection the mütevelli of the
foundation Mustafa Bey was accused of malpractices and appropriation of significant
amount of money. Since no one was willing to become his guarantor, he was detained
and brought to Filibe. When his relatives found out of these events they marched to
Filibe in charge of a detachment of azabs, broke into the prison and set all detainees free.
However, it turned out that the local subaşı, whose house was also attacked and pillaged,
had in the meantime transferred Mustafa Bey to a safer place under the guard of his
entrusted men. The azabs left the city empty-handed, but until the next morning the
mütevelli Mustafa Bey, together with the watchmen appointed by the subaşı,
disappeared without a trace. The sultan urged the local kadı to investigate the case and
punish those who created the disorder.694 Mustafa Bey’s further fate is unknown, but he
was most probably replaced as administrator of the vakıf by his son Yusuf, who retained
the position at least until 1596, when a tahrir registration recorded him as the mütevelli
of the foundation in Konuş.695

693
The register of the Imperial financial matters (Maliye Ahkâm Defteri) BOA, MAD 2775, f. 364
contains a copy of this decree, dating from 6-15 October 1565. It ordered the inspection of the account
books of the vakıfs of Karlıoğlu Ali Bey and Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey in the kaza of Filibe. Likewise,
orders for the inspection of the vakıfs of Zağanos Paşa in Balıkesir, Evrenos Bey in Gümülcine,
Evrenosoğlu Ahmed Bey in Tatar Pazarcık, Uruc Bey in Dimetoka, Sinan Bey in Karınabad, İbrahim Paşa
in Kavala, etc. were also prepared and dispatched to the local kadıs.
694
12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (978-979/1570-1572) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü,
1996), mühimme no. 55.
695
BOA, TD 470, f. 665.
264

The register of 1570 is the earliest available document that can provide detailed
information about Mehmed Bey’s complex in Konuş, its possessions and complete list
of its tax-payers.696 According to the document there were fifteen individuals involved in
the service of the complex, which formed the nucleus of Konuş. Apart of the mütevelli
of the vakıf, the above mentioned Mustafa Bey, who was to be soon imprisoned, the
register lists also a hatib, an imam and a müezzin in service of the mosque and a number
of servants in the imaret such as its şeyh, kâtib, kilâri, anbari, vekil-i harc, tabbah,
habbaz etc.697
Table 2. Population of the vakıf of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet Bey in 1570
Muslims Christians
Location Household Household

Unmarried Unmarried
s s
nefs-i Konuş 23 - - -
Bosna - - 55 -
Turudlu 20 - - -
Kaşıkçı 23 1 - -
Novasel, n.d. Lala - - 13 1
çeltükçiyan 93 - - -
gılmanan - - 3 -
TOTAL 159 1 71 1

696
BOA, TD 498, ff. 639-43.
697
BOA, TD 498, f. 639.
265

Around the main settlement, in its immediate surroundings, there were three
other small villages – the above mentioned Christian village called Bosna, which had
grown considerably since 1530, attracting to its second quarter settlers who previously
did not have permanent residence; the Muslim Kaşıkçı, which also expanded with a new
mahalle and the completely new village of Turudlu, whose residents moved to the
territory of the vakıf from another unspecified location. In the intervening forty years
between the two registrations another new Christian village also appeared within the
boundaries of Mehmed Bey’s pious foundation. The entry in the register provides its
name, Novasel (i.e. new village) or Lalam698, and specifies that the village was formed
from tax-payers who had previously resided in the lands of the vakıf and from
newcomers who did not have permanent residence. 699 The creation of the new
settlements is illustrative for the policy of the administrators of the foundation. They
continued the practice of attracting wandering peasants, potential tax-payers who were
willing to settle in the territory of the vakıf thus increasing its revenues. In 1570 the
village of Bosna had already 58 Christian households in its two mahalles, while in
Kaşıkçı’s two neighborhoods there were 20 households and 4 bachelors. The new village
of Turudlu had altogether 20 households.
The rice production also expanded considerably in the intervening years and by
that date there were 97 Muslim rice-growers permanently occupied in the cultivation.
The rice-fields, which in 1530 must have been in the immediate surroundings of Konuş,
by 1570 spread out in the plain and reached the neighboring villages, like Aziz Beylü

698
Later the village was known as Lala Pınarı.
699
BOA, TD 498, f. 644.
266

(modern Izbegli), where the vakıf was in possession of a rice-mill. It is not possible to
identify the new villages created on the territory of the pious foundation, because later
they joined the main settlement thus becoming its quarters. The registers explicitly
underline that the newly established villages were located within the boundaries of
Konuş, thus in the seventeenth or eighteenth century the Muslims formed the so-called
Turkish Konuş, while the Christian residents joined in a larger village known as
Bulgarian Konuş.700
The defter of 1570 also presents the earliest available evidence for the existence
of a public bath in Konuş the tax-farming of which yielded to the pious foundation an
annual revenue of 900 akçes.701 The bath was a natural addition to the imaret, mosque
and kervansaray of Mehmed Bey, therefore it is highly likely that its foundations were
laid down together with the rest of the buildings in the complex. It must have been very
modest in size because the hamam that Mehmed Bey built in Nish about the same time
rendered to the vakıf four times as much annual income.
The fact that there was a public bath in Konuş raises the question of how the
complex was supplied with fresh water. In spite of being located on the banks of a small
stream, Mehmed Bey’s compound must have been in need of more running water in
order to maintain its functions. Despite the lack of any documentary evidence, it is likely

700
Kostadin Kostadinov. Mestnite imena v Asenovgradsko (Asenovgrad: Ekobelan, 1997), 51-52. Türker
Acaroğlu. Bulgaristan’da Türkçe Yer Adları Kılavuzu (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2006), 617. The
Turkish Konuş disappeared, but its exact location is seen on the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
maps: Rumili Şahane Haritası, Erkan-i Harbiye-i Umumiye Dairesi 1:210 000, Filibe. A.H. 1317/1899.
Generalkarte von Mitteleuropa 1:200 000, 43°-42° Stara Zagora (Eski Zagra). Herausgegeben vom
Militärgeographischen Institut in Wien, 1940.
701
BOA, TD 498, f. 642. “’an mukata’a-i hamam-i Konuş, fi sene – 900 [akçes]” [from the tax-farm of
the public bath in Konuş, annually – 900 [akçes]].
267

that potable water was brought through a short aqueduct from the nearby hills. The local
people in today’s entirely Christian Konuş gladly relate a story about one Turk who had
built in the past an aqueduct and point to its former location. In this respect one may
assume that the patron of the complex might have also built an aqueduct in order to
supply it with enough fresh water. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the aqueduct was
built later on by some of Mehmed Bey’s descendents when a need for more water in
Konuş increased.
Being located on the path of the important diagonal road that crossed the Balkans,
Konuş was visited by a number of westerners who were going to or coming from
Istanbul. The most detailed physical description of Mehmed Bey’s complex was left by
Stephan Gerlach, who visited it in June 1578. According to Gerlach, Konuş was a small
Turkish village, where above the small river, there was a lead-covered han, next to
which was situated the mosque, the vast courtyard of which included a nice fountain
with fresh cold water. Travelers and poor were offered rice and bread in the imaret of
the mosque.702 Gerlach’s depiction of the main lead-covered buildings of Mehmed Bey’s
complex leaves little doubt about their imposing character. A decade earlier
Marcantonio Pigafetta, who saw Konuş as inhabited both by Bulgarians and Turks,
described Mehmed Bey’s mosque as “built of stone and marble, very beautiful” 703 ,
which also bespeaks of a massive, very likely richly decorated building. In the 1550s
Catharin Zen and Gaspare Erizzo, who passed through Konuş, also testify to the mixed

702
Mariya Kiselincheva. Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane do Osmanskata porta v Tsarigrad
(Sofia: Otechestven Front, 1976), 257-58.
703
Matković, Petar. “Putovanja po Balkanskom poluotoku XVI. vjieka, X. Putopis Marka Antuna
Pigafette, ili drugo putovanje Antuna Vrančića u Carigrad 1567. godine.” Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije
Znanosti i Umjetnosti 100 (1890): 117.
268

character of its inhabitants – Turks and Christians, pointing to the presence of a mosque,
imaret and “good stables” referring in all probability to the kervansaray, called han by
Gerlach.704 In addition, Evliya Çelebi also relates that hot soup was offered to all visitors
and travelers at the imaret every day at dawn and late afternoon.705
With all due skepticism to Evliya’s account, one must also add the domed lead-
covered türbe of Mehmed Bey706, described by the Ottoman traveler, to the mosque,
imaret, caravanserai, and hamam that can be certainly identified as part of the complex
in Konuş. It is highly likely that at the mosque or in a separate building there was a
functioning Muslim primary school (mekteb). It is unknown when the school was first
opened, but in the eighteenth century the instructor (mu’allim) received a daily salary of
four akçes. The accounting register of the vakıf (muhasebe defteri) from 1755-1756
indicates that certain Mehmed Efendi received a daily salary of 4 akçes for his duties of
mu’allim-i sıbiyan in Konuş.707 A bit later in 1779 one Mehmed Emin Halife received

704
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):
214 and 255. A bit earlier Schepper left the following short note on Konuş: “Estanz montez à cheval,
sommes venuz en ung bourg appellé Comis, où y at une grande meschita, edifice de Menelogly”- 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. For a
complete list of western travelers who visited Konuş see Stephane Yerasimos. Les Voyageurs dans
l’Empire ottoman (XIVe – XVIe siècles) (Ankara: Imprimerie de la Société Turque d’Histoire, 1991).
705
706
Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 2, 28; Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol. 3, 212-13 Evliya Çelebi
Seyahatnamesi, vol. 6, 2002, 69.
707
BOA, TSMA D. 5671-0001, f. 1b.
269

the same payment for performing his duties at the mekteb. 708 Daily salary of 4 akçes was
about the average payment of the instructors in primary schools in the region.709
The settlements surrounding the nucleus of Konuş, like the recently established
Novasel, continued to expand in the intervening years prior the tahrir registration of
1596.710 For quarter of a century the village tripled its population, having 39 Christian
households and 13 unmarried tax-payers. Many of the taxpayers in the Christian village
were certainly migrants, because some of them were explicitly mentioned either as
haymane or preseliç, terms which indicate their recent arrival there. The defter also
recorded a group of 12 individuals serving at the imaret in Konuş, 88 Muslim rice-
growers dispersed in the fields around, 13 Muslim households in the village of Turudlu,
and 57 Christian families in Bosna’s two quarters. The Muslim village of Kaşıkçı,
located in the immediate vicinities of Konuş had 25 households and 5 unmarried tax-
payers.

708
Hasan Telli. Osmanlı Döneminde Bazı Filibe Vakıfları (MA Thesis, Ankara University, 2002), 123-124.
709
Orlin Săbev. Osmanski uchilishta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII vek (Sofia: Lubomădrie-Hronika, 2001),
221-267.
710
BOA, TD 470, f. 669.
270

Table 3. Population of the vakıf of Mehmed Bey, son of Minnet Bey in 1596
Muslims Christians
Location Household Household
Unmarried Unmarried
s s
nefs-i Konuş 19 5 - -
Bosna - - 54 -
Turudlu 13 - - -
Kaşıkçı 25 5 - -
Novasel, n.d. Lala - - 39 13
çeltükçiyan 88 - - -
gılmanan - - 3 -
TOTAL 145 10 96 13
The documentary evidence shows that by the end of the sixteenth century the
possessions of Mehmed Bey’s pious foundation comprised of the nucleus in Konuş,
where a kervansaray, mosque with imaret, public bath, residence for the administrators,
along with other service buildings were placed, and two Muslim and two Christian
villages in its immediate surroundings. Situated very close by one another, the Christian
villages of Bosna and Novasel/Lala Pınarı merged in a single entity in the years to come,
which was located less than two kilometers to the south of the complex. The fate of the
two Muslim villages was similar and they likewise joined the main settlement, forming
the so-called Turkish Konuş.
The growing importance of Konuş in the area did not remain overlooked by the
central Ottoman administration. In the sixteenth century it was made an administrative
center of a nahiye that included several dozens of villages in the open plain and in the
271

Rhodope Mountains to the south.711 Thus Konuş turned into the natural center of the
region that was preferred by the Ottoman authorities before the much larger, but
exclusively Christian, neighboring town of İstanimaka. It seems that one of the reasons
that lead the Ottoman administration in favoring the smaller in size Konuş was the fact
that the complex of Mehmed Bey, which implemented the symbols of Islamic
domination in Thrace and displayed the presence of the Ottoman dynasty too, was
located there. More notably, the area surrounding Konuş was used by the numerous
Tatars and Yürüks as winter quarters (kışlak) of their herds. It is noteworthy that all the
villages deep in the Rhodopes that belonged to the nahiye of Konuş are situated at an
altitude between 700 and 1000 meters thus providing excellent conditions for
transhumance. The nomads, Tatars and Yürüks spent the summers at the high lands and
descended in the plain near Konuş in the late autumn, where the dried out rice-fields
offered excellent wintering conditions. The authority of the Minnetoğlus, hereditary
leaders of such nomadic groups, must have been used by the Ottoman administration in
administering the region and collecting the taxes and dues of these seasonal migrants.
4.4. Why Konuş never turned into a town?
Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey attempted to create and promote a new town in his
family domain, situated in the vast Thracian plain near Filibe. Certainly he was not a

711
Borisov, Vakăfskata institutsia v Rodopite, 101-103.
272

pioneer, but rather imitated his fellow-raider commanders, who were present in the
Balkans for two or three generations already. The Ottoman conquest of the region,
largely driven by these akıncı ucbeyis, along with the inevitable destruction
accompanying any military endeavor, brought a significant modification and
revitalization of the subdued territories. The powerful Balkan march lords, who ruled
parts of the peninsula almost independently in the course of and shortly after its
conquest, had a noteworthy output in this process. The might concentrated in the
ucbeyis’ hands was decidedly manifested not only in their successful military campaigns,
but also in the creation and development of a number of new settlements all over the
Balkans. Many of these newly created towns were fortunate enough to turn into some of
the most prominent and admirable Balkan cities. Historiography up until very recently,
when discussing the urban development of the Balkans under Ottoman rule, often
neglected the crucial role of the march lords and generally attributed the creation of the
numerous new settlements to the undetermined and flexible term “the Ottomans”.712 In
contrast, quite a few modern towns in the Balkans owe their existence to the
architectural compounds commissioned by one of the akıncı leaders, which often
attracted the attention of the relatives or fellows from other dynasties who also
contributed to the settlement’s development.
The career of Mehmed Bey can be seen as a typical example of the ideas, aims
and efforts of the fifteenth-century Balkan march lords. He had a significant output in

712
A number of pioneering articles by Machiel Kiel in the past half a century as also recent studies by
Heath Lowry on the urban centers dominated by the dynasty of Gazi Evrenos acknowledged the role and
importance of the border commanders in the Balkans in the process of creating and developing new towns.
273

the development of both Sarajevo and Smederevo, places which also attracted the
attention and sponsorship of many other border commanders. Imitating the beys of the
more prominent dynasties, Mehmed Bey also tried to create and promote an entirely new
settlement in his family domain. This was an ambitious task and he must have spent a lot
of resources and energy in constructing the complex in Konuş in the second half of the
fifteenth century. However, it seems that his initial plans to promote his powerbase and
to turn it into a vivid town had to face a failure, since Konuş never lost its rural
appearance. Finally, ironically enough, it was leveled to the ground by the descendents
of the very same people whom Mehmed Bey settled there earlier in order to provide
revenues for his pious foundation and thus disappeared for good.713
There are at least several reasons that can provide for an explanation of the
failure of Mehmed Bey’s otherwise promising project. The spot he selected for his
complex seemed well-chosen, because of its location on the main Balkan highway since
the Antiquity – the Roman Via Militaris, thus one would expect a rapid development due
to the traffic on the important highway. However, only a few decades after the complex
was established, the main road shifted its path to the north and Konuş remained isolated
on a secondary, rarely used, spare road which also explains why not so many western
travelers crossed it.714 The choice of the exact branch of the road, after the travelers
passed through Filibe on their way toward Istanbul, pretty much depended on the current

713
On the destruction of Turkish Konuş see Boykov, “Vanished Ottoman Monuments”, 63-64.
714
On the Via Militaris road in Ottoman times, the classical work of Constantin Jireček. Die Heerstrasse
von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe. Eine historisch-geographische Studie (Prag:
Verlag von F. Tempsky, 1877), still remains the most authoritative work. The branches of the road which
splits after Filibe and rejoin at Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa (Svilengrad) are marked on map #14 appended in
Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman.
274

weather conditions or the preference of their guides. Nevertheless, most of the
westerners preferred the path running through Papazalı (mod. Popovitsa) 715 , a few
kilometers north of Konuş, thus indicating that this section was used as the main road,
while the segment passing through Konuş remained in use, but only as a secondary,
spare way.
It also seems that Mehmed Bey missed the exact timing for such an enterprise.
At the time when he began his complex, the area for almost a century was no longer a
border zone and most of the energy and financial support of the periphery forces in the
Ottoman society was already concentrated in the new frontier region in Serbia and
Bosnia. Thus the march lords of that time must have found Konuş unattractive, besides,
whenever they sponsored public buildings in Upper Thrace, they chose places with
higher strategic importance, like the town of Tatar Pazarcık for instance.716 An eventual
patronage on the part of the other raider commanders undoubtedly would have brought
an enormous boost in the development of the emerging settlement. The inability to
attract the support of the beys must have been of vital importance for Konuş’s further
development. Mehmed Bey did not descend from one of the powerful and rich dynasties,
but rather made a name on his own, therefore one would expect that his financial

715
Oddly enough in 1660s Kethüda Mehmed Paşa attempted to elevate the village of Papazlı (i.e. priest’s
village) to a town, ironically renaming it to kasaba of İslâmlu. According to his endowment deed he built
in the village a number of public buildings endowing to his foundation the nearby rice-fields and other
properties. Just as Konuş never turned into a town Papazlı remained a village as the new name was hardly
in any other use but is the fantasies of the patron. The endowment deed of Kethüda Mehmed Paşa is
discussed by Svetlana Ivanova. “Golemi vakăfi na osmankiya elit v Rumeliya, XVII-XVIII v.” in Raya
Zaimova and Nikolay Aretov (eds.), Pari, dumi, pamet (Sofia: Kralitsa Mab, 2004), 111-115, without a
benefit of a reference to the original document and where it is housed.
716
Grigor Boykov. Tatar Pazardžik. Ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraya na XVII vek. Izsledvania i
dokumenti (Sofia: Amicitia, 2008), 33-61.
275

resources were limited. Moreover, not only was Mehmed Bey relying on his own efforts
alone, but his descendents did not seem to follow their father’s steps and none of them
turned into an influential and strong military leader, hence securing an influx of
revenues through warfare. On the contrary, they appear to have been in constant conflict
with the central Ottoman government as several of them were deposed as administrators
of the family foundation on the explicit order of the sultan. The tension between the
central authority and the family certainly did not favor the development of Konuş.
Furthermore, the descendents of Mehmed Bey did not prove to be skilled administrators
of their ancestor’s foundation and no major additions to the complex were made in later
times.
The family of Minnetoğlus appeared in Rumelia as tribal leaders and it seems
that they could never break the connection with the large number of nomads who
surrounded Konuş every winter. Mehmed Bey’s aim to promote a town that he created
from scratch appears to have been an overambitious task for a person of his magnitude.
It could not turn into one of the many modern cities in the Balkans which owe their
existence to the creative energy of the Ottoman border society. Nevertheless this failed
attempt deserves scholarly attention, because if examined together with other successful
or unsuccessful enterprises of its kind could provide a vivid demonstration of the ideas
and processes in the early Ottoman society, in which the raider commanders took an
important place. The case of Konuş therefore is a sound example of the might of the
beys of the marches and their aspiration for taking a well-deserved part in the process of
empire building. Being an indispensable component of the Ottoman conquests and often
276

the driving force behind them, the border lords accumulated great power in their hands.
By creating their own powerbases and thus giving birth to new settlements in the
predominantly Christian Balkan territories, on the one hand they manifested the acquired
influence in the Ottoman society and represented the authority of the new Ottoman
masters in the conquered lands, on the other.
277

CHAPTER FIVE
THE SUCCESSFUL PROJECT – THE EMERGENCE OF THE TOWN OF
KARLOVA (KARLOVO)
In contrast with the failed attempt of Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey to create a new
town in Thrace, this chapter focuses on a similar in time and scale project that was
likewise carried out by a single person, but was nevertheless successful in giving birth to
a new settlement, which over time turned into an important provincial urban center. The
town of Karlova (mod. Karlovo), created by an Ottoman dignitary, Ali Bey, son of Karlı,
was the center of the nahiye of Göpsa throughout the Ottoman period and still remains
the largest and the most important place in the district. Its foundation and development
can be seen as yet another model of urban development in the Ottoman Balkans.
Certainly Karlova came into being thanks to the patronage of an important individual
connected to the Ottoman ruling elite, who established it on a blank spot and contributed
278

to its further development, but the rapidly growing importance of the new town must
undoubtedly be attributed to the inherited local pre-Ottoman tradition.
5.1. The region and the pre-Ottoman Kopsis
The town of Karlova, located about 55 km north of Filibe, dominates the valley
of the Stryama River (Ott. Göpsu) that flows in a vast plain, enclosed by the high
mountain range of Stara Planina (Ott. Koca Balkan) from the north and by the low hills
of Sredna Gora (Ott. Karaca Dağ) from the south. (Map 2) The Göpsu River cuts
through Sredna Gora and through a wide gorge it flows to the southeast. Crossing the
plain of Upper Thrace it joins the Maritsa near the village of Papazlı (mod. Popovitsa)
next to the path of the Via Militaris road. The eastern edge of the plain of Karlova
reaches the mountain pass of Kalofer while the eminences of Koznitsa near the town of
Klisura (Ott. Prisadim derbend) enclose it from west. Situated at an average altitude of
380 m the plain of Karlova occupies a territory of 280 sq. km that is crossed by a
number of smaller streams running into Göpsu River, which traverses the plain from
west to east.717
Not only the favorable geographic setting of the region, protected by the
mountains from all sites, but also its location on a point of intersection of some of the

717
Ivan Undžiev. Karlovo. Istoriya na grada do Osvoboždenieto (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
1962), 7-8.
279

main passage ways in the area brought about the prosperity of Karlova. The plain of
Karlova was a place of distribution of several key secondary roads that crossed modern
Bulgaria from east to west and from north to south since the Antiquity. Probably the
most important of these roads was the one linking Filibe with the Danubian plain. It ran
northward of Filibe and roughly following the bed of Göpsu the road entered the plain of
Karlovo near the village of Mihiltsi (Ott. Mihaillü) where it bended westward for about
25 km. Reaching the village of Hristo Danovo (Ott. Tekke köy) the road switched back
northward and crossing the Balkan range at the pass known as “Beklemeto” it continued
toward Nicopolis (Ott. Niğbolu) on the Danube River. 718 The road was built by the
Romans over an earlier Thracian road and it was in continuous use throughout the
Middle Ages and the Ottoman period. In Ottoman times the stretch from this road,
linking Filibe and the mountain pass of Beklemeto, was known as the Gaziler yolu, i.e.
the Road of the warriors of the faith. This main road running north-south was traversed
at Hristo Danovo by another Roman road that was coming from the Black sea coast and
entered the plain of Karlova at Kalofer as leaving the plain at Klisura it continued
westward toward Zlatitsa (Ott. İzladi) and Sofia. It also remained in use in the Ottoman
period as it must have been this very road that Murad II took on his retreat to Edirne
after the battle of Zlatitsa in the late 1443. 719 Further eastward the same road, after

718
Overview of the scholarship to date, dealing with the ancient and medieval road network in the region
of Philippopolis can be found in Ani Dancheva-Vasileva. Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV-XIV vek)
(Sofia: Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House, 2009), 412-433. For a fine detailed study on the
Roman road see Mitko Madžarov. Rimskiyat păt Oescus-Philippopol. Pătni stantsii i selishta (Plovdiv:
Samizdat, 2005).
719
Halil İnalcık. Fatih Devri üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar (Ankara: Türk Tarih Krumu, 1954), 11.
280

crossing the Kalofer pass, was reaching the town of Kazanlık (Ott. Akça Kazanlık)720
where an important intersection of it split northward, leading to the capital of the Second
Bulgarian Kingdom Tărnovo through the mountain pass of Shipka.
The plain of Karlova, referred to by the Ottoman sources as Göpsa, and the river
of Göpsu were named after the medieval town of Kopsis, which was the seat of a
Bulgarian aristocratic family that played an important role in late-thirteenth and early
fourteenth-century Bulgarian and Byzantine politics.721 The capital of the family estate
seems to have been a town of primary importance since it dominated the toponymy of
the entire region. Nevertheless, for more than a century the exact location of the fortified
town of Kopsis, the seat of power of the medieval Bulgarian aristocratic family, whose
domain was integrated into the Bulgarian state, but seemed to have preserved its
administrative entity, was a matter of scholarly debate as various locations in the Göpsa
plain were suggested for its specific site.722
Recent archaeological findings however established with a great degree of
certainty the precise location of the medieval Kopsis, placing it at the foot of the Balkan

720
Akça Kazanlık was also a new town, established in the Ottoman period about 1400s. It was in the area
of influence of the lords of Çirmen Saruca Paşa and his son Urum Bey, who became a patron of a number
of public buildings there. On a low hill, very next to the renowned Thracian mausoleum, there is a domed
brick-made baldachin under which is believed to be buried the intestines of Lala Şahin Paşa. Machiel Kiel.
“Kazanlık” in TDVİA.
721
The most successful member of the family, the despot Smilets, managed to occupy the Bulgarian
throne in the period 1292-1298. Petăr Nikov. “Tatarobălgarski otnosheniya prez srednite vekove s ogleg
kăm tsaruvaneto na Smiletsa.” Godishnik na Sofiyskia universitet, istoriko-filosofski fakultet 15-16 (1921),
1-95.
722
The discussion about the location of Kopsis was begun in the nineteenth century by Constantin Jireček.
Geschichte der Bulgaren (Prag: Verlag F. von Tempsky, 1876), 289 and Vladimir and Karel Škorpil.
Nyakoi beležki vărhu arheologicheskite i istoricheskite izsledvaniya v Trakiya (Plovdiv: Oblastna
pechatnitsa, 1885), 39. Cf. Petăr Mutafchiev. “Stari gradishta i drumove iz dolinata na Stryama i
Topolnitsa.” in idem. Săbrani săchineniya, vol. 1 (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1973), 314-317.
281

range, only 6 km west from the Ottoman town of Karlova.723 The medieval settlement
consisted of a fortified citadel and an inner town built on the natural terraces beneath it.
The citadel (known locally as Anevsko kale) was constructed on a very steep hill
making excellent use of the terrain. It was designed to accommodate the members of the
aristocratic family and a small number of officers and soldiers for its defense. The
archaeological finds testify that the fortifications, the residence of the boyars, the church
near it and all service buildings were constructed in the thirteenth century and were in
continuous use until the second half of the fourteenth century.724 (Figs. 79-84) The inner
town that was partially fortified had several churches, quite complex network of streets
and a large necropolis. 725 The archaeological materials bespeak of a well-developed
provincial center of power that was in close economic and cultural exchange with the
capital Tărnovo.726 The medieval town of Kopsis existed until the second half of the
fourteenth century, when it was taken by assault, clearly demonstrated by the marks of a
great fire left on the walls of the citadel.727
The evidence of the waged combat in the 1360s or 1370s, which led to the
destruction of Kopsis, indicates that the Ottoman contingent of Lala Şahin that took
Filibe in the mid-1360s faced resistance in its attempts to subdue the belonging territory.
On the other hand, it should be noted that, following an established pattern, in the course
of the conquest the Ottomans were leaving garrisons only in the larger fortresses and
razed to the ground all smaller strongholds thus preventing eventual resistance attempts

723
Ivan Džambov. Srednovekovna krepost kray Sopot (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1991), 170-179.
724
Džambov, Srednovekovna krepost, 15-70.
725
726
727
282

after the withdrawal of the main armed forces.728 It appears that Kopsis was not the sole
victim of the tactics of the Ottoman conquest in the area. Apparently Lala Şahin
destroyed all of the small strongholds that were part of the Byzantino-Bulgarian defence
line to the south of the Balkan range.729
Despite the destruction of the medieval town of Kopsis and the nearby smaller
strongholds, however, the conquerors preserved the inherited Bulgarian setting, thus
maintaining relative continuity in the development of the subdued region. The Ottomans,
who as a rule, administered the conquered lands by adopting the existing territorial
division, in this case too seem to have left unchanged the territory of the estate of the
Bulgarian boyar family and simply transformed it into a nahiye, a subdivision of the
large kaza of Filibe. Undoubtedly, the name of the nahiye – Göpsa, as well as the
denomination of the river – Göpsu, derived from the name of the seat of the large estate,
the town of Kopsis that was devastated in the course of the conquest. The later Ottoman
documentary sources indicating the boundaries of the nahiye cast suggestive if not fully
illustrative light about the exact territory held by the Bulgarian noble family. The
continuity was not expressed solely by the integration of the area of Göpsa into the
Ottoman administrative system. It seems that the reasons for creating the new center of

728
Halil İnalcık. “Ottoman Methods of Conquest.” Studia Islamica, 2 (1954): 103-129.
729
Many of these strongholds, placed at strategic points in Sredna Gora and the Balkan range, are still
unsatisfactorily studied. However, almost without an exception the excavation results show that the
strongholds in question were ruined in the second half of the fourteenth century. Therefore, it is safe to
state that it was Lala Şahin who destroyed many of them in order to secure his domination over Thrace
and to prevent the reemergence of resistance. Dimităr Tsonchev. Archeologicheski pametnitsi po yužnite
sklonove na Panagyurska Sredna gora (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1963); Dimităr Toptanov,
Andrey Melamed and Georgi Abdulov. “Arheologicheski prouchvaniya na krepostta “Krasen” kray grad
Panagyurishte, Plovdivska oblast.” Izvestiya na muzeite ot Yužna Bălgariya 20 (1994): 85-107. Valeri
Grigorov. Krepostta Krasen do Panagyurishte (Sofia: Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House,
2010).
283

power in the plain must be sought in a direct connection with its medieval predecessor.
The town of Karlova that came into being in the 1480s as a purposeful attempt of Ali
Bey, son of Karlı, was placed only 6 km to the east of the pre-Ottoman seat of power.
Apparently the location of the new settlement was carefully selected and meant to
demonstrate a succession of the former medieval tradition on the one hand and to
manifest the triumph of Islam over it on the other. By building a town that was to
become the administrative, economic and cultural center of the area, Ali Bey must have
kept in mind the very close proximity of the destroyed medieval Kopsis.730
5.2. The identity of the patron Ali Bey, son of Karlı
Despite his important legacy the identity of the patron of Karlova, Ali Bey,
seems very obscure, even somewhat mysterious. He appeared to have been a person of
some prominence, but the contemporary Ottoman narrative sources make no mention of
him. Franz Babinger, who wrote on the history of the area of Karlı-ili in the 1930s,
claimed that Ali Bey was a son or another relative of the ruler of Epirus Carlo I Tocco

730
The Ottoman registers indicate that after the destruction and devastation of Kopsis in the 1360s-1370s,
the place was never resettled. However, a new village appeared 3 km southeast of it. By 1489 it had 12
households who were all relatives from 3 extended families. There were also two priests that is highly
unusual for such a small village (kariye-i Zagorani, nam-i diğer Sopotin), that seems to be populated very
recently. BOA, TD 26, f. 160.
284

(1411-1429).731 In a recent short article on the town of Karlova Machiel Kiel adopted
Babinger’s thesis732, while in another recent publication the Bulgarian researcher Rumen
Kovachev completely overruled it, but without the benefit of any further
argumentation.733 The uncertainty in establishing the lineage of Ali Bey derives not only
from the scarcity of the sources about his personality, but also from the fact that
Babinger’s thesis is based entirely on the analogy with Mehmed Bey, the patron of the
so-called Burmalı mosque in Skopje (built in 1495), who is also believed to have been a
descendent of Carlo I Tocco.734
There are at least two sources that were undoubtedly prepared under Ali Bey’s
supervision therefore constituting highly valuable sources for establishing his actual
lineage. The first source is the dedicatory inscription (kitabe) of Ali Bey’s mosque in
Karlova, which is still in situ, placed above the entrance of the building.

731
Franz Babinger. “Beiträge zur Geschichte von Qarly-Eli vornehmlich aus osmanischen Quellen.” in
idem. Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante, vol. 1 (München:
Südosteuropa-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1962), 373-374. For an overview of the sancak of Karlı-ili in Ottoman
times see Machiel Kiel. “Karlı İli” in TDVİA.
732
Machiel Kiel. “Karlova” in TDVİA.
733
Rumen Kovachev. “Novi svedeniya za Karlovo i regiona v registri ot Istanbulskiya osmanski arhiv –
XVI vek.” in Penka Todorova and Petiya Tsoleva-Ivanova (eds.) Obshtestveni i religiozni sgradi XV-XIX
vek (Sofia: Text-Asparuh Trayanov, 2006), 11-26.
734
On the mosque of Mehmed Bey in Skopje, that is referred to by Evliya Çelebi as Karlızade camii see
Lidiya Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç. Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri (İstanbul: ENKA, 2008), 184-188;
Mustafa Özer. “Karlı-İli Beyi Mehmed Bey Külliyesi” in TDVİA.
285

Dedicatory inscription (kitabe) of the mosque in Karlova:735
line 1: ‫بنا ھذا الجامع الشريف بعون الملك المنان‬

line 2: ‫علي بن قارلي الذي الال جم سلطان بن سلطان محمد‬
line 3: ‫بن سلطان مراد خان في تاريخ تسعين و ثمانمايه بقا الي انقاراض الزمان‬
line 1: This sacred mosque was built with the help of God the Gracious
line 2: by ‘Ali, son of Karlı, tutor of Cem sultan, son of sultan Mehmed,
line 3: son of sultan Murad Han in the year 890. Let it be standing till the end of time.
The inscription provides important details about Ali Bey’s descent, his place in
the Ottoman society in the second half of the fifteenth century and the exact date in
which the building was completed. While there is little to discuss about the date, A.H.
890 (27 January 1485 – 15 January 1486) provided by the kitabe, the patronymic of Ali
Bey and his position of a tutor (lala) of the Ottoman prince Cem, certainly deserve
closer observations. The highly unusual patronymic Karlı strongly suggests a Christian
descent of Ali Bey’s father, thus making the connection with the Tocco family very
plausible. Later documentary sources referred to him as Karlıoğlu Ali Bey, precisely as
was named his supposed relative Karlıoğlu Mehmed Bey from Skopje, a fact that was
convincing enough for Babinger to suggest a descent from the Tocco’s lineage for Ali
Bey as well.736 The second important bit of information, that can be derived from the

735
Translations of this inscription were published by Gălăb Gălăbov. “Turetskie dokumentiy po istorii
goroda Karlovo.” in Anna Tveritinova (ed.) Vostochniye istochniki po istorii narodov Yugo-vostochnoy i
Tsentralnoy Evropiy (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), 164 and Undžiev, Karlovo, 24-26. See Fig. 85 for a
photograph of the inscription.
736
There seem to have been another relative of Mehmed Bey in Macedonia, very likely a son or a brother
of his. The summary register of 1519/1520 provides information about some Sinan Bey, son of Karlı,
286

dedicatory inscription, is the fact that although Ali Bey was the tutor of Mehmed II’s son
Cem, who bitterly contested Bayezid II’s enthronement, he managed in gaining the favor
of the ruling Bayezid II. The mosque of Ali Bey, constructed in what later turned the
town of Karlova was completed only three years after Cem was detained by the knights
of St. John at Rhodes. Moreover, undoubtedly Ali Bey must have shown some loyalty to
Bayezid II since the building was constructed within his own estate that was given to
him in full proprietorship by the triumphant sultan Bayezid.
Ali Bey’s tutorship of prince Cem and the patronymic Karlı are also confirmed
by another source prepared on Ali Bey’s demand and therefore under his personal
supervision, namely his endowment deed (vakfiye) from 1496. 737 He titled himself
“emirü’l-kebir, sahibü’s-seyf ve’l-kalem, lala ‘Ali Bey bin Karlı” (the great emir, the
master of the sword and of the pen, the tutor Ali Bey, son of Karlı) in the vakfiye thus
leaving little doubt about his patronymic and tutorship, underlining his expertise in both
the art of war and sciences. The fact that Ali Bey’s tutorship of Cem was accentuated in
both of the sources bespeaks of the genuineness of his tutorial service which he
conspicuously manifested. His mentorship of the young Ottoman prince, on the other
hand, seemingly had no obvious drawback for his career under the rulership of his
disciple’s opponent and brother Bayezid II.
The contemporary Ottoman and European narrative sources, however, make no
mention of Ali Bey in the course of the struggle for the Ottoman throne. In contrast,

whose sons Kasım and Ahmed and some of his companions (merdüm) were given timars in the area of
Manastır (Bitola). BOA, TD 73, ff. 290-303. For further details about the mosque of Mehmed Bey,
demolished in 1925 and his connection to the Tocco family see Gliša Elezović. “Turski spomenici u
Skoplju.” Glasnik Skopskog Naučnog Dužestva 2 (1929): 251-254.
737
The endowment deed is discussed in detail below.
287

there were several individuals known to be Cem’s tutors, but none of them can be
associated with Ali Bey, son of Karlı. Two of the lalas of Cem, Kara Süleyman and
Nasuh, who seemed to have advised Cem to seize the Ottoman throne while Mehmed II
was on a campaign against Uzun Hasan in 1473, were executed on the order of the
sultan upon his return.738 There was another tutor of Cem, certain Lala Yakub Bey, who
also served as his vizier, but this person is likely to have died in A.H. 888
(1483/1484).739
The only contemporary author who seems to mention Ali Bey in connection to
Cem sultan is Ahmed Şikâri, who wrote the so-called Karamanname.740 Şikâri relates in
great detail the conflict between Cem and his brother Bayezid in regard to the important
role played by Karamanoğlu Kasım Bey in the struggle for power between the two
claimants for the Ottoman throne. After narrating the episode in which Bayezid defeated
Cem’s army and the Ottoman prince faced the difficult choice either to retrieve back to
Egypt or to seek the alliance and support of the Hospitallers in Rhodes, Şikâri
interpolates an account that is very likely to depict Ali Bey, son of Karlı. According to
the chronicler Cem sultan had a kethüda who was known as Frenk Ali Bey, because his
father was of western origin and he himself came from Rhodes. 741 Because of his

738
Halil İnalcık. “Djem” in EI2, vol. 2, 529; Louis Thuasne. Djem-sultan, fils de Mohammed II, frère de
Bayezid II (1459-1495): d'après les documents originaux en grande partie (Paris: E. Leroux, 1892), 7-8.
739
Mehmed Sürreyya. Sicil-i Osmani yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, vol. 4 (İstanbul: Matba’a-i
Amire, 1311/1893), 647.
740
Ahmed Şikârî. Karamannâme: Zamanın Kahramanı Karamanîler'in Tarihi. Edited by Metin Sözen and
Necdet Sakaoğlu (İstanbul : Karaman Valiliği, Karaman Belediyesi, 2005).
741
Şikârî, Karamannâme, 243. Cf. Ekaterina Venedikova. “Za Sultan Džem i negoviya lala i kethuda Ali
bey i otnosheniyata im s bălgari (v Mala Aziya i Bălgariya).” in Sergey Ivanov and Vladimir Tsonev
(eds.), Drevnite bălgari v osnovite na svetovnata istoriya, materialna i duhovna kultura i tsivilizatsiya
(Sofia: Dafna, 2005), 231-234.
288

descent Cem decided to send this Ali Bey, together with forty men, to Rhodes in order to
negotiate the terms of the agreement according to which the knights had to transport
Cem and his retinues to Rumelia. Ali Bey was successful in his mission and returned to
Cem with a treaty signed by the grand-master of the order of St. John.742 According to
the narrative the Ottoman prince disregarded the multiple warnings of Kasım Bey,
approved the pact and went on board of a ship that took him to Rhodes. Well received
and honored by the Hospitallers, Cem sent four ships for the rest of his men and his
valuables.743
In case Şikâri’s account refers to a real historical figure, it is highly likely that the
person in question was actually Ali Bey, the son of Karlı, who later became the patron of
the mosque in Karlova. The individual depicted by the chronicler was apparently in the
very close entourage of Cem, therefore he was entrusted with the important and delicate
mission. Moreover, he was a convert to Islam since the source refers to him as Frenk Ali
Bey and was most likely a former knight Hospitaller who deserted his duty on Rhodes,
as explicitly mentioned in the text. If this were the case, a connection to the Tocco
family seems also very probable, as it was easier for a nobleman to be accepted in the
order of St. John. In addition Carlo I Tocco is known to have left five bastard sons who
after their father’s death contested the legitimacy of their cousin Carlo II Tocco.744 Some
of them sided with Murad II and converting to Islam received military and
administrative appointments thus mingling in the Ottoman elite, while others left for

742
Şikârî, Karamannâme, 243.
743
Şikârî, Karamannâme, 243.
744
Donald Nicol. The despotate of Epiros, 1267-1479: a Contribution to the History of Greece in the
Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 204-215.
289

Venice and elsewhere.745 Bertrandon de la Broquière relates, for instance, that he saw in
the Ottoman court in Edirne some Magnoly, the brother of the count of Cephalonia, i.e.
Carlo II Tocco, who behaved so humble as if he was a servant of Murad.746 In this
respect there is a chance that one of the five bastard sons of Carlo I Tocco, or more
likely one of his grandsons, was recruited by the order of Saint John, but he later
abandoned it and converting to Islam he became Frenk Ali Bey, or Ali, son of Karlı, the
tutor of Cem sultan.747
Şikâri’s account on Frenk Ali Bey’s involvement into the negotiations for a safe-
conduct between Cem and the knights in Rhodes, however, conflicts the main narrative
sources for these events – the Vaki’at-i Sultan Cem and Œuvres of Guillaume
Caoursin. 748 They unanimously point that the person dispatched by Cem for the
negotiations with the grand master Piere d’Aubusson was one Frenk Süleyman Bey, but
not Ali Bey, who was accompanied by another dignitary of Cem named Doğan.749 After
Cem was received in Rhodes he sent his maternal uncle, another Ali Bey, to
Karamanoğlu Kasım Bey to bring the rest of his troops and the personal belongings of

745
Theodore Spandounes. On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors. Translated and edited by Donald Nicol
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 27-28.
746
Bertrandon de la Broquière. Voyage d'Outremer, Ch. Schefer (ed.) (Paris: Ernst Leroux, 1842), 195.
Nada Zecevič, who is currently preparing for publication an extensive monograph on the Tocco family in
the Balkans, considers that this person could have also been Menuno, one of the bastard sons of Carlo I
Tocco, who in this period relied exclusively on Ottoman support. I am indebted to Dr. Zecevič for sharing
her ideas on the possible connections of the Tocco family with the Ottomans.
747
According to Zecevič the family of the mother of Carlo I (Magdalena of the Florentine Buondelmonti),
gave birth to several influential Hospitallers in the second half of the fourteenth century who were
recorded as active in Greece. Nevertheless, the connection between the knights of St. John and Ali Bey
still remains very questionable.
748
Both published by Nicolas Vatin. Sultan Djem. Un prince ottoman dans l’Europe de XVe siècle d’après
deux sources contemporaine: Vâkı’ât-ı Sultân Cem, Œuvres de Guillaume Caoursin (Ankara: Imprimerie
de la Société Turque d’Histoire, 1997).
749
Vatin, Sultan Djem, 142-143. Hoca Saddedin who used the text of Vaki’at incorporated it with minor
changes. Hoca Sadeddin Efendi. Tac-üt-Tevârih, vol. 2 ([Istanbul]: Tabhane-yi Âmire, 1280/1864), 23.
İnalcık,“Djem”.
290

the prince.750 Caoursin, who presented the events with utmost care to the detail testifies
that prior the mission to Rhodes led by Süleyman Bey, Cem have sent another envoy,
but he was earlier intercepted by Bayezid. The emissary revealed Cem’s plans to
Bayezid, which made the Ottoman prince send urgently a new mission, this time lead by
the mentioned Süleyman Bey and Doğan.751
Given the complexity and the great dynamics of the events, it is possible that the
less-informed Şikâri mixed them up, attributing to Ali Bey, son of Karlı a leading role in
the negotiations, which he seemingly did not play. Nonetheless, there is a chance that
Ali Bey was indeed sent by Cem to the knights in Rhodes to negotiate the terms of safe-
conduct to Rumelia, as it is narrated by Şikâri, but on his way he was intercepted by
Bayezid and his mission failed. In regard of the fact that instead of imprisoning or
executing the tutor of Cem Bayezid actually granted him with landed properties only a
year or two after the events of July 1482, one hesitates to speculate that not only the
patron of the mosque in Karlovo is identical to Frenk Ali Bey from Şikâri’s account, but
also that he might have gone to Bayezid on his own will. Revealing Cem’s plans to the
legitimate Ottoman ruler, who by that time was already taking the lead in the struggle,
he must have gained Bayezid’s favor. Switching sides not only saved Ali Bey from
persecution on the part of the central authority, but also apparently brought him material
gains too. Although it is unknown when exactly Bayezid granted him the landed
property in Göpsa, it is noteworthy that this could only have happened in the period

750
Vatin, Sultan Djem, 144-145. Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall. Histoire de l’Empire ottoman, depuis son
aurigine jusqu’à nos jours, traduit par J. J. Hellert, vol. 3 (Paris: Bellizard, Barthès, Dufour et Lowell,
1836), 556, claims that this Ali Bey was one of Cem’s agents despite that his source Hoca Sadeddin
clearly pointed this individual as Cem’s maternal uncle (dayı).
751
Thuasne, Djem-sultan, 56.
291

1482-1485, i.e. between the date of his probable desertion from Cem in July 1482 and
1485, the date in which his mosque was already a fact, since it is apparent that Ali Bey
commissioned the building in his own estate. The information in the detailed register
from 1516, the earliest extant documentary source produced by the central Ottoman
administration which enlists the landed estate of Karlıoğlu ‘Ali Bey, leaves little doubt
that the full proprietorship over it was granted to him exactly by sultan Bayezid II.752
The examination of the documentary and narrative sources at hand imply that
Babinger’s suggestion about the lineage of Ali Bey, son of Karlı, although derived
entirely on the basis of analogy, seems credible. Despite the lack of any firm evidence, it
is very likely that the patron of the mosque in Karlova was a direct descendent, most
probably a grandson, of Carlo I Tocco who might have been a knight Hospitaller in his
youth, but later converted to Islam. He must have received extensive training in Islamic
sciences and the art of war for him being appointed a tutor of the Ottoman prince Cem.
This fact alone bespeaks of Ali Bey’s connections with the high ranking officials in the
Ottoman court, where he is also likely to have been educated. In Mehmed II’s lifetime
he was given a timar in the region of Selânik (Thessaloniki) that by 1478-1479 yielded
to Ali Bey a revue of 21 435 akçes.753 Be it as it may, he apparently was a skillful
politician, since he managed to navigate well in the troublesome times after Mehmed
II’s death. Despite being in the close entourage of the claimant who lost the struggle for
the Ottoman throne, Ali Bey not only managed in avoiding persecution, but he was also
granted a mülk by the victorious Bayezid II. Ali Bey’s architectural patronage in his

752
BOA, TD 77, f. 835.
753
BOA, TD 7, ff. 276-278. Timar-i ‘Ali Bey, veled-i Karlı (A prebend of Ali Bey, son of Karlı).
292

domain stimulated the development of a town named after him that turned into the
administrative, economic and cultural center of the region of Göpsa.
5.3. The pious foundation (vakıf) of Ali Bey
Ali Bey did not lay the foundations of the new settlement on an empty ground,
but he came into possession of a Christian village called Suşiçe (Sushitsa) that is very
likely to have been a pre-Ottoman settlement. Because of the destructive nature of the
Ottoman conquest in this area it must have been a deprived place with very few residents,
if any, therefore Ali Bey needed to attract new settlers and bring it back to life.754 He
must have begun the construction of the mosque soon after he came in possession of the
village of Suşiçe, because by 1485, as indicated by the dedicatory inscription, it was
already completed.755
Eleven years after the mosque in Karlova was built Ali Bey established a pious
foundation for its support and maintenance, donating his estate that was earlier given to
him in full proprietorship by Bayezid II. The original endowment deed, drawn up in the
kadı court of Konya, is not extant, but its text written in Arabic survived in several later
copies. The local museum in the town of Karlovo has a nicely written nineteenth-century

754
The Christian village must not have been large even prior to the arrival of the Ottomans. It probably
had a couple of dozens of residents who were connected to the nearby monastery. Undžiev, Karlovo, 17-
18.
755
The Hidjri year 890 begins on 27 January 1485 and finishes on 16 January 1486; therefore in all
probability the mosque was completed in 1485.
293

copy of the vakfiye756 that has been published twice by Bulgarian researchers.757 Another
nineteenth-century copy of Ali Bey’s endowment deed is kept in the registers of Vakıflar
Arşivi in Ankara, together with a type-written translation of it in modern Turkish.758
The copy in the local museum is likely to have been prepared on the basis of the
one kept in the registers of Vakıflar Arşivi, because the careful examination of the two
texts, including the ratifications and verifications made later by different individuals,
shows that they are identical. Therefore, both of the copies give a wrong date for the
drawing up of the endowment deed, evâil-i Şaban 801 (8 April 1399), which on the other
hand caused a confusion and prolonged discussion in the Bulgarian historiography until
it was only corrected in Nedkov’s publication in the mid-1960s.759 It is apparent that the
scribe, who copied the text of the original vakfiye into the registers, has wrongly put
eight instead of nine as a first digit of the year, a mistake which was multiplied in later
copies. The correct date of Ali Bey’s endowment deed indeed is evâil-i Şaban 901,
therefore 15 April 1496.
The text of the vakfiye relates that Ali Bey endows all the incomes from his
estate to the mosque that he commissioned a decade earlier in a village named Şahin,

756
The copy of the vakfiye has no inventory number. It is kept together with the very few Ottoman
documents in the museum. It is not known how this copy was acquired, but it is very likely to have been in
possession of the foundation’s administration in the nineteenth century, as in all likelihood the latter
ordered the copy from the department of the vakıfs.
757
The vakfiye was first published by Diamandi Ihchiev. “Turskite vakăfi v Bălgarskoto tsarstvo i
dokumenti vărhu tiyah.” Minalo: Bălgaro-Makedonsko nauchno spisanie 1:4 (1910): 346-352, but this is a
very rough and incomplete translation which made Boris Nedkov publish a new translation that follows
academic standards. Cf. Nikolai Todorov and Boris Nedkov (eds.), Fontes Turcici Historiae Bulgaricae,
vol. 2 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1966), 480-497.
758
VGMA, defter no. 632, f. 474, vakfiye no. 204 and VGMA, defter no. 2114, ff. 452-456, vakfiye no.
48. The same is also commented in M. Tayyib Gökbilgin. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livâsı.
Vakıflar-Mülkler-Mukataalar (İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi, 1952), Vakfiye VIII.
759
Nedkov, Vakfiye, 495. Kiel, “Karlova”, 507.
294

known among the Christians as Suşiçe (modern Karlovo).760 The territory of the village
bordered roughly the mountain Koca Balkan from the north, the land of the village of
Arablı761 from the east, the river Göpsu from the south762 and the land of the village of
Akça Kilise 763 from the west. Additionally, he endowed two water-mills and two
meadows that were near the village.764
The vakfiye further stipulates that the foundation must be administered on a
hereditary basis thus it provides a complete list of Ali Bey’s male heirs. He had five sons
– Hasan Çelebi, Mehmed Çelebi, Bali Çelebi, İskender Çelebi, and the youngest
Mustafa Çelebi, who had to become administrators of the foundation in respect to their
seniority and in case their line is lost, the post of mütevelli had to be assigned to the most
pious from among Ali Bey’s manumitted slaves and in case he also had no heirs – to the
manumitted slaves of his sons. 765 First administrator of the pious foundation was
appointed Ali Bey’s eldest son, Hasan Çelebi, while his second son Mehmed Çelebi took
the post of superintendent (nazır) of the vakıf.766
The administrator was entitled to receive 1/10 of the total production of the vakıf
land and a salary of 17 dirhems daily. The document further specifies the daily payment
of the servants in the mosque – the imam, who also served as hatib was paid 4 dirhems,
the muezzin received 2 dirhems, the servant in the mosque (kayyum) was assigned 2

760
The poll-tax (cizye) paid by the Christians was reserved for the central treasury.
761
Arapovo, today integrated in the modern town.
762
River “Osma” or “Ozma” in the text of the vakfiye.
763
The above mentioned village of Zagorani, modern town of Sopot. The village was referred to in the
documentation with several different names, for example BOA, TD 77, f. 565: kariye-i Zagorani, Sopot ve
Akça Kilise dahi derler (village of Zagorani, it is also called Sopot and Akça Kilise).
764
Nedkov, Vakfiye, 486-487.
765
766
295

dirhems etc. A sum was ensured for the five Quran reciters, candles for lighting up the
mosque and other necessities too. Were there any surplus left, after the salaries were
paid and the needs for maintenance of the mosque were met, it had to be delivered to the
mütevelli.767
The sons of Ali Bey, his manumitted slaves and the manumitted slaves of his
sons were tax-exempted, within certain limitations, in case they have their own farms
and vineyards.768 The mechanism for encouraging migration and bringing new settlers in
the territory of the vakıf is reflected by the paragraph, which stipulates that those of the
manumitted slaves who leave the place on their own will, but later decide to return, lose
their privileges and tax-exemptions and would be taxed as any regular reaya tax-
payers.769
The vakfiye of Ali Bey, naturally also provides a very detailed description of the
exact boundaries of the land of the pious foundation, based on a title deed (sinurname)
that was prepared in A.H. 891 (1486/1487), on the explicit order of Bayezid II. An
Imperial edict (ferman) that was issued in December 1632 by sultan Murad IV (1623-
1640) reveals that soon after the mosque of Ali Bey was completed there was a bitter
controversy about the exact boundaries of his mülk.770 The residents of the neighboring
village of Akça Kilise (mod. Sopot) occupied and used summer pastures (yaylak) that
belonged to the land of the village of Suşiçe, held in full proprietorship by Ali Bey.
Therefore, the residents of Akça Kilise instead of paying their dues for using of the

767
768
769
770
The original ferman is kept in the local museum. The document was published in transliteration and
translation into Russian by Gălăbov, “Turetskie dokumentiy po istorii Karlovo”, 168-172.
296

pastures to the legitimate owner contributed them to the sultan’s treasury, since the
village was part of the sultanic hasses. The local kadı of Filibe was put in charge of a
special committee that investigated the case and restored the ownership over these
pastures to Ali Bey. In A.H. 891 he was given a title deed (sinurname-i hümayun) that
settled the exact boundaries of his possessions.771 This document, issued by Bayezid II
in 1486/1487, became the basis of the endowment deed of Ali Bey, drawn up in Konya
in 1496. Nevertheless, it seems that the vakıf was unable to collect regularly the
revenues from these pastures, because four other fermans, issued in the period A.H. 980
– 985 (1572-1577) had to reaffirm the possessions of the vakıf. 772 In A.H. 986
(1578/1579) a new committee reexamined the disputed territory and reaffirmed the
sinurname of Bayezid II, verifying the right of possession over these pastures to the
pious foundation.773 Yet Murad IV’s ferman of 1632 demonstrates that the controversies
between the mütevellis of the vakıf and the emins collecting the revenues of the sultanic
hasses continued, since the rights of possession of the pastures had to be endorsed once
again by an Imperial edict.774
The vakfiye of 1496 is the latest available bit of information about the personality
of the patron of the mosque in Karlova – Ali Bey. In all probability he died shortly

771
Gălăbov, “Turetskie dokumentiy po istorii Karlovo”, 169.
772
Gălăbov, “Turetskie dokumentiy po istorii Karlovo”, 169.
773
Sultan Murad III (1574-1595) also issued a new Imperial edict for this. Gălăbov, “Turetskie
dokumentiy po istorii Karlovo”, 169.
774
Disputes over the exact boundaries of the land of a given village were very common in this period. It
seems that the official sultanic orders were not followed strictly in most cases, which triggered a new
process of petitions and checks in the Imperial registers. For example the administrators of the pious
foundations that possessed the neighboring villages of Kalofer (vakıf of Süleymaniye) and Müderislü
(mod. Vasil Levski, vakıf of the complex of the mausoleum of Abu Eyüb Ansari in Istanbul) bitterly
contested a plot of land, that initiated several official checks and Imperial edicts, solving the issue. Alas
the administrative documents show that the dispute continued throughout the Ottoman period and was
inherited by the post-Ottoman Bulgarian administration. State Archive Plovdiv, Fond 55K, op. 2, a.e. 188.
297

afterwards. It is noteworthy, however, that although Ali Bey commissioned the mosque
in 1485 his endowment deed was drawn up only after the death of his disciple – the
Ottoman prince Cem, i.e. eleven years later. 775 It is unclear why the document was
drawn up in Konya, but Kiel suggested that Ali Bey was a sancakbeyi of Karaman at
that time.776 This assumption, despite the lack of direct documentary evidence, seems
very plausible. The title used by Ali Bey in the vakfiye as well as the reference made to
him as one of sultan Bayezid’s high ranking commanders (ümera) in Murad IV’s ferman,
testify for his high administrative and military position in the late-fifteenth-century
Ottoman society.
If the personality of Ali Bey seems ambiguous, the careers of his sons as
administrators of the pious foundation and military commanders are even more obscure.
Even though the Ottoman chronicler Oruç mentions certain Karlıoğlu about the late
1490s, acting at the Moldovan border together with some of the most prominent frontier
lords of Bayezid II, such as Malkoçoğlu Bali Bey and his son Ali Çelebi, Mihaloğlu
Kasım Bey, Yahyapaşaoğlu Bali Bey etc777, it is impossible to establish whether this was
one of Ali Bey’s sons, or some of their relatives from Üsküb, Manastır or elsewhere. In
1503 the second eldest son of Ali Bey, Mehmed Bey, son of Karlı was acting as kethüda
of the vilâyet of Rumili.778

775
Cem died in Naples on 25 February 1495. Bayezid received the news on 20 April 1495, while
coincidentally or not the vakfiye was drawn up almost exactly one year after the news about Cem’s death
spread in the Ottoman Empire, 16 April 1496. See İnalcık, “Djem”, 530.
776
Kiel, “Karlova”, 507.
777
Necdet Öztürk. Oruç Beğ Tarihi (İstanbul: Çamlıca, 2007), 179.
778
Atatürk Kitaplığı (İstanbul Belediye Kütüphanesi), Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları, O.71, f. 9r.
298

Even though it is hard to trace the careers of ‘Ali Bey’s descendents in detail, it
appears that they had a sizable military contingent under their command. The list of the
Balkan lords, who joined Selim I in his march against his father Bayezid II, mentioned
in the previous chapter, contains the name of Karlıoğlu İskender Bey.779 He was the
third military commander in the list and was from among the small group of beys who
joined the pretender for the throne at Caffa (mod. Feodosiya). Evidently the person
enlisted as Karlıoğlu İskender Bey was no other but the middle son of Ali Bey,
mentioned in the vakfiye. It is difficult to state with any certainty whether Karlıoğlu Bey
of whom Oruç relates was İskender Bey in question or some of his relatives, but it seems
that the family established strong positions at the northeastern edge of the Ottoman state.
In 1514 the elder brother Karlıoğlu Mehmed, whose name is not found among the
supporters of prince Selim, but some of Mehmed Bey’s companions joined the pretender
for the throne, thus apparently gaining Selim’s favor780, held the post of sancakbeyi of
Vulçitrın (modern Vučitrn in Kosovo). 781 The frequent shifting of the offices of the
sancakbeyis, thus preventing them to build powerbases directed against the central
authority, was a widely used method of the Ottoman administration in the sixteenth
century. Therefore, it is little surprising that Karlıoğlu İskender Bey appears in the
records of 1526 as being appointed as Müselleman-i Kırk Kilise beyi with an annual

779
Hakkı Erdem Çıpa. The Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selim I, 1487-1512 (PhD
Dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), 258-261. The author also faced difficulties in identifying the
exact lineage of Karlıoğlu İskender Bey, see pages 177-179. Halil İnalcık. “Selim I” in EI2.
780
“İskender, merdüm-i Mehemmed Bey bin Karlı”; “Hüseyin Arnavud, merdüm-i veled-i Karlı” Çıpa, The
Centrality of the Periphery, 271, 279.
781
BOA, MAD 7, f. 111b.
299

revenue of 81 000 akçes.782 After this date the available Ottoman documents do not
contain any information about the careers and the fate of Ali Bey’s descendents.
5.4. Architectural patronage of Ali Bey and his descendents in Karlova
The conversion of the inherited Christian village of Suşiçe into the Ottoman
town of Karlova began with the construction of the Friday mosque, commissioned by
Ali Bey and completed in 1485. It is a typical for this period square structure (12.50 x 13
m) that has a single lead-covered dome.783 (Fig. 86) The dome sits on an octagonal drum,
supported on four massive pandatives, which begin very low at the corners of the thick
walls. The building that is 11.40 m in height has two rows of windows on each side and
a brick-made minaret attached to its northeastern corner.784 (Fig. 87) The minaret, today
preserved in height only up to the şerefe was standing intact until the 1877-1878 Russo-
Turkish war according to some authors or until the Balkan wars according to others.785
The frontal space of the mosque is occupied by unusually large portico (9.80 x 16.30 m),

782
Ömer Lütfi Barkan. “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe Örneği.”, İstanbul
Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 15:1-4 (1953-1954): 304.
783
There are several other examples of such provincial single domed mosques in the Balkans, built under
Bayezid II. For a discussion of the emergence of this provincial type of mosques in the Balkans that came
to replace the T-shaped imaret/zaviyes see Maximilian Hartmuth. “The History of Center-Periphery
Relations as a History of Style in Ottoman Provincial Architecture” in Maximilian Hartmuth (ed.) Centres
and Peripheries in Ottoman Architecture: Rediscovering a Balkan Heritage (Sarajevo: Cultural Heritage
Without Borders, 2011), 18-29.
784
Dimităr Popov. Arhitekturnoto nasledstvo na Karlovo (Sofia: Tehnika, 1967), 45-46; Petya Tsoleva-
Ivanova. “Arhitektura i istoriya na Kurshun džamiya spored osmanski i drugi iztochnitsi.” in Todorova-
Tsoleva-Ivanova, Obshtestveni i religiozni sgradi, 115-124.
785
Tsoleva-Ivanova, “Arhitektura i istoriya na Kurshun džamiya”, 116.
300

supported on twenty wooden and four stone pillars.786 The portico seems to be a later
addition to the mosque and used to cover the ablution fountain built by Ali Bey in front
of the mosque. (Fig. 88) The dedicatory inscription is placed above the gate of the
building, surrounded by nineteenth-century decorative paintings.787
The mosque that appears to have been built on previously unoccupied ground
became the nucleus of the new settlement. 788 The vakfiye testifies that Ali Bey
commissioned the mosque at the eastern edge of the village named Şahin or Suşiçe as its
land bordered a ruined watermill, the residence of Ali Bey himself and the cemetery of
the Christians on a nearby hill.789 The family mansion of the administrators of the pious
foundation of ‘Ali Bey, located northeast of the mosque, as indicated in the vakfiye,
indeed stood until the twentieth century. Popov published an early twentieth-century
photograph of the so-called konak of the mütevelli that depicts it as a large two-storey
Mediterranean type house.790 In the approximate vicinity of the mosque, according to
Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, there might have been an octagonal mausoleum (türbe) of the
patron Ali Bey that was made of cut stone.791 (plan 6)
Ali Bey’s mosque, his residence and a number of shops laid the foundations of
the new Muslim kasaba. Soon after the death of the patron in 1499 one of his sons

786
The four stone pillars are likely to be spolia from an earlier medieval building in the surroundings. The
nineteenth-century local Bulgarian intellectual Rayno Popovich claims that these were taken from a
nearby monastery of St. Spas that was ruined in the course of the conquest. Popov, Karlovo, 47.
787
Hundreds of graffiti in Ottoman language placed on both sides of the gate still await scholarly attention.
788
Like many other mosques in the Balkans the local lore maintains that this one was built over the
foundations of an earlier church. Tsoleva-Ivanova, “Arhitektura i istoriya na Kurshun džamiya”, 122.
789
790
Popov, Arhitekturnoto nasledstvo na Karlovo, 50.
791
The source of Ayverdi’s information on the mausoleum of Ali Bey is unclear. Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi.
Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mımari Eserleri. IV. Cild – Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk (İstanbul: İstanbul
Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982), 36-37.
301

commissioned a public bath, located a few hundred meters northeast of the mosque.792
The hamam, documented by Popov, which saw a number of later reconstructions,
survived in relatively good shape until the 1960s when it was finally pulled down by the
local authorities.793 (Fig. 89) The mosque was a starting point of the main market street
(çarşı) that was running northward for about 200 m, where it opened for a large market
place. In the second half of the eighteenth century the local craftsmen and traders built a
wooden clock tower at the market square. In 1834 it was replaced by an octagonal stone-
made tower, which also served as observation tower. The nineteenth-century clock tower
was demolished by the communist authorities in 1944.794 Recently a replica of the 1834
tower was rebuilt in a different location in modern Karlovo. (Figs. 90-91)
The çarşı defined the direction of expansion of the Muslim town. The space
northward of the mosque of Ali Bey and the residence of the administrators of the vakıf,
the dominant authority of the place, was reserved for its Muslim residents. In the course
of the next centuries several new mosques appeared in the Muslim quarters of the
growing town. They were smaller and simpler provincial buildings with tile-covered
pitched roofs, among which the Red mosque and Yalı mosque were the largest in size.795
(Figs. 92-93) The Christian part of the town grew in the opposite direction at some
distance from the Muslim center. The rapid growth of the Christian population, however,
soon significantly expanded its space. A plan of the town reflecting the situation of the

792
Kiel, “Karlova”, 507.
793
Popov, Arhitekturnoto nasledstvo na Karlovo, 50-52.
794
Popov, Arhitekturnoto nasledstvo na Karlovo, 28-29. Lubomir Mikov. “Cultural and Historical Profile
of Clock Towers in the Bulgarian Lands (17th-19th Centuries).” Étude balkanique 1-2 (2010): 104-126.
795
Lubomir Mikov. “Arhitekturni osobenosti na Kurshunlu i Yală džamiya v Karlovo.” Bălgarski Folklor
2 (2006): 125-131.
302

second half of the nineteenth century shows that the Christian quarters occupied at least
twice as large a space as the Muslim part in the north of the town. (plan 7)
5.5. The Population of Karlova in the sixteenth century
Even though the town of Karlova began to emerge on the place of the pre-
Ottoman settlement named Suşiçe as early as 1485, the earliest extant taxation and
population register which provides data for its population dates only to 1516. 796 As
previously mentioned, the earlier preserved tahrir record of the region (TD 26) is
incomplete in the parts that deal with the mülks and the possessions of the pious
foundations. When the register of 1489 was compiled, Ali Bey already held in full
proprietorship the village of Suşiçe/Şahin, therefore it must be accepted that the
information about it is in the part of the register that has been lost.
The entry in the defter of 1516 presents in summary the way in which the
foundation of Ali Bey was created.797 According to the document the deceased sultan
Bayezid II has given to Ali Bey in full proprietorship the villages of Suşiçe (also named
Şahin gölü) and Livadiçe, which were recorded in the previous register as his mülk. The
mentioned Ali Bey built in the village of Suşiçe a Friday mosque, as later he established
a vakıf and donated all of the incomes from his mülk to the Friday mosque in question.

796
BOA, TD 77.
797
BOA, TD 77, f. 835.
303

The documents attesting his rights of proprietorship, the mülknâme and the vakıfname,
were presented to the registrar for examination.798 The part of the entry in the register
that reads “defter-i ‘atikde mülk kayd olunmuş” (in the preceding register it was recorded
as mülk) undoubtedly referred to the detailed register TD 26, compiled in 1489. The
information in Ali Bey’s vakfiye shows that the pious foundation was certainly
established in 1496, thus by 1489, when the mufassal was prepared, Ali Bey still held
the villages in question in full proprietorship. This is a firm evidence that the properties
of Ali Bey were indeed recorded in the defter of 1489 but the information was
apparently lost with the torn off pages.
The data in the register of 1516 presents Karlova, still named Suşiçe and Şahin
gölü, as a small emerging settlement. The Muslim community consisted of 6 households
and 1 bachelor, while there were 41 Christian taxpayers and 1 widow. To the total
number of taxpayers in Ali Bey’s vakıf must be added one more Muslim and one
Christian households from the village of Livadiçe (alternative reading İvladiçe). There is
no earlier information about this settlement but it is likely to have appeared shortly prior
1516 since it was not included in the vakfiye. It did not endure long, given that it
disappeared from the official documentation after 1530. Each of the two settlers’
households in Livadiçe paid to the pious foundation three kiles of wheat (gendüm) and
three kiles of barley (arpa).799
The majority of the Christians in Ali Bey’s domain were in all probability locals
as only one head of a household was explicitly registered as a first generation migrant

798
BOA, TD 77, f. 835.
799
BOA, TD 77, f. 836.
304

(preseliç). It is noteworthy that more than 10% of the Christians were recorded as being
in a state of poverty (sirmah). The Muslim community, on the other hand, seems
surprisingly small numbering only 7 households and a bachelor in total. Nevertheless, it
is very likely that in this case the defter did not present the actual demographic situation
at the given moment, but merely marked only the taxpayers of the vakıf. Recalling the
stipulations of the endowment deed, according to which the descendents and the
manumitted slaves of Ali Bey enjoyed full tax exemption, it is plausible to suggest that
there is an entire group of Muslims who remained out of the official registration. It can
be noted that although the mosque of Ali Bey was serving for three decades already, no
one from its personnel (imam, hatib, müezzin) appeared in the detailed register. This is a
clear indication that part of the Muslims in the settlement, probably a significant portion
of the community, enjoyed tax privileges and was left out of the tahrir. Granting tax
exemptions for a period of time in order to encourage migration was a widely used
method employed by the Ottoman rulers and the high ranking dignitaries in their
attempts for reviving deprived cities or stimulating the demographic growth of newly
created towns.800

800
There are numerous examples for the employment of this policy – Halil İnalcık. “Istanbul: an Islamic
City.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1-23; idem. “The Policy of Mehmed II Toward the Greek
Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1969-1970):
229-249; idem. “Ottoman Galata, 1453-1553." in Edhem Eldem (ed.), Première Rencontre Internationale
sur I'Empire Ottoman et la Turquie Moderne (Istanbul-Paris: Isis Press, 1991), 17-105; Machiel Kiel.
“Hrazgrad-Hezargrad-Razgrad: The Vicissitudes of a Turkish Town in Bulgaria (Historical,
Demographical, Economic and Art Historical Notes).” Turcica 21-23 (1991): 495-562; idem. “Plevna” in
EI2; Heath Lowry. “From Lesser Wars to the Mightiest War’: The Ottoman Conquest and Transformation
of Byzantine Urban Centers in the Fifteenth Century.” in Anthony Bryer and Heath Lowry (eds.),
Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society (Birmingham – Washington, D.C.:
the University of Birmingham Centre for Byzantine Studies & Dumbarton Oaks, 1986), 323-338.
305

Apart of the customary taxes and tithes collected from the reaya of Karlova, the
foundation of Ali Bey also profited from two watermills and a fulling mill (valâviçe)
built on the stream that passed by the town. The total annual revenues of the vakıf
according to the census of 1516 amounted to 5 997 akçes.801
A note in the register deserves explicit attention since it seems to have been of
crucial importance for the development of the town. It informed about a special permit
issued by the local kadı of Filibe, allowing the pious foundation to organize a market-
place (pazarişte) in the town, the taxes of which yielded to the foundation annual
revenue of one thousand akçes.802 This market undoubtedly must have been located on
the large square where the çarşı ended. It bespeaks of the fact that in the three decades
that followed the construction of the mosque of Ali Bey the commercial core of the
Muslim town had already developed. The market gathered the agricultural production of
the entire Göpsa region and gave a massive boost to the emerging town. It was indeed
the main driving force behind its progress as an economic and later on as an
administrative and cultural center of the entire valley of the Göpsu River. The impact of
the newly established market-place must have been great since soon after it was
established by the vakıf administrators the Ottoman administrative documents began
referring to the settlement by the name of Karlıoğlu Bazarı kasabası (the town of
Karlıoğlu market).803 The name of the settlement did not change at once, but it rather

801
BOA, TD 77, ff. 835-836.
802
BOA, TD 77, f. 835.
803
The reference comes from an order in the register of important financial matters (maliye ahkâm defteri),
BOA, MAD 2275, f. 1594, dating from 12 January 1566. The order arranged the unlawful collection of
cizye and ispençe from twelve Muslim Gypsy residents of the town, who were recorded as one community
with the Christian Gypsies in the poll-tax census therefore liable to it. Strangely enough the tahrir record
306

appears that the new denomination replaced gradually the old ones and indeed reflected
the popularity and the importance for the entire region that the new market place in
Karlova gained over time. It is noteworthy, however, that while the tahrir registers kept
recording on conservative lines the new town as the village named Suşiçe until the end
of the sixteenth century, the celepkeşan censuses referred to it as nefs-i Karlı bazarı804,
thus echoing more accurately the undergoing changes there.
The market organized by the Karlıoğlu family undoubtedly aimed at reviving the
lands under their administration by attracting new settlers and thus increasing the
revenues of the pious foundation. The increasing incomes of the vakıf in the course of
the century clearly demonstrate the rising number of taxable population on the territory
of Karlıoğlus’ foundation. In the period 1516-1530, however, the town of Karlova must
have suffered from a minor loss of taxpayers, since by 1527-1528 the total revenues of
the vakıf slightly dropped.805
Table 4. Revenues of the vakıf of Ali Bey, son of Karlı in the period 1516-1596
Date Total Revenues in akçes

1516 5 997
1527/1528 5 984
1530 6 187
1570 21 954
1596 23 596
1516=BOA TD 77; 1527/28=BOA TD 138; 1530=BOA TD 370; 1570=BOA TD 498;
1596=BOA TD 470

compiled about four years after this order gives no clue for the existence of a Gypsy community in the
town.
804
BOA, MAD 4075, f. 86, dating from 1580. A slightly earlier celepkeşan register (1576) gives the name
as karye-i Karlıoğlu. Sofia Archive, OAK 265/4, f. 28b
805
The icmal register BOA, TD 138, f. 138 does not provide the number of the taxpayers.
307

The data in the large synoptic register of 1530 clearly demonstrates the drop of
the taxpayers that occurred in the years after 1516.806 The core part of the town, the so-
called village of Suşiçe, had a slight increase of the registered Muslim taxpayers –
totaling nine households and one bachelor, while the Christian community dropped to 33
households and four bachelors. The small village of Livadiçe807 which had only one
Christian and one Muslim households in the preceding register by 1530 has lost the
Christian family and remained with a single taxpayer’s family who was still supposed to
deliver to the pious foundation three kiles of wheat and three kiles of barley annually.808
The register of 1530 is the last Ottoman document that mentioned the village of Livadiçe
which was either incorporated by the developing town or more likely simply ceased to
exist. The very name of the village Livadiçe, that greatly reminds the term for meadow
(livada) in Bulgarian, suggests that this could have been a settlement located higher in
the mountain, probably in the pasture lands of the pious foundation. Later accounting
registers of the vakıf testify that the pastures brought in large portion of the pious
foundation’s incomes therefore one can presume that some families settled there too.809

806
BOA, TD 370, f. 103. For translation into Bulgarian of the related sections of the register see Kovachev,
“Novi svedeniya za Karlovo”, 16-17.
807
Cf. Kovachev, “Novi svedeniya za Karlovo”, 16 preferred the reading İvladiçe.
808
Cf. Kovachev, “Novi svedeniya za Karlovo”, 17 misread üçer for onar thus indicating that the
household owed 10 kiles annually.
809
There are several muhasebe records of Ali Bey’s foundation in the Evkaf-i Haremeyn Muhasebeciliği
in the Evkaf-i Hümayun Nezareti Section of the Ottoman Archive in Istanbul – EV. HMH 4911
(11.3.1753); EV. HMH 4998 (12.3.1755); EV. HMH 5697 (1768-1769); EV. HMH 4998 (12.3.1791).
Another muhasebe defteri, dating from 9.12.1868 is kept in the local museum in Karlovo. The document is
published in transliteration and translation into Russian by Gălăbov, “Turetskie dokumentiy po istorii
Karlovo”, 172-178.
308

Be it as it may, in the years after the registration of 1530 the village named Livadiçe
disappeared for good from the official records.
Table 5. Population of the vakıf of Ali Bey, son of Karlı in the period 1516-1596
Muslims Christians
Date Household Household

Unmarried Unmarried
s s
1516 7 1 42 1
1530 10 1 33 4
1570 69 4 115 2
1596 117 32 162 4
1516=BOA TD 77; 1530=BOA TD 370; 1570=BOA TD 498; 1596=BOA TD 470
Although the pious foundation of the Karlıoğlus lost one village from its landed
properties, as the tiny village of Livadiçe ceased to exist, the town of Karlova itself has
grown considerably in the forty-year period prior the following available tahrir record of
the province dating 1570. It already had a population of about one thousand residents
divided among the two large confessional groups. The register is in fact the earliest
census that provides some information on the servants of Ali Bey’s mosque. The defter
has a record of one imam, who was also the hatib of the mosque, two müezzins, and a
309

kayyum.810 The fact that the names of these people appeared in the record most likely
indicates that they were no longer enjoying tax exemptions, therefore one can argue that
the greater portion of the Muslim population residing in the town in 1570 was included
in the register. The examination of the available data of individual taxpayers suggests
that the elementary school (mekteb), which used to be located a few dozen meters
northwest of the mosque, was already functioning by the date in which the document
was drawn up. Undoubtedly the mekteb must have been built and supported by the pious
foundation, but there is no specific information as to when exactly this was done and
precisely which administrator commissioned it. Nevertheless, the register of 1570
testifies that some mu’allim Hasan hoca was appointed to educate the local Muslim
children.811 By that time the town must have also had a dervish lodge, since among the
Muslim taxpayers there were four dervishes. The registrar also noted several craftsmen –
bakers, shoemakers, a tanner, a blacksmith etc. Surprisingly, very few of the Muslims
were converts to Islam – only three heads of households were indicated as being first
generation Muslims.
Christians who occupied the southern part of the town had tripled in the
intervening years between the registrations. The growing importance of Karlova, already
referred to in the Ottoman documents as a kasaba, must have attracted settlers from the
villages of the surrounding area or even from more distant locations. One Christian
taxpayer moved to Karlova from the village of Karnofol (mod. Voysil, 12 km northwest
of Plovdiv), as two skilled craftsmen, spinners of goat hair (mutaf) relocated from the

810
BOA, TD 498, f. 670.
811
BOA, TD 498, f. 670.
310

metropolis Filibe, apparently in search of better job opportunities. 812 The list of
craftsmen also included a goldsmith and six tailors. At least six of the Christian
taxpayers were previously unsettled (haymane) as several others were explicitly marked
as migrants or new arrivals (preseliç) that demonstrates convincingly that the rapid
growth of the Christian community in Karlova was largely due to the influx of
population. The register of 1570 is the earliest document that mentions a priest among
the Christian taxpayers, certain Vlad papas813, but there is no information about a church
in the town at that time. The first church in Karlova seems to have been built as late as
early nineteenth century.814
The rapid population expansion of Karlova continued in the period until the next
census that was compiled in 1596.815 In the intervening quarter of a century the residents
of the town increased by two thirds almost reaching the population figures of the much
older and more developed town of Tatar Pazarcık. 816 The remarkable demographic
growth in such a short period can only be attributed to a significant influx of settlers in
the town from outside, as the large portion of Muslim bachelors (27%) clearly
demonstrates this fact.
The growing Muslim community had in 1596 two imams, two muezzins and a
kayyum serving at the mosque of Ali Bey. The dervish convent also appears to have
attracted new followers as the total number of dervishes in the town increased to seven.

812
BOA, TD 498, f. 671.
813
BOA, TD 498, f. 671.
814
Todor Todorov. “Aspekti na tsărkovnoto stroitelstvo v Karlovo prez XIX vek.” in Todorova-Tsoleva-
Ivanova, Obshtestveni i religiozni sgradi, 183-187.
815
BOA, TD 470, ff. 692-695.
816
By that time Tatar Pazarcık had a population of 324 households.
311

The instructor in the primary school, Hasan hoca, most probably passed away since he
was replaced by his unmarried son, the mu’allim Resul.817 The number of craftsmen and
the diversity of professions also increased greatly in the intervening several decades. The
registrar kept record of shoemakers, blacksmiths, soap-makers, helva-makers, grocers
etc. The fact that by 1596 there were at least four tanners in Karlova indicates that the
tannery (debbaghane), which the pious foundation possessed, was most likely already
built. It was located on the eastern edge of the town, logically placed on the bank of the
stream very close to the public bath. According to the accounting register of 1772/1773
the rent of the tannery yielded to the vakıf revenue of 1200 akçes.818
The Christian community in the town that reached 163 households and 3
bachelors did not increase as rapidly as the Muslim one, but still had a significant
growth for a quarter of a century – 41%. Despite the lack of a church building the priests
in 1596 were already two – Ralyo pop and Dragul pop. 819 The Slavic origin of the
Christian names of the two priests as well as the names of the greater part of the
Christian residents of Karlova bespeak of their Bulgarian origin. The Christian artisans
in the town also appear to have specialized in particular crafts. The register enlists 13
tailors, 7 spinners of goat hair, 5 shoemakers, 3 goldsmiths etc.
The data in the register of 1596 presents Karlova as a well developed provincial
town in the Ottoman Balkans. Its population reached about one and a half thousand of
which 58% was Christian and 42% Muslim. The Muslim community occupied the

817
BOA, TD 470, f. 693.
818
EV. HMH 5697, f. 1r. The foundation also collected revenues from a number of shops, houses,
watermills etc. The annual rent of the public bath was yielding a significant income of 12 000 akçes. In the
same year the foundation spent 1 000 akçes for repair works of the hamam.
819
BOA, TD 470, f. 694.
312

northern part of the town, where the main Friday mosque, as well as the public bath and
the commercial core were located, while the Christian quarters were situated in a
distance to the south of it. The favorable conditions created by the pious foundation,
administered by the descendents of Ali Bey, presupposed the rapid development of the
town. The available Ottoman documents do not specify whether by the end of the
sixteenth century the administration of the vakıf was still in the hands of the members of
Ali Bey’s family or their lineage disappeared and it was delivered to the descendents of
their manumitted slaves as stipulated in the vakfiye. Nevertheless, the register of 1596
contains the name of the current mütevelli Mehmed and three of his sons Dur Ali, Sinan
and Ahmed.820
5.6. The reasons behind the success of Ali Bey’s project
The town of Karlova came into being in the second half of the fifteenth century
about the same time as the complex of Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey in Konuş. In contrast to
Konuş, however, that never lost its rural look and finally disappeared for good, the
development of Karlova was very rapid and extremely successful, becoming the
dominant town of the area. Ali Bey and his descendents appeared to have been very

820
BOA, TD 470, f. 692. Çiftlik-i Dur Ali bin Mehmed. Haliya der yed-i Sinan ve Ahmed, veledan-i
Mehmed el-mütevelli-i mezbur (Land farm of Dur Ali, son of Mehmed. Now it is held by Sinan and
Ahmed sons of Mehmed, the mentioned administrator of the pious foundation).
313

skilled administrators and succeeded at the point in which Mehmed Bey and his relatives
failed. They managed to create from scratch and promote a settlement which for a period
of one century turned into an important provincial center in Thrace that rivaled in
magnitude established towns such as Tatar Pazarcık.
Several important factors seem to have contributed for the thriving development
of Karlova, while on the other hand they predetermined the failure of Konuş. Firstly, the
geographic location of the two settlements appeared to have been of crucial importance.
While, because of the shift of the path of the main road Mehmed Bey’s complex
remained isolated inland, Ali Bey’s Karlova was established on a strategically important
crossroad. The town became the place of distribution of people and goods traveling from
the western Balkans to the Black Sea cost (the road that follows the Balkan mountain
range) and from Upper Thrace to northern Bulgaria, cutting through the mountain near
Karlova. The busy traffic crossing the small town on a daily basis undoubtedly proved
advantageous and greatly stimulated its flourishing development.
Secondly, the central Ottoman authority set both Konuş and Karlova as
administrative centers of the subdivisions (nahiye) in the large kaza of Filibe.
Nevertheless, there was a great difference in the areas administered by both settlements.
While Konuş was in charge of a newly defined territorial division that included
numerous semi-nomadic Yürük and several Christian villages at the high lands of the
Rhodopes, Karlova ruled over a territory that was incorporated into the Ottoman
administrative system as a single entity from the pre-Ottoman period. Building the new
town near the ruins of the medieval seat of power of the entire area, Ali Bey is likely to
314

have benefited from a long established tradition in governing the surrounding valley of
the Göpsu River. Stated differently it is likely that the pre-Ottoman tradition contributed
to the establishment of the new Ottoman seat of power in the region. Moreover, despite
the destructive conquest of the region, a number of pre-Ottoman Bulgarian villages
survived the troublesome times. The available space in the plain was naturally occupied
by the Yürüks and by Turkish sedentary rural population but their portion was not nearly
as big as in the region of Konuş. The population growth in the Bulgarian villages that
remained inhabited was large enough in order to supply a constant influx of settlers for
the emerging town. The stipulations of the vakfiye and later administrative documents
clearly show that the administrators of Ali Bey’s foundation attempted to encourage
Muslim migration to the town too by offering tax exemptions for long periods of time.
Last but not least, the demographic boom that made Karlova a provincial center
of some prominence was a direct result of its rapid economic development. The
crossroad location of the town did not remain overlooked by the administrators of the
pious foundation and they organized a large market that is likely to have gathered the
agricultural production of the entire valley. The big market in Karlova that boosted its
development could also have been an inherited tradition from the pre-Ottoman times that
was utilized and carried on by the descendents of Ali Bey. The exchange of goods and
the constant flow of people through the town stimulated the local industry too. The
Ottoman registers recorded that by the end of the sixteenth century there were a number
of craftsmen in the town that bespeaks for the economic development of the town. The
complexity of favorable conditions appeared to have been sufficient enough in order to
315

turn Ali Bey’s project into a success, thus giving birth to one of the many towns in the
Balkans that owe their existence to the Ottoman creative energy of the fifteenth century.
316

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The cases of urban development examined in this dissertation hopefully
succeeded in bringing together enough evidence that demonstrates the existence of an
established Ottoman model for urban modification and creation of new towns.
Formulating the methods used by the Ottomans for reclaiming urban space in the
conquered territories followed a long evolutionary path. In all probability the Ottomans
inherited and developed a common pattern for urban transformation that originated in
the independent post-Seljukid Anatolian Turkish emirates. Adapting the ‘fashion of day’
the early Ottoman rulers transformed the spatial order of the cities through colonization
of the territory that lay beyond the fortified parts of the conquered cities. Their chief
instrument used for encouraging urban growth in the desired direction were the
multifunctional socio-religious complexes grouped around T-shaped imaret/zaviyes.
Commissioned, as a rule, by the conqueror and the actual ruler of the city these buildings
aimed to establish Islamic bridgehead in the predominantly Christian environment and to
317

leave a permanent imprint on the urban landscape. In many cases these early
‘colonizers’ changed the inherited hierarchy of space and became a nucleus for the
emerging Muslim city stretched beyond the fortified parts of the pre-Ottoman cities.
Continuous architectural patronage, which in several decades supplemented
commercial infrastructure to the earliest T-shaped multifunctional building, not only
extended the Ottoman architectural presence in the selected direction, but it also paved
the way for the construction a large multi-domed imperial mosque that in a sound
display of the triumph of Islam designated the new urban core. Once the new Ottoman
center of the city was fully fit one or more T-shaped buildings marked its outer
boundaries and defined the development of the urban fabric. The residential parts of the
new Muslim city filled the space between the commercial core and the surrounding T-
shaped buildings whose connections with the central area set the main axis of
development and determined the network of secondary streets.
Following the Ottoman advance in Europe the program for urban
transformation, formulated in Asia Minor by the early sultans, was transferred to the
Balkans too. Adopted and implemented successfully by the mighty march lords (akıncı
uc beyis) in the regions under their direct control, the model was also used by them when
establishing new towns (Sarajevo being an emblematic example). Moreover, in the
course of time, the multifunctional T-shaped imaret/zaviyes, a product of the border
culture by naissance, became the preferred type of institution patronized by the border
lords. In contrast, toward the turn of the fifteenth century, when the central Ottoman
authority began to formulate imperial ideology based exclusively on Sunni Islam, it
318

gradually changed its attitude toward the multifunctional buildings. Offering shelter to
the centrifugal forces in the then Ottoman society and to all who opposed the process of
centralization and Sunnification propagated by the sultans, the imaret/zaviyes not only
lost the royal support and patronage, but also many of the existing ones were converted
into communal mosques. Thus, following the gradual marginalization of the periphery
forces, the buildings that played a decisive role in the reshaping of the conquered
Christian cities during the formative period were to be modified on their own turn and
had to give way to other types of architecture, patronized by the ruling dynasty.
The program for renewal and complete modification of the urban space was by
no means equally applied in all cities in the Balkans under Ottoman rule. It seems that it
was rather reserved for these cities that were badly damaged prior or during the conquest
or those that were seen as being of great strategic importance to the central authority.
The degree of continuity of the Byzantino-Slavic urban base after the conquest defined
to a great extend the development of the demographic processes there too. The cities in
the Balkans that largely preserved their pre-Ottoman structure, with minor changes in
the urban order, as a rule kept a sizable Christian community that was in majority to the
Muslims (Istanbul and Thessaloniki being notable exceptions). In contrast, the newly
established towns and especially the cities that were completely remodeled or built anew
in the Ottoman period in most cases were predominantly, if not entirely, Muslim.
The case study on four separate settlements in Upper Thrace, a region that was
devastated and depopulated in the pre-Ottoman times and during the Interregnum period
in the first decade of the fifteenth century, presented in this dissertation, offers a
319

possibility for a detailed look on the process of resurrection of urban life in the area.
While all four settlements in question shared insignificant continuity of the existing pre-
Ottoman urban tradition they still greatly differed in their emergence and development,
thus reflecting the heterogeneous nature of the early Ottoman society in the Balkans.
The largest and undoubtedly the most important of them was the metropolis of
the region Filibe (mod. Plovdiv), which was seized by the Ottoman forces in the 1360s.
Badly damaged by the continuous warfare in the pre-Ottoman period, when the city
surrendered to Lala Şahin Paşa it was reduced to the confines of its stronghold. The
restoration of urban life that began in the late fourteenth century with the establishment
of the seat of the beylerbeyi in the city was once more interrupted by the disruptive
warfare of the Interregnum period after the battle of Ankara (1402). The complete
revival through a significant modification of the urban space was only achieved thanks
to the patronage of sultan Murad II and the then beylerbeyi of Rumili Hacı Şihabeddin
Paşa in the 1430s and 1440s. The development of Filibe was completely dominated by
the central power and its closest associates who on the one hand expended large
resources in providing the city with adequate architectural infrastructure that had to
attract settlers, while on the other whenever it seemed needy interrupted the natural
demographic processes through forced relocations of Christians, Jews, and Muslims
from the city to other places had must have been of a higher priority for the Ottoman
sultans. Having small Christian, Jewish, and Armenian minorities throughout the period
of study the city was entirely dominated by its large Muslim community.
320

In the 1390s a group of Tatars established west of Filibe a tiny settlement that in
the course of time turned into the important provincial center of Tatar Pazarcık. Unlike
its larger counterpart the emergence of this town was due to the support and patronage of
the several dynasties of raider commanders. Located on an important juncture that
connected the Via Militaris road with the iron producing center Samako and Macedonia
the town attracted the peripheral forces who established a powerbase there. The
domination of the border society over the development of the provincial town came to
an end in the mid-sixteenth century when the central power established closer control
over it. This major change was also marked by a notable shift in the architectural
patronage as the powerful border lords were replaced by high ranking Ottoman officials.
The growing influence of the central power and the emerging economic importance of
the provincial center in the second half of the sixteenth century attracted permanent
Bulgarian Christian settlers in the town that had exclusively Muslim population.
Unlike Tatar Pazarcık, which owed its successful development to a number of
prominent figures in the fifteenth-century border society, the attempt of Minnetoğlu
Mehmed Bey to promote a town in his family domain in Konuş Hisarı faced a complete
failure and the settlement established by him disappeared for good. In spite of being a
renowned commander of the Ottoman vanguard and prolific patron of architecture
whose buildings contributed greatly for the development of important cities like Nish,
Smederevo, and Sarajevo Mehmed Bey and his descendents did not manage in securing
the support of the other dynasties of raider commanders who had both the much needed
financial means and the necessary experience in creating towns on their own. The failure
321

of Konuş, which never turned into a real town, indicates quite clearly the difficulties that
inevitably accompanied the process of establishing and promoting new settlements in the
Ottoman realm.
As if to contrast the failure of Konuş the creation and the development of
Karlova looks like an ultimate success of a single individual to promote a town in his
own domain. The emergence of the town, however, was hardly only due to the great
administrative skills of its founder Karlıoğlu Ali Bey. What seems of great importance
for the fast emergence of the small town and its development to a provincial center was
the existence of strong local pre-Ottoman tradition in administering the area and
focusing the economic and trade activities that were skillfully utilized by the founder
and his descendents in conjunction with tax exemptions for the new settlers, which
paved the way for Karlovo’s fast prosperity.
322

Table 6. Population of Filibe (1472-1614)
Date 1472 1489 1516 1525 1530 1570 1596 1614

Muslim households 549 791 877 801 636 752 844 721
Unmarried Muslims - 107 220 136 126 26 32 -
Christian households 122 80 88 79 81 88 156 255
Unmarried Christians - 5 - 3 3 2 7 -
Christian widows - 12 13 13 13 7 - -
Jewish households - - 32 32 33 50 54 46
323
TABLES
Unmarried Jews - - - 1 1 1 - -
Armenian households - - - - - - - 21
Gypsy households - 36 35 33 33 26 24 87
Unmarried Gypsies - - - 2 2 - 9 -
Total 671 907/124 1032/233 945/155 783/145 916/36 1078/48 1130
(households/bachelors)
1472=Sofia, PD 17/27; 1489=BOA, TD 26; 1516=BOA, TD 77; 1525=BOA, MAD 519; 1530= BOA, TD 370; 1570= BOA, TD 494;
1595=T.K.G.M., Edirne 65; 1614= BOA, TD 729.
Table 7. Population of Tatar Pazarcık (1472-1614)
Date 1472 1516 1525 1530 1570 1596 1614

Muslim households 105 197 195 178 231 287 409
Unmarried Muslims - 36 18 16 1 5 -
Christian households - 1 13 - 28 44 105
Unmarried Christians - - 2 - - - -
324
Jewish households - - - - - - -
Gypsy households - - - - 1 34 7
Total 105 198/36 208/20 178/16 260/1 365/5 521
(households/bachelors)
1472=Sofia, PD 17/27; 1516=BOA, TD 77; 1525=BOA, MAD 519; 1530= BOA, TD 370; 1570= BOA, TD 494;
1595=T.K.G.M., Edirne 65; 1614= BOA, TD 729.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Unpublished archival sources:
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archive), Istanbul (Turkey):
A.}MKT.UM dosya 11, gömlek 72
Ali Emiri, Fatih 57
C.EV. dosya 569, gömlek 28746.
EV.d 10024
EV. HMH 4998

EV. HMH 5697
EV. HMH 4911
EV. HMH 4998
EV.VKF. dosya 1, gömlek 49

EV. VKF. dosya 19, gömlek 11
MAD 7
MAD 519
MAD 749
MAD 2775
MAD 4075
MAD 5292
MAD 6513
MAD 15134
MD 29, no. 98/237
TD 20
TD 26
TD 27
TD 73
TD 77
TD 135
TD 138
325
TD 187
TD 223
TD 470
TD 494
TD 498
TD 648
TD 718
TD 729
TD 771
TD 775
TD 1001
TSMA d. 544
TSMA d. 1572
TSMA d. 1598 0002
TSMA d. 1681
TSMA d. 3687 0014
TSMA d. 4319
TSMA d. 5301
TSMA d. 5671 0001
İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kütüphane (Municipal Library in Istanbul), Atatürk

Kitaplığı (Turkey):
İBK, M.C. O. 71
İBK, M.C. O. 91
İBK, M.C. O. 117-5
Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü, Kuyud-u Kadime Arşivi (Archive of the

General Directorate of the Cadastre), Ankara (Turkey):
TKGM, KuK 58
TKGM, KuK 65
TKGM, Vakf-i Cedid 123
Vakıflar Genel Müdülüğü Arşivi (Archive of the General Directorate of the Pious
Foundations), Ankara (Turkey):
VGMA, D. 1180
VGMA, defter no. 628, s. 449, sıra no. 233
326
VGMA, defter no. 630, s. 975, sıra no. 585a
VGMA, defter no. 633, s. 88-89, sıra no. 33
National Library “Sts. Cyril and Methodius”, Sofia (Bulgaria):
OAK 94/73
OAK 121/9
ОАК 265/4
PD 17/12
PD 17/27
Regional State Archive in Plovdiv (Bulgaria):
Fond 55K, op. 2, a.e. 188
Published archival sources:
3 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (966-968/1558-1560) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel

Müdürlüğü, 1993).
5 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (973/1565-1566) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel

6 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (972/1564-1565) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri Genel

12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (978-979/1570-1572) (Ankara: Devlet Arşivleri

Genel Müdürlüğü, 1996).
370 Numaralı Muhâsebe-i Vilâyet-i Rûm-İli Defteri (937/1530) (Ankara: Devlet

Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2001).
Akgündüz, Ahmed. Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri. 1. Kitap (İstanbul:

FEY Vakfı, 1990).
Anhegger Robert and Halil İnalcık. Kanunname-i Sultani ber Muceb-i ‘Örf-i Osmani
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956).
327
Barkan, Ömer Lûtfi. XV ve XVIıncı Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Ziraî
Ekonomisinin Hukuki ve Malî Esaslar. Kanunlar (İstanbul: İstanbul
Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1943).
Cvetkova, Bistra (ed.), Fontes Turcici Historiae Bulgaricae, vol. 3 (Sofia: Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences, 1972).
Galabov, Galab. Die Protokollbücher des Kadiamtes Sofia, herausgegeben von

Herbert W. Duda. (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1960).
Grozdanova, Elena (ed.), Turski izvori za bălgarskata istoriya (Sofia: Glavno

Upravlenie na Arhivite, 2001).
İnalcık, Halil. Hicrî 835 Tarihli Sûret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid (Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu, 1954).
Kaleši, Hasan. Najstariji vakufski dokumenti u Jugoslaviji na arapskom jeziku

(Priština, 1972).
Kaldy-Nagy, Gyula. Kanuni Devri Budin Tahrir Defteri (1546-1562) (Ankara:

Ankara Üniversitesi, 1971).
Kürkçüoğlu, Kemal Edib. Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi (Ankara: Resimli Posta Matbaası,

1962).
Mutafova, Krasimira, Mariya Kalitsin, and Stefan Andreev. Izvori za istoriyata na

grad Omurtag. Tom 1: Osmanski dokumenti XV-XVIII v. (Veliko
Tărnovo: Faber, 2009).
Özbek, Zeynep Ayhun. 1-2 nolu Mülâzemet Defteri (Tahlil ve Değerlendirme)

(unpublished M.A. thesis, Marmara University, 2006).
Refik, Ahmet. On Altıncı Asırda Rafızîlik ve Bektaşilik (İstanbul: Muallim Ahmet

Halit Kitaphanesi, 1932).
Todorov, Nikolai and Boris Nedkov (eds.), Fontes Turcici Historiae Bulgaricae, vol.
2 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1966).
Truhelka, Ćiro. Tursko-slovjenski spomenici dubrovačke arhive (Sarajevo: Zemaljska

štamparija, 1911).
Yücel, Yaşar and H. Erdoğan Cengiz. „Rûhî Tarîhi – Oxford Nüshası.” Belgeler 14
(1989-1992): 359-472.
Published & Unpublished Ottoman and European chronicles, travel accounts, and
literary sources:
328
Abdurrahman Hibrî. Enîsü’l-müsâmirîn – Edirne Tarihi, 1360-1650, edited by Ratip
Kazancıgil (Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği, 1996).
Ahmed Şikârî. Karamannâme: Zamanın Kahramanı Karamanîler'in Tarihi. Edited

by Metin Sözen and Necdet Sakaoğlu (İstanbul : Karaman Valiliği,
Karaman Belediyesi, 2005).
Atsız, Nihal. Âşıkpaşaoğlu Ahmed Âşıkî. Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osman. in idem. Osmanlı
Tarihleri I. (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1949).
Âşık Mehmed. Menâzırü’l-Avâlim, Mahmud Ak (ed.), vol. 3 (Ankara: Türk Tarih

Kurumu, 2007).
Aşıkpaşazade Tarihi. Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. Edited by Ali Bey (İstanbul: Matba’a-i
Amire, 1332/1916).
Azamat, Nihat. Anonim Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. F. Giese neşri (İstanbul: Marmara
Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1992).
Babinger, Franz. Die frühosmanischen Jahrbücher des Urudsch: nach den

Handschriften zu Oxford und Cambridge (Hannover: Orient-
Buchhandlung Heinz Lafaire, 1925).
_____ . Hans Dernschwam’s Tagebuch einer Reise nach Konstantinopel und

Kleinasien (1553/55) (Berlin und München: Verlag von Duncker &
Humbolt, 19862).
Bertrandon de la Broquière. Voyage d'Outremer, edited by Ch. Schefer (Paris: Ernst

Leroux, 1842).
Contarini, Paolo. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli di Paolo Contarini

che andava bailo per la Repubblica Veneta alla Porta Ottomana nel
1580. Ora per la prima volta pubblicato (Venice: Coi Tipi di Teresa
Gattei, 1856).
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).
Cvetkova, Bistra. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Frenski pătepisi za Balkanite XV-

XVII v. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1975).
Çabuk, Vahid. Solak-zâde tarihi, vol. 1 (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1989).
329
Darkó, Eugenius. Laonici Chalcocandylae historiarum demonstrationes, vol. 1
(Budapestini: Typis Societatis Franklinianae, 1922).
Dick de Lonley. A travers la Bulgarie. Souvenirs de guerre et de voyage, par un

volontaire au 26e régiment de Cosaques du Don. Les Balkans. Etropol.
Tchelopetz. Plevna. Araba-Konak. Sofia. Tatar-Bazardjick.
Philipppopoli. Le Rhodope. Hermanli. Andrinople. San-Stefano.
Stamboul. Illustré de 20 dessins par l'auteur (Paris: Garnier frères, 1888).
Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (2. Kitap), edited by Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali
Kahraman, and Yücel Dağlı (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999).
Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi. Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 305 Yazmasının

Transkripsiyonu – Dizini, (3. Kitap), edited by Seyit Ali Kahraman and
Yücel Dağlı (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999).
Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (6. Kitap), edited by Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel
Dağlı (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2002).
Evliya Çelebi. Seyahatnamesi, Üçüncü Cild (İstanbul: Dersa’det Matba’ası,

1314/1896).
Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî. Künhü’l-ahbâr: cilt II – Fâtih Sultân Mehmed devri (1451-
1481), edited by M. Hüdai Şentürk (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003).
Giese, Friedrich. Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken. Teil I: Text und

Variantenverzeichnis (Breslau, 1922).
_____ . Die Altosmanishe Chronik des ‘Âšıkpašazâde (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz,

1929).
Hoca Sadeddin Efendi. Tac-üt-Tevârih, vol. 1-2 ([Istanbul]: Tabhane-yi Âmire,

1279-80/1863-64).
Hochstetter, Ferdinand von. "Reise durch Rumelien im Sommer 1869." Mitteilungen

der K. und K. Geographischen Gesellschaft in Wien 14 (1871): 65-180.
İbn Kemal (Kemalpaşazâde). Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. VII. Defter, edited by Şerafettin
Turan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957).
İbn Kemal (Kemalpaşazâde). Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, IV. Defter, edited by Koji
Imazawa (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000).
İbn Kemal (Kemalpaşazâde). Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman. VII. Defter, edited by Şerafettin
Turan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 19912).
İbrahim Efendi Peçevi. Tarih-i Peçevî, vol. 1 (İstanbul: Matba‘a-i ‘Amire,

1281/1864).
330
İdris-i Bitlisî. Haşt Bihişt, vol. 1, edited by Mehmed Karataş, Selim Kaya and Yaşar
Baş (Ankara: Bitilis Eğitim va Tanıtma Vakfı Yayınları, 2008).
İnalcık, Halil and Rhoads Murphey. The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by
Tursun Beg (Minneapolis & Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1978).
İsen, Mustafa. Latîfî Tezkiresi (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1990).
Jacopo Soranzo. Diario del viaggio da Venezia a Costantinopoli fatto da

M. Jacopo Soranzo, ambasciatore straordinario della serenissima
repubblica di Venezia al Sultano Murad III, in compagnia di M.
Giovanni Correr, bailo alla porta Ottomana/descritto da anonimo che fu
al seguito del Soranzo, MDLXXV (Venice: G. Merlo, 1856).
Konstantin dem Philosophen. Lebensbeschreibung des Despoten Stefan Lazarević.

Translated and edited by Maximilian Braun (Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz, 1956).
Konstantin Mihailović. Memoirs of a Janissary, translated by Benjamin Stolz,

historical commentary and notes by Svat Soucek (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1975).
Kritovoulos. History of Mehmed the Conqueror, translated and edited by Charles

Riggs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954).
Küçük, Serap. Ahmed Bâdî Efendi ve Edirne Yapıları (unpublished M.A. thesis,
Trakya University, Edirne, 1995).
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): 201-256.
_____ . “Putovanja po Balkanskom poluotoku XVI. vjieka, X. Putopis Marka Antuna

Pigafette, ili drugo putovanje Antuna Vrančića u Carigrad 1567. godine.”
Rad Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti 100 (1890): 65-168.
Mehmed Neşrî. Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi. Vols 1-2 edited by Faik Reşit
Unat and Mehmed A. Köymen (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1949-
1957).
Münîrî Belgradî. Silsıletü’l-Mukarribîn ve Menâkibü’l-Müttakîn. Süleymaniye

Kütüphanesi, Şehid Ali Paşa N 2819/3.
Naima. Annals of the Turkish Empire from 1591 to 1659 of the Christian era,
translated from the Turkish by Charles Fraser, vol. 1 (London: Oriental
Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, 1832).
331
Nicoloudis, Nicolaos. Laonikos Chalkokondyles: A Translation and Commentary of
the “Demonstrations of Histories”, Books I-III (PhD Dissertation, King’s
College London, 1992).
Nizamüddin Şâmi. Zafernâme, translated and edited by Necati Lugal (Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu, 1949).
Oruç Beğ Tarihi, edited by Nihal Atsız (İstanbul: Tercüman, 1001 Temel Eser, No.
5, 1972).
Philippe du Fresne-Canaye. Le voyage du Levant (1573), edited by H. Hauser (Paris:

Ernest Leroux, 1897).
Ruhi Edrenevi. Berlin, Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Ms. Orient Quart 821.
Rumeli und Bosna. Geographisch beschrieben von Mustafa Ben Abdalla Hadschi
Chalfa, translated and commented by Joseph von Hammer (Wien: Im
Verlage des Kunst- und Industrie-Comptoirs, 1812).
Schreiner, Peter. Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, 2. Teil: Historischer

Kommentar (Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1977).
Stefan Gerlach. Dnevnik na edno pătuvane do Osmanskata porta v Tsarigrad,

translated and edited by Mariya Kiselincheva (Sofia: Otechestven Front,
1976).
Theodore Spandounes. On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors. Translated and

edited by Donald Nicol (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Vatin, Nicolas. Sultan Djem. Un prince ottoman dans l’Europe de XVe siècle d’après
deux sources contemporaine: Vâkı’ât-ı Sultân Cem, Œuvres de
Guillaume Caoursin (Ankara: Imprimerie de la Société Turque
d’Histoire, 1997).
Yonov, Mihail. Chuždi pătepisi za Balkanite. Nemski i avstriyski pătepisi za

Balkanite XV-XVI v. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1979).
Zahariev, Stephan. Geografiko-istoriko-statistichesko opisanie na Tatar-

Pazardžishkata kaaza (Phototype edition with comments) (Sofia:
Otechestven Front, 1973).
Studies:
332
Acaroğlu, Türker. Bulgaristan’da Türkçe Yer Adları Hılavuzu (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 2006).
Acun, Fatma. “A Portrait of the Ottoman Cities.” Muslim World 92:3-4 (2002): 255-
286.
Aktepe, Münir. “XIV. ve XV. Asırlarda Rumeli’nin Türkler Tarafından İskânına

Dair.” Türkiyat Mecmuası 10 (1951-1953): 299-312.
Alvadžiev, Nikola. Plovdivska hronika (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov, 1971).
_____ . Starinni cherkvi v Plovdiv (Plovdiv: Letera, 2000).
Antonov, Aleksandăr. “Vremeto e pari. Osmanskata kurierska služba v kraya na

XVII i prez XVIII vek.” in Raya Zaimova and Nikolay Aretov (eds.),
Pari, dumi, pamet (Sofia: Kralitsa Mab, 2004), 127-143.
_____ . “Infrastruktura na ovladyanoto prostranstvo. Osmanski dokumenti za pătnite

stantsii po Diagonalniya păt.” in Svetlana Ivanova (ed.), Etnicheski i
kulturni prostranstva na Balkanite. Chast I: Minaloto – istoricheski
rakursi (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 2008),
206-225.
Antov, Nikolay. Imperial Expansion, Colonization, and Conversion to Islam in the

Islamic World’s ‘Wilds West’: the Formation of the Muslim Community
in Ottoman Deliorman (N. E. Bulgaria), 15th – 16th cc. (Unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of Chicago, 2011).
Apostolidis, Kosmas Mirtilos. “Prevzemaneto na Plovdiv ot turtsite, Plovdivski

obshtinski vestnik.” 18 October 1929, No 22, 3-5.
Aslanapa, Oktay. Edirne’de Osmanlı Devri Abideleri (İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi,

1949), 2-6.
_____ . “İznik’te Sultan Orhan İmâret Câmii Kazısı 1963-1964.” Sanat Tarihi Yılığı
(1964-1965): 16-31.
_____ . “Turkish Architecture at Iznik.” in Işıl Akbaygil et al (eds.), İznik throughout

history (Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası, 2003), 223-226.
_____ . Turkish Art and Architecture (Ankara: Ataturk Culture Centre Publications,
2004).
Astrinidou, Pelagia. “Bedesten, Thessaloniki, Greece.” in Slobodan Ćurčić and

Evangelia Hadjitryphonos (eds.), Secular Medieval Architecture in the
Balkans 1300-1500 and its Preservation (Thessaloniki : Aimos, 1997),
286-289.
333
Aščerić, Ines. “Neke napomene o problemima iz historije Isa-Begove tekije.” Prilozi
za orijentalnu filologiju 52-53 (2002-2003): 339-350.
Atanasov, Georgi. Dobrudžanskoto despotstvo: kăm politicheskata, tzăkovnata,

stopanskata i kulturnata istoriya na Dobrudža prez XIV vek (Veliko
Ayverdi, Ekrem Hakkı. Osmanlı Mi’mârîsinin İlk Devri (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih
Cemiyeti, 1966).
_____ . Osmanlı Mimârîsinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri, 806-855 (1403-
1451) (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 19892)
_____ . Osmanlı Mi’mârisinde Fâtih Devri 855-866 (1451-1481) (İstanbul: Damla

Osfet, 1989).
_____ . Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimari Eserleri. IV. Cild – Bulgaristan, Yunanistan,

Arnavudluk (İstanbul: İstabul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982).
Babinger, Franz. Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke (Leipzig:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1927).
_____ . Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.-15.

Jahrhundert) (München-Brünn: R. M. Rohrer, 1944).
_____ . “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Geschlechtes der Malkoč-oghlu’s.” in idem.

Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der
Levante, vol. 1 (München: Südosteuropa-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1962),
355-369.
_____ . “Beiträge zur Geschichte von Qarly-Eli vornehmlich aus osmanischen

Quellen.” in idem. Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte
Südosteuropas und der Levante, vol. 1 (München: Südosteuropa-
Verlagsgesellschaft, 1962), 370-377.
_____ . Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time (New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1978).
Bakardjieva, Teodora. “Ruse and the Ruse Region in the Context of Demographic
Processes in the Lower Danube Region.” in Meral Bayrak et al. (eds.),
Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri
Sempozyumu, 11-13 Mayıs 2005 (Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi,
2005), 39-48.
Bakardjieva, Teodora and Stoyan Yordanov. Ruse: prostranstvo i istoriya (kraya na

XIV v. – 70-te godini na XIX v.). Gradoustroystvo, infrastruktura, obekti
(Ruse: Avangardprint, 2001).
334
Balkanlı, Ali Kemal. Şarkî Rumeli ve buradaki Türkler (İstanbul: Elhan Kitabevi,
1986).
Baltacı, Câhid. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri: Teşkilât, Tarih (İstanbul:

İrfan Matbaası, 1976).
Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu

olarak Vakıflar ve Temlikler. İstilâ Devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk
Dervişleri ve Zâviyeler.” Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942): 279-386.
_____ . Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak

Sürgünler”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 11 (1949-
1950): 524-569.
_____ . “Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak

Sürgünler.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 13 (1951-
1952): 56-79.
_____ . “Osmanlı İparatorluğunda Bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak

Sürgünler”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 15 (1953-
1954): 209-237.
_____ . “«Tarihî demografi» Araştırmaları ve Osmanlı Tarihi.” Türkiyat Mecmuası

10 (1951-1953): 1-26.
_____ . “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Malî Yılına Ait Bir Bütçe Örneği.”, İstanbul
Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 15 (1953-1954): 251-329.
_____ . “Quelques observations sur l’organization économique et sociale des villes

Ottomanes des XVI et XVI siècles.” Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin
pour l'histoire comparative des institutions, vol. 7, La Ville 2: Institutions
économiques et sociales (Bruxelles: De Boeck Université, 1955), 289-
311.
_____ . “Essai sur les données statistiques des registres de recensement dans
l’Empire ottoman aux XVe et XVIe siècles.” Journal of Economic and
Social History of the Orient 1:1 (1957): 9-36.
_____ . “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda İmâret Sitelerinin Kuruluş ve İşleyiş Tarzına âit

Araştırmalar.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23
(1962-1963): 239-296.
_____ . “Edirne ve Civarındaki Bazı İmâret Tesislerinin Yıllık Muhasebe

Bilânçoları” Belgeler 1:1-2 (1964): 235-377.
_____ . “Research on the Ottoman Fiscal Surveys.” in Michael A. Cook (ed.),

Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East from the Rise of
Islam to the Present Day (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 163-
171.
335
_____ . “Quelques remarques sur la constitution sociale et démographique des villes
balkaniques au cours des XVe et XVIe siècles.” Istanbul à la jonction des
cultures balkaniques, méditerranéennes, slaves et orientales, aux XVIe-
XIXe siècles (Bucarest: Association Internationale d’ Études du Sud-Est
Européen, 1977), 279-301.
Barkan Ömer Lüfti and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 953
(1546) Târîhli (İstanbul: Baha Matbaası, 1970).
Başar, Fahamettin. “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Kuruluş Döneminde Hizmeti Görülen

Akıncı Aileleri. IV – Malkoçoğulları.” Türk Dünyası Tarih Dergisi 65
(1992): 47-50.
Batakliev, Ivan. Grad Tatar-Pazardžik. Istoriko-geografski pregled (Sofia:

Gutenberg, 1923).
Bayrakal, Sedat . Edirne'deki Tek Kubbeli Camiler (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2001).
Beldiceanu, Nicoara and Irène Beldiceanu-Steinherr. “Riziculture dans l’Empire

ottoman (XIVe-XVe siècle).” Turcica 9:2-10 (1978): 9-28.
_____ . “Règlement ottoman concernant le recensement (pemière moitié du XVIe

siècle).” Südost-Forschungen 37 (1978): 1-40.
Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Irène. “La conquête d’Andrianople par les Turcs: La

pénétration turque en Thrace et la valeur des chroniques ottomans.”
Travaux et Mémoires 1 (1965): 439-461.
Borisov, Damiyan. Vakăfskata institutsia v Rodopite prez XV-XVII vek

(unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Plovdiv, 2008).
Boškov, Vančo. "Aus Athos Turcica: Eine Urkunde Šehab ed-Din Šahin Paşa's, des
Wesirs und Statthalters von Rumelien; aus dem Jahre 1453.” Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 76 (1986): 65-72.
Boykov, Grigor. “Etno-religiozniyat oblik na osmanskia grad Filibe – kraya na XV –

nachaloto na XVI vek” in: Evgeniy Radushev and Stefka Fetvadžieva
(eds.), Balkanski identichnosti, Vol. 3 (Sofia: Institut za izsledvane na
integratsiata, 2003), 130-151.
_____ . Demographic Features of Ottoman Upper Thrace: A Case Study on Filibe,

Tatar Pazarcık, and İstanimaka (unpublished M.A. Thesis, Bilkent
University, Ankara, 2004).
_____ . Tatar Pazardžik ot osnovavaneto na grada do kraya na XVII vek. Izsledvania

i dokumenti (Sofia: Amicitia, 2008).
336
_____ . “Sădbata na Razložkata kotlovina v usloviyata na osmanska vlast.” in
Alexader Grebenarov et al. (eds.), Razlog, istoriya, traditsii, pamet
(Blagoevgrad: Irin-Pirin, 2009), 53-78.
_____ . “Balkan City or Ottoman City? A Study on the Models of Urban

Development in Ottoman Upper Thrace (15th – 17th c.).” in Halit Eren
and Sadık Ünay (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Congress
on the Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans, 1-5 November 2005,
Bucharest, Romania (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2010), 69-86.
_____ . “In Search of Vanished Ottoman Monuments in the Balkans: Minnetoğlu

Mehmed Beg’s Complex in Konuş Hisarı.” in Maximilian Hartmuth and
Ayşe Dilsiz (eds.), Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman
Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor Het
Nabije Oosten, 2010), 47-68.
_____ . “Reshaping Urban Space in the Ottoman Balkans: a Study on the

Architectural Development of Edirne, Plovdiv, and Skopje (14th – 15th
centuries).” in Maximilian Hartmuth (ed.), Centres and Peripheries in
Ottoman Architecture: Rediscovering a Balkan Heritage (Sarajevo:
Cultural Heritage Without Borders, 2011), 32-45.
Boykov, Grigor and Mariya Kiprovska. “The Ottoman Philippopolis (Filibe) during
the Seconf Half of the 15th c.” Bulgarian Historical Review 3-4 (2000):
112-139.
Burmov, Aleksandır. “Türkler Edirne’yi ne Vakit Aldılar.” Belleten 13 (1949): 79-

106.
Clayer, Nathalie. Mystique, état et société. Les Halvetis dans l’air balkanique de la
fin du XVe siècle à nos jours (Leiden-New York-Köln: Brill, 1994).
Crane, Howard. “Notes on Saldjûq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century

Anatolia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 36:
1 (1993): 1-57.
_____ . “Art and Architecture.” in Kate Fleet (ed.), The Cambridge History of
Turkey. Volume I: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071-1453 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 266-352.
Cvetkova, Bistra. Bistra Cvetkova. “Za etnicheskia i demografski oblik na Vidin prez
XVI v.” Izvestiya na etnografskia institut s muzey 7 (1964): 11-24.
_____ . “Le service des Celep et le ravitaillement en bétail dans l’Empire Ottoman
(XVe-XVIIIe ss.).” in M. A. Cook (ed.), Studies in the Economic History
of the Middle East from the Rise of Islam to the Present Day (London:
Oxford University Press, 1970), 172-192.
337
_____ . “Materiali za selishtata i stroitelstvoto v bălgarskite zemi prez XV-XVI v.”
Izvestiya na Instituta po gradoustroystvo i arhitektura 7-8 (1975): 459-
518.
_____ . “Teteven i tetevensko prez osmanskoto vladichestvo.” in Ivan Undžiev (ed.),

Teteven (Sofia: Publisher, 1977), 26-41.
Çal, Halit. “1192 Numaralı 1697 – 1716 Tarihli Hurufat Defterine Göre
Bulgaristan’daki Türk Mimarisi.” in Azize Aktaş Yasa and Zeynep Zafer
(eds.), Balkanlar’da Kültürel Etkileşim ve Türk Mimarisi Uluslararası
Sempozyumu Bildirileri (17-19 Mayıs 2000, Şumnu - Bulgaristan)
(Ankara: Atatürk Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı,
2001), 221-288.
Çalık, Sıddık. Çirmen Sancağı Örneğinde Balkanlar'da Osmanlı Düzeni (15.-16.

Yüzyıllar) (Ankara: Bosna-Hersek Dostları Vakfı, 2005).
Çıpa, Hakkı Erdem. The Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selim I,
1487-1512 (unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2007).
Çulpan, Cevdet. Türk Taş Köprüleri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 20022).
Dancheva-Vasileva, Ani. “Armenskoto prisăstvie v Plovdiv prez Srednovekovieto.”

Istoricheski Pregled 5-6 (1999): 119-134.
_____ . Plovdiv prez srednovekovieto (IV-XIV vek) (Sofia: Akademichno izdatelstvo

“Prof. Marin Drinov”, 2009).
Danişmend, İsmail Hâmi. Osmanlı Devlet Erkânı (İstanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi,

19712).
Darley-Doran, R. E. “Tuman” in EI2.
Decei, Aurel. “Etablissement de Aktav de la Horde d’Or dans l’Empire Ottoman, au

temps de Yıldırım Bayezid.” in 60. Doğum Yılı Münasebetiyle Zeki
Velidi Togan’a Armağan (İstanbul: Maarif Basımevi, 1950-1955), 77-92.
Detev, Petăr. “Razkopki na terasata “Asarlăka” pri s. Zlatovrăh.” Izvestiya na

muzeite v yužna Bălgariya 5 (1979): 81-124.
Dijkema, Fokke. The Ottoman Historical Monumental Inscriptions in Edirne

(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977).
Dimitrov, Strashimir. “Za priemstvenostta v razvitieto na Balkanskite gradove prez

XV-XVI vek,” Balkanistika 2 (1987): 5-17.
_____ . Istoria na Dobrudža, vol. 3 (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1988).
338
Dimitrov, Strashimir et al. (eds.), Istoriya na grad Tolbuhin (Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo,
1968).
Dimov, Nedyalko (ed.), Istoriya na grad Harmanli ot drevnostta do 1989 g. (Sofia:

Zlaten zmey, 2010).
Djurdjev, Branislav. “Belgrade” in EI2.
Dobrev, Ivan. “Za nadpisa na “Sahat Tepe” v Plovdiv.” Vekove 3 (1986): 41-44.
_____ . Haskovo v minaloto: Srednovekovie i Văzraždane, dokumentalni statii

(Haskovo: u.p., 1992).
Drumeva, Mariyana. “Demografsko-ikonomicheskiyat oblik na Svishtov do

nachaloto na Bălgarskoto Văzraždane.” Dialog 4 (2010): 45-78.
Džambov, Hristo. “Krepostta “Hisarlăka” kray Zlatovrăh.” Godishnik na Narodniya

arheologicheski muzey Plovdiv 4 (1960): 188-190.
_____ . “Novi danni za vodosnabdyavaneto na Plovdiv prez antichnostta i

srednovekovieto.” Godishnik na Narodniya archeologicheski muzey
Plovdiv 6 (1968): 65-82.
Džambov, Ivan. Srednovekovna krepost kray Sopot (Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov,

1991).
Eldem, Edhem, D. Goffman, and B. Masters (eds.), The Ottoman City Between East
and West, Aleppo, İzmir, İstanbul (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999).
Elezović, Gliša. Turski spomenici u Skoplju (Beograd: Rodoljub, 1927).
_____ . “Turski spomenici u Skoplju.” Glasnik Skopskog Naučnog Dužestva 2

(1929): 243-261.
_____ . Turski spomenici, vol. 1, part 1 (Belgrade: Zora, 1940).
Emecen, Feridun M. XVI. Asırlarda Manisa Kazâsı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,
1989).
_____. “The History of an Early Sixteenth Century Migration – Sirem Exiles in

Gallipoli.” in Geza David and Pal Fodor (eds.), Hungarian-Ottoman
Military and Diplomatic Relations in the Age of Süleyman the
Magnificent (Budapest: Lorand Eötvös University and Hungarian
Academy of Sciences, 1994), 77-91.
_____ . “Koca Mustafa Paşa” in TDVİA.
339
Emir, Sedat. Erken Osmanlı Mimarlığında Çok-işlevli Yapılar: Kentsel Kolonizasyon
Yapıları Olarak Zâviyeler, vols. 1-2 (Izmir: Akademi Kitabevi, 1994).
Ergenç, Özer. “Şehir Tarihi Araştırmaları Hakkında Bazı Düşünceler.” Belleten

52:203 (1988): 667-683.
_____ . XVI. XVI. Yüzyılın Sonlarında Bursa: Yerleşimi, Yönetimi, Ekonomik ve

Sosyal Durumu Üzerine Bir Araştırma (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,
2006).
Erken, Salih. “Edirne Hamamları.” Vakıflar Dergisi 10 (1973): 403-419.
Ersoy, Bozkurt. “Bergama Ulu Camii.” Arkeoloji Sanat Tarihi Dergisi 4 (1988): 57-
66.
Eyice, Semavi. “İlk Osmanlı Devrinin Dini-içtimai Müessesesi Zâviyeler ve

Zâviyeli-camiler.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23:
1-2 (1962-963): 3-80.
_____ . “Sofya Yakınında İhtiman’da Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey İmâret-

Camii.”Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 2 (1975): 49-61.
_____ . “Gazi Mihaloğlu Mahmud Bey Camii” in TDVİA.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. “Camels, Vagons, and the Ottoman State in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries.” International Journal of Middle East Studies
14:4 (1982): 523-539.
Filipović, Nedim. Princ Musa i šejh Bedreddin (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1971).
Finkel, Caroline. The Administration of Warfare: the Ottoman Military Campaigns

in Hungary, 1593-1606 (Wien: VWGÖ, 1988).
Fleischer, Cornell. “Shadow of Shadows: Prophecy in Politics in 1530s İstanbul.” in

Baki Tezcan and Karl Barbir (eds.), Identity and Identity Formation in
the Ottoman World. A Volume of Essays in Honor of Norman Itzkowitz
(Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2007), 51-62.
Gabriel, Albert. Une capitale turque: Brousse, Bursa (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1958).
Gălăbov, Gălăb. “Turetskie dokumentiy po istorii goroda Karlovo.” in Anna

Tveritinova (ed.) Vostochniye istochniki po istorii narodov Yugo-
vostochnoy i Tsentralnoy Evropiy (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), 162-185.
Gibb, Elias. A History of Ottoman Poetry, vol. 2 (London: Luzac & Co., 1902).
Glaser, Rüdiger. “On the Course of Temperature in Central Europe since the Year
1000 A.D.” Historical Social Research 22:1 (1997): 59-87.
340
Goodwin, Godfrey. A History of the Ottoman Architecture (London: Thames &
Hudson, 20032).
Gökbilgin, M. Tayib. XV-XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası (İstanbul: Üçler

Basımevi, 1952).
_____ . Rumeli’de Yürükler, Tatarlar ve Evlâd-ı Fâtihan (İstanbul: Osman Yılçın

Matbaası, 1957).
_____ . “Dawud Pasha” in EI2.
_____ . “Ibrahim Pasha” in EI2.
Gökçe, Turan. “Filibe Şehri Nüfusunun Dinî ve Meslekî Özelikleri (1485-1610).” in

XIV. Türk Tarih Kongresi (9-13 Eylül 2002), vol. 2, part 1 (Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu, 2005), 523-555.
_____ . “XVII. Yüzyılda Filibe Şehrinin Demografik Yapısı.” in Meral Bayrak et al.
(eds.), Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar
İlişkileri Sempozyumu, 11-13 Mayıs 2005 (Eskişehir: Osmangazi
Üniversitesi, 2005), 49-64.
Gökyay, Orhan Şaık. “Kâtib Čelebi” in EI2.
Gramatikova, Nevena. Neortodoksalniat islyam v bălgarskite zemi. Minalo i

săvremennost (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2011).
Grigorov, Valeri. Krepostta Krasen do Panagyurishte (Sofia: Prof. Marin Drinov

Academic Publishing House, 2010).
Grozdanova, Elena. “Karnobat i Karnobatskia kray prez XV-XVIII v. in Delcho

Todorov (ed.), Istoriya i kultura na Karnobatskiya kray vol. 3 (Sofia:
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1993), 5-28.
Grozdanova, Elena and Stefan Andreev. “Organizatsia i statut na solarite v

bălgarskite zemi pod osmanska vlast.” Bălgarska Etnologiya 2 (1983):
41-52.
_____ . “Die Städte an der bulgarischen Schwarzmeerküste (Ende des 15. bis zum
18. Jh.).” Bulgarian Historical Review 2 (1987): 15-33.
Guzelev, Boyan. Albantsi v iztochnite Balkani (Sofia: IMIR, 2004).
Guzelev, Vasil. Srednovekovna Bălgariya v sletlinata na novi izvori (Sofia: Narodna

Prosveta, 1981).
Güçer, Lütfi. “XV.-XVII. Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Tuz İnhisarı ve

Tuzların İşletme Nizamı.” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi
Mecmuası 23:1-2 (1962-1963): 1-47.
341
Halaçoğlu, Yusuf. “XVI. Asırda Çirmen Sancağı’nın Sosyal ve Demografik Tarihi.”
in X. Türk Tarih Kongresi Ankara: 22-26 Eylül 1986, Kongreye Sonulan
Bildiriler, vol. 4 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1993), 1795-1801.
Hamamcıoğlu, Necmi. Hulviyât-ı Şah (unpublished M.A. thesis, Yüzüncü Yıl

Üniversitesi, 2008).
Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von. Histoire de l’Empire ottoman, depuis son aurigine

jusqu’à nos jours, traduit par J. J. Hellert, t. 2-3 (Paris: Bellizard,
Barthès, Dufour et Lowell, 1835-36).
Handžić, Adem. “O formiraniu nekih gradskih naselja u Bosni u XVI stoljeću,”

Prilozi za Orijentalnu Filologiju 25 (1975): 133-168.
Harbova, Margarita. Gradoustroystvo i arhitektura po bălgarskite zemi prez XV-

XVIII vek (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1991).
Hartmuth, Maximilian. “The History of Center-Periphery Relations as a History of

Style in Ottoman Provincial Architecture” in Maximilian Hartmuth (ed.)
Centres and Peripheries in Ottoman Architecture: Rediscovering a
Balkan Heritage (Sarajevo: Cultural Heritage Without Borders, 2011),
18-29.
Heywood, Colin. “Some Turkish Archival Sources for the History of Menzilhane
Network in Rumeli during the Eighteenth Century (Notes and Documents
on the Ottoman Ulak, I).” in idem. Writing Ottoman History: Documents
and Interpretations (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2002), IX.
_____ . “The Ottoman Menzilhane and Ulak System in Rumeli in the Eighteenth
Century.” in idem. Writing Ottoman History: Documents and
Interpretations (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2002), X.
_____ . “The Via Egnatia in the Ottoman Period: The Menzilhanes of the Sol Kol in
the Late 17th/Early 18th Century.” in idem. Writing Ottoman History:
Documents and Interpretations (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2002),
XI.
Hooper, Paul Lovell. Forced Population Transfers in Early Ottoman Imperial

Strategy: a Comparative Approach (unpublished senior thesis, Princeton
University, 2003).
Hristozov, Hristo. “Demografski i etno-religiozni protsesi v rayona na Asenovgrad

prez XVI v.” (forthcoming in Istoricheski Pregled).
Ihchiev, Diamandi. “Turskite vakăfi v Bălgarskoto tsarstvo i dokumenti vărhu tiyah.”

Minalo: Bălgaro-Makedonsko nauchno spisanie 1:4 (1910): 346-356.
Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481 (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990).
342
İnalcık, Halil. Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar (Ankara: TTK, 1954).
_____ . “Ottoman Methods of Conquest”, Studia Islamica [2] 3 (1954): 103-129.
_____ . “Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481) and His Time.” Speculum 35:3 (1960):
408-427.
_____. “The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population and the Byzantine
Buildings of the City”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1969-1970): 229-
249.
_____ . “The Conquest of Edirne (1361).” Archivum Ottomanicum 3 (1971): 185-

210.
_____ . The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age 1300-1600 (London: Weidenfeld
and Nicolson, 1973).
_____ . “Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s time.”Wiener Zeitschrift

für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 69 (1977): 55-71.
_____ . “The Hub of the City: the Bedestan of Istanbul.” International Journal of
Turkish Studies 1 (1980): 1-17.
_____ . “Rice Cultivation and the Çeltükci-Re’âyâ System in the Ottoman Empire.”
Turcica 14 (1982): 69-141.
_____ . “Jews in the Ottoman Economy and Finances 1450-1500.” in Clifford

Bosworth et al. (eds.) The Islamic World from Classical to Modern
Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis (Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press,
1989), 513-550.
_____ . “Istanbul: an Islamic City.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1-23.
_____ . “Ottoman Galata, 1453-1553." in Edhem Eldem (ed.), Première Rencontre

Internationale sur I'Empire Ottoman et la Turquie Moderne (Istanbul-
Paris: Isis Press, 1991), 17-105.
_____ . “Dervish and Sultan: An Analysis of the Otman Baba Vilâyetnâmesi.” in

idem. The Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire.
Essays on Economy and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University
Turkish Studies, 1993), 19-36.
_____ . “The Yürüks: Their Origins, Expansion and Economic Role.” in idem. The
Middle East and the Balkans under the Ottoman Empire. Essays on
Economy and Society (Bloomington: Indiana University Turkish Studies,
1993), 97-137.
343
_____ . “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography.” in idem. From Empire to Republic.
Essays on Ottoman and Turkish Social History (Istanbul: Isis Press,
1995), 1-16.
_____ . “Fatih, Fetih ve İstanbul’un Yeniden İnşası.” Dünya Kenti İstanbul. İstanbul
World City (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996), 22-37.
_____ . An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, vol. 1 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997).
_____ . “How to Read ‘Ashık Pasha-zade’s History.” in idem. Essays in Ottoman

History (Istanbul: Eren, 1998), 31-50.
_____ . “The struggle between Osman Gazi and the Byzantines for Nicaea.” in Işıl
Akbaygil et al (eds.), İznik throughout history (Istanbul: Türkiye İş
Bankası, 2003), 59-83.
_____ . “Periods in Ottoman History, State, Society, Economy.” in Halil İnalcık and
Günsel Renda (eds.), Ottoman Civilization, vol. 1 (Ankara: Ministry of
Culture and Tourism, 2004), 31-109.
_____. “Polunya (Appolunia) – Tanrı-Yıkdıgı Osmanlı Rumeli Fetihleri

Kronolojisinde Düzelrmeler (1345-1371).” in Zeynep Tarım Ertuğ (ed.)
Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu’na Armağan (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi
Edebiyat Fakültesi, 2006), 27-57.
______ . “Autonomous enclaves in Islamic states: temlîks, soyurgals, yurdluk-

ocaklıks, mâlikâne-mukâta’as and awqâf.” in Judith Pfeiffer and Sholeh
A. Quinn (eds.), History and historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia
and the Middle East. Studies in honor of John E. Woods (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006), 112-134.
_____ . “Osmanlı Beyliğini Kurucusu Osman Beg.” Belleten 71:261 (2007): 479-
537.
_____ . “The Ottoman Survey of 1455 and the Conquest of Istanbul.”550. Yılında
Fetih ve İstanbul/The Conquest and Istanbul in the 550th Anniversary
_____ . “Osmanlı Sultanı Orhan (1324-1362): Avrupa’da Yerleşme.” Belleten

73:266 (2009): 77-107.
_____ . “Bulgaria” in EI2.
_____ . “Djem” in EI2.
_____ . “Dobrudja” in EI2.
_____ . “Itanbul” in EI2.
344
_____ . “Mehmed II” in İA.
_____ . “Murad I” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Murad II” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Selim I” in EI2.
Iskrov, Nikola. “Legenda za Saray-kără.” Plovdivski Obshtinski Vestnik 5 August

1929, 3-4.
Ivanova, Svetlana. “Gradovete v bălgarskite zemi prez XV vek.” in Boryana

Hristova (ed.), Bălgarskiyat petnadeseti vek: sbornik s dokladi za
bălgarskata i obshta kulturna istoriya prez XV vek (Sofia: Narodna
Biblioteka “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy, 1993), 53-65.
_____ . “Golemi vakăfi na osmankiya elit v Rumeliya, XVII-XVIII v.” in Raya

Zaimova and Nikolay Aretov (eds.), Pari, dumi, pamet (Sofia: Kralitsa
Mab, 2004), 110-126.
_____ . “Varna during the Late Middle Ages - Regional versus National History.”
Etudes Balkaniques 2 (2004): 109-143.
_____ . “Sofia” in EI2.
Jenkins, Hester Donaldson. Ibrahim Pasha: Grand Vizir of Suleiman the Magnificent
(New York: Columbia University, 1911).
Jireček, Constantin. Geschichte der Bulgaren (Prag: Verlag F. von Tempsky, 1876).
_____ . Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe.
Eine historisch-geographische Studie (Prag: Verlag von F. Tempsky,
1877).
Kafadar, Cemal. Between Two Worlds: the Construction of the Ottoman State
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).
Kalicin, Maria and Krassimira Mutafova. “Historical Accounts of the Halveti Shaykh
Bali Efendi of Sofia in a Newly Discovered Vita Dating from the
Nineteenth Century.” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 12:3 (2001):
339-353.
Kalionski, Aleksey. Yurutsite (Sofia: Prosveta, 2011).
Karagöz, Mehmed. “1193/1779 Senesi Rüsum Defterine göre Bazarcık-

Tatarpazarı’nda Pirinç Üretimi.” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri
Dergisi 14:1 (2004): 275-299.
345
_____ . “Filibe Kazası Rüsum Defterleri ve XVII. Yüzılın İkinci Yarısında, Filibe-
Tatarpazarı-Göbe(sic!)’de Çeltik Ziraatı.” Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimleri Dergisi 14:2 (2004): 361-377.
Karta, Nurullah. “XV. ve XVI. Yüzyıllarda Filibe Şehrinde İktisadi Hayat ve Meslek
Grupları.” Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 8:2
(2006): 145-173.
_____ . XVI. Yüzyılda Filibe Kazası (unpublished PhD Dissertation, Atatürk

Üniversitesi, 2005).
Kastritsis, Dimitris. The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the
Ottoman Civil War of 1402-13 (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
Kazancıgil, Ratip. Edirne imaretleri (İstanbul: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği

Yayınları, 1991).
Keskioğlu, Osman. “Bulgaristan’da Türk Vakıfları ve Bâlî Efendi’nin Vakıf Paralar

Hakkında Bir Mektubu.” Vakıflar Dergesi 9 (1971): 81-94.
Kesyakova, Elena. “Vodosnabdiyavane.” in Elena Kesyakova et al. (eds.), Kniga za

Plovdiv (Plovdiv: Poligraf, 1999), 73-76.
Kiel, Machiel. “The Vakıfname of Rakkas Sinan Beg in Karnobat (Karın-abad) and
the Ottoman Colonization of Bulgarian Thrace (14th-15th Century).”
Osmanlı Araştırmaları 1 (1980): 15-31.
_____ . “The Oldest Monuments of Ottoman-Turkish Architecture in the Balkans:

the Imaret and the Mosque of Ghazi Evrenos Bey in Gümülcine
(Komotini) and the Evrenos Bey Khan in the Village of Ilıca/Loutra in
Greek Thrace (1370-1390).” Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı 12 (1983): 117-138.
_____ . “Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: the Place of Turkish
Architecture in the Process.” International Journal of Turkish Studies 4:2
(1989): 79-129.
_____ . “Yenice-i Vardar (Vardar Yenicesi – Giannitsa): A Forgotten Turkish

Cultural Centre in Macedonia of the 15th and 16th Century.” in idem.
Studies on the Ottoman Architecture of the Balkans (Aldershot-
Brookfield: Variorum, 1990), IV, 300-329.
_____ . “Hrazgrad-Hezargrad-Razgrad: The Vicissitudes of a Turkish Town in

Bulgaria (Historical, Demographical, Economic and Art Historical
Notes).” Turcica 21-23 (1991): 495-562.
_____ . “Zur Gründung und Frühgeschichte der Stadt Trjavna in Bulgarien.

Unbenützte osmanische administrative Quellen aus den Archiven von
Istanbul, Ankara und Sofia über Gründung und Entwicklung Trjavnas
346
1565-1702. Ein Beitrag zur Entmythologisierung der Geschichte
Bulgariens.” Münchner Zeitschrift für Balkankunde 7-8 (1991): 191-218.
_____ . “La diffusion de l'Islam dans les campagnes bulgares à l'époque ottomane
(XVe-XIXe s): colonisation et conversion.” Revue des mondes
musulmans et de la Méditerranée 66:1 (1992): 39-53.
_____ . “Ottoman Kyustendil in the 15th and 16th Centuries. Ottoman Administrative
Documents from the Turkish Archives versus Myths and Assumptions in
the Work of Jordan Ivanov.” Izvestiya na Istoricheskiya Muzey -
Kyustendil 5 (1993): 141-169.
_____ . “Tatar Pazarcık. A Turkish Town in the Heart of Bulgaria, Some Brief
Remarks on its Demographic Development 1489-1874.” in X. Türk Tarih
Kongresi, Ankara 22-26 Eylül 1986. Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, vol. 5
_____. “Mevlana Neşri and the Towns of Medieval Bulgaria. Historical and
Topographical Notes.” in Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies
in Ottoman history in honour of Professor V.L. Ménage (Istanbul: The
Isis Press, 1994), 165-187.
_____ . “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 Klaus Kreiser, Christoph Neuman (eds.), Das
Osmanische Reich in seinen Archivalien und Chroniken, Nejat Göyünc
zu Ehren (Istanbul: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997), 31-
67.
_____ . Bulgaristan’da Osmanlı Dönemi Kentsel Gelişmesi ve Mimari Anıtlar

(Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2000).
_____ . “Svishtov i rayonăt prez XV-XIX vek. Poselishtna istoriya, istoricheska

demografiya i posleditsite ot voynite v edna ravninna oblast na Dunavska
Bălgariya.” in Rossitsa Gradeva (ed.), Sădbata na myusulmanskite
obshtnosti na Balkanite, vol. 7 (Sofia: IMIR, 2001), 547-570.
_____ . “İzladi/Zlatitsa: Population Changes, Colonisation and Islamisation in a

Bulgarian Mountain Canton, 15th-19th centuries.” in Evgeni Radushev,
Zara Kostova and Valeri Stoyanov (eds.), Studia in Honorem Professoris
Verae Mutafčieva (Sofia: Amicitia, 2001), 175-187.
_____ . “The heart of Bulgaria: population and settlement history of the districts of
Provadija, Novi Pazar and Shoumen from the late-Middle Ages till the
end of the Ottoman period.” in Meral Bayrak et al. (eds.), Uluslararası
Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-
13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı (Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi,
2005), 15-38.
347
_____ . “Four Provincial Imarets in the Balkans and the Sources About Them.” in
Nina Ergin, Christoph Neumann and Amy Singer (eds.), Feeding People,
Feeding Power. Imarets in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul: Eren, 2007),
97-120.
_____ . “The Incorporation of the Balkans into the Ottoman Empire, 1353-1453.” in
Kate Fleet (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey. Volume I: Byzantium
to Turkey, 1071-1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009),
138-191.
_____ . “Filibe” in TDVİA.
_____ . Eski Cuma (Tărgovište)” in TDVİA.
_____ . “İhtiman” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Karlı İli” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Karlova.” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Kazanlık” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Lofça” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Plevna” in EI2.
_____ . “Pravadi” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Silistra” in TDVİA.
_____ . “Şumnu” in TDVİA.
Kiprovska, Mariya. The Military Organization of the Akıncıs in Ottoman Rumelia,

(M.A. Thesis, Bilkent University, 2004).
_____ . “The Mihaloğlu Family: Gazi Warriors and Patrons of Dervish Hospices.”
Osmanlı Araştırmaları 32 (2008): 193-222.
_____ . “Ruins of Past Glory: the Earliest Standing Ottoman Building in Bulgaria”
on-line publication for the Ottoman Architectural Heritage in Bulgaria
(OAHB): http://www.oahb.org/category/ihtiman/.
Koledarov, Petăr. “Kăm văprosa za razvitieto na selishtnata mreža i neynite elementi

v sredishtnata i iztochnata chast na Balkanite ot VII do XVIII v.”
Izvestiya na Istituta za Istoriya 18 (1967): 89-146.
Kolovos, Elias."A Biti of 1439 from the Archives of the Monastery of Xeropotamou
(Mount Athos)."Hilandarski Zbornik 11 (2004): 295-306.
348
Kostadinov, Kostadin. Mestnite imena v Asenovgradsko (Asenovgrad: Ekobelan,
1997).
Kovachev, Rumen. “Naselenieto na Gabrovo ot sredata na XV do kraya na XVII v.

Demografski aspekti i imenna sistema.” Istoricheski Pregled 2 (1991):
52-63.
_____ . Opis na Nikopolskiya sandžak ot 80-te godini na XV vek (Sofia: Narodna

Biblioteka “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy”, 1997).
_____ . “Novi svedeniya za Ruse i selishtata v Rusensko ot Istanbulskia osmanski

arhiv (XVI i XVII v.).” in Evgeni Radushev, Zara Kostova and Valeri
Stoyanov (eds.), Studia in Honorem Professoris Verae Mutafčieva
(Sofia: Amicitia, 2001), 225-240.
_____ . Samokov i samokovskata kaza prez XVI vek, spored opisi ot Istanbulskia
osmanski arhiv (Sofia: Narodna Biblioteka “Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy”,
2001).
_____ . “Nikopol Sancak at the Beginning of the 16th Century according to the
Istanbul Ottoman Archive.” In Meral Bayrak et al. (eds.), Uluslararası
Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-
13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı (Eskişehir: Osmangazi Üniversitesi,
2005), 65-76.
_____ . “Novi svedeniya za Karlovo i regiona v registri ot Istanbulskiya osmanski

arhiv – XVI vek.” in Penka Todorova and Petiya Tsoleva-Ivanova (eds.)
Obshtestveni i religiozni sgradi XV-XIX vek (Sofia: Text-Asparuh
Trayanov, 2006), 11-26.
_____ . “Opisi za istoriyata na grad Ihtiman ot XVI-XVII vek.” in Svetlana Ivanova

(ed.), Etnicheski i kulturni prostranstva na Balkanite. Chast I: Minaloto –
istoricheski rakursi (Sofia: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment
Ohridski”, 2008), 226-243.
Kuban, Doğan. Osmanlı Mimarisi (Istanbul: Yem Yayın, 2007).
Kumbaracı-Bogojeviç, Lidiya. Üsküp’te Osmanlı Mimarî Eserleri (İstanbul: ENKA,

2008).
Kuran, Aptullah. “Edirne’de Yıldırım Camii.” Belleten 27:111 (1964): 419-438.
_____ . The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1968).
_____ . “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul.”
Muqarnas 13 (1996): 114-131.
349
Kurt, Yılmaz. “Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Kuyûd-ı Kadîme Arşivi Vakf-i
Cedîd Tasnifi Katalog Çalışması.” in Alâaddin Aköz, Bayram Ürekli,
Ruhi Özcan (eds.), Uluslararası Kuruluşunun 700. Yıl Dönümünde Bütün
Yönleriyle Osmanlı Devleti Kongresi, 7-9 Nisan 1999. Bildiriler (Konya:
T.C. Selçuk Üniversitesi, 2000), 455-475.
Küçük, Celaleddin and N. Mine Yar (eds.), Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Camii Konferansı
Bildirileri/Filibe (Plovdiv) Cuma Mosque Conference Papers (İstanbul:
İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi, n.d).
Lapidus, Ira. Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Harvard
Linkov, Krasimir et al. (eds.), Plovdiv predi i sega (Plovdiv: Nova Print, 2005).
Lowry, Heath. “‘From Lesser Wars to the Mightiest War’: The Ottoman Conquest
and Transformation of Byzantine Urban Centers in the Fifteenth
Century.” in Anthony Bryer and Heath Lowry (eds.), Continuity and
Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society (Birmingham –
Washington, D.C.: the University of Birmingham Centre for Byzantine
Studies & Dumbarton Oaks, 1986), 323-338.
_____ . “Portrait of a City: The Population and Topography of Ottoman Selanik

(Thessaloniki) in the Year 1478.” in idem. Studies in Defterology.
Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Istanbul: Isis
Press, 1992), 65-100.
_____ . The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2003).
_____ . Ottoman Bursa in travel accounts (Bloomington, Indiana: University of

Indiana: Ottoman & Modern Turkish Studies Publications, 2003).
_____ . “Random Musings on the Origins of Ottoman Charity: From Mekece to

Bursa, İznik and Beyond.” in Nina Ergin, Christoph Neumann and Amy
Singer (eds.), Feeding People, Feeding Power. Imarets in the Ottoman
Empire (Istanbul: Eren, 2007), 69-79.
_____ . The Shaping of the Ottoman Balkans, 1350-1550: the Conquest, Settlement
& Infrastructural Development of Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir
University Publications, 2008).
_____ . “Pushing the Stone Uphill: The Impact of Bubonic Plague on Ottoman
Urban Society in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” in idem.
Defterology Revisited: Studies on the 15th & 16th Century Ottoman
Society (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2008), 17-50.
_____ . “Ottoman İznik (Nicaea): Through the Eyes of Travelers & as Recorded in
Administrative Documents, 1331-1923.” in idem. Defterology Revisited:
350
Studies on the 15th & 16th Century Ottoman Society (Istanbul: ISIS Press,
2008), 135-174.
_____ . The Islamization & Turkification of the City of Trabzon (Trebizond), 1461-
1583 (Istanbul: Isis Press, 2009).
_____ . In the Footsteps of the Ottomans: A Search for Sacred Spaces &
Architectural Monuments in Northern Greece (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir
_____ . The ‘Soup Muslims’ of the Balkans: Was There a ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’
Ottoman Empire.” in Donald Quataert and Baki Tezcan (eds.), Beyond
Dominant Paradigms in Ottoman and the Middle Eastern/North African
Studies: A Tribute to Rifa’at Abou-El-Haj. Special issue of Osmanlı
Araştırmaları/The Journal of Ottoman Studies 36 (2010), 97-133.
Lowry Heath and İsmail Erünsal. The Evrenos Dynasty of Yenice Vardar: Notes &
Documents (Istanbul: Bahçeşehir University Press, 2010).
Luterbacher, Jürg. "European Seasonal and Annual Temperature Variability, Trends,

and Extremes since 1500." Science 303 (2004): 1499-503.
Madžarov, Mitko. Rimskiyat păt Oescus-Philippopol. Pătni stantsii i selishta

(Plovdiv: Samizdat, 2005).
Mandaville, Jon E. “Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman
Empire.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10:3 (1979): 289-
308.
Matanov, Hristo. Văznikvane i oblik na Kyustendilski sandžak (Sofia: IF-94, 2000).
Mélikoff, Iréne. “Ewrenos oghullari” in EI2.
Ménage, Victor. “The Beginnings of Ottoman Historiography.” in B. Lewis and P.

M. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East (London: Oxford
University Press, 1962), 168-178.
_____ . “The Menāqib of Yakhshi Faqīh.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 26:1 (1963): 50-54.
_____ . “Beglerbegi” in EI2.
_____ . “Kemal Pasha-Zade” in EI2.
Mikov, Lubomir. Izkustvo na heterodoksnite musulmani v Bălgariya (Sofia:

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2005).
_____ . “Arhitekturni osobenosti na Kurshunlu i Yală džamiya v Karlovo.” Bălgarski

Folklor 2 (2006): 125-131.
351
_____ . “Cultural and Historical Profile of Clock Towers in the Bulgarian Lands
(17th-19th Centuries).” Étude balkanique 1-2 (2010): 104-126.
Minorski, Vladimir. “Shaykh Bali-Efendi on the Safavids.” Bulletin of the School of

Oriental and African Studies 20:1/3 (1957): 437-450.
Mujezinović, Mehmed. “Musafirhana i tekija Isa-Bega Ishakovića u Sarajevu.” Naše

Starine 3 (1956): 245-52.
Murphey, Rhoads. Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700 (London: UCL Press, 1999).
Mušeta-Aščerić, Vesna. Sarajevo i njegova okolina u XV stoljeću (Sarajevo:

Sarajevo Publishing, 2005).
Mutafchiev, Petăr. “Stari gradishta i drumove iz dolinata na Stryama i Topolnitsa.” in

idem. Săbrani săchineniya, vol. 1 (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1973), 286-
396.
Mutafchieva, Vera. “Novi osmanski dokumenti za vakăfite pod turska vlast.”

Izvestiya na Dăržavnite Arhivi 6 (1962): 269-274.
_____ . “Za rolyata na vakăfa v gradskata ikonomika na Balkanite pod turska vlast.”
Izvestiya na Instituta po Istoriya 10 (1962): 121-143.
_____ . “Vidin i Vidinsko prez XV-XVI vek. Predgovor.” in Dušanka Bojanić-

Lukač. Vidin i Vidinskiyat sandžak prez XV-XVI vek (Sofia: Nauka i
Izkustvo, 1975), 5-49.
Mutafova, Krasimira. Staroprestolniyat Tărnov v osmanoturskata knižnina (Veliko

_____ . “Nikopol v osmanskite registri ot XVI v.” in “Bălgariya, zemya na

blaženi”… in memoriam professoris Iordani Andreevi (Veliko Tărnovo:
Ivis, 2010), 514–534.
Necipoğlu, Gülru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire
(London: Reaktion Books, 2005).
Nedkov, Boris. Osmanoturska diplomatika i paleografia, vol. 2 (Sofia: Nauka i

Izkustvo, 1972).
Nicol, Donald. The despotate of Epiros, 1267-1479: a Contribution to the History of

Greece in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984).
Nikov, Petăr. “Tatarobălgarski otnosheniya prez srednite vekove s ogleg kăm

tsaruvaneto na Smiletsa.” Godishnik na Sofiyskia universitet, istoriko-
filosofski fakultet 15-16 (1921), 1-95.
352
Ocak, Ahmet Yaşar. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Marjinal Sûfîlik: Kalenderîler
(XIV.-XVII. Yüzyıllar) (Ankara: TTK, 1999).
Oğuz, Zeynep. Multi-functional Buildings of T-type in Ottoman Context: a Network

of Identity and Territorialization. (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, 2006).
Ousterhout, Robert and Charalambos Bakirtzis. The Byzantine monuments of the

Evros/Meriç River Valley (Thessaloniki: European Center for Byzantine
and Post-Byzantine Monuments, 2007).
Öz, Mehmet. “Tahrir Defterlerinin Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırmalarında Kullanılması

Hakkında Bazı Düşünceler." Vakıflar Dergisi 22 (1991): 429-439.
_____ . “Tahrir Defterlerindeki Sayısal Veriler.” in Halil İnalcık and Şevket Pamuk
(eds.), Osmanlı Devletinde Bilgi ve İstatistik (Ankara: Devlet Istatistik
Enstitüsü, 2000), 17-32.
Özel, Oktay. "Population Changes in Ottoman Anatolia During the 16th and 17th
Centuries: The 'Demographic Crisis' Reconsidered." International
Journal of Middle East Studies 36 (2004): 183-205.
_____ . “The Reign of Violence: The Celâlis (c.1550-1700).” in Christine Woodhead

(ed.), The Ottoman World (London and New York: Routledge, 2011),
184-202.
Özer, Mustafa. Üsküp’te Türk Mimarisi (XIV.-XIX. yüzyıl) (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 2006).
_____ . “Karlı-İli Beyi Mehmed Bey Külliyesi” in TDVİA.
Özergin, M. Kemal. “Eski bir Rûznâme’ye göre İstanbul ve Rumili Medreseleri.”

Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 4-5 (1973-1974): 263-290.
Pancaroğlu, Oya. “Architecture, Landscape, and Patronage in Bursa: The Making of

an Ottoman Capital City.” Turskish Studies Association Bulletin 20:1
(1995): 40-55.
Pavlov, Zoran. Makedonya’da Tek Kubbeli Camiler (unpublished M.A. thesis Gazi
University, Ankara 2001).
_____ . “Single-Domed Mosques in Macedonia.” Proceedings of the Second

International Symposium on Islamic Civilisation in the Balkans, Tirana,
Albania, 4-7 December 2003 (Istanbul: IRCICA, 2003), 33-58.
Părveva, Stefka. “Demografskiyat oblik na gr. Nikopol prez 1693 g.” in 300 godini
Chiprovsko văstaniye: prinos kăm istoriyata na bălgarite prez XVII v.
(Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1988), 25-41.
353
_____ . “Bălgari na služba v osmanskata armiya: voenni i voennopomoshtni
zadălženiya na graskoto naselenie v Nikopol i Silistra prez XVII vek” in
Elena Grozdanova et al. (eds.), Konflikti i kontrasti ‘zad kadăr’ v
bălgarskoto obshtestvo prez XV-XVIII vek (Sofia: Gutenberg, 2003), 226-
254.
Peev, Hristo. “Plovdivskite mahali v tursko vreme.” Plovdivski obshtinski vestnik no.
279 (1942): 4-6.
_____ . “Golemiyat bezisten v Plovdiv.” Godishnik na narodniya arheologicheski

muzey Plovdiv 1 (1948): 204-207.
Peev, Vasil. Grad Plovdiv – minalo i nastoyashte. Plovdiv v minaloto (Plovdiv:

Plovdivsko arheologichesko družestvo, 1941).
Pinon, Pierre. “Essai de définition morphologique de la ville ottomane des XVIIIe–

XIXe siècles.” in Verena Han, Marina Adamović (eds.), La culture
urbaine des Balkans, 3, La ville des Balkans depuis la fin du Moyen Age
jusqu’au début du XXe siècle (Paris–Belgrade: Académie Serbe des
Sciences et des Arts, Institut des Études Balkaniques, 1991), 147–155.
_____ . “Essai de typologie des tissus urbains des villes ottomanes d’Anatolie et des
Balkans,” in 7 Centuries of Ottoman Architecture: a Supra-National
Heritage (Istanbul: YEM Yayin 2000), 174-188.
_____ . “Ottoman cities of the Balkans.” in Salma K. Jayyusi et al. (eds.), The City in
the Islamic World, vol. 1 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2008), 143-158.
Plyakov, Zdravko. “Za demografskiya oblik na bălgarskiya grad prez XV - sredata

na XVII vek.” Istoricheski Pregled 5 (1968): 29-47.
Popov, Dimităr. Arhitekturnoto nasledstvo na Karlovo (Sofia: Tehnika, 1967).
Radushev, Evgeni. Pomatsite: hristiyanstvo i islyam v Zapadnite Rodopi s dolinata

na r. Mesta, XV – 30-te godini na VXIII vek (Sofia: Narodna Biblioteka
Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodiy, 2005).
Raymond, André. “Islamic City, Arab City: Orientalist Myths and Recent Views.”
British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 21:6 (1994): 3-18.
Reindl, Hedda. Männer um Bāyezīd: Eine prosopographische Studie über die

Epoche Sultan Bāyezīds II. (1481-1512) (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag,
1983).
Rozen, Mina. Facing the Sea: The Jews of Salonika in the Ottoman Era (1430-1920)
(Afula, 2011) - http://www.minnarozen.co.il
354
Rudloff-Hille, Gertrude and Otto Rudloff. “Grad Plovdiv i negovite sgradi.” Izvestiya
na bălgarskiya arheologicheski institut 8 (1934): 379-425.
Săbev, Orlin. Osmanskite uchilishta v bălgarskite zemi XV-XVIII v. (Sofia:

Lubomădrie-Hronika, 2001).
_____ . “The Legend of Köse Mihal.” Turcica 34 (2002): 241-252.
Sambanopoulu, Lilia. “Bedesten” in Esri Brouskari (ed.), Ottoman Architecture in

Greece (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture – Directorate of Byzantine
and Post-Byzantine Antiquities, 2008), 246-247.
Sezgin, İbrahim. “Filibe’deki Şehabeddin Paşa Vakıfları.” in Meral Bayrak et al.

(eds.), Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar
İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Bildiriler Kitabı (Eskişehir:
Osmangazi Üniversitesi, 2005), 347-355.
Singer, Amy. Constructing Ottoman Beneficence: an Imperial Soup Kitchen in

Jerusalem (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002).
_____ . “Serving Up Charity: The Ottoman Public Kitchen.” Journal of

Interdisciplinary History 35:3 (2005): 481–500.
Skarić, Vladislav. “Postanak Sarajeva i njegov teritorijalni razvitak u 15. i 16.

vjeku.” Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 41:2 (1929): 41-55.
Soustal, Peter. Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Thrakien (Thrake, Rodope und

Haimimontos) (Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1991).
Spuler, Bertold. Die Goldene Horde: die Mongolen in Russland, 1223-1502

(Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1965).
Stanev, Kamen. “Philipopol ot nachaloto na VII do nachaloto na IX vek.” Minalo 2

(2011): 20-36.
Stoianovich, Traian. Between East and West : the Balkan and Mediterranean worlds
(New Rochelle, N.Y. : A.D. Caratzas, 1992).
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).
Stoykov, Rusi. “Naimenovania na bălgarski selishta v turski dokumenti na

Orientalskiya otdel na Narodnata biblioteka “V. Kolarov” ot XV-XVI-
XVII i XVIII vek.” Izvestiya na Narodnata biblioteka “V. Kolarov” za
1959, 1 (1960): 363-490.
355
Sürreyya, Mehmed. Sicil-i Osmani yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, vol. 4
(İstanbul: Matba’a-i Amire, 1311/1893).
Šabanović, Hazim. “Dvije najstarije vakufname u Bosni.” Prilozi za orijentalnu

filologiju 2 (1951): 7-29.
_____ . “O organizaciji turske uprave u Srbiji u XV i XVI vijeku.” Istoriski glasnik,

3-4 (1955): 59-77.
_____ . “Bosansko krajište, 1448-1463.” Godišnjak istoriskog društva Bosne i

Hercegovine 9 (1957): 177-220.
_____ . “Postanak i razvoj Sarajeva.” Radovi naučnog društva Bosne i Hercegovine

13:5 (1960): 71-89.
Şahin, İlhan. “XV. ve XVI. Yüz Yılda Sofya-Filibe-Eski Zağra ve Tatar Pazarı’nın
Nüfus ve İskân Durumu.” Türk Dünyası Arıştırmaları 48 (1987): 249-
256.
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 4:2 (1989): 23-40.
Škorpil, Vladimir and Karel. Nyakoi beležki vărhu arheologicheskite i istoricheskite

izsledvaniya v Trakiya (Plovdiv: Oblastna pechatnitsa, 1885).
Taeschner, Franz. “Das Nilufer-'Imaret in Isnik und seine Bauinschrift”. Islam 20

(1932): 127-137.
_____ . “Die Werke der Familie Dai Qarağa Beg in Brussa und Mihalitsch und deren
Inschriften” Der Islam 20 (1932): 168-182.
Tansel, Selâhattin. Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in Siyasî ve

Askerî Faaliyeti (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1953).
_____ . Sultan II. Bâyezit’in Siyasi Hayatı (İstanbul: Mili Eğitim Basımevi, 1966).
Tatarlı, İbrahim. “Turski kultovi sgradi i nadpisi v Bălgaria.” Annuaire de

l’Université de Sofia, Faculté de Lettres 60 (1966): 567-615.
Telli, Hasan. Osmanlı döneminde bazı Filibe vakıfları (unpublished M.A. thesis,
Ankara University, 2002).
Thuasne, Louis. Djem-sultan, fils de Mohammed II, frère de Bayezid II (1459-1495):

d'après les documents originaux en grande partie (Paris: E. Leroux,
1892).
Tietze, Andreas. “Sheykh Bâlî Efendi’s Report on the Followers of Sheykh

Bedreddîn.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 7-8 (1988): 115-122.
356
Todorov, Nikolay. “Po niakoi văprosi na balkanskiya grad prez XV-XVII v.”
Istoricheski Pregled 1 (1962): 32-58.
_____ . Balkanskiyat grad XV-XIX vek: sotsialno-ikonomichesko i demografsko

razvitie (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1972).
Todorov, Todor. “Aspekti na tsărkovnoto stroitelstvo v Karlovo prez XIX vek.” in

Penka Todorova and Petiya Tsoleva-Ivanova (eds.) Obshtestveni i
religiozni sgradi XV-XIX vek (Sofia: Text-Asparuh Trayanov, 2006),
183-187.
Toptanov, Dimităr, Andrey Melamed, and Georgi Abdulov. “Arheologicheski

prouchvaniya na krepostta “Krasen” kray grad Panagyurishte, Plovdivska
oblast.” Izvestiya na muzeite ot Yužna Bălgariya 20 (1994): 85-107.
Tsoleva-Ivanova, Petya. “Arhitektura i istoriya na Kurshun džamiya spored osmanski

i drugi iztochnitsi.” in Penka Todorova and Petiya Tsoleva-Ivanova (eds.)
Obshtestveni i religiozni sgradi XV-XIX vek (Sofia: Text-Asparuh
Trayanov, 2006), 115-124.
Tsonchev, Dimităr. Archeologicheski pametnitsi po yužnite sklonove na Panagyurska

Sredna gora (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1963).
Tuleshkov, Nikolay. “Chasovkikovite kuli.” Vekove 3 (1987): 39-45.
Tunçel, Mehmet. “Türk Mimarîsi’nde Bulgaristan’daki Bedesten Binaları.” in Azize

Aktaş Yasa and Zeynep Zafer (eds.), Balkanlar’da Kültürel Etkileşim ve
Türk Mimarisi Uluslararası Sempozyumu Bildirileri (17-19 Mayıs 2000,
Şumnu - Bulgaristan) (Ankara: Atatürk Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür
Merkezi Başkanlığı, 2001), 725-762.
Tüfekçioğlu, Abdülhamit . Erken Dönem Osmanlı Mimarîsinde Yazı (Ankara: Kültür

Bakanlığı, 2001).
Uluçay, M. Çağatay. Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları (Ankara: Türk Tarih

Kurumu, 19923).
Undžiev, Ivan. Karlovo. Istoriya na grada do Osvoboždenieto (Sofia: Bulgarian

Academy of Sciences, 1962).
Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri

(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1937).
_____ . Osmanlı Tarihi, vols. 1-2 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1947-1959).
Ünver, Suheyl. “Edirne Mevlevihanesi Tarihine Giriş.” in Emin Nedret İşli and M.
Sabri Koz (eds.), Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi
Yayınları, 1998), 623-627.
357
Veinstein, Gilles. “La ville ottomane.” in Mohamed Naciri and André Raymond
(eds.), 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 (Casablanca: Fondation du Roi Abdul-
Aziz Al-Saoud pour les études islamiques et les sciences humaines,
1997), 105-114.
_____ . “The Ottoman Town (Fifteenth-Eighteenth Centuries).” in Salma K.

Jayyusi et al. (eds.), The City in the Islamic World, vol. 1 (Leiden-
Boston: Brill, 2008), 205-217.
Venedikova, Ekaterina. “Za Sultan Džem i negoviya lala i kethuda Ali bey i
otnosheniyata im s bălgari (v Mala Aziya i Bălgariya).” in Sergey Ivanov
and Vladimir Tsonev (eds.), Drevnite bălgari v osnovite na svetovnata
istoriya, materialna i duhovna kultura i tsivilizatsiya (Sofia: Dafna,
2005), 231-234.
White, Sam. The Climate of Rebellion in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Wirth, Eugen. Die orientalische Stadt im islamischen Vorderasien und Nordafrika:

stadtische Bausubstanz und raumliche Ordnung, Wirtschaftsleben und
soziale Organisation (Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 2002).
Wolper, Ethel Sara. “Politics of Patronage: Political Change and the Construction of
Dervish Lodges in Sivas.” Muqarnas 12 (1995): 39-47.
_____ . Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in
Medieval Anatolia (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,
2003).
Yaman, Talat Mümtaz. Kastamonu Târihî (Kastamonu: Ahmed İhsan Matbaası,

1935).
Yerasimos, Stephane. Les Voyageurs dans l’Empire ottoman (XIVe – XVIe siècles)
(Ankara: Imprimerie de la Société Turque d’Histoire, 1991).
Yerolympos, Alexandra. Urban Transformations in the Balkans (1820-1920):

Aspects of Balkan Town Planning and the Remaking of Thessaloniki
(Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 1996).
Yordanov, Stoyan. “Arheologicheski svidetelstva za grad Cheven ot osmanskia

period.” Izvestiya na Regionalniya Istoricheski Muzey – Ruse 9 (2005):
124-131.
_____ . “Episkopskata rezidentsia v Cherven prez rannia osmanski period.”

Arheologia 47 (2006): 78-88.
358
Yücel, Yaşar. Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu, 1998).
_____ . “Candar-oğlu Çelebi İsfendiyar Bey 1392-1439.” Tarih Arıştırmaları Dergisi

2:2-3 (1964): 157-174.
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): 159-185.
_____ . Legends and Architecture in the Ottoman Empire: The Shrines of Seyyid
Gazi and Hacı Bektaş (unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard
University, 2005).
Zachariadou, Elizabeth. “The Conquest of Adrianople by the Turks” Studi Veneziani

22 (1970): 211-217.
_____ . “The Worrisome Wealth of the Čelnik Radić.” in Colin Heywood and Colin
Imber (eds.), Studies in Ottoman History in Honour of Professor V. L.
Ménage (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1994).
_____ . “Another Document of Shehab al-Din Pasha concerning Mount Athos

(1455).” in Barbara Kellner-Heinkele and Peter Zieme (eds.), Studia
Ottomanica: Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), 217-222.
Zirojević, Olga. “Smederevski sandžakbeg Ali beg Mihaloglu.” Zbornik za istoriju

Matice srpske (1971): 9-27.
Ziroyeviç, Olga. “Der Sandschakbey von Mederevo Ali-Bey Mihaloğlu.” VII. Türk
Tarih Kongresi, Ankara 25-29 Eylül 1970. Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1973), vol. 2, 567-577.
Zlatar, Behija. Zlatno Doba Sarajeva (XVI. Stoljeće) (Sarajevo: Svetlost, 1996).
Želeva-Martins, Dobrina and Yuliy Fărgov. Istoriya na bălgarskoto gradoustroystvo

XIX-XX v. (Sofia: Valentin Trayanov, 2009).
359
APPENDIX
Imperial order for removing of Mustafa Bey from the post of administrator of the
Minetoğlu’s pious foundation in Konuş and the subsequent events.
12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (Ankara, 1996), order no. 55.
Kasaba-i mezbûreden Mustafa nâm kimesneye virildi.

Fî 18 Za., sene 977
Filibe ve Tatarbazar[ı] [kâdîlarına] ve Filibe subaşısı olan Dervîş'e hüküm ki:

Sen ki kâdîsın, mektûb gönderüp, "kasaba-i Konuş'da Mehmed Beğ ‘imâreti
mütevellîsi olan Mustafa'nun mâl-i vakıfdan haylî bel‘ıyyâtı ve ketmiyyâtı olup
muhâsebesi görildükde mâl-i vakıfdan zimmetine on beş bin altı yüz yiğirmi akça
zuhûr idüp mezbûrdan taleb olundukda edâsına kâdir olmayup kefîl olur kimesne
dahı olmamağla habsolunup vilâyet halkı mezbûrun habsolunduğın istimâ‘ itdükde;
"Harâmî vü ayardmacıdur ve ol makûle ehl-i fesâdun şerîki ve yatağı olmağla
meshûrdu[r]" deyü gulüvv-i âmm itdüklerinde mütevellî-i mezbûrun
Tatarbâzârcığı'nda akribâsı olup ol yirün azeblerini tahrîk ü ıdlâl eyleyüp azebler
Filibe zindânın basup zindânda olan mahbûsları alup çıkarup zencîrlerin kırup
salıvirüp mütevellî-i mezbûrı Filibe subaşı[s]ı tarafından nâyib olan Memi subaşısı
âhar evde hıfzitmekle zindânda bulunmayup tekrâr Üsküb azeblerini tahrîk eyleyüp
anlar dahı gelüp ale'l-gafle zindânı basup bulunan mahbûsları zencîrile çıkarup
salıvirüp mütevellî anda bulunmayup Memi subaşınun dahı evin basup kapuların
pâreleyüp mütevellî bulunmayup azebler gitdüklerinden sonra mütevellî-i mezbûr
Memi sübaşısınun âsinâsı olmağla Güleş nâm kendü hıdmetkârın evinde koyup iki
nefer hıdmetkâr dahı bekci […] mütevellî-i mezbûr ve Güleş ve zikrolunan
hıdmetkârlar cümle gaybet itdügin" bildürüp; "bu bâbda mazınna mezbûr Memi
subaşı olduğın" arzeylemişsin. Buyurdum ki:
Vardukda göresiz, arzolundugı gibiyse mütevellî-i mezbûrı mezkûr Memi'ye
buldurup elegetürüp ve mezkûrlarun akribâsından tahrîk idenleri elegetürüp eğer
360
mezkûr mütevellî bulunmazlarısa husûs-ı mezbûrda haberleri var mıdur, nicedür;
a‘yân-ı vilâyetden ve mu‘temedün-aleyh kimesnelerden teftîş idüp göresiz; azebleri
tahrîk itdükleri sâbit olursa
anun gibi fesâda bâ‘ıs olanları isimleriyle yazup Südde-i Sa‘âdetüm'e gönderesiz ki,
küreğe koşıla. Vukû‘ı üzre yazup arzeyleyesiz ve sen ki çavuşsın, min-ba‘d anun gibi
harâm-zâdeye is virmeyüp ehl-i fesâda hımâyet eylemeyüp halâs itdürmeyesin.
12 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (Ankara, 1996), order no. 55.
361
MAPS
Map 1. Ottoman Balkans
362

Map 2. The valley of the River Göpsu and the region of Kopsis (after Undžiev, 1962)
363

CITY PLANS
364

Plan 1. City plan of Filibe drawn by the author after the plans of Ilinskiy (1878) and Schnitter (1891),
supplemented with data from Ottoman documentary sources (page 360).
Mosques & Mescids: 1.Muradiye; 2.Hacı Abdullah; 3.Alaca Mosque; 4.Kürkçülerbaşı; 5.Çukur;
6.Tahtakale; 7.İsmail Bey; 8.Yeşiloğlu; 9.Şihabeddin Paşa; 10.Debbaghane; 11.Süpürge Baba; 12.Hacı
Hasan; 13.Zincirli Bunar; 14.Bey mescidi; 15.Tekke mescidi (Mevlevihane); 16.Alaca mescidi; 17.Eyne
Hoca; 18.Orta mezar; 19.Seyyid Mehmed; 20.Musalla; 21. Hacı Ömer; 22.Konak mosque; 23.
Nureddinzade; 24.Hoşkadem; 25.Çelebi Kadı. Public Baths: 26.Tahtakale; 27.Çifte; 28.Hünkâr;
29.Çelebi kadı; 30.Hacı Hasan; 31.Yeni hamamı. Commercial buildings: 32.Kervansaray (Kursun Han);
33.Bedesten; 42.Panayır han. Education: 7.mekteb of İsmail Bey; 15.mekteb of Tekke mescidi; 17. mekteb
of Eyne Hoca Mah.; 19. mekteb of Seyyid Mehmed; 34.medrese of Şihabeddin Paşa. ‘İmarets: 35.‘imaret
of Şihabeddin Paşa. Tekkes & Zaviyes: 15. Mevlevihane; 23.Nureddinzade. Türbes: 36.Şihabeddin Paşa;
37.Çelebi Kadı; 41.Behlül Efendi(?). Other Public Buildings: 38.Sebil; 39.Clock tower; 40.Baruthane; 43.
Governor’s residence (19th-century konak). Orthodox Churches: 44. St. Haralambos; 45. St. George; 46.
St. Petka the Old; 47. St. Dimitrios; 48. Virgin Mary; 49. St. Nicholas; 50. St. Marina; 51. Sts Constantine
and Helene; 52. Sv. Nedelya; 53. Armenian Church Surp Kevork; Catholic Church St. Ludwig
Plan 2. City plan of Filibe drawn by G. Lejean (1867)
365

Plan 3. City plan of Filibe drawn by Ferdinand von Hochstetter (1869)
Plan 4. City plan of Plovdiv, showing the likely location of the Ottoman saray, drawn
after S. Shishkov (1926)
366

Plan 5. City plan of Tatar Pazarcık, drawn by the author after Batakliev (1923) & Kiel (1995).
Mosques and mescids: 1. Eski Cami; 2. Hacı Kılıç; 3. Divane Sefer; 4. İbrahim Paşa; 5. Debbag Bali; 6.
Orta cami; 7. Mahmud ‘Atik; 8. Ahmed Bey imareti; 9. İshak Çelebi; 10. Naib Hamza; 11. Kara Derzi;
12. Piri Bey; 13. Musalla; 14. Nazır Mehmed Ağa (Kurşun); 15. Kâtib Yusuf; 16. Hacı Salih. Baths: 17.
Paşa hamamı; 18. Eski hamamı; 19. Hüsrev Kethüda hamamı. Other buildings: 20. kervansaray of
İbrahim Paşa; 21. menzilhane of Hüsrev Kethüda; 22. clock tower
367

Plan 6. Plan of the urban core of the town of Karlova (after D. Popov, 1967)
368

Plan 7. City plan of Karlova (after D. Popov, 1967)
369

Fig. 1 The late Medieval wall attached to the southern edge of the citadel of Philippopolis
(photo by the author 2011)
Fig. 2 Citadel of Philippopolis (northwest) (photo by the author 2011)
Fig. 3 Citadel of Philippopolis (northwest) (photo by the author 2011)

370
Fig. 4 Byzantine round tower on the eastern wall of the citadel of Philippopolis (photo by the
author 2011)
Fig. 5 Eastern gate of the citadel of Philippopolis (photo by the author 2011)
371
Fig. 6 The wooden bridge over the river Maritsa in Filibe, built by Lala Şahin Paşa
(photo Iv. Karastoyanov, 1892) – State archive Plovdiv
Fig. 7 The wooden bridge over the river Maritsa, built by Lala Şahin Paşa (drawing from
Robert Jasper More. Under the Balkans, 1877)
372
Fig. 8 Tahtakale mosque in Filibe (Unknown photographer, 1890s)
Fig. 9 Tahtakale mosque in Filibe (photo D. Cavra, 1892) – Bulgarian National Library,
Sofia
373
Fig. 10 Şihabeddin Paşa’s Kirazlı mosque in Edirne, northwest (photo by the author 2010)
Fig. 11 Şihabeddin Paşa’s Kirazlı mosque in Edirne, northeast (photo by the author 2010)
374
Fig. 12 Floor plan of Muradiye mosque in Fig. 13 Floor plan of Ulu camii in
Filibe (plan M. Staynova) Bergama (plan E. Ayverdi)
Fig. 14 The central part of Filibe dominated by the Muradiye mosque. (unknown
photographer, 1890s)
375
Fig. 15 Muradiye mosque in Filibe (photo D. Fig. 16 Muradiye mosque. (card postal
Cavra, 1880s) 1932)
Fig. 17 Tahtakale hamamı in Filibe (photo D. Cavra, 1879)
376
Fig. 18 Tahtakale hamamı and the kervansaray (Kurşum han) in Filibe (photo Iv.
Karastoyanov, 1892)
Fig. 19 Plan of the kervansaray (Kurşum han), 1911 (State archive Plovdiv)
Fig. 20 Plan of the kervansaray (Kurşum han), plan after M. Harbova
377
Fig. 21 The kervansaray (Kurşum han), condition prior Fig. 22 The kervansaray (Kurşum han) after the earthquake
the earthquake of 1928 (unknown photographer, 1927) (unknown photographer, 1932). Public Library Plovdiv
378
Fig. 23 The kervansaray (Kurşum han) after the Fig. 24 The kervansaray (Kurşum han) after the earthquake
earthquake (unknown photographer, 1930s). National (unknown photographer, 1929). State Archive Plovdiv
Library Sofia
378
Fig. 25 Reconstruction of the bedesten in Filibe (drawing Fig. 26 Floor plan of the bedesten
by Gerd Schneider after instructions by Machiel Kiel) (plan M. Harbova)
Fig. 27 Bedesten in Filibe (photo Iv. Karastoyanov, 1892)
379
Fig. 28 Original dedicatory inscription of Şihabeddin Paşa’s imaret/zaviye in Filibe (photo
by the author 2011)
Fig. 29 Floor plan of Şihabeddin Paşa’s imaret/zaviye showing the original shape of the
building & the reconstruction, which opened the tabhanes to the main space (plan M.
Harbova)
380
Fig. 30 Interior of Şihabeddin Paşa’s imaret/zaviye (photo by the author 2010)
Fig. 31 The complex of Şihabedin Paşa by the river Maritsa: 1.T-shaped imaret/zaviye; 2.
Medrese; 3. Hünkâr bath; 4. Panayır han; 5. Mausoleum (türbe); 6. Kitchens (aşevi). (photo
D. Cavra, 1879).
381
Fig. 32 Mausoleum and imaret/zaviye of Şihabeddin Paşa (foreground) and the large tall
chimney of the kitchens of the complex (background) (unknown photographer and date,
probably early 20th c.) National Library Sofia
Fig. 33 Medrese of Şihabeddin Paşa in Filibe (photo O. Rudloff, 1920s) DAI
382
Fig. 34 Medrese of Şihabeddin Paşa (unknown photographer and date) National Library
Sofia
Fig. 35 Floor plan of Hünkâr Fig. 36 Hünkâr hamamı in Filibe (unknown photographer,
hamamı (plan after M. 1900s) National Library Sofia
Harbova)
383
Fig. 37 The destruction of Hünkâr hamamı (photo O. Rudloff, 1923) DAI
Fig. 38 The tombstone of Şihabeddin Paşa Fig. 39 The tombstone of Şihabeddin Paşa
(photo O. Rudloff, 1920s) DAI (photo O. Rudloff, 1920s) DAI
384
Fig. 40 The mosque of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey in Filibe (photo D. Cavra, 1879)
Fig. 41 The mosque of İsfendiyaroğlu İsmail Bey after the earthquake of 1928 (card postal,
1930s)
385
Fig. 42 The conic roof of the sebil/şadırvan (photo D. Cavra, 1879)
Fig. 43 Oil painting by J. V. Mrkvička showing the sebil/şadırvan in Filibe (1888)
386
Fig. 44 Çifte hamamı in Filibe (photo D. Cavra, 1979)
Fig. 45 Çifte hamamı (photo by the author, 2011) Fig. 46 Floor plan of Çifte hamamı
(plan P. Dikidžiev)
387
Fig. 47 Western parts of Filibe: 1. Hacı Hasanzade hamamı; 2. Hacı Hasanzade mosque
(card postal 1910)
Fig. 48 Yeşiloğlu mosque in Filibe (photo Iv. Karastoyanov, 1892)
388
Fig. 49 Domed baldachin and Muslim cemetery at the southwestern foot of the Saat tepesi
(photo D. Cavra, 1877) National Library Sofia
Fig. 50 Clock tower in Filibe – view from SW (illustration from Google Earth)
389
Fig. 51 Clock tower and Muradiye mosque – view from NE (illustration from Google Earth)
Fig. 52 Clock tower and Muradiye mosque – view from NE (photo by the author, 2011)
390
Fig. 53 Clock tower and the gunpowder depot (baruthane) (photo D. Ermakov, 1870s)
Fig. 54 Mosque of Çelebi Kadı on the northern bank of the river Maritsa, view from SE
(photo D. Cavra, 1879)
391
Fig. 55 Mosque of Çelebi Kadı on the northern bank of the river Maritsa, view from SE
(unknown photographer, 1904)
Fig. 56 Floor plan of the hamam of Çelebi Kadı (Banya Maritsa) in Filibe, plan after M.
Harbova
392
Fig. 57 Mosque of Anbar Kadı in Filibe, view from SE (photo D. Cavra, 1879)
Fig. 58 Mosque of Anbar Kadı, view from SE (photo Iv. Karastoyanov, 1892)
393
Fig. 59 Orta Mezar (Taşköprü) mosque in Filibe, view from SW (photo by the author, 2010)
Fig. 60 Orta Mezar (Taşköprü) mosque, view from NW (photo by the author, 2010)
394
395
Fig. 61 Orta Mezar (Taşköprü) mosque, view from NW Fig. 62 Orta Mezar (Taşköprü) mosque, main entrance of the nineteenth
(unknown photographer, 1925) century addition, view from east (photo O. Rudloff, 1920s) DAI
395
Fig. 63 Orta Mezar (Taşköprü) mosque, main entrance of the nineteenth century
addition, view from NE (unknown photographer, 1968) State Archive Plovdiv
Fig. 64 Floor plan of Orta Mezar (Yeni) hamamı, plan after M. Harbova
396
Fig. 65 Mosque of Hacı Abdullah in Filibe, view from west (gravure, unidentified author)
Fig. 66 Mosque of Hacı Abdullah (minaret and dome), view from south (photo D. Cavra,
1879)
397
Fig. 67 Southern parts of Filibe and Alaca mosque, view from NE (photo D. Cavra, 1870s)
State Archive Plovdiv
Fig. 68 Alaca mosque, view from NE (unknown photographer, 1913)
398
Fig. 69 Alaca mosque, view from SE (unknown photographer, late 1910s)
Fig. 70 Paşa hamamı in Tatar Pazarcık (unknown photographer, 1900s) Regional Museum of
Pazardžik
399
Fig. 71 3D plastic reconstruction of the kervansaray of Damad İbrahim Paşa in Tatar
Pazarcık (photo by the author, 2005) Regional Museum of Pazardžik
Fig. 72 3D plastic reconstruction of the kervansaray of Damad İbrahim Paşa (photo by the
author, 2005) Regional Museum of Pazardžik
400
401
Fig. 73 İbrahim Paşa’s kervansaray in ruins in 1877. Gravure by Dick de Fig. 74 Scenes from the fights between Russian and Ottoman armies on the streets
Lonley. A travers la Bulgarie (Paris, 1888) of Tatar Pazarcık. Gravure from Herman Hoppe. Illustrirovannaya hronika voyniy
1877-1878 (St. Petersburg:, 1878)
401
Fig. 75 The market area in Tatar Pazarcık with Nazır Mehmed Ağa mosque at the
background (unknown photographer and date) Regional Museum of Pazardžik
Fig. 76 Eski Cami’i in Tatar Pazarcık (unknown photographer and date) Regional Museum
of Pazardžik
402
Fig. 77 The place of the vanished complex of Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey in Konuş (photo by
the author, 2008)
Fig. 78 The place of the vanished complex of Minnetoğlu Mehmed Bey in Konuş (photo by
the author, 2008)
403
Fig. 79 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) and the plain of Göpsa (photo Angel
Yordanov, 2007)
Fig. 80 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) and the plain of Göpsa (photo Angel
Yordanov, 2007)
404
Fig. 81 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) (photo Angel Yordanov, 2007)
Fig. 82 The citadel of Kopsis (Anevsko kale) (photo Angel Yordanov, 2007)
405
406
Figs. 83-84 Plan of the excavated parts of the citadel of Kopsis and suggested reconstruction: 1. cistern; 2. N. tower; 3. church no. 1; 4. boyar’s mansion; 5.
dwellings; 6. W. wall; 7. S. tower; 8. SE wall and tower; 9. church no. 2 (plan after I. Džambov; reconstruction after V. Docheva)
406
Fig. 85 Dedicatory inscription of Ali Bey’s mosque in Karlova (photo by the author, 2008)
Fig. 86 The mosque of Ali Bey in Karlova (photo O. Rudloff, 1920s) DAI
407
Fig. 87 Floor plan of the mosque of Ali Bey (plan after D. Popov)
Fig. 88 Porch of mosque of Ali Bey in Karlova (photo by the author, 2008)
408
Fig. 89 Floor plan of the 16th-century public bath in Karlova (plan D. Popov)
Fig. 90 Clock tower and the market place in Fig. 91 Clock tower and the market place in
Karlova (unknown photographer, 1930s) Karlova (unknown photographer, 1903)
www.retrobulgaria.com www.retrobulgaria.com
409
410
Fig. 92 Red mosque in Karlova (photo O. Rudloff, 1920s) Fig. 93 Red mosque (photo The National Geographic Magazine, 1932)
410

Grigori Bojkov

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grigori Bojkov

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grigori Bojkov

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the topic of the dissertation?

What is the topic of the dissertation?

What towns does the dissertation examine?

What towns does the dissertation examine?

MASTERING THE CONQUERED SPACE:

RESURRECTION OF URBAN LIFE IN OTTOMAN UPPER THRACE

Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

Approval of the Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences

MASTERING THE CONQUERED SPACE:

Keywords: Ottoman Balkans, urbanism, urban morphology, architectural patronage,

FETHEDİLEN MEKÂNIN EFENDİSİ OLMAK: OSMANLI YUKARI

Bu tez Osmanlı Balkanları’ndaki çeşitli kentsel gelişim örneklerini inceleyerek, kentsel

Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı Balkanları, kentleşme, kentsel morfoloji, mimârî hâmilik,

First I wish to express my appreciation to Prof. Halil İnalcık, my academic

I was fortunate to enjoy the advices and suggestions of a wonderful circle of

also offered a number of inspiring comments and supplied me with unpublished

materials and personal notes. Prof. Cornell Fleischer pointed to me an important

Pazarcık - a small provincial town in Rumelia.

To my friends in Bulgaria, who supported me in so many ways and showed me

this project would have never been completed.

It is a true pleasure to acknowledge the generosity of several institutions that

funded my research: Bilkent University, offered me a full scholarship during my studies

dissertation, which I later completed as a dissertation research fellow of the Turkish

Cultural Foundation; I was also generously offered an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship by

I give my greatest thanks!

study are entirely my own.

CHAPTER III: TATAR PAZARCIK (PAZARDŽIK) – TURNING AKINCI

5.1. The region and the pre-Ottoman Kopsis ………………………….. 279

Archives & Institutions:

Table 6. Population of Filibe (1472-1614) ………………………………………………. 323

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS

Map 1. Ottoman Balkans ……………………………………………................... 362

Titles in Cyrillic script (Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian) are transliterated in Latin

Symbols Cyrillic letters

understanding of the urban development in the Empire. Modern historiography

Byzantine dominance persisted the longest”. 3 Halil İnalcık’s pioneering studies on

The argument that the existence of earlier Arabo-Seljuqid or Byzantine bases

town’, not only in terms of contents, but also of application”.6

General studies on the transition of the Byzantino-Slavic urban centers in the

constructing a large communal mosque, equipped with a multitude of other buildings

providing settlers to the thus modified cities by encouraging or often even by

and the importance of conversion to Islam of local Christian population in Barkan’s

Bulgarian Marxist-nationalist historiography. Nikolai Todorov developed a

the medieval Byzantino-Slavic and Ottoman urban tradition. 11 Minimizing, if not

genuine academic controversy.15

conflicting hypotheses present generalized models of Ottoman urbanization policies and

practice that involves a great deal of oversimplification. When this theoretical

extend questions the usability of the construct proposed by Barkan or Todorov.

In a lengthy contribution that focused on the urban development of a limited part

acknowledging the diverse circumstances of local history, which shaped the

to the way they emerged”.18

the entire Balkan Peninsula under Ottoman rule.

Christian population remained in majority, or at least there was a sizable Christian

(mod. Vratsa), Samokov30 etc.

3. Byzantino-Bulgarian cities that have been entirely repopulated and

policy or due to the architectural patronage of high ranking Ottoman dignitaries.

Pleven) 38 , Hezargrad (mod. Razgrad) 39 , Tatar Pazarcık (mod. Pazardžik) 40 , Cisr-i